Ron definitely didn't get the respect the character deserves. Conversely, the movies omitted all the spots where Hermione got frazzled under pressure. Not remembering how to make sunlight to deal with the devil's snare in The Chamber Of Secrets until Ron reminds here she's a wizard. Or during the practical defense against the dark arts exam with Lupin when she is defeated by the boggart becoming Professor McGonagall and telling her she failed all her final exams.
Ron is literally Harry's and the reader's guide to all things wizard. He is someone who grew up thinking all this is normal so him explaining things to Harry makes perfect sense. You can see it in Philosophers stone on the train, he is the one telling Harry everything all the way up until Hermione's first appearance, and then everything is "i read about it" what's most hilarious to me is that "i read it somewhere" is the excuse people use when they don't want people to know how clever they are but the movie unironically tries to make Hermione be smart by actually reading. Furthermore, Hermione being a natural at things despite being a muggleborn would have been so much cooler if she weren't constantly spouting "reading solves everything." Lastly, it is made very clear in the books that reading is no substitute for real experience as Hermione is often the most flustered when the real world hits them. It's almost like Rowling wanted the readers to know that being a know-it-all like Hermione was not a good thing. It was a character flaw.
It was in Philosopher's stone but I get you. They took the character flaws of Hermione (which she overcomes later) and also gave Ron's good stuff to her. And Ron was mostly left with his character flaws(some exaggerated) and comedic situations
Ron was truly short-changed in terms of positive character traits. He was turned into a lazy, food-obsessed, Quidditch-obsessed chess master. He was loyal to Harry, but only when his jealousy for Harry's wealth and fame didn't get in the way. And all his knowledge of basic Wizarding culture is ignored, so they could show off how book-smart Hermione is. Some of the stuff they had Hermione somehow know about, like racial slurs, made no sense for her to know about. The kinds of books you read to learn about a culture won't be mentioning racial slurs, because they won't be discussing the negative aspects of the culture. Use some logic to decide where to change dialogue!
I feel they ruined Ron's character in the movies, but I also feel the ruined Hermione's character in the movies as well. Hermione in the books was a far more interesting character because of her flaws, she was more relatable and more complex. The movies make her almost too perfect and it makes her a relatively boring character compared to her book counterpart. Similar even with Harry, they took away many of Harry's flaws as well. In the books each member of the trio had strengths and weaknesses, character quirks that complimented each other, they needed each other to fill in the gaps. In the movies they simplified these characters into a handful of traits and removed almost all the character complexity. This may be because the movies had less time to develop these character's personalities and as such they relieved heavily on archetypes, but it still resulted in several fundamental shifts in the characters. Ron's character assassination in particular was one of the most extreme divergences of any adaptation I've seen.
Exactly u get why they r the Golden Trio in the book. All three complement each other. All three are important for each other growths, for the plot and everything. But in the movies the dynamics change veey much. And u r right I don't really like Movie Hermione because they made her perfect and that is what take the viewers far away from her. They took her relatability by taking away her flaws. Movie Hermione can do everything and can do nothing wrong. But Ron gets the worst end of the stick. There r so many fan-fictions that literally throw Ron away from the plot. There r more Dramione and Harmione Shippers then Romione shippers(Which is the most fleshed out relationship in the books). It really hurts to see people hate Ron Weasley (because they don't know what he truly is) but I also think that Ginny's character assassination is also one of the worst.
There's a scene in "Through the Trapdoor" in Sorcerer's Stone: '"So light a fire" Harry choked. "Yes -- of course -- but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands. "HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"' So yeah, Hermione is smart, but she does have a habit of panicking and going to pieces in a critical situation. And it's Ron who's able to snap her out of it. Book Hermione and book Ron make a good team and it's no wonder they got together in the end. Movie Hermione and movie Ron, no so much.
I like your subtle as-a-matter-of-fact mentioned details, like "Ron was cleaning one of the rewards" here or "Ginny forgot her diary". Those are important facts to mention, but the plot doesn't explain them yet, so you also save their importance for later. It feels like reading GoF and noticing some seemingly random mentions of insects right before Rita's new articles.
I actually liked Hermione more in the books *because* she's not Miss Perfect. Yes Ron should have been more true to the books. They even gave Hermione some of Harry's stuff in the movies. They ruined both Ron abd Ginny on the movies but Ginny got it worse. They completely erased her personality.
@@sky0kast0it just made no sense. Like how is her making sure his shoes are tied convey any type of love, attraction, or intimacy? They focused way too hard on making the relationship awkward when Ginny is extremely confident. They made it feel like how Harry and Cho were described in the 5th book
I always felt that the actors own personalitys afected their characters in the movies. Like the characters grew into the actors as much as the actors grew into the characters.
This is something which will never make me respect the movies. Steve Cloves is on record, in a conversation with J K Rowling, as saying he didn't like Ron. To me, this is no excuse for the lack of professional objectivity he showed, nor the lack of respect for the source material. This lack of respect was compounded by certain directors, some of whom didn't even read the source material.
Not only was a lot of Ron's lines given to characters like Harry (mostly Hermione), but there were lines Hermione was given in the movies that originally belonged to other characters like Harry in the books.
@grahamdamberger7130 And they make no sense coming out of her mouth. "I trusted you! And all this time, you've been his friend!" says the girl who had 3 on screen moments with Lupin as opposed to Harry's 6, half of which were one-on-one.
I watched the movies first, then read the books. Ron is a lot better in the books. My favorite character in the movie is Harry i think, while my favorite character in the book is Ron.
seeing how much Ron was changed makes me wonder about Nearly Headless Nick's first scene in the previous movie. Hermione is the one who has no idea what nearly headless means but Ron is the one that freaks out, despite already knowing who the guy is and why he is called nearly headless. just wondering if anyone has read the books recently remembers this encounter and if it played out differently.
In the books Sir Nicholas introduces himself and then Ron says he knows him. His brothers said he is nearly Headless Nick. Sir Nicholas says he prefers 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsyand then seamus interrupts and ask how can he be nearly headless instead of Hermione. Sir Nicholas shows and every first year on the Gryffindor Table was stunned. Sir Nicholas was pleased and then proceeds to tell them to help win the House Cup to Gryffindor as they have never gone this long without winning(6 years)....
Yeah, why did they take those lines away from "Ron?" I've reread the books and watched the movies after each book. And you're right, Ron's lines are given to others. Or they would delete Ron's scenes.
The main reason was because Steve Kloves, the screenwriter, was obsessed with Hermione so he destroyed the characterisation of Ron and Ginny to boost his favourite.
Yeah I am quite agree I don't think they're going to change it because nowadays we're past the point that guys get respect and the characters as guys in the books I don't think they're going to get that respect either.
As far as I am concerned if you are going to adapt a book for a movie then the book should be treated as the script with as little tweaking or cutting as possible. Therefore if Ron says it in the book he should be the one to say it in the movie - period! For anything in the book that is a physical description I would make the appearances as faithful as possible as well. For scenes that last a long time such as the Quidditch explanation or detention I would do montage or time-lapse filmography to show the passage of time.
One way they could convey Harry noticing the umbrella like they did in the book is to show Harry looking at something curiously, and then give a brief closeup of the umbrella. If the information about this was said previously, showing it without the narrative would be pretty easy to figure out.
@@factorfantasyweekly By that same token, the movies leave out all mention of them learning silent casting in 6th year, probably because they've been doing that in the last several movies and bringing it up at that point would be ridiculous.
Biggest example of this for me was "Avada Kedavra". When Cedric went flying 30 feet upon his murder, it actually took me out of the story somewhat. One of the coolest and creepiest things about the killing curse as far as I'm concerned is how it just kills the victim and does *absolutely nothing* else. No flying back... no marks on the body... Heck, Rowling even made a point of the fact that the first chapter of "Goblet of Fire" that it's part of the reason the deaths (by murder) of The Riddles is such a mystery. They were just sitting at their table in perfect health, other than being dead.
I always thought the worst change was when Hermione tells Sirius Black in the shrieking shack that he would have to kill all of them. Part of the point of that line is that right after Ron says that he slumps over in pain as his broken leg no longer will hold him up, showing how genuine, and truthful the line is as he is willing himself past the pain.
If I've said it once, I've said it dozens of times: While I did enjoy the movies for their visualizations of the people, places and events of the world Rowling created, they are far inferior to the subtilties and nuances in the books, as well as the many subplots lost of changed and the regretful loss of character traits of various persons. Thank you for the work involved in the research, editing and posting of this video. These videos always remind me when it's time to pick up the books and give them another read. Sometimes in their entirety and sometimes passages that I had forgotten.
Since you've asked - I think the diminishing of Ron's character in the movies is _exactly_ what Peter Jackson did to Gimli as a comic relief. Somehow the movie makers seem to think to be it a good idea to reduce the complexity of book characters to make them more "digestible" to their audience. This makes sense in a way because in reading a book you can pause or go back to previous pages to understand a complex character which is impossible in cinema. Do they have to do that? - I don't know, but seemingly all blockbusters are following this line.
It’s common for movies to follow the same character designs and tropes. You always have the smart one, the brave one, the funny/goofy one, the mentor, the antagonist, etc. Books also follow along these lines, but tend to be more complex in the character development since they can add a lot more details that a movie can’t communicate. It’s a shame that certain characters get stuck in certain personality types though. Like you said, Gimli is the funny one in LOTR, but in the book his character has a lot more range.
I seriously doubt it's a necessity, myself. I could understand they can't dive as deeply in a film due to run time issues, but that doesn't mean they absolutely HAVE to make characters like Ron and Gimli borderline useless and dumb comic relief. It would have worked just fine if Ron were closer to his book counterpart. He doesn't need to be overly complex to convey that side, but he doesn't exactly have to be simplified either. The films have enough scenes where some degree of character development and complexities could have been conveyed quite easily if they just decided to take that route. The only reason they didn't take that route is simply because they chose not to for whatever reason.
@@phosphorus4 Movies do use tropes to save time; you can't spend spend half an hour exploring someone's personality in detail when the whole movie is only two hours. Plus it's a big budget movie and they want the movie to be accessible. But they had 8 movies and Ron was there most of the time, so I agree that using a trope for his character was a copout.
I think it’s funny in a kinda unique way that I gravitate toward innocent childlike characters. Arya Stark from Game of Thrones, Ron from HP, and Lenny from Of Mice and Men. Oh and Pippin and Merry. I can’t forget about them!
Loyal is more a hufflepuff thing all the Weasleys should’ve been in hufflepuff, Hermione should’ve been in ravenclaw, and Harry in griffyndor (Draco stays in slytherin but house need reworked to stop them being cartoonishly evil)
One of the reasons I prefer the books is because I read them and noticed how they swapped around who did and said what and in doing so changed the characters. I liked the movies and thought the actors did a good job. But that really wasn’t the Ron, Hermione, and Harry from the books. Close, but no cigar.
Some may disagree with me here, and I'm curious to see how this series addresses this, but Ron in the later books starts also having his character a bit ruined. mostly little things here and there but I've always felt that the film portrayal of Ron started to negatively influence how he was in the books. since this episode showcased one of the first big instances of the movies making Ron less useful to the trio I figured it was a good place to state this.
Oh I’m sure it’ll come up over and over again. By the time we get to the later movies we will probably all hate movie Ron 💀 jk haha I love movie Ron, but yea going over all these differences definitely helps you understand just how different he is.
I believe they were worried about Hermione not being liked very well in the movie version because of how things had to be condensed which is why the changes were made that way throughout the movies however in books it is generally better to have the female lead be complex rather than perfect this can also apply to any main character being an OP/perfect character this can be interesting but it is shallow and must be done right furthermore it cannot go into a long series as it must be written so that you must be constantly hooked cutting off the story when they run out of material that can keep you hooked so that your left wanting more rather than disappointed later
I wouldn’t go as far as saying Ron’s character is ruined in the movies. There are many times they did take away some of his best moments and a few that I will never forgive them for, but I still love movie Ron. Probably more because Rupert is just amazing as Ron than the writing is good, but still. I’m fine with him being comic relief at times as he is in the books, but don’t take away the times where he shows his bravery and especially his loyalty to his friends. I think it’s best to think of the movies as a separate Harry Potter timeline, I think they’re more enjoyable that way .
Yea if I view the movies as just a separate thing, I love all the main three. Plus, they did the best with what they were given. I can’t really blame them. Rupert was great for his role!
As far as Hermione gaining Ron's lines, remember the Director of the first few films felt Hermione was his favorite character, JK was worried that he'd like Ron best, since 'everyone likes Ron more'. The blatant favoritism of the Director of the one character over the other is why Ron was reduced to comic relief / bud most of the time. Ron and Hermione are both important individuals for Harry to be friends with, are very different, and neither is ~better~ than the other really in the Books, both have their own Foibles... But the Movies polished away all of Hermione's faults, and without being able to hear what Harry is thinking he's also well-polished but not as heavily as Hermione... While leaving Ron as nothing BUT his faults and foibles through most of the Films. The miss-treatment of Ron in the Films is the biggest argument FOR there to be a TV series, to better portray the Flaws of Hermione and the Merits of Ron.
These changes ruin Ron's character, and it's a shame for his fans, including Rupert who probably could have grown quicker as an actor if given some of his favorite character's more weighty material. They used it in auditions, like Ron convincing Harry not to go looking for the mirror
A friend of mine used to say "I can't understand what Hermione sees in him!" (Meaning Ron.) And yeah, movie Hermione would not be drawn to movie Ron; she's the smartest witch in her class and he's just comic relief. But book Ron regularly beats Hermione in chess, and I think Hermione would have found that very attractive. (It also explains why Ron played the game of chess on the way to find the Sorcerer's Stone in the previous book; it doesn't make a lot of sense in the movie.) So the whole Ron as comic relief thing just sort of ruins the Ron-Hermione romance in the movies. Why did the Hermione's romance with Krum go nowhere? Hermione said it very politely, but it was basically because Krum wasn't that clever, even if he was a Quidditch star. Book Ron wasn't really "book smart" like Hermione, but I think she would have seen that book Ron was clever in his own way.
Same. I used to enjoy the movies before I read books. But after that I can't see the movies and not see how they butchered Ron and Ginny(in later movies) and hoe they explain certain things in the movies or not explain at all. Like the Maurauders Story and why Harry thought that the stag was his father. The Priory Incantatem and why Voldemort needed some other Wand to kill Harry and many more imp things
Agreed:) And how did you feel about the ways in which they changed Voldemort’s look? They never really gave him red eyes and he’s usually wearing a full hood and cloak in the books. He had a hood and cloak in the flashback scene in the first movie, and if they aren’t going to give him the proper eyes, I felt they should've at least had him keep the hood and cloak after his return. Not just because it’s more true to the books but also makes him imposing
@@factorfantasyweekly I think he would look better the way he was in the Goblet of Fire, half materialised. Hollow cheeks, almost skeletal shape, add red eyes and there you go
Ron was definitely shortchanged in the movie[s] with even worse consequences in the later episodes. In the book Rowling gives extra depth to all of the characters, making it clear that she did her homework by creating poststory as well as backstory. In the movie, the dynamic among the trio by the time of The Horcrux Hunt (aka Deathly Hallows Part I) rings false, and by the end of the series the pairing of Hermione and Ron as parents of Rose is quite baffling. The producers seem to have utterly missed that Hermione is the "Ma" Weasley of that generation. And don't get me started on Harry & Ginny. In the BOOKS the final scene is totally of-course 😊 !
Yes, I like the fact that Ron is not stupid. It’s kind of mean that they just give him brawn and not brains. Hermione is still plenty of smart. She doesn’t really steal lines.
I like the movies, don't get me wrong, but I hate, no LOATH what they did to Ron. All to prop up a girl-power narrative and boost Hermione. She didn't need boosting. She was a great character in the books.
But that is the thing. U can't learn everything from the books. Like the word purebloods uses for Muggleborns. Its a slur. Why would that be in a book. Or that hearing voices in the Wizarding World also is not considered good. Its only been a year that she knows about the World. How Can she know what is considered good or not. These kind of knowledge u don't get from books. Its the most rediculous explaination-Oh she must've read that somewhere.
I’d say my stolen moment was the shrieking shack where he stood on a BROKEN ANKLE to protect Harry
That’s a good one
Ron definitely didn't get the respect the character deserves.
Conversely, the movies omitted all the spots where Hermione got frazzled under pressure. Not remembering how to make sunlight to deal with the devil's snare in The Chamber Of Secrets until Ron reminds here she's a wizard. Or during the practical defense against the dark arts exam with Lupin when she is defeated by the boggart becoming Professor McGonagall and telling her she failed all her final exams.
Ron is literally Harry's and the reader's guide to all things wizard. He is someone who grew up thinking all this is normal so him explaining things to Harry makes perfect sense. You can see it in Philosophers stone on the train, he is the one telling Harry everything all the way up until Hermione's first appearance, and then everything is "i read about it"
what's most hilarious to me is that "i read it somewhere" is the excuse people use when they don't want people to know how clever they are but the movie unironically tries to make Hermione be smart by actually reading. Furthermore, Hermione being a natural at things despite being a muggleborn would have been so much cooler if she weren't constantly spouting "reading solves everything."
Lastly, it is made very clear in the books that reading is no substitute for real experience as Hermione is often the most flustered when the real world hits them. It's almost like Rowling wanted the readers to know that being a know-it-all like Hermione was not a good thing. It was a character flaw.
The movies made me dislike Hermione. The movies made her perfect, while making Ron an afterthought.
yeah, i sayed something similar a few videos ago, they also made him a lot less brave to up the humor
It was in Philosopher's stone but I get you. They took the character flaws of Hermione (which she overcomes later) and also gave Ron's good stuff to her. And Ron was mostly left with his character flaws(some exaggerated) and comedic situations
Ron was truly short-changed in terms of positive character traits. He was turned into a lazy, food-obsessed, Quidditch-obsessed chess master. He was loyal to Harry, but only when his jealousy for Harry's wealth and fame didn't get in the way. And all his knowledge of basic Wizarding culture is ignored, so they could show off how book-smart Hermione is. Some of the stuff they had Hermione somehow know about, like racial slurs, made no sense for her to know about. The kinds of books you read to learn about a culture won't be mentioning racial slurs, because they won't be discussing the negative aspects of the culture. Use some logic to decide where to change dialogue!
I feel they ruined Ron's character in the movies, but I also feel the ruined Hermione's character in the movies as well. Hermione in the books was a far more interesting character because of her flaws, she was more relatable and more complex. The movies make her almost too perfect and it makes her a relatively boring character compared to her book counterpart. Similar even with Harry, they took away many of Harry's flaws as well. In the books each member of the trio had strengths and weaknesses, character quirks that complimented each other, they needed each other to fill in the gaps. In the movies they simplified these characters into a handful of traits and removed almost all the character complexity. This may be because the movies had less time to develop these character's personalities and as such they relieved heavily on archetypes, but it still resulted in several fundamental shifts in the characters. Ron's character assassination in particular was one of the most extreme divergences of any adaptation I've seen.
Exactly u get why they r the Golden Trio in the book. All three complement each other. All three are important for each other growths, for the plot and everything. But in the movies the dynamics change veey much. And u r right I don't really like Movie Hermione because they made her perfect and that is what take the viewers far away from her. They took her relatability by taking away her flaws. Movie Hermione can do everything and can do nothing wrong. But Ron gets the worst end of the stick. There r so many fan-fictions that literally throw Ron away from the plot. There r more Dramione and Harmione Shippers then Romione shippers(Which is the most fleshed out relationship in the books). It really hurts to see people hate Ron Weasley (because they don't know what he truly is) but I also think that Ginny's character assassination is also one of the worst.
There's a scene in "Through the Trapdoor" in Sorcerer's Stone: '"So light a fire" Harry choked. "Yes -- of course -- but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands. "HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"' So yeah, Hermione is smart, but she does have a habit of panicking and going to pieces in a critical situation. And it's Ron who's able to snap her out of it. Book Hermione and book Ron make a good team and it's no wonder they got together in the end. Movie Hermione and movie Ron, no so much.
Hermione literally kidnaps and imprisons a journalist in the books lol she’s far more grey than they make out
I like your subtle as-a-matter-of-fact mentioned details, like "Ron was cleaning one of the rewards" here or "Ginny forgot her diary". Those are important facts to mention, but the plot doesn't explain them yet, so you also save their importance for later.
It feels like reading GoF and noticing some seemingly random mentions of insects right before Rita's new articles.
I am so happy to see these Videos back. I had been waiting for the past two weeks.
I actually liked Hermione more in the books *because* she's not Miss Perfect. Yes Ron should have been more true to the books. They even gave Hermione some of Harry's stuff in the movies.
They ruined both Ron abd Ginny on the movies but Ginny got it worse. They completely erased her personality.
Yea Ginny is meant to be like the coolest female character in the series. Totally got ruined when you compare it to the book.
The fact that she tied Harry shoes yeah I don't think she would have done that even if he's a guest in the house that just seems way too forward.
@@sky0kast0it just made no sense. Like how is her making sure his shoes are tied convey any type of love, attraction, or intimacy? They focused way too hard on making the relationship awkward when Ginny is extremely confident. They made it feel like how Harry and Cho were described in the 5th book
I always felt that the actors own personalitys afected their characters in the movies. Like the characters grew into the actors as much as the actors grew into the characters.
Very true and Rupert Grint was naturally a goofball 😂
This is something which will never make me respect the movies. Steve Cloves is on record, in a conversation with J K Rowling, as saying he didn't like Ron. To me, this is no excuse for the lack of professional objectivity he showed, nor the lack of respect for the source material. This lack of respect was compounded by certain directors, some of whom didn't even read the source material.
This channel is what we need right now
Not only was a lot of Ron's lines given to characters like Harry (mostly Hermione), but there were lines Hermione was given in the movies that originally belonged to other characters like Harry in the books.
@grahamdamberger7130 And they make no sense coming out of her mouth. "I trusted you! And all this time, you've been his friend!" says the girl who had 3 on screen moments with Lupin as opposed to Harry's 6, half of which were one-on-one.
Ron’s detention is actually mentioned in a deleted scene/ in the extended cut :-)
I watched the movies first, then read the books. Ron is a lot better in the books. My favorite character in the movie is Harry i think, while my favorite character in the book is Ron.
seeing how much Ron was changed makes me wonder about Nearly Headless Nick's first scene in the previous movie. Hermione is the one who has no idea what nearly headless means but Ron is the one that freaks out, despite already knowing who the guy is and why he is called nearly headless.
just wondering if anyone has read the books recently remembers this encounter and if it played out differently.
In the books Sir Nicholas introduces himself and then Ron says he knows him. His brothers said he is nearly Headless Nick. Sir Nicholas says he prefers 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsyand then seamus interrupts and ask how can he be nearly headless instead of Hermione. Sir Nicholas shows and every first year on the Gryffindor Table was stunned. Sir Nicholas was pleased and then proceeds to tell them to help win the House Cup to Gryffindor as they have never gone this long without winning(6 years)....
It was quite a normal conversation in the books and they also ask other questions to him
@dilsedesi1704
Did Ron or Hermione freak out?
@@sanddagger36 There was no special mention of anyone. Just that everybody was stunned to see his head like that.
Yeah, why did they take those lines away from "Ron?" I've reread the books and watched the movies after each book. And you're right, Ron's lines are given to others. Or they would delete Ron's scenes.
The main reason was because Steve Kloves, the screenwriter, was obsessed with Hermione so he destroyed the characterisation of Ron and Ginny to boost his favourite.
Justice for Ron. That's one of the most important things the TV series has to redeem.
Yea we’ll see how that goes 💀
Yeah I am quite agree I don't think they're going to change it because nowadays we're past the point that guys get respect and the characters as guys in the books I don't think they're going to get that respect either.
@@factorfantasyweeklyI’m deeply pessimistic.
Hollywood is terrible these days.
As far as I am concerned if you are going to adapt a book for a movie then the book should be treated as the script with as little tweaking or cutting as possible. Therefore if Ron says it in the book he should be the one to say it in the movie - period! For anything in the book that is a physical description I would make the appearances as faithful as possible as well. For scenes that last a long time such as the Quidditch explanation or detention I would do montage or time-lapse filmography to show the passage of time.
One way they could convey Harry noticing the umbrella like they did in the book is to show Harry looking at something curiously, and then give a brief closeup of the umbrella. If the information about this was said previously, showing it without the narrative would be pretty easy to figure out.
Yea that could’ve worked
Do you have a video on how the movies treat essentially every spell as something that knocks people down, with only a few exceptions.
Haha great point 😂 I might have to do a video on that in the future
@@factorfantasyweekly By that same token, the movies leave out all mention of them learning silent casting in 6th year, probably because they've been doing that in the last several movies and bringing it up at that point would be ridiculous.
Biggest example of this for me was "Avada Kedavra". When Cedric went flying 30 feet upon his murder, it actually took me out of the story somewhat. One of the coolest and creepiest things about the killing curse as far as I'm concerned is how it just kills the victim and does *absolutely nothing* else. No flying back... no marks on the body... Heck, Rowling even made a point of the fact that the first chapter of "Goblet of Fire" that it's part of the reason the deaths (by murder) of The Riddles is such a mystery. They were just sitting at their table in perfect health, other than being dead.
Harry to Hermione after reading the books: "How dare you stand where he stood!"
I always thought the worst change was when Hermione tells Sirius Black in the shrieking shack that he would have to kill all of them.
Part of the point of that line is that right after Ron says that he slumps over in pain as his broken leg no longer will hold him up, showing how genuine, and truthful the line is as he is willing himself past the pain.
If I've said it once, I've said it dozens of times: While I did enjoy the movies for their visualizations of the people, places and events of the world Rowling created, they are far inferior to the subtilties and nuances in the books, as well as the many subplots lost of changed and the regretful loss of character traits of various persons. Thank you for the work involved in the research, editing and posting of this video. These videos always remind me when it's time to pick up the books and give them another read. Sometimes in their entirety and sometimes passages that I had forgotten.
I just noticed they've got '70s wood panels behind the Golden trio in hagrid's Hut
Since you've asked - I think the diminishing of Ron's character in the movies is _exactly_ what Peter Jackson did to Gimli as a comic relief. Somehow the movie makers seem to think to be it a good idea to reduce the complexity of book characters to make them more "digestible" to their audience.
This makes sense in a way because in reading a book you can pause or go back to previous pages to understand a complex character which is impossible in cinema. Do they have to do that? - I don't know, but seemingly all blockbusters are following this line.
It’s common for movies to follow the same character designs and tropes. You always have the smart one, the brave one, the funny/goofy one, the mentor, the antagonist, etc.
Books also follow along these lines, but tend to be more complex in the character development since they can add a lot more details that a movie can’t communicate.
It’s a shame that certain characters get stuck in certain personality types though. Like you said, Gimli is the funny one in LOTR, but in the book his character has a lot more range.
I seriously doubt it's a necessity, myself. I could understand they can't dive as deeply in a film due to run time issues, but that doesn't mean they absolutely HAVE to make characters like Ron and Gimli borderline useless and dumb comic relief. It would have worked just fine if Ron were closer to his book counterpart. He doesn't need to be overly complex to convey that side, but he doesn't exactly have to be simplified either. The films have enough scenes where some degree of character development and complexities could have been conveyed quite easily if they just decided to take that route. The only reason they didn't take that route is simply because they chose not to for whatever reason.
@@CosmoBuggi Yeah, “we can’t add in a ton of details like books…so we’ll just remove all but one dimension from this character” sounds like a copout.
@@phosphorus4 Movies do use tropes to save time; you can't spend spend half an hour exploring someone's personality in detail when the whole movie is only two hours. Plus it's a big budget movie and they want the movie to be accessible. But they had 8 movies and Ron was there most of the time, so I agree that using a trope for his character was a copout.
@@phosphorus4 Just write him better in a way that a 2 hour movie can convey.
I think it’s funny in a kinda unique way that I gravitate toward innocent childlike characters. Arya Stark from Game of Thrones, Ron from HP, and Lenny from Of Mice and Men. Oh and Pippin and Merry. I can’t forget about them!
Loyal is more a hufflepuff thing all the Weasleys should’ve been in hufflepuff, Hermione should’ve been in ravenclaw, and Harry in griffyndor (Draco stays in slytherin but house need reworked to stop them being cartoonishly evil)
One of the reasons I prefer the books is because I read them and noticed how they swapped around who did and said what and in doing so changed the characters. I liked the movies and thought the actors did a good job. But that really wasn’t the Ron, Hermione, and Harry from the books. Close, but no cigar.
Basically the subtitle of the entire film series.
Some may disagree with me here, and I'm curious to see how this series addresses this, but Ron in the later books starts also having his character a bit ruined. mostly little things here and there but I've always felt that the film portrayal of Ron started to negatively influence how he was in the books. since this episode showcased one of the first big instances of the movies making Ron less useful to the trio I figured it was a good place to state this.
Oh I’m sure it’ll come up over and over again. By the time we get to the later movies we will probably all hate movie Ron 💀 jk haha I love movie Ron, but yea going over all these differences definitely helps you understand just how different he is.
I always thought of book Ron as being street smart. He knew the things that aren't necessarily in textbooks.
I believe they were worried about Hermione not being liked very well in the movie version because of how things had to be condensed which is why the changes were made that way throughout the movies however in books it is generally better to have the female lead be complex rather than perfect this can also apply to any main character being an OP/perfect character this can be interesting but it is shallow and must be done right furthermore it cannot go into a long series as it must be written so that you must be constantly hooked cutting off the story when they run out of material that can keep you hooked so that your left wanting more rather than disappointed later
I wouldn’t go as far as saying Ron’s character is ruined in the movies. There are many times they did take away some of his best moments and a few that I will never forgive them for, but I still love movie Ron. Probably more because Rupert is just amazing as Ron than the writing is good, but still. I’m fine with him being comic relief at times as he is in the books, but don’t take away the times where he shows his bravery and especially his loyalty to his friends. I think it’s best to think of the movies as a separate Harry Potter timeline, I think they’re more enjoyable that way .
Yea if I view the movies as just a separate thing, I love all the main three. Plus, they did the best with what they were given. I can’t really blame them. Rupert was great for his role!
As far as Hermione gaining Ron's lines, remember the Director of the first few films felt Hermione was his favorite character, JK was worried that he'd like Ron best, since 'everyone likes Ron more'. The blatant favoritism of the Director of the one character over the other is why Ron was reduced to comic relief / bud most of the time.
Ron and Hermione are both important individuals for Harry to be friends with, are very different, and neither is ~better~ than the other really in the Books, both have their own Foibles... But the Movies polished away all of Hermione's faults, and without being able to hear what Harry is thinking he's also well-polished but not as heavily as Hermione... While leaving Ron as nothing BUT his faults and foibles through most of the Films. The miss-treatment of Ron in the Films is the biggest argument FOR there to be a TV series, to better portray the Flaws of Hermione and the Merits of Ron.
These changes ruin Ron's character, and it's a shame for his fans, including Rupert who probably could have grown quicker as an actor if given some of his favorite character's more weighty material. They used it in auditions, like Ron convincing Harry not to go looking for the mirror
A friend of mine used to say "I can't understand what Hermione sees in him!" (Meaning Ron.) And yeah, movie Hermione would not be drawn to movie Ron; she's the smartest witch in her class and he's just comic relief. But book Ron regularly beats Hermione in chess, and I think Hermione would have found that very attractive. (It also explains why Ron played the game of chess on the way to find the Sorcerer's Stone in the previous book; it doesn't make a lot of sense in the movie.) So the whole Ron as comic relief thing just sort of ruins the Ron-Hermione romance in the movies. Why did the Hermione's romance with Krum go nowhere? Hermione said it very politely, but it was basically because Krum wasn't that clever, even if he was a Quidditch star. Book Ron wasn't really "book smart" like Hermione, but I think she would have seen that book Ron was clever in his own way.
and this is why I dislike the Harry Potter movies I’ve seen them all but would much rather re read the books than re watch the movies
Same. I used to enjoy the movies before I read books. But after that I can't see the movies and not see how they butchered Ron and Ginny(in later movies) and hoe they explain certain things in the movies or not explain at all. Like the Maurauders Story and why Harry thought that the stag was his father. The Priory Incantatem and why Voldemort needed some other Wand to kill Harry and many more imp things
Agreed:)
And how did you feel about the ways in which they changed Voldemort’s look? They never really gave him red eyes and he’s usually wearing a full hood and cloak in the books. He had a hood and cloak in the flashback scene in the first movie, and if they aren’t going to give him the proper eyes, I felt they should've at least had him keep the hood and cloak after his return. Not just because it’s more true to the books but also makes him imposing
Maybe they were afraid he’d look too much like palpatine 😂
@@factorfantasyweekly I think he would look better the way he was in the Goblet of Fire, half materialised. Hollow cheeks, almost skeletal shape, add red eyes and there you go
The two things I hated about the movies was that they gave all of Ron's best lines to Hermione, and that they stole Neville's big moment.
Ron was definitely shortchanged in the movie[s] with even worse consequences in the later episodes. In the book Rowling gives extra depth to all of the characters, making it clear that she did her homework by creating poststory as well as backstory. In the movie, the dynamic among the trio by the time of The Horcrux Hunt (aka Deathly Hallows Part I) rings false, and by the end of the series the pairing of Hermione and Ron as parents of Rose is quite baffling. The producers seem to have utterly missed that Hermione is the "Ma" Weasley of that generation. And don't get me started on Harry & Ginny. In the BOOKS the final scene is totally of-course 😊 !
Each audio book is around 10 hours no way all that could make it into the movie
Whenever you’re done with Lord of the Rings should do Dune next.
Yes, I like the fact that Ron is not stupid. It’s kind of mean that they just give him brawn and not brains.
Hermione is still plenty of smart. She doesn’t really steal lines.
Sooo true. Ron and Ginny were so robbed...
Happy 2025 Fact Or Fantasy
Happy 2025!
I like the movies, don't get me wrong, but I hate, no LOATH what they did to Ron. All to prop up a girl-power narrative and boost Hermione. She didn't need boosting. She was a great character in the books.
It's a shame the characters had to be simplified so much
I always thought that Hermione learnt this kind of stuff from a book. Because isn't the whole reason she's so smart because she learnt it from a book?
But that is the thing. U can't learn everything from the books. Like the word purebloods uses for Muggleborns. Its a slur. Why would that be in a book. Or that hearing voices in the Wizarding World also is not considered good. Its only been a year that she knows about the World. How Can she know what is considered good or not. These kind of knowledge u don't get from books. Its the most rediculous explaination-Oh she must've read that somewhere.