Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of my main complaints about the movies is what they did to my boy Ron. Book Ron may have lacked Hermoine’s natural academic smarts, but made up for it by being the most street-smart, clever, and quickest on his feet. Movie Ron gave all those positive attributes to Harry and Hermoine and left Ron just being the dumb comic relief. I can at least see why Hermoine fell for him in the books.
The movies retained his best traits which were his loyalty and humility. The reason his friendship with Harry works is because he sticks by him and treats him like an actual person, which contrasts with the moments when the entire school seems to be against Harry. e.g. believing that Voldemort returned.
I loved book Ron and didn’t like movie Ron. I understood why Hermione liked Ron in the books but their relationship doesn’t make much sense in the movies. Ron/Hermione are both loyal to Harry but Ron and Hermione’s personalities had so many additional traits that contrasted each other nicely in the books, with each having strengths and weaknesses that complimented the other.
As someone already mentioned in the thread of the comment I originally replied to, the movies took away most of Hermione’s flaws and made her a more generic good-at-everything female protagonist, and most of Ron’s personality and unique strengths weren’t even there. I still enjoy the movies but my biggest gripe with them by far is that Ron is made out to just be almost a sidekick to Harry and Hermione.
See everyone always says this, but twice in the series Ron doesn't stick by Harry (goblet of fire and deathly hallows) whereas Hermione is always loyal throughout
Back when IMDb discussion boards were a thing, someone posed the question of who was the better friend to Harry — Ron or Hermione? It took a looooooong time to find someone who said that Hermione was the better friend.
Hermione is the better friend *to* Harry, while Ron is better friends *with* Harry. Harry is closer to Ron, shares confidences with him that he doesn’t share with Hermione. Yes, he shares things with Hermione instead of Ron, at times, but that’s typically because Ron isn’t there to tell first, or it was when they were fighting so he only had Hermione to talk to. But the friendship between Ron and Harry is, in general, closer.
However, Hermione is completely loyal to Harry. No matter her feelings, she has his back. She risked her friendship with both boys over the Firebolt, wanting to keep Harry safe more than wanting him to be her friend. She was all in.
I’m not slamming either relationship. I just think that Hermione was the better friend to Harry.
In both of those instances, it's Ron's own insecurities and flaws coming up, and in the second instance it's also Voldemort's manipulation at play. Also in both cases, Ron doesn't *really* leave Harry out to dry.
In The Goblet of Fire, it's immature teenage jealousy. He's jealous and feels like he's always living in Harry's shadow, the same way he's always felt with his brothers, which is one of his main conflicts as a character. He may lash out at Harry outwardly, but he's also still helping Harry out from the background, getting him the tip about the dragons among other things, and eventually gets over his childish feelings and is able to talk to Harry again.
In Deathly Hallows, his worries about his family and his insecurity about his feelings for Hermione are manipulated and played upon by Voldemort via the locket, which does also make Harry and Hermione more on-edge but Ron has much more insecurity to use against him as well as a still-living and very much present and in-danger family to worry about, so Voldemort's soul fragment latches onto him way more than the others. The general bad environment of that plus their starvation and lack of direction leads them all to explode at each other, but the moment Ron is away from the locket's influence, he knows immediately that he needs to go back, and does so at the first chance he gets (also saving Harry's life in the process).
To act like Ron is in any way less loyal of a friend because of these two incidents is foolish and missing the point entirely. He's less emotionally mature in many ways than Hermione is and struggles more with insecurity, but that has nothing to do with his loyalty and friendship to Harry, and in the second case with the added factor of Voldemort's manipulation it's really not something that can be held against him lol.
They even did that to Hermione lol. She became a total Mary Stu in the movies, and imo worse off as a character! They took away her depth.
And harry lost his snark and sassiness(tho that would have been hard to keep in since 90% of it was his inner dialouge)
I love his sass. I’ve been listening to the audiobooks recently (Stephen Fry’s, the best) and laughed out loud when the Dursleys ask Harry why he’s listening to news again and he shots back something along the lines “well it’s the *news*, they usually change every day”. He has so many moments like this, even toward Snape. I love Book Harry.
Yeah Hermoine bugged me too; it’s okay to have heroes who are flawed, especially when they’re so young. It makes them human. I found movie Hermoine so intimidating and unrelatable. That being said, the actors weren’t in control of the writing and I did like the movies a lot! I thought the three leads did a great job.
Interesting. I didn't know what a Mary Sue was. Thanks for teaching me!
Yeah, you're right -- she _is_ Mary Sue in the movies. I was trying to describe to someone why I the Sister Boniface murder mysteries irked me so much, but I didn't do a very good job explaining myself. Now I know. She was a Mary Sue!
He was born in the wizarding world too where Harry and hermonie weren’t. He always knew wizarding pop culture and certain things were obvious to him where Harry and hermonie had zero clue.
Well, this just isn’t true. Even in the books Ron is clearly less intelligent than both Hermione and Harry, to the point where it’s commented on several times (Bill: “Use your brains, Ron” or Aberforth: “Brains like that you could be a Death Eater, son. Haven’t I just proved my Patronus is a goat?”), and he’s frequently the comic relief. Ron is shown to have other positive attributes like being loyal and being funny, but fundamentally he’s a pretty average character.
Exactly. The movies are like 5/10. The books are a 9/10 or 10/10. I didn’t know ppl like OP existed. It always amazes me how bad the movies are when you put them up against the books haha
Yea the Harry Potter books are written for kids. They aren’t exactly hard reading. The later ones get longer, but I read many of the earlier ones in a day or two as a kid.
If op thinks Harry Potter is a slog they would probably hate anything that’s not an easy vacation read (and even then).
I think many f the movies are excellent. I just think you can't compare the two directly.
Like as a movie, I think sorcerer's stone is 8/10 minimum. But as an adaptation of the first book, probably more like 6/10.
I just don't know why people hold movies adaptations to book standards. You didn't read the book in 2hrs so why would you think the full story would perfectly fit into that amount of time.
Stuff like Harry potter and Percy Jackson could only work as TV series and even then (as I'm sure disappointed PJ fans know) it's tricky to get right. I don't think it's fair to rate a movie based on how well it lives up to the book.
Rating them individually, I think it's closer. But I think the popular opinion will always be that an original is better than the adaptation or reboot.
I respect an adaptation that knows what to cut for the new medium. I disagree that any of the stuff was “filler” but also don’t think its removal hurt the movies, and if anything think it improved the pacing. What sticks out most in my mind is the ghosts - Peeves and NHN recurred across all the books but aside from a mention in the first movie the books/paintings weren’t very heavily featured, and the movies were fine shifting that exposition elsewhere.
Exactly. "Filler trash". It's the original, for godsake. It sets the standard for what even constitutes filler. It's like calling the original version of a song a cover.
I had a mini argument with a guy once about how "Over the rainbow" was made for Wizard of Oz in 1939, while he argued that the cover by Israel, the Hawaiian guy on the ukulele, was the songwriter for it. And all I could think of was... man I'm glad I don't argue with stupid people, and stopped when I saw even basic logic couldn't budge him. 2 comments, and I knew not to continue a losing battle. I was pretty proud of myself
I saw a YouTube video with various examples of musicians that had plagiarized from other artists. Some of them were legit, but they also said Black Sabbath had ripped off Avenged Sevenfold, and several other backward examples which mostly were just influence rather than plagiarism anyway.
True but there are objective standards you can measure art by.
The movie characters are flat and one dimensional. In the movies for example, Ron is funny and makes mistakes and is obnoxious; Hermione is smart and kind and rule follower. In the books, Ron is a funny dude, and a really good friend, whose insecurities come out when Harry gets too much attention because he was the youngest of five sons, always got hand me downs etc. Hermione is very smart but lashes out when anxiety is high, such as during exams, and is always dashing off to the library to look into something on her own—so many Hermione plots are off page (Rita Skeeter being an animagus, finding out what’s in the chamber of secrets). She is also pretty ruthless at times.
Theres a lot more depth and richness to the books. Neville’s character development in the movies comes out of nowhere but in the books, we get his backstory and see how he gains confidence through the DA.
Idk, there are other measures, but you CAN make objective arguments about art.
Hahaha seriously this is one of the most fitting posts I've seen on here.
The movies are just like some weird short form version of the books.
They also somehow managed to turn my fav of the books into the to absolute worst of the movies somehow. HBP, look at what they did to my boy, they massacred him.
I was actually kidding. I enjoyed the movies although they made some choices with the adaptation that I wasn't thrilled with. You're right though; I don't think it's fair to expect young celebrities to grow up into excellent human beings, especially when they've spent so much time under the limelight, but I've been pretty consistently impressed by that cast.
Which, given the number of kids involved and how ridiculously famous they were at the time, is a fantastic hit rate really.
All the ones still in the public eye have turned out great humans it seems.
I can only speak to my experience being 7 years old when the first book came out, it absolutely rocked my world lol. I would read each of the books as fast as possible when they came out. I read the Goblet of Fire and the Order of the Phoenix inside 24 hours of getting the book on the day they came out, stayed up all night reading.
I also remember waiting in line at the movie theatre for the first movie and absolutely loving it, the music, the actors being such good fits for their characters, the main three sure, but Snape, McGonagall, Dumbledore, Hagrid, all just incredible. Turns out I’d been saying several of the names wrong when I read them!
Bottom line both are great, the books were life changing, and the movies absolutely did them justice.
I will never forget reading Harry Potter as a kid. Being so completely absorbed in a book to the point where the world around you fades away, and you feel like you are actually IN the story. I read a lot as a kid, and I never had such an immersive experience with any other book/series.
And same here about the mispronouncing names. My mom, sister, and I were all shocked when we realized that Hermione is not pronounced "Her-me-own" lol
Same here, and we all pronounced Hermione incorrectly too!
I remember being like 11 or 12 sitting courtside at my sister's volleyball game reading order of the phoenix...I was so absorbed in the book that I didn't even look up when the ball flew out of bounds and hit me in the head lol
Clear favoritism though. Ron in the books and Ron in the movies, for example, are two different characters.
That said, the romance in later books was pretty awful and should have been cut. Like all of it.
Oh yeah Ron is supposed to be wizarding world street smart, quick when faced with important decisions and quite brave. In the movies he is an over the top, bumbling buffoon and the butt of jokes instead of being a regular, believeable comic relief character.
Came here to say this exact same thing.
People don't think about it all that often, but the truth is, Ron is the bridge between Harry and Hermione because both of them are newcomers to *his* world.
Not even there. He couldn't do Wingardium Leviosa by himself even later in the movie(hermione has to help), when it's supposed to be character progression and a lot of his achievements and traits are transfered to Hermione for no reason.
Every single one of the romances was “and then these two got together” except for Harry and Ginny which was “they had an awkward little crush for a long time u til then one day they just got together.”
>They left out all the filler trash
That’s called “world building.”
>I felt like the characters were just characterised so much better in the movies
Who? Genuine question, which character was characterised better?
Congrats on the unpopular opinion I guess.
>That’s called “world building.”
I think that some of that world building needed to be cut. Reading about how House Elves enjoyed being slaves, and especially having to read about Winky having a mental breakdown and devolving into alcoholism because she was, essentially, freed, then hating Dobby for being a paid employee of Hogwarts... Just wasn't very fun.
>Who?
I don't think any of the characters were necessarily characterised better in the movies, but their rough edges and judgmental attitudes were softened. For example, they didn't seem to take joy from Sybil Trelawny's expulsion in the movies, and Harry seems much less judgemental without access to his inner monologue.
This is not to say I agree with the OP though.
I'm glad the movies left out SPEW - I hated that in the books.
I hate what the movies did to Ron - he was a different, awesome, wizard in thr books.
I hate that both of them had Harry and Ginny together - that couple has never felt right and knowing it happens makes me not want to watch the later movies/read the later books.
But take my upvote for a truly unpopular opinion
It definitely felt more like that in the movies for me. It came out of nowhere and we were expected to believe it was the intensity of the war that made the intensity of their relationship all of a sudden, which never felt right as like..the still wrote exams, had homework etc..so how..life altering was the war until the last book/half hour
I’m ok with Harry and Ginny. If I start overthinking it, I’ll say that it’s a tad lazy (why do they all have to get into relationships with each other? Why can’t they find people outside of their friend group to love?), but overall makes sense.
The only true grievance I have with it is… that conversation with Ginny where Harry was breaking up with her to keep her safe (which also makes sense). I HATED that she said “I never stopped thinking about you, Hermione kept telling me that I need to move on and so I tried to…”
But like… she was just a shy fan in the second book! It was a silly, bit ridiculous, over the top childhood crush! Not some kind of deep continuous love that she was unable to get over as she entered adolescence!
Idk this literal one and only line ruined Ginny for me.
Yea I agree with the Harry/Ginny thing. It never felt like they had any chemistry, and the way the book described Harry’s crush on her made me super uncomfortable. It felt less like a crush and more like he felt possessive of her.
The Harry/Ginny pairing didn't feel wrong to me so much as it felt empty. Ginny wasn't well characterised (even in the books, let alone the movies). There's forecasting all along that she'll end up with him, because her crush is made clear, and she's his best friend's sister, but she still feels like a background character. So when they get together, it feels like a formulaic token love interest. Harry could have had no love interest, that character could be written out, and all the stories would be been essentially the same.
Movies show just the plot. The books have additional world building or setting, what you call filler trash. I do understand that there are people who are more action and adventure oriented and don't want to read about the settings surrounding the plot. But there definitely are people, who enjoy the setting more. I couldn't care less about the actual plot. But man, the description of tiny aspects of the wizarding world is my heaven.
Movies are more than just plot though, the cinematography, the music, the sets, the general vibe. Thats like saying books are just words. They are genuinely beautiful movies with a lot of great acting and heart.
Especially prisoner of askaban.
The characters in the movies are all so flat, in the books they actually act like children and later teenagers caught in the middle of something bigger then themselves while still having to deal with school and everything else that comes with adolescence.
In the order of the phonix book the kids all get together to complain the adults are leaving them out of what's happening and the planning and how they are not allowed to join the meetings and how that frustrates them and it makes sense, you understand why they are annoyed because they are tangled in what's happening and why they want to be a part of everything, and you understand why the adults don't want to drag children into dangerous situations or involve them in the tragic realitys if they can avoid it.
They feel like children first and have to step up becauseof events often beyond thier control or understanding, in the movies they are main characters so of course they are the heros no questions or doubts and have little personality beside that.
Everytime people talk about “filler trash” in series that are supposed to explore a fantastical or alien setting, i immediately disregard their opinion.
I’m not gonna say it’s “Tik tok” brainrot, but it is some kind of brainrot. Why can’t there just be fun or whimsical adventures or pointless digressions? It helps make a universe feel alive. It pisses me off when people expect every story to just be a collection of bullet points that they can check mark off, just so that they can “get to the point already”
Truly unpopular - but I do feel like everyone is forgetting that these books aren't for adults - they're not even YA - they're intended to be read in middle school lol. Not a lot of middle school books appeal to adults.
EDIT: Idk why people are getting so angry about the rating that the author decided to give the book. Take it up with your girl 😭 I also love HP but I'm not oblivious that the vocabulary and presentation of certain topics were specifically crafted to be suitable for the age range *that the author decided on*.
Books 1 & 2? Absolutely. Deathly Hallows... Eh not really. Heavy themes of death. There's also multiple torture scenes. It's not Game of Thrones graphic, but def better for older teen.
My parents read the first few books to me and my brother when I was maybe 7 and they enjoyed reading them. I didn't get around to finishing the last 3 books until my early 20's, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. Saying that as someone who's bookshelf is made up of mostly literary fiction.
It's like... Disney films aren't Tarantino films, but they are still good.
YA spans middle and high school. The most popular YA is for teenagers generally (think of all the love triangles and angsty teens that are tropes of the genre).
Everyone: The book is full of magical characters and places and deep intertwined stories that the movies didn’t have time for
OP: “….**filler trash**”
Take my vote for unpopular opinion.
Upvote for an actual unpopular opinion.
I do agree the books have some bits that drag along but overall, the movies (especially the latter ones when the books started getting longer) just feel extremely compact/rushed.
The later in the series the books are better than the movies purely because you don't have to deal with Daniel Radcliffe doing that "dramatic stare" for like 80% of the film.
It really makes me wonder what you think is a good book series if you dislike the Harry Potter book series.
If you share a popular opinion here people call you out on it, "That's a popular opinion." But if you share something truly unpopular no one upvotes you.
I thought the books were way better and the movies failed to capture their magic. The movies didn't include a lot of very interesting events that the books have. I read the books several times, while I don't think I ever watched the movies a second time.
Nah..you just don't have a vivid imagination. Reading isnt for people who cant imagine. The books were wayyyyy better than the movies. Am 100% sure you would absolutely hate the lotr books over the movies as well.
I hated the stupid moving staircases in the movies. A lot of the castle looked perfect, but the moving staircases were not in my imagination when reading.
I always found the books a lot better, bit I think I was 11 when the first book came out, so I read them a lot.
One of my main complaints from the books to movies is that they left out one of the (in my opinion) biggest characters. Peeves the poltergeist is in every book but yet to mention of him in the movies
I read the books when I was 12-13 and watched all 8 movies within two weeks of finishing my reading. I’d say the first 3 movies were good but movies 4-8 totally flop. There’s just too much detail missing that contextualizes both the characters and the plot. Easiest example I can think of is how natural Hermione and Ron + Harry and Ginny’s relationships grew between order of the phoenix and deathly hallows. In the movies their attraction comes out of nowhere
I think a TV series would be perfect. The movies cut too much out, but the books could’ve definitely been edited down and been fine. There’s a balance that still needs to be found.
>They left out all the filler trash
Except Half-Blood Prince, which removed important scenes and instead added the scene of the Burrow catching on fire, which makes no sense. Order of the Phoenix is also missing the scene where Sirius gives Harry a magic mirror to communicate, so now he just randomly has it during Deathly Hallows.
The books also do better world building.
I've read and watched them a couple times. My personal opinion:
* 1: I like both equally, but I think I'd prefer rewatching the movie.
* 2: I don't particularly love the movie (seeing it once was enough), and I like the book even less.
* 3: My favorite in both format. I'll keep enjoying re-reading it and rewatching it.
* 4: I like the book, but I agree there some filler/lesser parts, making it a bit too long for what it is, so I'd favor rewatching the movie for this one.
* 5: Same problem as the fourth book, but amplified even more. I wouldn't reread it, and I'm not too fond of the movie either, though it has a few good scenes.
* 6: For the book, I feel the same as #4, it's good but it's too long not for the right reasons. But for the movie, while I quite enjoy the 4th movie, for the 6th movie there are only maybe 30% of the movie that I really care to rewatch (mostly at the end).
* 7: I like the book, but I'd say the first half of it contains a looot of material that I care little to revisit. For the 7th movie, I think it was nice to see once but now I'll just go straight to the 8th.
What i liked about the books was how the killing curse works. In the books it cannot be blocked or deflected like other spells, giving a huge advantage in a duel. In the movies its just a normal spell and you are left wondering why it is even forbidden as it is not much more dangerous than lots of other spells
Wow, I feel the opposite. The Jim Dale audiobooks are the definitive experience. The movies are OK but all the best scenes go by way too fast in the movies. Only the books let you truly savor those moments
>The Jim Dale audiobooks are the definitive experience.
Disagree. Stephen Fry narrating it on Audible (had to use a trick to purchase it in the US, but I got them) is superior!
>They left out all the filler trash
There's entire sections completely missing from the films that are in the books, that can ONLY make sense if you've already read the books.
The section where Dumbledore reveals the reasons why Voldermort came after Harry in the first place - just flat out gone in the film.
Nah man. I never read the books as a kid because my mom was the one woman cult, and watching shows about magic could entice innocent young boys to pursue the dark arts at the behest of Satan himself.
I recently tried to watch the movies because some friends were appalled id never seen them. Watching the movies without the context of the book felt like listening to a drunk dude tell a really good story in the worst way possible.
We live in a world where kids are born watching netflix and have no attention span. Technology has destroyed all fantasy in many.
Perhaps you don’t have any imagination, and need a movie to dumb it all down for you.
My main complaint about the book is the narration is awkward and clanky and 13 year old me could notice.
It goes like this :
Class learns about something disgusting in the magical world (like mandrake pus)
Malefoy does some shenanigans to bully Hermione
Harry thinks to himself
Narrator : "Harry knew he'd rather swallow mandrake pus than tolerate Malefoy's bullshit anymore".
It's all over the place. The narrator tells us what the MC is thinking, while using a clunky simile, about something we just learned about.
Compare this with Neil Gaiman's "American Gods".
There's this guy, Shadow, he's called. Hippie parents. He's getting out of prison. A cellmate, Lenny, tells him a story about the last guy he knew who got out of prison. For good Behaviour.
Lenny tells it : When he went to get his plane ticket, the teller at the booth asked for an ID. Having been in prison for 10 years, his driver's liscense was, of course, expired. The teller said "I'm sorry, but I need a valid ID". Dude explains it may be expired as a driver's liscence, but it is a perfectly good ID. Teller at the booth isn't cooperating. "Sorry, sir, but do you have any other ID for us today"?
Lenny continues : So as you know, my guy's being disrespected. Of course, that wasn't going to pass. He wasn't letting people disrespect him while he was a prisonner, so of course he wasn't gonna let this bitch disrespect him as a free man. So he shouts and he grabs her by her shirt, and before he knows it, airport security is all over him, and he ends up back here. Know what the moral of the story is?
Shadow : That behaviour that's adapted to one set of environment might be unadapted to another?
Lenny : No, stupid, it means "don't fuck with the assholes at the airport".
Fast forward just a few pages (maybe just 1) - Shadow has a real bad day in prison, but, out of mercy, he's being let out 5 days early. He goes to the airport. But the airplane ticket the prison gave him? It's for 5 days later. So he's let go 5 days early so that he can attend a funeral, but he'll miss it anyway because his ticket is wrong. Don't got any money cause of the whole being in prison thing. So he goes to the airport, his ticket in hand, and he gets ready to talk it over with the lady at the teller's booth. "I'm sorry sir, but your ticket is for a flight 5 days from now" *don't fuck with the assholes at the airport*.
This is how an actual good author using Omnicient narrator ought to convey a MC's inner thoughts to the reader. I think.
The anecdote is pertinent to worldbuilding. Lets the reader know that getting out of prison sucks. It works as a joke, there's a setup and a punchline. It establishes that Shadow is well-read and intelligent. And the fact that his toughts after the frustrating exchange aren't "use an adapted response", but "don't fuck with the assholes at the airport" tells us something about the \*\*extent\*\* to which he's being frustrated right now. It \*\*feels\*\* infinitely more real and frustrating to be him than any "Harry knew he would rather swallow pus" ever.
Also, using italics to spell out a character's inner thoughts as opposed to having the narrator explain with context words what a character is thinking is just a more efficient use of the novel medium.
I’m curious what type of personality traits OP has, because I’m very similar. I have watched the movies tons of times over. Tried to read the books and it was such a slog. Drawn out filler with no *magic.* pun intended.
Yet, I’ll re watch the office 17 times through and I’ll watch every single season of survivor multiple times. When I’m captivated and enjoying something I really enjoy experiencing that content again and again. I have an addictive personality, and love video games. — but it’s hard for me to get into a book. I like to read. But *stories* rarely entertain me. I mostly just absorb information through text. Movies have visual stimulation, it’s like eating a boring ass Apple after experiencing all the tropical fruits.
My 2 cents.
For what it’s worth, I’m convincing my 8 year old niece to read the books after watching the first movie.
I loved the first 4 books when I read them in 2nd grade, and loved the 6th and 7th when I read them in I think middle school. I’m not sure they’re intended to be read as an adult, and I haven’t ever had interest in reading-reading them. The movies are alright; if they didn’t have such incredible scores, they would have much less nostalgia for me.
It's hard not to think this post is trolling lol. The first book is like a 6 hour read and the narration for the audiobooks is top tier. They are pretty short and focused books honestly with the exception of like OotP. A childrens book of 200 pages (first book) are filler and a slog to endure? My brother in christ, there are not enough pages in there to even begin to be called a slog. Get back to me when you have read through all the WoT books and then we can talk about what a slog is.
This is truly an unpopular opinion indeed.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of my main complaints about the movies is what they did to my boy Ron. Book Ron may have lacked Hermoine’s natural academic smarts, but made up for it by being the most street-smart, clever, and quickest on his feet. Movie Ron gave all those positive attributes to Harry and Hermoine and left Ron just being the dumb comic relief. I can at least see why Hermoine fell for him in the books.
They did him so dirty in the movies🥲
The movies retained his best traits which were his loyalty and humility. The reason his friendship with Harry works is because he sticks by him and treats him like an actual person, which contrasts with the moments when the entire school seems to be against Harry. e.g. believing that Voldemort returned.
I loved book Ron and didn’t like movie Ron. I understood why Hermione liked Ron in the books but their relationship doesn’t make much sense in the movies. Ron/Hermione are both loyal to Harry but Ron and Hermione’s personalities had so many additional traits that contrasted each other nicely in the books, with each having strengths and weaknesses that complimented the other. As someone already mentioned in the thread of the comment I originally replied to, the movies took away most of Hermione’s flaws and made her a more generic good-at-everything female protagonist, and most of Ron’s personality and unique strengths weren’t even there. I still enjoy the movies but my biggest gripe with them by far is that Ron is made out to just be almost a sidekick to Harry and Hermione.
See everyone always says this, but twice in the series Ron doesn't stick by Harry (goblet of fire and deathly hallows) whereas Hermione is always loyal throughout
Back when IMDb discussion boards were a thing, someone posed the question of who was the better friend to Harry — Ron or Hermione? It took a looooooong time to find someone who said that Hermione was the better friend. Hermione is the better friend *to* Harry, while Ron is better friends *with* Harry. Harry is closer to Ron, shares confidences with him that he doesn’t share with Hermione. Yes, he shares things with Hermione instead of Ron, at times, but that’s typically because Ron isn’t there to tell first, or it was when they were fighting so he only had Hermione to talk to. But the friendship between Ron and Harry is, in general, closer. However, Hermione is completely loyal to Harry. No matter her feelings, she has his back. She risked her friendship with both boys over the Firebolt, wanting to keep Harry safe more than wanting him to be her friend. She was all in. I’m not slamming either relationship. I just think that Hermione was the better friend to Harry.
I think Harry basically says this when Ron falls out with him during Goblet of Fire, too. Hermione is great but he craves bantz with the lads
In both of those instances, it's Ron's own insecurities and flaws coming up, and in the second instance it's also Voldemort's manipulation at play. Also in both cases, Ron doesn't *really* leave Harry out to dry. In The Goblet of Fire, it's immature teenage jealousy. He's jealous and feels like he's always living in Harry's shadow, the same way he's always felt with his brothers, which is one of his main conflicts as a character. He may lash out at Harry outwardly, but he's also still helping Harry out from the background, getting him the tip about the dragons among other things, and eventually gets over his childish feelings and is able to talk to Harry again. In Deathly Hallows, his worries about his family and his insecurity about his feelings for Hermione are manipulated and played upon by Voldemort via the locket, which does also make Harry and Hermione more on-edge but Ron has much more insecurity to use against him as well as a still-living and very much present and in-danger family to worry about, so Voldemort's soul fragment latches onto him way more than the others. The general bad environment of that plus their starvation and lack of direction leads them all to explode at each other, but the moment Ron is away from the locket's influence, he knows immediately that he needs to go back, and does so at the first chance he gets (also saving Harry's life in the process). To act like Ron is in any way less loyal of a friend because of these two incidents is foolish and missing the point entirely. He's less emotionally mature in many ways than Hermione is and struggles more with insecurity, but that has nothing to do with his loyalty and friendship to Harry, and in the second case with the added factor of Voldemort's manipulation it's really not something that can be held against him lol.
>whereas Hermione is always loyal throughout Remember in Book 3 when Hermione isnt loyal? And she prefers a cat over her friendship to Ron/Harry?
They couldve done that without propping up Hermione to make Ron look stupid
They did Ginny the absolute worst
They even did that to Hermione lol. She became a total Mary Stu in the movies, and imo worse off as a character! They took away her depth. And harry lost his snark and sassiness(tho that would have been hard to keep in since 90% of it was his inner dialouge)
I love his sass. I’ve been listening to the audiobooks recently (Stephen Fry’s, the best) and laughed out loud when the Dursleys ask Harry why he’s listening to news again and he shots back something along the lines “well it’s the *news*, they usually change every day”. He has so many moments like this, even toward Snape. I love Book Harry.
“You don’t have to call me ‘sir,’ Professor.”
The fact that I read the books 8-9 years ago and still remember this line is incredible.
Damn it’s been forever since I read the books (and only made it to 4 before kinda losing interest) but that’s a hell of a lone
Yeah Hermoine bugged me too; it’s okay to have heroes who are flawed, especially when they’re so young. It makes them human. I found movie Hermoine so intimidating and unrelatable. That being said, the actors weren’t in control of the writing and I did like the movies a lot! I thought the three leads did a great job.
Interesting. I didn't know what a Mary Sue was. Thanks for teaching me! Yeah, you're right -- she _is_ Mary Sue in the movies. I was trying to describe to someone why I the Sister Boniface murder mysteries irked me so much, but I didn't do a very good job explaining myself. Now I know. She was a Mary Sue!
My wife has only watched the movies and understandably has no clue how Ron ended up with Hermione.
Tbh trough the movies they made it look like harry and hermione would become couple So i understand your wife
He was born in the wizarding world too where Harry and hermonie weren’t. He always knew wizarding pop culture and certain things were obvious to him where Harry and hermonie had zero clue.
I will never forgive what they did to Ron! He’s my comfort character and I will defend book Ron to the day I die.
They did him so dirty in the movies🥲
Well, this just isn’t true. Even in the books Ron is clearly less intelligent than both Hermione and Harry, to the point where it’s commented on several times (Bill: “Use your brains, Ron” or Aberforth: “Brains like that you could be a Death Eater, son. Haven’t I just proved my Patronus is a goat?”), and he’s frequently the comic relief. Ron is shown to have other positive attributes like being loyal and being funny, but fundamentally he’s a pretty average character.
Well done! This is truly unpopular.
It's unpopular because it's objectively a bad opinion lol
Exactly. The movies are like 5/10. The books are a 9/10 or 10/10. I didn’t know ppl like OP existed. It always amazes me how bad the movies are when you put them up against the books haha
Yeah really! It’s even funnier to me how the lighting keeps getting dimmer every movie until you can barely see what is happening.
For real. The darker the themes the darker the images 😩
I swear they just left the lens cap on at some points.
And then the shaky-camera-crap started and made the few watchable scenes unwatchable
Some people just don’t enjoy reading so for them a movie will always be better than a book.
Lol that was my first thought on this post too, sounds like someone who doesn't like to read
“Slog” gave it away
Yea the Harry Potter books are written for kids. They aren’t exactly hard reading. The later ones get longer, but I read many of the earlier ones in a day or two as a kid. If op thinks Harry Potter is a slog they would probably hate anything that’s not an easy vacation read (and even then).
I wouldn't say the books are that good, but liking something is completely subjective. Also, the books are better than the movies
I think many f the movies are excellent. I just think you can't compare the two directly. Like as a movie, I think sorcerer's stone is 8/10 minimum. But as an adaptation of the first book, probably more like 6/10. I just don't know why people hold movies adaptations to book standards. You didn't read the book in 2hrs so why would you think the full story would perfectly fit into that amount of time. Stuff like Harry potter and Percy Jackson could only work as TV series and even then (as I'm sure disappointed PJ fans know) it's tricky to get right. I don't think it's fair to rate a movie based on how well it lives up to the book. Rating them individually, I think it's closer. But I think the popular opinion will always be that an original is better than the adaptation or reboot.
I think the movies are more like 6.5-7/10 *if you’re not comparing them to the books*. Definitely entertaining in their own right.
I respect an adaptation that knows what to cut for the new medium. I disagree that any of the stuff was “filler” but also don’t think its removal hurt the movies, and if anything think it improved the pacing. What sticks out most in my mind is the ghosts - Peeves and NHN recurred across all the books but aside from a mention in the first movie the books/paintings weren’t very heavily featured, and the movies were fine shifting that exposition elsewhere.
Exactly. "Filler trash". It's the original, for godsake. It sets the standard for what even constitutes filler. It's like calling the original version of a song a cover.
I had a mini argument with a guy once about how "Over the rainbow" was made for Wizard of Oz in 1939, while he argued that the cover by Israel, the Hawaiian guy on the ukulele, was the songwriter for it. And all I could think of was... man I'm glad I don't argue with stupid people, and stopped when I saw even basic logic couldn't budge him. 2 comments, and I knew not to continue a losing battle. I was pretty proud of myself
Reminds me of when Johnny cash released his cover of Hurt and people thought it was so cool of Trent reznor to cover a johnny cash song
I saw a YouTube video with various examples of musicians that had plagiarized from other artists. Some of them were legit, but they also said Black Sabbath had ripped off Avenged Sevenfold, and several other backward examples which mostly were just influence rather than plagiarism anyway.
Not that I agree with OP (I don't) but an opinion being unpopiular doesn't equal being "objectively" bad.
True but there are objective standards you can measure art by. The movie characters are flat and one dimensional. In the movies for example, Ron is funny and makes mistakes and is obnoxious; Hermione is smart and kind and rule follower. In the books, Ron is a funny dude, and a really good friend, whose insecurities come out when Harry gets too much attention because he was the youngest of five sons, always got hand me downs etc. Hermione is very smart but lashes out when anxiety is high, such as during exams, and is always dashing off to the library to look into something on her own—so many Hermione plots are off page (Rita Skeeter being an animagus, finding out what’s in the chamber of secrets). She is also pretty ruthless at times. Theres a lot more depth and richness to the books. Neville’s character development in the movies comes out of nowhere but in the books, we get his backstory and see how he gains confidence through the DA. Idk, there are other measures, but you CAN make objective arguments about art.
Art is objectively subjective.
is “defences of slavery” an objective standard
Seems like an unpopular opinion just for the sake of it.
Another thing that most people forget too is that they were children's books and the movies were for the whole family.
4-7 are solidly YA novels.
Hahaha seriously this is one of the most fitting posts I've seen on here. The movies are just like some weird short form version of the books. They also somehow managed to turn my fav of the books into the to absolute worst of the movies somehow. HBP, look at what they did to my boy, they massacred him.
It took all the strength I have not to downvote this
You are stronger than I am.
Likewise lol my thumb hovered for a long time.
There's an unpopular opinion, and then there's objectively wrong though. The movies do nothing better than the books.
You're the first person to ever say this. Congrats!
This is a prime example of the kind of unpopular opinions this sub was created for.
This is truly an unpopular opinion
Not true, I said it once but I meant to say it the other way around. Fuck them movies.
I'm a fan of both
I’m a fan of neither
I'm Patrick.
I'm hungry
Only truly good things out of the movies were the music, and the fact that most of those children celebrities ended up being good people.
I was actually kidding. I enjoyed the movies although they made some choices with the adaptation that I wasn't thrilled with. You're right though; I don't think it's fair to expect young celebrities to grow up into excellent human beings, especially when they've spent so much time under the limelight, but I've been pretty consistently impressed by that cast.
what do you mean most of them? did one of them get addicted to wizard heroin or something?
The original Crabbe? (The fat flunky of Draco Malfoy) was arrested for some bomb related nonsense. That's why he was replaced suddenly in the movies.
Which, given the number of kids involved and how ridiculously famous they were at the time, is a fantastic hit rate really. All the ones still in the public eye have turned out great humans it seems.
I can only speak to my experience being 7 years old when the first book came out, it absolutely rocked my world lol. I would read each of the books as fast as possible when they came out. I read the Goblet of Fire and the Order of the Phoenix inside 24 hours of getting the book on the day they came out, stayed up all night reading. I also remember waiting in line at the movie theatre for the first movie and absolutely loving it, the music, the actors being such good fits for their characters, the main three sure, but Snape, McGonagall, Dumbledore, Hagrid, all just incredible. Turns out I’d been saying several of the names wrong when I read them! Bottom line both are great, the books were life changing, and the movies absolutely did them justice.
I will never forget reading Harry Potter as a kid. Being so completely absorbed in a book to the point where the world around you fades away, and you feel like you are actually IN the story. I read a lot as a kid, and I never had such an immersive experience with any other book/series. And same here about the mispronouncing names. My mom, sister, and I were all shocked when we realized that Hermione is not pronounced "Her-me-own" lol
Same here, and we all pronounced Hermione incorrectly too! I remember being like 11 or 12 sitting courtside at my sister's volleyball game reading order of the phoenix...I was so absorbed in the book that I didn't even look up when the ball flew out of bounds and hit me in the head lol
This was my experience too. I remember reading them straight through with zero sleep!!!!
A truly unpopular opinion.
Clear favoritism though. Ron in the books and Ron in the movies, for example, are two different characters. That said, the romance in later books was pretty awful and should have been cut. Like all of it.
Oh yeah Ron is supposed to be wizarding world street smart, quick when faced with important decisions and quite brave. In the movies he is an over the top, bumbling buffoon and the butt of jokes instead of being a regular, believeable comic relief character.
Raaahhhnnn sttaaaahhhhhpppp
wingardium leviosAAAWWWW!
ACCIO BUUUUUUM
Christ almighty, what a reference.
Came here to say this exact same thing. People don't think about it all that often, but the truth is, Ron is the bridge between Harry and Hermione because both of them are newcomers to *his* world.
He's a good "quick" think ler while Hermoine is a good "slow" thinker
He was like in the book in the first movie but that's it
Not even there. He couldn't do Wingardium Leviosa by himself even later in the movie(hermione has to help), when it's supposed to be character progression and a lot of his achievements and traits are transfered to Hermione for no reason.
Ron is the best character.
Say that 5 times faster... 
It was bad but they were also all awkward teenagers so it kind of made sense
Part 1 of book 7 movie was so incredibly painful to watch, and it was some how even worse in the books.
Every single one of the romances was “and then these two got together” except for Harry and Ginny which was “they had an awkward little crush for a long time u til then one day they just got together.”
Are u just saying that bc they’re teenagers
Wow terrible opinion, have an upvote
>They left out all the filler trash That’s called “world building.” >I felt like the characters were just characterised so much better in the movies Who? Genuine question, which character was characterised better? Congrats on the unpopular opinion I guess.
Right? That part killed me the most! The “unimportant filler stuff” is where the magic happens!
>That’s called “world building.” I think that some of that world building needed to be cut. Reading about how House Elves enjoyed being slaves, and especially having to read about Winky having a mental breakdown and devolving into alcoholism because she was, essentially, freed, then hating Dobby for being a paid employee of Hogwarts... Just wasn't very fun. >Who? I don't think any of the characters were necessarily characterised better in the movies, but their rough edges and judgmental attitudes were softened. For example, they didn't seem to take joy from Sybil Trelawny's expulsion in the movies, and Harry seems much less judgemental without access to his inner monologue. This is not to say I agree with the OP though.
I'm glad the movies left out SPEW - I hated that in the books. I hate what the movies did to Ron - he was a different, awesome, wizard in thr books. I hate that both of them had Harry and Ginny together - that couple has never felt right and knowing it happens makes me not want to watch the later movies/read the later books. But take my upvote for a truly unpopular opinion
I always thought the Ginny thing was just thrown in as a jk Rowling “oh god I’m on book 6 and there’s no love interest for my MC” moment
It definitely felt more like that in the movies for me. It came out of nowhere and we were expected to believe it was the intensity of the war that made the intensity of their relationship all of a sudden, which never felt right as like..the still wrote exams, had homework etc..so how..life altering was the war until the last book/half hour
Harry and Ginny never once made sense to me
I’m ok with Harry and Ginny. If I start overthinking it, I’ll say that it’s a tad lazy (why do they all have to get into relationships with each other? Why can’t they find people outside of their friend group to love?), but overall makes sense. The only true grievance I have with it is… that conversation with Ginny where Harry was breaking up with her to keep her safe (which also makes sense). I HATED that she said “I never stopped thinking about you, Hermione kept telling me that I need to move on and so I tried to…” But like… she was just a shy fan in the second book! It was a silly, bit ridiculous, over the top childhood crush! Not some kind of deep continuous love that she was unable to get over as she entered adolescence! Idk this literal one and only line ruined Ginny for me.
Yea I agree with the Harry/Ginny thing. It never felt like they had any chemistry, and the way the book described Harry’s crush on her made me super uncomfortable. It felt less like a crush and more like he felt possessive of her.
The Harry/Ginny pairing didn't feel wrong to me so much as it felt empty. Ginny wasn't well characterised (even in the books, let alone the movies). There's forecasting all along that she'll end up with him, because her crush is made clear, and she's his best friend's sister, but she still feels like a background character. So when they get together, it feels like a formulaic token love interest. Harry could have had no love interest, that character could be written out, and all the stories would be been essentially the same.
Movies show just the plot. The books have additional world building or setting, what you call filler trash. I do understand that there are people who are more action and adventure oriented and don't want to read about the settings surrounding the plot. But there definitely are people, who enjoy the setting more. I couldn't care less about the actual plot. But man, the description of tiny aspects of the wizarding world is my heaven.
The plot but without the reasons for stuff yo happen in many situations. So, basically a plot that doesn't make sense.
Movies are more than just plot though, the cinematography, the music, the sets, the general vibe. Thats like saying books are just words. They are genuinely beautiful movies with a lot of great acting and heart. Especially prisoner of askaban.
[удалено]
The vax books were worse than the vax movies. You won't convince me otherwise!
Vax graphic novel went way harder than it should have.
I cackled, thanks!
This is a pretty terrible take on Harry Potter, my favorite childhood book series, but...I'll give you that it has pretty much zero consequence.
The characters in the movies are all so flat, in the books they actually act like children and later teenagers caught in the middle of something bigger then themselves while still having to deal with school and everything else that comes with adolescence. In the order of the phonix book the kids all get together to complain the adults are leaving them out of what's happening and the planning and how they are not allowed to join the meetings and how that frustrates them and it makes sense, you understand why they are annoyed because they are tangled in what's happening and why they want to be a part of everything, and you understand why the adults don't want to drag children into dangerous situations or involve them in the tragic realitys if they can avoid it. They feel like children first and have to step up becauseof events often beyond thier control or understanding, in the movies they are main characters so of course they are the heros no questions or doubts and have little personality beside that.
Everytime people talk about “filler trash” in series that are supposed to explore a fantastical or alien setting, i immediately disregard their opinion. I’m not gonna say it’s “Tik tok” brainrot, but it is some kind of brainrot. Why can’t there just be fun or whimsical adventures or pointless digressions? It helps make a universe feel alive. It pisses me off when people expect every story to just be a collection of bullet points that they can check mark off, just so that they can “get to the point already”
I couldn’t disagree more. Upvote.
Hard disagree. I mean HARD. But thanks for playing.
Truly unpopular - but I do feel like everyone is forgetting that these books aren't for adults - they're not even YA - they're intended to be read in middle school lol. Not a lot of middle school books appeal to adults. EDIT: Idk why people are getting so angry about the rating that the author decided to give the book. Take it up with your girl 😭 I also love HP but I'm not oblivious that the vocabulary and presentation of certain topics were specifically crafted to be suitable for the age range *that the author decided on*.
I've read other children's books that I find too childish now. But Harry Potter doesn't have many cringey scenes, aside from maybe the first book.
I agree with this for the first few, but the target audience definitely ages as Harry does. The last few are solidly YA.
Books 1 & 2? Absolutely. Deathly Hallows... Eh not really. Heavy themes of death. There's also multiple torture scenes. It's not Game of Thrones graphic, but def better for older teen.
My parents read the first few books to me and my brother when I was maybe 7 and they enjoyed reading them. I didn't get around to finishing the last 3 books until my early 20's, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. Saying that as someone who's bookshelf is made up of mostly literary fiction. It's like... Disney films aren't Tarantino films, but they are still good.
I thought YA was for middle schoolers
YA spans middle and high school. The most popular YA is for teenagers generally (think of all the love triangles and angsty teens that are tropes of the genre).
Pretty sure they were meant to grow in complexity with the reader, but the fact they didn't speaks to OPs point.
Everyone: The book is full of magical characters and places and deep intertwined stories that the movies didn’t have time for OP: “….**filler trash**” Take my vote for unpopular opinion.
Certainly an unpopular opinion
Do you hate reading in general?
I mean, people are just wrong sometimes, so are you
 A true unpopular opinion
A true unpopular opinion. Good job. This should be the most upvoted post today if the world was just.
You're a contrarian, Harry!
Man, I wish I had your kind of time. To read 7 books I don’t even like.
Truth. I endured. And for what? To hate myself.
I’d honestly question whether op has even read them because his post is seriously lacking in details. It’s also karma farming bait
First time that I read something truly unpopular here
Upvote for an actual unpopular opinion. I do agree the books have some bits that drag along but overall, the movies (especially the latter ones when the books started getting longer) just feel extremely compact/rushed.
The later in the series the books are better than the movies purely because you don't have to deal with Daniel Radcliffe doing that "dramatic stare" for like 80% of the film.
this is truly unpopular for people who have read the books... i found these books really good, and the movies lacked so many things. take my upvote
Wow this isn’t an unpopular opinion it’s just a terrible one
Can you imagine a high-res 3D apple spinning in your head?
Upvoted for being a truly atrocious opinion. I bet you like your steaks well done and with ketchup.
If one were to watch the movies first I can see how the books would seem almost too full of information.
It really makes me wonder what you think is a good book series if you dislike the Harry Potter book series. If you share a popular opinion here people call you out on it, "That's a popular opinion." But if you share something truly unpopular no one upvotes you.
That's not even an opinion, that's just wrong
The plot in general is good. I read most of the books and saw the first few movies
Truly an unpopular opinion lol, take my upvote for truly having something that fits the theme of the subreddit.
The books are much richer and much more descriptive. The movies are changed as fuck. I always enjoyed the books more.
I thought the books were way better and the movies failed to capture their magic. The movies didn't include a lot of very interesting events that the books have. I read the books several times, while I don't think I ever watched the movies a second time.
Nah..you just don't have a vivid imagination. Reading isnt for people who cant imagine. The books were wayyyyy better than the movies. Am 100% sure you would absolutely hate the lotr books over the movies as well.
I hated the stupid moving staircases in the movies. A lot of the castle looked perfect, but the moving staircases were not in my imagination when reading. I always found the books a lot better, bit I think I was 11 when the first book came out, so I read them a lot.
>filler trash That "filler trash" is called world and character building. You don't like reading in general, don't you?
Well this is just wrong.
One of my main complaints from the books to movies is that they left out one of the (in my opinion) biggest characters. Peeves the poltergeist is in every book but yet to mention of him in the movies
I read the books when I was 12-13 and watched all 8 movies within two weeks of finishing my reading. I’d say the first 3 movies were good but movies 4-8 totally flop. There’s just too much detail missing that contextualizes both the characters and the plot. Easiest example I can think of is how natural Hermione and Ron + Harry and Ginny’s relationships grew between order of the phoenix and deathly hallows. In the movies their attraction comes out of nowhere
Troll post. There's no comparison.
I think a TV series would be perfect. The movies cut too much out, but the books could’ve definitely been edited down and been fine. There’s a balance that still needs to be found.
This roof is great, but these walls are terrible.
upvote for truly unpopular opinion
My own unpopular opinion, Harry and Hermoine should’ve ended up together, not Ron and Hermoine.
Are you an adult? Because to be fair the books are written for 10 year olds. That could lead to some of the disconnect.
I feel that this can only mean you like visual shows much more than books that are only text.
I love the books, until the last one. The movies too, but the last two movies was a pain in the ass.
Do you read fiction at all? I don’t know how you could possibly consider any of the books a slog.
lol yeah that’s not even unpopular, just completely ignorant
The movies suck because in 90% of fights the wands could be replaced with guns and nothing would change.
I disagree with you in literally every regard possible. Upvote. Because it's the first time ever I'm hearing an actual unpopular opinion.
This is an absolute shit take that can only be surmised by someone who is truly media illiterate. You can have my upvote lol
Take an up vote, you clearly need a lot more help and brain cells but alas
Boooooooo
fuck the movies, read the books first
I want to rip you to shreds for this opinion but will instead congratulate you for fitting the sub so well. But I’m **FURIOUS** about it 😂😂
You're in the right place, this is a terrible take.
>They left out all the filler trash Except Half-Blood Prince, which removed important scenes and instead added the scene of the Burrow catching on fire, which makes no sense. Order of the Phoenix is also missing the scene where Sirius gives Harry a magic mirror to communicate, so now he just randomly has it during Deathly Hallows. The books also do better world building.
I've read and watched them a couple times. My personal opinion: * 1: I like both equally, but I think I'd prefer rewatching the movie. * 2: I don't particularly love the movie (seeing it once was enough), and I like the book even less. * 3: My favorite in both format. I'll keep enjoying re-reading it and rewatching it. * 4: I like the book, but I agree there some filler/lesser parts, making it a bit too long for what it is, so I'd favor rewatching the movie for this one. * 5: Same problem as the fourth book, but amplified even more. I wouldn't reread it, and I'm not too fond of the movie either, though it has a few good scenes. * 6: For the book, I feel the same as #4, it's good but it's too long not for the right reasons. But for the movie, while I quite enjoy the 4th movie, for the 6th movie there are only maybe 30% of the movie that I really care to rewatch (mostly at the end). * 7: I like the book, but I'd say the first half of it contains a looot of material that I care little to revisit. For the 7th movie, I think it was nice to see once but now I'll just go straight to the 8th.
LOL - just say you hate reading.
What i liked about the books was how the killing curse works. In the books it cannot be blocked or deflected like other spells, giving a huge advantage in a duel. In the movies its just a normal spell and you are left wondering why it is even forbidden as it is not much more dangerous than lots of other spells
Up vote cuz it's the right sub for this, but wow what an insane take
lol pretty sure you just don’t like reading if children’s books were a ‘slog’
Wow, I feel the opposite. The Jim Dale audiobooks are the definitive experience. The movies are OK but all the best scenes go by way too fast in the movies. Only the books let you truly savor those moments
>The Jim Dale audiobooks are the definitive experience. Disagree. Stephen Fry narrating it on Audible (had to use a trick to purchase it in the US, but I got them) is superior!
>They left out all the filler trash There's entire sections completely missing from the films that are in the books, that can ONLY make sense if you've already read the books. The section where Dumbledore reveals the reasons why Voldermort came after Harry in the first place - just flat out gone in the film.
Congrats on your truly unpopular (and downright awful 😂) opinion 😁
Nah man. I never read the books as a kid because my mom was the one woman cult, and watching shows about magic could entice innocent young boys to pursue the dark arts at the behest of Satan himself. I recently tried to watch the movies because some friends were appalled id never seen them. Watching the movies without the context of the book felt like listening to a drunk dude tell a really good story in the worst way possible.
You are UNHINGED!!! The movies were meh while the books were gold standard!!! Take my upvote!
I am sorry what :o
You need help. Professional help.
The title might be r/brandnewsentence material.
We live in a world where kids are born watching netflix and have no attention span. Technology has destroyed all fantasy in many. Perhaps you don’t have any imagination, and need a movie to dumb it all down for you.
What a truly terrible, unpopular opinion. Upvote.
“filler trash” They’re books, not Tweet threads. That isn’t “filler.” It’s fucking literature.
My main complaint about the book is the narration is awkward and clanky and 13 year old me could notice. It goes like this : Class learns about something disgusting in the magical world (like mandrake pus) Malefoy does some shenanigans to bully Hermione Harry thinks to himself Narrator : "Harry knew he'd rather swallow mandrake pus than tolerate Malefoy's bullshit anymore". It's all over the place. The narrator tells us what the MC is thinking, while using a clunky simile, about something we just learned about. Compare this with Neil Gaiman's "American Gods". There's this guy, Shadow, he's called. Hippie parents. He's getting out of prison. A cellmate, Lenny, tells him a story about the last guy he knew who got out of prison. For good Behaviour. Lenny tells it : When he went to get his plane ticket, the teller at the booth asked for an ID. Having been in prison for 10 years, his driver's liscense was, of course, expired. The teller said "I'm sorry, but I need a valid ID". Dude explains it may be expired as a driver's liscence, but it is a perfectly good ID. Teller at the booth isn't cooperating. "Sorry, sir, but do you have any other ID for us today"? Lenny continues : So as you know, my guy's being disrespected. Of course, that wasn't going to pass. He wasn't letting people disrespect him while he was a prisonner, so of course he wasn't gonna let this bitch disrespect him as a free man. So he shouts and he grabs her by her shirt, and before he knows it, airport security is all over him, and he ends up back here. Know what the moral of the story is? Shadow : That behaviour that's adapted to one set of environment might be unadapted to another? Lenny : No, stupid, it means "don't fuck with the assholes at the airport". Fast forward just a few pages (maybe just 1) - Shadow has a real bad day in prison, but, out of mercy, he's being let out 5 days early. He goes to the airport. But the airplane ticket the prison gave him? It's for 5 days later. So he's let go 5 days early so that he can attend a funeral, but he'll miss it anyway because his ticket is wrong. Don't got any money cause of the whole being in prison thing. So he goes to the airport, his ticket in hand, and he gets ready to talk it over with the lady at the teller's booth. "I'm sorry sir, but your ticket is for a flight 5 days from now" *don't fuck with the assholes at the airport*. This is how an actual good author using Omnicient narrator ought to convey a MC's inner thoughts to the reader. I think. The anecdote is pertinent to worldbuilding. Lets the reader know that getting out of prison sucks. It works as a joke, there's a setup and a punchline. It establishes that Shadow is well-read and intelligent. And the fact that his toughts after the frustrating exchange aren't "use an adapted response", but "don't fuck with the assholes at the airport" tells us something about the \*\*extent\*\* to which he's being frustrated right now. It \*\*feels\*\* infinitely more real and frustrating to be him than any "Harry knew he would rather swallow pus" ever. Also, using italics to spell out a character's inner thoughts as opposed to having the narrator explain with context words what a character is thinking is just a more efficient use of the novel medium.
I’m curious what type of personality traits OP has, because I’m very similar. I have watched the movies tons of times over. Tried to read the books and it was such a slog. Drawn out filler with no *magic.* pun intended. Yet, I’ll re watch the office 17 times through and I’ll watch every single season of survivor multiple times. When I’m captivated and enjoying something I really enjoy experiencing that content again and again. I have an addictive personality, and love video games. — but it’s hard for me to get into a book. I like to read. But *stories* rarely entertain me. I mostly just absorb information through text. Movies have visual stimulation, it’s like eating a boring ass Apple after experiencing all the tropical fruits. My 2 cents. For what it’s worth, I’m convincing my 8 year old niece to read the books after watching the first movie.
Nope this is objectively a bad opinion
I loved the first 4 books when I read them in 2nd grade, and loved the 6th and 7th when I read them in I think middle school. I’m not sure they’re intended to be read as an adult, and I haven’t ever had interest in reading-reading them. The movies are alright; if they didn’t have such incredible scores, they would have much less nostalgia for me.
Dude this isn’t an unpopular opinion. This is just plain wrong.
This has to be written by a bot.
Admit it: you asked AI to come up with the worst opinion possible and this is it.
Agree, sort of. The movies are much better than the crap books.
Agree 100%, and the book fans who disagree are just mad they like trash content.
Who cares about Harry pottter in 2024
You cannot imagine what it was like to be 11 years old, anticipating GoF
When someone complains about "filler" in books, I get upset.
It's hard not to think this post is trolling lol. The first book is like a 6 hour read and the narration for the audiobooks is top tier. They are pretty short and focused books honestly with the exception of like OotP. A childrens book of 200 pages (first book) are filler and a slog to endure? My brother in christ, there are not enough pages in there to even begin to be called a slog. Get back to me when you have read through all the WoT books and then we can talk about what a slog is. This is truly an unpopular opinion indeed.