EssaysForStudent.com - Free Essays, Term Papers & Book Notes
Search

Harry Potter Differences

By:   •  Essay  •  1,126 Words  •  April 20, 2010  •  1,087 Views

Page 1 of 5

Harry Potter Differences

Alterations from the book and previous films

Main article: Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The layout of Hogwarts Castle and its surrounding landscape has changed in each film adaptation. The following are the new changes made to Hogwarts Castle in the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire film adaptation.

The Entrance Hall has been changed. There is now a courtyard in its place with a Clock Tower which leads to the Entrance Hall.

The Entrance Hall has been extended further from the Marble Staircase separating the Great Hall from the Main Tower.

The Owlery has been added to the grounds as a tall tower with many levels set atop a stone hill.

Two new valleys have been added.

One is where the Dragon Arena is found in the first task. This valley is found vertically from the Owlery Tower. Further on in that new valley is a waterfall.

The other is where the vast Triwizard Maze located. This valley is behind the Great Hall past Hagrid's Hut.

Some scenes in the film take place within a courtyard whose location is unknown. It is definitely not the Clock Tower Courtyard, the Entrance Courtyard, nor the courtyard by the Dark Tower.

The design of the three Bell Towers has been altered.

Professor Flitwick's appearance has changed from an old, wrinkled gobblin/elf with long hair to a younger elf with short, brown hair.

[edit]Errors

Padma Patil walked with her sister Parvati through the Gryffindor common room, but Padma is a Ravenclaw.

There is a scene when Harry received a letter from Sirius Black that Sirius Black want to meet him in Gryffindor's common room. The mistake is when the letter clearly shows that at the last paragraph of the letter it is written "By the way, the bird bites" which is different from Sirius Black voiceover which says "P.S, the bird bites."

An official picture released by Warner Bros. incorrectly showed Voldemort's father's name to be "Tom Marvolo Riddle" with an impossible birth year. After much dismay from the fans (as his father's middle name was certainly not "Marvolo"), this mistake was corrected in the final film by digital manipulation.

In the original posters for the movie, the tagline on the posters read Difficult times lie ahead Harry, which lacks a comma. After a few months, the newer posters corrected this mistake to read Difficult times lie ahead, Harry.

[edit]Wyrd Sisters lawsuit

In the runup to the movie, a Canadian folk group called the Wyrd Sisters filed a US$40-million lawsuit against Warner Brothers, the North American distributor of the film, Jarvis Cocker from Pulp, and Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway of Radiohead for the use of their group's name. In the book, the band is called the "Weird Sisters" after the witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth but was reportedly renamed the "Wyrd Sisters" for the film. Before the film was released, however, Warner Brothers removed all references to either name for the band. Nevertheless, the Wyrd Sisters moved for an injunction in a Canadian court to prevent distribution of the film in Canada. This motion was dismissed by an Ontario judge.[1][2]

[edit]Reaction

The film was received very positively by critics, garnering an 89%[3] rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The New York Daily News praised the film for its humor and its dark tone.[4] The young actors were praised for demonstrating a “greater range of subtle emotions”,[5] particularly Daniel Radcliffe whom Variety described as delivering a “dimensional and nuanced performance”.[6] New cast members were also praised: Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of Mad-Eye Moody was described as “colorful”;[6] Miranda Richardson’s scenes were described as “wonderful”;[4] Ralph Fiennes's portrayal of Lord Voldemort was described as “sublime villainy”.[7]

Negative criticism included the film’s pace which The Arizona Republic described as being “far too episodic,”[8] while CNN.com described the film as “clunky and disjointed”.[9] Another criticism was that the many supporting characters did not get enough screen time.[9][6] Fans criticised the film for changing and leaving out too much of the source material, particularly those

Download as (for upgraded members)  txt (6.9 Kb)   pdf (108.5 Kb)   docx (13.1 Kb)  
Continue for 4 more pages »