When it comes to the Harry Potter movies, certain complaints might seem trivial when compared to issues like worldbuilding fail or character assassination, but there’s a lot of reasons for fans to froth and vent over superficial change.
- Harry Potter, the books repeatedly assure us, has eyes the color of a fresh-pickled toad. This is mentioned with a frequency comparable to the human birth rate.
- Harry has his mother’s eyes. This is also mentioned approximately nine trillion times and is important to the plot.
- In Deathly Hallows Part 2, there is literally a shot that fades from Lily’s eyes to Harry’s. Not only are neither of them green, but they are also not even the same color as each other.
- “You have your mother’s eyes, Harry. Except for the color. And the shape.“ – Ancient Proverb
- As defenders will reference repeatedly, Daniel Radcliffe had an allergic reaction to his contact lenses. That’s so sad. It’s a shame CGI had not been invented yet.
- Seriously, not even for the close-ups?
- Was he also allergic to black hair-dye?
- Book!Harry’s hair was as neat as a ruffled chicken. Messy hair is unusual; it’s rude; it’s an embarrassment at Aunt Petunia’s garden parties; it looks a bit out of the ordinary. Yet movie!Harry has either applied liberal amounts of Sleekeazy hair potion, or is blessed by photoshoot-ready genes.
- With tragic hilarity, it can be noted that Daniel Radcliffe has since appeared in other roles with much more Harry-like hair.
- James Potter’s hair in the woefully inadequate Pensive scene was parted and combed flat. James Potter does not part and comb his hair. James Potter ruffles it, because he loves people knowing he plays quidditch, loves attention, thinks he looks cool, is a bit rakish (or wants to be), and eschews the rule-following respectability inherent in being well-groomed. It is vital character-building for someone with such a lack of screen time.
- Worse, Hermione’s hair – bushy and the symbol of a girl who didn’t fall easily into the standards of beauty or uphold those standards as important – was styled and silky.
- Never mind the importance of big hair as connected to the possibility of the character being of mixed ethnicity or a WoC.
- Never mind that girls across the world – girls with frizzy locks and unusual looks and a love of books – sat down to read about this big-haired genius and identified with her, loved her, and saw themselves in her because bushy hair was now Hermione hair.
- Why, oh why, was her Yule Ball gown pink, not periwinkle blue?
- Ginny, on the other hand, did like pink. It would have been nice to see that preference on-screen.
- (Or any hint of personality. At all.)
- Wizards wear robes. Wizards wear robes so often that when trying to wear Muggle clothes, they don nightdresses and ponchos. Wizards do not wear school uniforms. Wizards have a long-standing ignorance of all things Muggle. The movies lost out on the chance to create an entire history and culture of fashion.
- Historically and in modern times, both genders in cultures around the world have worn robes. There is nothing weird about it.
- Professor Lupin’s mustache is an affront to humanity.
- If facial hair is not specifically described in the text there is no need to just include hairy lip abominations willy-nilly.
- The greatest mystery of the hair and wardrobe department is how they managed to make a vibrant personality like Natalia Tena – playing a character like Tonks – look boring.
- And then there’s Sirius Black.
- *disclaimer* Yes. Gary Oldman is a very good actor.
- Sirius was cheerful and good-looking before twelve years of imprisonment and torture, and he was skeletal and depressed after. His aristocratic handsomeness was a product of his backstory and a factor in his characterization. The contrast of his post-Azkaban self was part of his story’s tragedy.
- The man was an insolently good-looking rebel who hated his blue-blood background, rode a motorcycle, wore Muggle t-shirts, had his last chance to develop fashion sense at age 22, and in OotP wore robes. What part of that says ‘Edwardian gentleman in olive velvet pinstriped suit’?
- Bill’s scars were barely visible. Good to know werewolf attacks aren’t a big deal.
- Narcissa Malfoy’s hair was violently reminiscent of Pepe Le Pew.
- No one needs that.
- Voldemort would have been terrifying with red eyes. These were absent for fear of being ‘distracting,’ but consider this:
- No.
- PS: For a masterclass in letting voice and gesture supplant eye and facial expression, see Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta.
- Where to even start with Professor Flitwick?
- Most of these things would have been so damn easy to fix. Fans make these changes every day, self-taught in gifsets slapped together with illegally downloaded amateur software during their spare time between classes, just for kicks.
- Maybe the filmmakers thought wild hair and bright eyes and big scars and punk clothing and men in long robes were all not quite normal enough for them.
- Maybe they didn’t think these details were important.
- Maybe they didn’t care.
- The greatest mystery of the hair and wardrobe department is how they managed to make a vibrant personality like Natalia Tena – playing a character like Tonks – look boring.
A+ analysis
Ato's Fandom Blog 