Update & Corrections: 🍏 I pronounced library wrong. 🍏 It's splinched not squinched. 🍏 I was wrong about the Babbity Rabbity line it's in the books. I might think it's silly, but he says almost the same thing for similar reasons. 🍏 Wowowow over a million views. Thank you so much! Don't forget to subscribe. (If you wanna... 😳)
Hermione's torture was also way toned down in the movies. It kinda ruined Bellatrix's fear factor tbh. Like in the movie they just roughed her up a little, but in the books they straight up Crucio'd her over and over. Ron's raw reaction to hearing her screaming her head off in the books was genuine and horrifying.
@@jennaleclaire2654 I read that Hermione's torture scene was originally around 20 minutes longer, but was cut down because it was deemed so disturbing that it would have given the film an R rating, which the studio didn't want. Shooting that scene was also very emotionally and mentally taxing on Emma Watson, so they didn't want to film anything too potentially harmful. While I agree that Ron's reaction should have been more explosive and raw, I understand why the torture scene turned out the way it did.
I feel like Rupert gets overlooked a lot when talking about the Harry Potter cast. Hell, Come Fly With Me even made a joke about it by having someone hand Rupert a screen play saying that they wanted it to go to a talented actor and could he please pass it along to Daniel. He got shafted by unfortunate changes to his character. It shows talent that with what they did to Ron he only comes across as an oafish twat as opposed to a complete dickhead
I hate how people take Hermione's side in the Scabbers seemingly being eaten by Crookshanks argument because like, hello??? This is Ron's pet who has been in his family for AGES. He's known Scabbers for forever and suddenly his friend's cat supposedly eats his PET and she just tells him to get over it? I feel like people overlook this because we learn that Scabbers was in fact a bad guy but like, Ron didn't know that!! Yeah I'm totally on Ron's side, especially because all he wants is an apology.
I think it also may the bias that people like cats and not rats. Rats are typically seen as vermin. Also, to be fair, cats chase rats. Cats are free roaming for most owners. Ron should be keeping his rat in a safe container. They have unbreakable charms, the cat won't get in if Ron were a more responsible pet owner.
@@kaylar.8126 ...now that you've said that, it seems like the most obvious solution in the world. I can't believe I've never... well, I never thought about how Ron was keeping Scabbers contained when he wasn't present at ALL.
I think the bigger problem is that with it being Peter you retroactively hate the rat and wish crookshanks did kill him. As a kid I kinda thought crookshanks had that magical familiar intelligence and he somehow knew scabbers was Peter, which isn’t helped by the weird scene where he pushes the knot in the whomping willow to get through the passage. That in particular felt like foreshadowing that was never followed up on.
@@kaylar.8126 I get where you're coming from, but why should Ron have to add extra protection when his pet should be safe in his room where Crookshanks really should not be able to get into? I don't think cats should be that free roaming that they can go into other people's spaces like that. If Crookshanks did live in the same room as Ron that would make more sense, but yeah I feel like Hermione should've kept Crookshanks from going into rooms he shouldn't.
thinking about it like that, it's no wonder she was upset when they canceled exams...think of how long she must have studied for them...for that to go to waste..
@@pageturner72 But how does her intention and knowledge relate to me not enjoying the quote due to the misuse? Her intention and knowledge about the word do not change the fact that this is a misuse of the technical term of genius. This technical mistake, be it intentional or unintentional, ruins the quote for me personally. Also: how can you be "pretty sure" about that when the word is commonly misused as synonymous with extraordinary intelligence? How can you be "pretty sure" she is aware of this distinction? The entirety of the quote suggests that she isn't, as no one can become a genius through mere effort, but no potential genius actualizes their genius without effort, and no genius is a genius through excelling at school, for a genius is a genius through creativity enabled by divergent thinking, conscientiousness, and extraordinary intelligence, not through memorization and learning, which are the results of mere intelligence and conscientiousness - the use here is a complete negation of the technical definition of genius. I am not saying she necessarily isn't aware of this distinction; but, seeing as her usage and the common usage suggest the contrary, how can you be "pretty sure" she is aware of the distinction?
@@ergot1803 I did not like the quote at first when she said it either. I understand that it is annoying to see words such as genius being used incorrectly but it is also important to understand that to some degree the content and message that the quote is sending is valid even if the word use is not. Usually when I dislike a quote i consider the context it was used in. This is why the original commentor said s/he liked the quote. Because s/he spotted the parallels between the quote and the story of harry potter, and the way that hermione identified with one definition of genius. Regardless of whether the word was used correctly, it works in the context it was used in and sends an interesting message to some people. The original commentor was not saying that s/he disliked the quote because of its word use, but because of the message it was sending. You are absolutely not obligated to enjoy the quote. I never said this. But the original commentor was judging this quote when it was used in context. You judged it out of context. Thats why i tried to point out to you that the creator of the video most likely understood that she wasnt using the word in the completely correct way, but was using it in context so it made sense, and to some people it sent a pretty interesting message. You judged the quote based on it's content, you looked at it very objectively, judging whether the word usage was correct rather than whether the message the quote was sending was correct. That's nitpicking. You're pointing something out that is likely obvious to most people. Your opinion is not as uncommon as you may think. Now, if you had said that you disliked the quote because you didn't believe hermione to be someone who gained her intelligence through effort, where you were disagreeing with the deliberate message the phrase was conveying, then that would have been understandable. But disliking the quote for its word use? That seems like you don't dislike the quote itself but rather the manner in which it was conveyed.
The biggest thing I think is the problem with Hermoine stealing Ron's line of "If you want to kill Harry you have to get through us," is that Ron did this while standing up with a broken leg. That's is massively huge in the realm of his loyalty to his best friend, and it was stripped away because Hermoine was given all the bad ass scenes and Ron was left as a pathetic sidekick.
@@magnus5747 Read them. But do obliviate the BS films from your mind. The Weasleys in the books are a different BEAST. Harry is super sassy and more proactive. And Hermione is more realistic and flawed. Draco and Snape are total assholes who do just one good thing instead of being the sympathetic misunderstood cinnamon rolls. You're really be astounding how different GoF and HBP books are.
Hermione’s delivery of the line just sounds bad too. Not that Rupert necessarily would’ve done it better but still. It’s another drop in the bucket I guess
@@magnus5747 if you havent read them already i will warn you, you will be VERY disturbed by snapes behavior given Alan Rickmans, amazing, but different portrayal of the character.
One that irritated me the most was actually the fight with the troll in book one. Book Hermione was so scared and out of it but Ron remembered the levitating spell and made the judgement himself, beating the troll. But movie Hermione was so confident and cool headed despite almost dying and had to remind/urge Ron on the levitation spell. I really hate that.
Goblet of Fire when Moody shows up and Ron mentions him.Hermione says Alastor Moody the auror. Like why would Hermione know the names of the aurors. Or the battle at Gringots books it was Harry's idea to take off on the dragon, but of course movies was Hermione. One of the few things that bothered me.
@@rubyanne4909 Hermione already feels like some overpowered self-insert in the books, even though Rowling had the sense to give her SOME flaws. The movies just make her the true main character, like she could do everything in the story by herself AND better without the biggest idiot from the books (Harry) and the biggest moron from the movies (Ron). The effect, I heard, is called Flanderization. It happens in almost every single TV show and most, if not all, movie franchises. It means the writers focus on one tiny quirk of a character and make it procedurally larger and larger until it becomes their only trait. Hermione is smart and talented, so that's all she is. Ron feels (and most often is) inferior so let's make him inferior in every aspect. It just makes the side characters easier to write, it makes them require less screen time and makes the team of 50 mediocre writers able to focus on the protagonist that they want to focus on. But actually, in Harry Potter movies the focus is shifted from the characters to events and scenography (like that ball scene, like the start of the year feast, like the ministry battle with slow motion) because there is a lot of those to adapt. It works in its own way, with people being amazed while looking at Quidditch matches and wand staring (when people battle and the light between wand shows up and who stares the loudest wins). The drawback is that the characters and the story get changed, simplified and stop mattering.
yeah her shouting "swish and flick" wasn't in the book if i remember and it was kind of neat because the callback to the argument they had earlier was just obvious and we were like "they just kind of had a moment"... the narrator mentions he's packing or whatever and then he just blurts out "wingardium leviosa"
Yeah, it made me question wjy she didn't do it herself... heck she had the time mimic the wand movement. Girl, if you have to lecture someone how a spell works do it yourself!
I felt so awkward witnessing Harry’s and Ginny’s moments together. I cringe every time, it’s like something I shouldn’t be watching. There was no real development
to be fair their relationship was a 👎🏽 for me in the books as well i dont trust rowling with romance, she thought snape's everlasting obsession with lily was romantic 😬 i think she accidentally lucked out with ron/hermione and how cute they are ahshfjgkf
@@kos_m824 jilly for life. As someone who has been in an obsessive relationship snilly rubs me the wrong way. Snape didn't love lilly he was obsessed with her. It was infatuation
I'm pretty sure they pawned some of Ginny's personality traits for pennies, hell some probably got dropped in the lake. If movie Harry became somewhat of a blank slate, Ginny became an empty void.
@@croft4746 Movie Harry was certainly watered down but he still largely has the personality he had in the books. Harry in both is kind of a brat as he gets older. I don't mean that in a bad way, but he is very impulsive, very hot headed to balance out his heroism and good nature. He's very self centered, kind of arrogant and gradually learns to be better. Harry is stubborn and abrasive, tends to be moody and is kind of an asshole (granted he's got good reason a lot of the time). In a lot of ways he is exactly what Snape accuses him of being, something he utterly refuses to even consider at first and gradually comes to realize and accept upon learning just what an ass his father was. He's also fairly predictable, something that is actually a major plot point in book 5 and referenced again in book 7 as a serious weakness of his. All of that still holds true in the movies (barring the whole disarming spell blowing his identity being cut from the movie iirc) with both his positive and negative traits being on full display, as are the impacts of them on himself and others. Harry is the one case where I'd say his weaker characterization in the movies was almost solely down to the limitations of what you can fit into a book vs a movie. It's all still there in the broad strokes but a lot of his characterization is lost due to losing his internal monologue and condensing an entire year into a single movie for each book. While Ron was flanderized to a ridiculous degree and Hermione was given a injection of pseudo protagonist, Harry isn't as much a victim of change like those two as he is a victim of omission. Ron has traits outright taken away and given to Hermione. Hermione is given a lot of Ron's good traits. They are fundamentally different than their book counterparts. Harry is largely still the same character, just not given the screen time to flesh him out as in depth as the books did. Imo Harry is only different due to the differences in medium where Ron and Hermione are drastically altered in ways that go beyond omission due to run time and differences in format. Movie Ron and Hermione were written as different characters than their source material, movie Harry is just a less fleshed out version of his.
Here’s a change no one ever talks about: Ron was the one who noticed Harry’s hand in the Order of the Phoenix, not hermione. Ron was always way more observant about Harry’s mood than hermione was. Like after the World Cup when he suggested they play Quiditch to take their minds off of everything and Hermione insisted they go to bed. He’s just better at paying attention to his friends well beings.
Yes, even though Order had a different writer who was more fair to Ron and Hermione's characters, the consistent ruining of them from the first four films affected the fifth one. Another change I hated in Order was the RoR scene. In the book, Ron and Hermione bickered about their D.A skills and Ron appreciated her. But in the film, they make a joke of his character by making him say "don't worry I'll go easy on you" and then getting rekt by Hermione.
Like another commentor said, I imagine that this kind of emotional intelligence and quick wit comes from the experience of having many older brothers to be nagged by and being given the stinkeye from other wizarding families who didnt like his father. Ron has shoes to fill, and where his siblings and friends excel academically or in their own niches, hes the one whos most able to keep up with them.
10:47 There’s nothing more out of character for Ron than AGREEING WITH SNAPE just to tell Hermione that she’s a knowitall and kick her while she’s down. If there’s two things that Ron doesn’t like, it’s Snape and unfairness. Also, what kid in their RIGHT MIND agrees with a professor IN FRONT OF EVERYONE when their friend is getting yelled at by a teacher no one likes?! Normally that would borderline social suicide.
That’s what makes it so brave...he was like injured on the floor practically bleeding to death and he still stood up for his best friend. Now that’s loyalty!
Daniel Radcliff played Harry, Rupert Grint played Ron - Emma Watson was simple player herself in a idealized way. Is somehow the same with Johnny Depp - in it's "best Roles", he simple played him in the best/funniest way. Great Actors on the other side playin' her role in the best way.
@@strawberryshortcake4342 You can thank Steve Kloves for that. At the time before movies were released (circa 2000) there were many Ron fans and few Hermione fans. She was so happy that in Steve Kloves she had found someone who was as much a Hermione fan as she was.
right. When translating a book into a movie you'd expect the movie to be exactly how the book portrays it until moments/things that were not described in the book, or until moments where it's entirely subjective interpretation of things happening. It feels like the movie has more flaws than the book, probably because it's not made by the original author that has put a lot of time into writing the books. Afterall, it's generally the author that knows what's best for their own book.
(teehee I'm imagining that you're clapping between each word. Or maybe banging a wand on a desk for each syllable.) Also, yes. I agree. It seems like that was basic knowledge in the past, but somehow, it has gotten lost in translation in this modern world.
Flaws don't constitute a character. That's a flawed (no pun intended) view of the story writing. What makes a character interesting and alive is character development. It can often coincide with having flaws, but making an equivalence there would lead you to wrong conclusion (and results, if you are a writer). Here's an example of a good character: An old man, obsessed with traditions and order, who is thrust into situations where he has to change his ways and learn something or be shunned for his behavior. His stubborn desire to stick to traditions makes him ridicule and hurt his friend who is of a different race and culture. Here's an example of a bad character: A young energetic guy, who desires to be better than those who came before him, but is struggling with slothfulness. He tries to go in on adventures, but his flaws end up making him just a burden. Author then proceeds to do nothing about this problem. Getting rid of flaws doesn't rid you of character. Flaws may be used as a tool for story progression and a stepping stone for character growth. But it's not the only way to achieve both, and they alone mean nothing.
I understand Hermione being given a lot of the “smart” lines, but they should have at least given the “brave” lines to Ron. Defending Harry, showing him standing up for his friends, etc. A lot of what Hermione was able to explain by claiming she read it could have been explained by Ron by claiming he grew up hearing it.
Feminism is a zero sum game. Men cant be equal to women, because that would mean that women being less then men is actually womens fault. So men instead are put down to raise women up.
The smart lines shouldn’t be given to Hermione because it’s already abundantly clear that she’s intelligent. We should be able to see that Ron is smart but he has no patience for traditional learning.
Ron knew all about pure blood supremacy and reign. He experienced it all. They were thousands of scenes where his character could have had dimension but the movies didn't pay him any respect
Also, Ron’s parents fought during the first war against Voldemort. His father, mother, and brothers told him everything that happened. It would make sense if Ron was the one who told Harry and Hermione about pure blood supremacy.
@@khfan4life365 Not just Ron's parents. I'm pretty sure his Uncles, Gideon and Fabian Prewett got pretty brutally murdered. Harry now has Fabian Prewett's old watch as well now, proving that the Weasley's really do consider him a part of their family.
Unrelated, but they murdered nevil. He had redeeming qualities in the books by being good at herbology, but in the movies he just gets made fun of until the deathly hallows where he immediately switches to christ reincarnated
True. People forget how they ruined Neville too. In the book, he literally screams at a bewildered Voldemort that he'll rather fight than surrender and he raises the sword and instantly slays Nagini. But in the movie, he limps like a coward and makes a generic speech and Voldy's just laughing at him. Oh, and why did they cut out St.Mungos??? That scene still makes me cry. 😭 I also didn’t like how some scenes made a fool out of Neville’s character.
Idk why but in the deathly hallows I just found him really annoying because of how "arrogant" he seemed. I haven't read the books so maybe he was better there
@@terra_the_nightingale135 I honestly don't know why I feel that way. I just didn't like how he put himself in dangerous situations and when I first watched that speech scene I almost didn't care.
Ron is my favorite of the golden trio. They really did so many of the Weasleys DIRTY. Ginny is probably my favorite of the student characters and they literally reduced her to Harry's girlfriend and nothing more.
@@stasiatheo I recommend you watch the great wizarding war from the channel broad strokes. It is made on the Marauder's Lilly and Snape . I liked it . It has a lot of episodes every few month
I guess I'm fortunate in that I didn't like the book Ginny either, so they didn't ruin anything for me (in that aspect). She was too "smooth". Like a dork trying to write what they think a cool person would do. There's not enough flaws, which I guess is because she plays such a small role.
Exactly, why would she know that term? Also, shes essentially finding out shes in a marginalized group and people are going to dislike her for who she is. Kind of a missed opportunity
And the fact Draco was using this vile slur as a child, showing just how intense the indoctrination he went through was as a kid. Children generally don't see race or class, they aren't prejudiced beings. You have to really beat hatred into someone to make them say that as a little boy..
@@PieonaneunFlower which is somehow the funniest thing about it. Draco tries to insult her the worst possible way and all she thinks of is _Should that hurt me?_ But I also love this scene for teh reason that it's clear that in all the books she read it was never mentioned, it implies a little bit that this part of the society isn't written about, so that the people who don't have to live with it can just ignore it. And because of that Hermione didn't know about that.
“Shoelace” will forever piss me off. Harry and Ginny were a pretty good couple in the book, but in the movies the two have less chemistry than Cedric and Fawks.
Don't you dare say anything bad about Cedric and Fawkes, their struggle to break social norms and get accepted as a couple was amazing in the books. Inconsiderate and narrow-minded people like you just don't understand.
Rupert's acting alone saves Ron's character in the movies. Even when Ron is doing something unlikeable or is in the background of a scene, Rupert is able to do a lot. He manages to display complexity in Ron, particularly his feelings for Hermione, insecurity, hurt, etc. in subtle ways such as line delivery, posture, and facial expressions. I think Rupert is definitely the most natural actor among them and even with the character of Ron poorly written, he still is my favorite thanks to Rupert's acting.
It wasn't just Ron that they turned into comic relief, but the entire Weasley family. They're all clearly highly intelligent people. The parents seem less poor and more the type of people who spend money on experiences, rather than things. When they win the lottery in book three, they take a month long trip to Egypt, rather than buy a new house, etc. They also take the family to the quidditch world cup final, which can't be cheap. The twins obviously excel at potions and sports, rather than simply the baffoons they are made to be in the movies. And Ginny just gets turned into a background character who constantly pines after Harry, while Harry ignores her. It is rather uncomfortable what the movies did to that whole family.
I love in book 5 when the twins leave Hogwarts and leave a swamp in the school, Flitwick doesn’t want to clean it up because it’s such good magic. I think it shows that the twins were incredibly talented and the flitwick had a spark of fun. I’d always thought charms would be one of the most enjoyable classes at hogwarts.
So, did you just forget that in the books they took that same trip? They also go to the world cup in book four, and it's explained that they got the tickets from Ludo.
Every time I see the “your cat ate my rat” scene in the movie, I notice Harry in the back, not talking. I wonder if he ever thought “you know, Hedwig could have eaten scabbers.”
hedwig is pretty much always kept in a cage or aviary, owls are treated like birds in the series and don't really hang out in the common room like other pets.
@@DanteStevensO yeah, all the bird pets hang out in an entire wing (heh) dedicated to them. It's in several of the games and I think one scene with Harry and Cho in the books
Jenni Locke yeah!! & he had the knowledge about the wizarding _world._ sure, hermione knew tons about magic itself, but ron was arguably the one who had the most knowledge. he was the one who really taught harry about things imo. there's a difference between memorization/comprehension & actually living through something.
Ron has wisdom and common sense. He benefits from knowing the Wizarding world. He knows and understands nuances and culture, in ways Hermoine and Harry can’t quite. I hate when he’s portrayed as an oaf.
@@Amsayy But that is what happened for the movies. Wyh following a book that lines it out when changes are more fun and the guy even mentioned that Hermione was his fav char. It is a wonder that the movies was not renamed as well.
@@Amsayy So what you're saying is Ron invested in Wisdom and Charisma while Hermione min-maxed for Int and Harry is just kinda all over the place. Edit: Consistent capitalization.
1. Book Ron was unswervingly loyal with an extraordinary degree of social intelligence. He often had the edge over Harry and Hermione when it came to reading the terrain and instinctively navigating the wizarding world. 2. Book Ron was hilarious. He was not so much the butt of the joke (as he became in the movie) as the wisecracker, with an incredibly quick mind and wit. 3. Book Ron was the love of Book Hermione's life. The movie played it out as though Hermione chose between them, whereas canonically Harry was never an option for Hermione because she never wanted him. Ron was her source of comfort and companionship when Harry was off brooding, or talking to Dumbledore. She fell asleep holding hands with him at Grimmauld Place and was inconsolable, yet resilient when he abandoned them - Ron and Hermione shared an intensely intimate relationship that Harry was never a part of. He even comments in the book that watching them together at Grimmauld Place makes him feel lonely. Ron is the one who holds Hermione when she is crying at Dumbledore's funeral. 4. Book Ron was a badass. He was driving a flying car and doing non-verbal spells in his second year. He protected Harry from Sirius Black's Animagus and got bitten and dragged into the Shack himself in exchange. He was the only one who caught on that Hermione was behaving strangely and showing up randomly. He consistently defended Harry from suspicion and was bullied with an anthem for underperforming at Quidditch, yet stuck by Harry well into a Ministry infiltrated by Death Eaters and on the hunt for Horcruxes. He took over as a natural leader when Harry was distracted by the Hallows. He was indispensable during the Battle of the Potters and of Hogwarts, and destroyed 2 Horcruxes. 5. Rupert Grint could have played Book Ron beautifully, if only the screenwriters were not so invested in Mary-Suing Hermione. I have nothing against Emma, but Hermione too was realer, more complicated and more compelling in the books. The movie portrayal of Ron came at the cost of both Ron and Hermione's characters.
Yeah Harry and Hermoine makes no sense in book canon. They drive each other nuts when Ron is not there. Hermoine is the girl who can never leave anything well alone which actually gets in the way of Harry taking the time to stop and figuring out what he needs to do. And to Hermoine, Harry presents a question that doesn't have a right answer but because if her nature she cannot stop trying to find one.
Yeah the movies make me so frustrated especially when people who have only seen the movies start hating on Ron and saying that Hermione is too good for him. It just makes me really sad.
It always was a little strange that Hermione explained the concept of mudbloods and purebloods. What book did Hermione read that gave a rundown of racist terminology in the wizarding world? Ron legit grew up _in_ the wizarding world. Bizarre.
It could have honestly just been a book written by a pureblood fanatic, a book on any topic. It's not like any of the Slytherins were hiding their disdain for muggles, even when they thought Voldemort dead. One could say that Dumbledore would surely ban all the books with racist terms from use, but I'm sure the ministry was filled with Slytherins who might not want to make that happen. And Dumbledore really only banned the really dark magic books (namely the ones with Horcrux descriptions) and only banned them in the school.
@@TrykusMykusbut Hermione not knowing about the mudblood term was honestly one of the best subtle world building within the series, I don't think we need to come up with far fetch theories which aren't probably canon to justify Hermione's knowledge. It's fine if Hermione doesn't know about a thing or two of the Wizarding World, she is a twelve year old witch, not the greatest witch in the history of the Wizarding World.
It was Rupert Grint's overacting through inexperience that made Ron look like a comic relief character. Overreacting to anything dramatic no matter how small. You can tell by the last movies that he had grown and taken note as he played a much calmer/composed Ron but by that point his overdoing it as a youngster had already left its mark as making Ron the goofy one.
@@supafrancis I disagree. You can argue that every kid overacts. Even more, Emma Watson used to do the same, especially in the first two movies. I think the writing could've easily moved away from the comic relief aspect simply by having Ron grow alongside Hermione. Instead, they chose to make her the vital friend, while making him the disposable one.
Agreed. And it was the opposite for Harry: written well, but poorly casted--sorry, Daniel Radcliffe. I think Hermione and Emma Watson were the perfect pair.
Totes totes. I think he especially stood out when they were kids. Felt like he was getting the tone of his lines much better than Emma and Daniel were back then
The silver doe scene is what pissed me off the most about the movies. In the book, when Ron came back and saved Harry, there was real EMOTION and they hugged. It felt like they were actually REAL FRIENDS, which they were as shown through so many touching scenes in the books where they actually cared for/appreciated each other. In the movie, Harry just stared at Ron and never really showed his gratitude, the result of the movies' terrible portrayal/betrayal of their friendship.
Oh I know! Ron looked and felt guilty asf, so Harry comforted him and said Dumbledore knew he'd always come back at the end of the day. He also said he really redeemed himself and that events always sounded cooler when you talk about them than when you live them. What I'd have given to see that on screen...
@@PhebusdesTours "You made up for it today" said Harry. "Getting the sword, destroying the Horcrux, saving my life..." "You make it sound a lot cooler then it was" said Ron. "Stuff like that always sounds a lot cooler then it was, I've been trying to tell you that for years" said Harry. And then they hugged. ... And that scene makes me cry!! I didn't get any of those emotions in the movie, or any sense that they were ever friends at all the way they portrayed their relationship past the second movie...
@@HiHi-lt1cb Ikr! This scene was so understated yet so emotional. And yes, it doesn't look like Harry and Ron are even best friends, whereas in the books, Ron constantly roots for Harry and is the first person Harry goes into when he has a problem or questioning. It is made clear that Ron is Harry's main confidant, not Hermione.
I feel like they didn't only do Ron dirty, but also the actor playing him. I can imagine that many people he met in his life projected Ron's personality onto him and treated him accordingly (if even in a subtle way). He played that role through puberty, so the perception of Ron probably has an effect on Rupert's (self-)image to this day.
@@poppinc8145i know Daniel Radcliffe doesn't need money and is able to do low budget films he thinks are interesting, so I think Rupert and Emma are also likely set for life from royalties.
It didn't help that unlike book Ginny who loved Harry for who he was and didn't care about his fame and being "The Boy Who Lived" and all that film Ginny came off more like Romilda Vane in that she acted like a horny fangirl who lusted after him rather than loving him. Her saying "Don't you trust me" before feeding Harry was really suspicious as if the pies she was feeding him had love potion in them and she wanted to get it into his system. And the fact that she came down the stairs in only a bathrobe, tied his shoe in a scene with camera shots that made it look more like she was about to blow him and them nearly kissing before the random Burrow burning scene suggests that they'd have gone upstairs and had sex. Since later filmmakers were obsessed with Hermione they probably thought making Ginny look like a creepy stalker would make the idea of Harry and Hermione as a couple better. It didn't.
I’ll never forgive the movie for giving the line “if you want to kill Harry you’ll have to kill us too!” to HERMIONE instead of Ron. Like please, Ron’s leg (foot?) was broken and it took all his energy to even STAND, yet he still confidently stood by Harry and looked a known murder/criminal (they didn’t know Sirius was innocent yet) in the face. The movie just made Ron all scared and stupid, when here in the book he was a true freaking Gryffindor. I love Ron 🤧
Exactly! And in the movie, his leg isn't even broken! In the book he was almost passing out from the pain but he still stood there, willing to die for his best friend
Ikr, Hermione is PERFECT in the movies in every single way i would not have been suprised at all if they called the movies ''HERMIONE GRANGE R AND THE PHILOSPHERS STONE'' etc.
This happened with snape as well, with the opposite effect. Book snape was not the constantly calm, level headed, even tempered man that movie snape was. Book snape yelled, got angry, was irrational, and was human. He was often really cruel to Harry too.
There is a very, very good reason that Snape's character was changed: Alan Rickman is almost twice as old as Severus Snape in the books. Book Snape is one of the youngest teachers at Hogwarts, possibly the youngest. He's a hotheaded man who experienced tremendous suffering in his teen years and allowed that to embitter him. He's a genius with a lousy disposition so it makes sense for him to be hot-headed and emotional because of his age and past. Movie Snape appears to be about 50 years old. It would look very strange to see him shouting and carrying on.
Yes, hence the fact people make Snape out to be a sacrificial hero while in truth he was just a bully who treated kids like s**t for no reason at all. Hating Harry at first sight because he happens to look like James and bullying Neville because he wanted him to be the child of the prophecy and killed along with his parents.
@@trequor That's not a good reason at all to remove a character's flaws and essentially white wash them. Snape dies at age 38 in the books; his life has sucked and he died tragically young, and he was a complicated person. He's not the saint the movies portrayed him as - he's deeply flawed and even Dumbledore calls him out in the Prince's Tale for being selfish. The movies tried to make him lovable without remembering that Snape is a morally grey person yet also a bully.
The tragedy of movie Ron Weasley is that they made him into the very thing he feared the most: An irrelevant sidekick to Harry who couldn't stand on his own. In the books, this is a reoccurring theme, all the way up to the seventh when the Locket tries to manipulate his own fears about being less than his brothers and Harry. The movies didn't do him dirty, they did him filthy.
And in the books Hermione understandably panics when Devil's Snare is strangling Ron and temporarily forgets she's a witch. But in the film they have Ron be an idiot who won't relax so the plant will let him go and Hermione stays calm. So the bad film characterisations of "idiot Ron" and "Mary Sue Hermione who reacts unnaturally to situations in the name of "being strong" were in the films from the start. Bad writers don't understand that in real life many physically, mentally and emotionally strong people panic in stressful situations. Good writers with well written flawed characters understand that as well. The film writers apparently thought Hermione staying perfectly calm while her then friend and future boyfriend and husband was being choked to death and not screaming which anyone man or woman would do if picked up by Grawp was being a "strong woman." When really it made film Hermione come off as a cold sociopath.
@@Xehanort10 They were children at their first year of hogwarts as well, so it makes perfect sense that Hermione would start thinking of a mundane way of starting a fire that didn't involve magic. She has only been a witch for less than a year after all. Meanwhile, Ron's been born and raised in the magic world, so he doesn't have the same problem even as he's being choked to death.
And I love how Hermione got her own version of the line in book 7 where she and Ron are trying to get past the Whomping Willow and Ron wishes Crookshanks was there to press the button to turn the tree off. Hermione then shouts “Crookshanks! Are you a wizard or not!” That reminds Ron that he is magical. It shows that even the best witches and wizards have moments of panic.
In all honesty, most of the Weasleys aren't adapted well in the movies. Ron was made too derpy, Ginny wasn't the charismatic tomboy, Mr Weasley's intelligent and insightful side was dropped (except for that one scene in the Leaky Cauldron in PoA), Mrs Weasleys fearful insecurity of losing her children wasn't very present. Heck, even the twins (probably the best adapted of the Weasleys) are less whimsically rebellious and more bitingly mischievous in the books. And they have a stronger relationship with Ginny. Ron was my favorite character in the book, and he was robbed in the movies.
Percy Weasley and Bill Weasley were also basically cut from the series. Percy is in the first movie, but then makes brief appearances in the background of the fifth and last movies. Bill's even worse. I don't think they even mention in the movies that the wedding in the seventh movie was for Bill and Fleur.
I agree totally. I loved the Weasley's and the movies just didn't do them justice (or just didn't mention some at all) In a sense they were Harry's family from the beginning and each one of them shaped who he became as a person in their own unique ways. Its a shame the movies changed so much or left so much out about all of them. Also I have to say Ron was one of my favorite characters mostly because he was the realist of the group and the underdog who maybe didn't live up to Harry's fame or Hermione's intelligence but he proved his worth in the end.
I match the movies maybe ten times before I understand that percy was a weasley. He seems just like an older gryffindor. I thought Bill was just fleur fiancee because I missed the "this is my brother Bill" information.. When I read the books I was so amazed by the 3 older brothers that I didn't really known existed and angry that they ripped us of the amazing family the weasley are
Agreed! Ginny was an actual badass in the books, she took after the twins in the best way. She was so lame and plain in the movies that it seriously annoyed me that she ended up with Harry. Like it annoyed me so much
I feel so seen right now. You perfectly explained how I've felt about Hermione's character in the books vs the movies. In the books, Hermione is the smartest kid in school but is very naïve about the magical world (and a bit naïve in general, as a girl of that age should be). The scene where they get into the trap door protecting the sorcerer's stone and Hermione starts thinking like a muggle when faced with the devil's snare, is the perfect example of this. The movies robbed Hermione of this depth by just making her know everything. Changing the scene with the devil's snare was, of course, the worst offense in the simplifying of Hermione because I don't think any other scene portrayed her naivete as well as that did.
Also, book Hermione was smart enough to make Polyjuice Potion at the age of 12, but she was still head over heels in love with Lockhart and didn't want to acknowledge his incompetence, even when he made Harry's bones disappear.
Liz Bartlette yes she was one of my favourite characters. So disappointed how they portrayed her. She was a wild independent woman and smart. In the movies she is just blah
Ginny in the books was a seriously very powerfull and gifted witch. She knew "reducto" at her third year and was talented to the point she could give Bellaxtrix a run for her money.
Joy Byrne Ehhh.... I wouldn’t say smart. Easily strong willed and independent, definitely, but smart? Maybe on the emotional level, but other than that, I’d disagree. She’s still one of my favorite book characters tho :)
also can we just talk about how when Ron was gone in the book deathly hallows, Hermione was really upset. She would cry herself to sleep and stuff. Yet in the movies, when Ron is gone, Hermione and harry have romantic scenes, which confuse all viewers.
They weren't romantic, really. Just because a man and a woman dance, doesn't mean there's romantic feelings involved...they were/are really, really good friends.
@@mariefabre2105 Well, Hermione wasn't just "the girl" she was the heroine of the series. She and Harry both deserved the best. She married one of her bullies and he married someone that was damn near a non entity.
I have to say, I think JK Rowling kind of sold Ron short in the books as well. It’s pretty clear that Ron is very good at wizards chess and that means he’s a very tactical person. She never really built on that. Especially with the fact that they actually go to war.
Exactly! I would’ve loved to see Ron take charge in laying out strategies to the DA and OotP during the battle of Hogwarts like he did in the first book/movie as a way to book-end his character arc. Like it would have come full circle from being a strategical genius in chess to a strategical master in an actual battle. Maybe even throwing in some chess references while he makes his play. Harry = Bishop, Hermione = Queen’s Rook, Ron = Knight. Just my thoughts.
Ron is actually my favorite character. Even in the movies. He is a person. He has flaws. HES A TEENAGE BOY. He swears and is kinda lazy. Very relatable. He is also the youngest boy of his family. He doesn’t feel loved or noticed and he meets a friends who feels the same but in a very different way. Also Ronmione is perfect because they both teach each other such important lessons. All I can say is that Ron is a true Gryffindor at heart
Same! When I read the books as a child, I WAS Hermione. I was a not-so-pretty know-it-all who cared about her grades too much. She was the perfect surrogate character for me. But Ron was sooo likeable. He was witty, funny and so loyal.
I have to say, I think JK Rowling kind of sold Ron short in the books as well. It’s pretty clear that Ron is very good at wizards chess and that means he’s a very tactical person. She never really built on that. Especially with the fact that they actually go to war.
@@huyendang6731 ya and I think she’s like oh ya he’s who Harry would miss most, but we never really see so much between them. One of his character traits is that he has trouble because he’s over shadowed by everyone, but by the last few books, he is just overshadowed by the rest of his family!
I never liked Ron that much, then i read the books, found out he's my absolute favourite character. No doubt, no hesitation - he is the best and I will defend him till I'm dead. I absolutely hated what they did to his character in the movies. like I was so fucking shook when I was reading the books and realized "oh so they took all his best traits and gave them to either Hermione or Harry, well thats fucking great" Ron Weasley is my king, im out
I've never understood people's love of Ron, books or movies. I cannot forgive his attitude in Goblet of Fire when he won't believe Harry about not putting his name in. I would never have accepted Ron back as my friend if that were me, and I actually lost a bit of respect for Harry when he did. For as much as everyone hypes up his loyalty, he sure abandoned Harry real hard when Harry needed him. Which is odd given him following Harry into like 4 different life threatening situations over the previous three years. I also understand where the jealousy comes from, but anyone who betrays their friends that hard does not deserve to have them as friends. I don't care how many older brothers they have.
Matthew Pelletier he was just a 14 year old for gods sake and if you cant understand then ypu dont deserve a friend like him. He made a mistake and apologized. People make mistake and unless its sooo bad they deserve to be forgiven. Ron did one mistake and lots of good things. But for his one mistake he sould be not forgiven?
@@hannijr6120 Well it seems we find where you and I don't agree. I believe that what Run did was sooooo bad. He didn't just make a mistake, he basically called Harry a glory seeking asshole and left him to fend for himself in a life threatening situation that he got forced into. If I'm Harry, I don't forgive that, maybe ever. I might eventually, but I certainly wouldn't do it after one lame apology that wasn't even actually an apology. Ron never actually said that he was sorry. He admitted that he had been wrong, but he never actually apologized.
@@matthewpelletier6900 to be fair, Ron was kinda the forgotten child. Ginny was the little girl his mother had always waited for, Fred and George drew attention constantly with their pranks, and the older boys all were seen as great and respectable by Molly, she was very proud of them all. She loved Ron very much of course, but I don't feel like he had as much attention as the others. He was poor, and couldn't afford the same things as the other kids. And then he met Harry, and stayed in his shadow. He was a great friend and was always there for him even though he was never treated as a hero like harry was. And 14 is the age of teenage crises, and his emotions got the best of him. All I'm saying is, while he should have believed harry, it's understandable he snapped at one point. And though I love Harry's character, he didn't try to talk to Ron that much either after their fight. They were just two teenage boys being stupid, and eventually made up.
Matthew Pelletier he still tried to help harry. But i think you still forget that he was just 14 year old teenager. I think deep down he knew the truth.
27:55: "Ron's line ' WE thought you knew what you were doing,' as in he and Hermione, turns into 'I thought you knew what you were doing'" - I feel like the movies in general completely leave out how much of a team Hermione and Ron were sometimes. They were prefects together, they were the ones protecting Harry together, worrying about him all the time, talking him out of bad plans together when Harry had his angry teenage moments (which you barely see in the movies), they spent weeks together in Grimmauld Place in Order of Phoenix, before Harry was able to come. Then in book 7, Ron was there for her when Hermione changed her parents' memories, and all throughout the book until Ron's departure, the two act very couple-y already - holding hands, hugging all the time, etc. With the movies, people get genuinely confused when Ron and Hermione end up together, in the books it makes perfect sense.
@@caitlinpirrera6754 I’ve never understood any of the Harry Potter shipping at all, other than what’s in the books. What’s in the books for the most part makes perfect sense and is the only thing that would work for the characters, the way that they are. Especially anything with Draco Malfoy and any of the good characters, I’ve never understood that at all given that they all very much dislike him. I would assume that Harry and Hermione shipping idiocy comes from the movies, but not once in the books is there any hint to that in the slightest, so it’s dumb.
@@imperialinquisition6006honestly it's mostly to satisfy movie fans, who are actually shipping Emma and Daniel than Harry and Hermione, swap Emma Watson in Ginny's role, and the shipping would be all about Harry Ginny 😂😂😂
@imperialinquisition6006 All of the Draco shipping is because Tom Felton is attractive and charming. It's purely based on movie fans having a crush on him and being unable to separate Draco from Tom. Same for Snape and Alan Rickman.
You also forgot to add that in DHP1, they even had the AUDACITY to remove the actual dance scene Ron and Hermione have in the book at Bill and Fleur's wedding. Ron asks Hermione to dance with him, and she smiles in confusion. Krum gets annoyed and asks Harry if they are together, and Harry replies "Errrr...... sort of". It added to their developing love story and showed how much Ron has matured from his mistakes from fourth year. But in the deleted scene filmed, Krum and Hermione dance, while Ron has a pouty jealous look on his face in the background. It makes me so mad I swear the crew really had a thing against gingers.
I have to repeat it to people who didn't read the books, this scene never actually HAPPENS. While Ron asking Hermione to dance speaks volumes about his character development. He's no longer this teenager who asked her too late then freaked out because she went with somebody else, he's become more confident and doesn't want to make the same mistake. But hey, let's totally change it and throw Ron's development out of the window...
My son and I always joke that in the movies, Hermione's middle name is Hermoine Exposition Granger because she explains EVERYTHING even things that there's no way she should know more than Ron. He's the only one of the Golden Triad who has lived in the wizarding world exclusively.
Exactly! Like in the books he was the one who explained about Mudbloods, Purebloods, Slytherin etc. He knew so much from growing up in the wizarding world, stuff Hermione wouldn't know just from reading about it
And he is the one who knows about the DH before they do, but just didn't know it! I mean they had never even heard of Babbity Rabbity and the cackling stump!
Hermione was the only one of the trio who "really" studied, so I can believe that she knew more than Ron about magic world. If you noticed Ron know a lot about insignificant things like fairy tale and mud-blood. But he didn't show nothing really interesting or significant about magic world. So it is logical that Hermione know more then him, even if he raised in magic world. It is just like indian student in UK who studying history know more about UK than a British guy. But Hermione as we know, learn about everything so, who know more the person who study or those who not and just living? You can notice the Ron's really knowledge of magic world in the situation with Flamel where he didn't know nothing about him just like Harry and Mione, but he is "magic-born" so he should know.
The weasleys should have had answers and helpful add ons to everything though. Hermione studied the magical world, that's no substitute to actually being apart of the history. Telling me Charlie and the Twins, and all older siblings had not heard and researched the stories and conspiracies of their own world. Percy was a prefect, the twins knew the entire castle and grounds and had a penchant for knowing what was going on in the school at all times. Charlie is and works with some of the most weathered and traveled wizards and witches in the world. Bill works at fricking Gringotts, and Ron and Ginny are the younger siblings to all of them. Hearing stories. Imagine the late night conversations the weasley family had about he who should not be named or Harry potter. Molly not wanting to say anything and arthur giving little things up. Hermione shouldnt have had all the answers. if anything their should have been moments where Ron had to bring her out of her book brain and into the real world where its not actually so cut and dry always. Thats something i missed from hermione and rons interactions (not so much with harry). She doesnt have a grasp of the nuances of the wizarding world. SHes book smart. Book smart people are supposed to get wake up calls occasionally in tense situations not always have the answers.
@@PavelPavlovskyPP Ron's more like how people could tell you various football legends, game play-by-plays, and various other things, but couldn't tell you the origins of football (rugby to anyone else). Hermione could tell you the history of football, but wouldn't understand the appeal, or the nitty gritty of it.
It's annoying that Hermione knows more about the wizarding world and magic than Ron, and it's not easily explainable by saying she just reads more or is more studious, it simply doesn't make sense and seems forced. Ron grew up with wizard parents and siblings, his dad works in the Ministry. He should be the one teaching Hermione and Harry about the new world they found themselves in. Her constant "I read it in a book" is such a lazy explanation, and it makes Ron's family look like uneducated people who didn't teach their children anything or never left their house.
But that's only in the films, in the books it's obviously Ron who knows more, For the films, Steve Kloves had a Bias for Hermione, and much more for Emma Watson, so he did what he did for his "favourite" character.
@@RabiyaRavenclawI know, I know :) I was just describing how Ron was ruined in the films, that it doesn't even make sense to steal his lines and give to Hermione
The movies also almost never cover Ron's poverty issues. Like envying Harry for not even noticing a bunch of gold dissapeared from his pockets, plus the fact nearly everything he had belonged to an older relative.
The one scene I remember from the book is when Harry had a shit ton of gold in his vault, so he tried to hide the view from the Weasley's because he noticed they had very little and didn't want to embarrass them or make them uncomfortable.
also Ron got really obsessed that Harry didn't tell him about the vanished gold, showing that Ron is very proud and want to pay his deeds. i kinda liked that on him.
And scenes like how his yule ball robed were horrible got turned into comic relief in the movies. But in the books Ron was insecure but his friends supported him
@Imaru Lewis Lucius Malfoy doesn't have a job-he's old money. Arthur Weasley is less an MP and more a civil servant for a branch of the government that many of the wizard elites wish didn't exist.
@Imaru Lewis To build on what Michael said, Lucius plays a role similar to an American senator, but without the part where they do things outside of Congress. So he can vote on and propose laws, but doesn't have to make sure to be voted back in, because his power comes from the amount of money previous Malfoys amassed and Narcissa being a Black. On the other hand, the Weasleys don't have much old money because their family is a younger one, and (if I recall correctly) most of the power that they do have comes from the family that Molly married out of. Plus some influence from supporting the side that won in the first war against Voldemort. Combine that with Arthur working an underpaid government job and having to support more kids. That's why the Malfoys are so much more powerful despite them technically being of equal standing.
the movies made me so annoyed at hermione that i forgot why i liked her in the first place. hermione’s one of my favorites, and the movies made me despise her. it’s really sad honestly. (before you yell at me i like hermione a lot, i think she’s one of the best characters in the BOOK. movie hermione sucks.) they made her so out of character in so many ways tbh.
Ron was mean cause he was raised in a household of rowdy boys. Not til Ginny came along was there a feminine element, but even she learned to be rowdy to keep up.
@@margarettburns7544 but this video is about the difference between Ron in the films, he was meaner in the films than in the books so that doesn't justify it
@@finnyoungman2674 Harry was abused by his family without the knowledge that he could fight back. He was afraid that if he did he wouldn't have a place to go. On the other hand Ron grew up learning to fight back and fight for his own place in his family.
In the books, Ron was the character who was mentioned the most after Harry. And in the movies he is the character who stands most of the time in the background, few steps behind Harry and Hermione, like an unimportant side-character. The movies told us a story about a strong DUO, but the books told us a story about a strong TRIO.
I'm a zoomer so I read the Harry Potter books years after watching the movies. I was very surprised to find out that Ron is a completely different character in the books. The movies make it seem like he's the lovable idiot or the trio's pet, when in the books he was often the sane person who tried to keep Hermione and Harry from doing stupid shit.
Agreed. Rupert Grint did the best he could with what meagre characterisation he was given. Pretty much everything good about the movie version of Ron was due to Rupert Grint's sheer talent as an actor.
actually blame Steve Kloves he was an H/Hr shipper that he moved Ron to "goofball" so instead of it being about the Golden TRIO as a whole it was more "Harry/Hermione and their good friend Ron who they let tag along."
I absolutely agree. He brought life to Ron! RG could have easily fumbled his portrayal of Ron up, but he nailed his humor, mannerisms, and always was there for his friends. I mean, eve rut one forgets that when it came down to defending Hermoine's honor, he was the the one to step up to Draco. Despite whether it backfired or if it worked he was there for his friend. Harry woulda just stood there. Ron's always been there for his friends.
@Rachtop Actually, Rupert's doing really well for himself. He was nominated for a National Television award last year, has two series going on simultaneously (one of which he's also producing), and upstaged John Malkovich in the recent BBC adaptation of the Poirot novel 'The ABC Murders'. He actually has more projects going on than both Dan and Emma (the latter of whom averages only one project every two years). The only reason people rarely hear much about Rupert is that the American media have never been interested in him or his career. I'd argue he's actually got a better acting career than both Dan and Emma. Almost all the things he's in are really good, and he's usually the best thing in them in the small amount of times that they aren't very good.
Here's the thing. In the books, Ron is not a comic relief character. HOWEVER, he is absolutely a comedic character, a distinction that the screenwriters apparently weren't sophisticated enough to gather. He's a very funny person, with a lot of wit and jokes in him, but it rarely suggests that he's actually stupid. The limits of Ron's humour in the films is when we are supposed to laugh AT him because of how dumb he is, but most of Ron's humour in the books stem from his personality and the way he interacts with people. Experiencing him in the books is more like hanging out with a fun friend than anything.
Exactly, some of my favourite Harry-Ron moments in the books were them just having fun making snarky remarks during classes or when they'd be in the common room together comparing notes on their homework, taking the piss with silly predictions. I know the movies have only so much time to work with, but they cut out so much that actually shows the friends actually _being friends_
THIS! Book Ron is so quick, witty and funny. It's why Harry is drawn to his light-hearted personality and finds it so much fun to hang out with him after how miserable his childhood years were. He's so much more than just the butt of the joke.
@@30251 Yes, and the films do a crap job at showing how emotionally miserable Harry was when he and Ron fought in GoF and DH. In the films, he's all smiling with Hermione and you wonder why Movie Ron is a disposable garbage bag.
How much they screwed up Ron and Hermione's relationship. Book 1: it was him who successfully used the levitation charm. Hermione didn't show him the wand motion Book 2: he was ready to kill malfoy because he wished death upon her. He was so worried when she got petrified. Book 3: he defended her against snape for calling her an insufferable know it all. He offered her to help her with the buckbeak case even though he hated study and research. And Hermione hugged him and then she apologised. He made sure that she was eating properly. Book 4: Hermione's jealousy when Ron was swooning over fleur. Book 5: Hermione kissed him on the cheek to distract him from the weasley is our king song. Book 6: when dumbledore died she cried on his shoulder. And he comforted her. Book 7: when she told him that she modified her parents memory charm he comforted her. When the deatheaters attacked them in the cafe his 1st instinct was to push Hermione out of harm's way. He begged bellatrix to torture himself instead of Hermione. And his reaction to her screams when bellatrix was torturing her... it was unbearable in the book. He was sobbing and pounding his fists in the wall. Then his concern for the house elves brought that kiss. He remembered the house elves when Hermione herself had forgotten about them Not to mention in the books Ron gave Hermione SOOOOOOO many compliments. And the films didn't INCLUDE any of these. No wonder film watchers don't understand the pairing. And then they dumbed him down in favour of Hermione. Made Hermione a flawless goddess. Smh!!
@@xtzyshuadog they got caught up in everything leading up to the battle of Hogwarts that it was Ron that remembered they were in the castle and not Hermione IIRC
Nice list but you forgot: - Viktor Krum. That brought out HUGE jealousy in Ron, to the point it over rode his own fan boy love of him. - In fact, the whole Yule ball Ron obsessed over who was taking her etc. - How Ron would snap at her when Hermione would say something that may imply she liked Harry, which Hermione would hastily correct (pretty sure when Harry was talking about kissing Cho and Hermione reassured his kissing, Ron snapped something like “How would you know?”) - Ron would give her perfume etc as gifts. - When they were staying at Serious Blacks house, Harry would find them asleep next to each other with their hands almost touching, implying they fell asleep holding hands. Things the movie did well: - Awkwardness when the two were outside the Shrieking Shack at Hogsmeade - Rons jealousy at the Yule Ball/anger at Krum (no lead up tho) - They did include the perfume Ron gives her - They NAILED the way Ron looked at Hermione at Bill and Fleurs wedding. Also they ran to each other instantly when they became under attack. Ok, I have officially hit sadness level of Harry Potter Nerd now so Im good 😂
@@phantomdriver2010 It’s because Ron was the absolute fan-favorite before the movies and she wanted Hermione (who was not that popular at all in comparasion) to be more liked.
I prefer shy Harry than sassy Harry. It makes him more relatable. Harry wasn’t supposed to be an extraordinary boy, he is... just Harry. Making him be badass makes him kinda weird, as the point of the character is that he is a normal boy who is supposed to be extraordinary.
@@imdumbbut1681 but sassy is not necessarily badass. He was a boy who grew up in an abusive household where he was absolutely powerless, so talking back quietly was always his only way of getting some back. He had this dynamic with Uncle Vernon as he did with Snape.
@@DizzyBusy him taking shots at and talking over the head of the dursleys were the better parts of the books. It also showed that he was very impulsive risking peace over satisfaction
Ron really was done dirty. But one of the moments that really stood out to me in the books with Ron that doesn't really get talked enough about was the scene where they're at Hagrid's and Ron suddenly realized that the leprechaun gold he had given to Harry had disappeared. He asked Harry why he didn't say anything about it, and Harry told him honestly, "I had forgotten about it". And then Ron ultimately says "I hate being poor". To me, it really gave more depth to Ron's character, because he's usually witty, funny, and chipper and yet you always suspect that he has some insecurities he's trying to hide. But in that moment, idk it was just a profoundly vulnerable moment for him and it made his character more sympathetic like Harry. Speaking of whom, that scene in the book also showed a striking contrast between Harry and Ron. Harry grew up in an abusive, unloving household and even though the Dursleys deprived him of many material goods including his own proper bedroom for most of his childhood, he doesn't really care about material goods and all he's ever really wanted in life was a loving family (as the Mirror of Erised showed him). And the fact that Harry literally had a pocket full of gold at one point and just "forgot" about it really shows his lack of interest or concern for money that he has now that he has his parents' fortune. Ron, on the other hand, grew up with a large and (overall) loving family, but his family has constantly struggled to make ends meet likely for as long as Ron can remember (having had five older brothers go to school before him). I can't help but wonder if Ron sometimes felt like a burden to his family, an extra mouth to feed. Then in the second book, there's a scene where Ron is showing Harry his room and seems to be downplaying how his room is and making excuses like "It's not much but it's home" and then Harry finally says something on the lines of "This is the most incredible place I've ever been". Looking back, I can't help but wonder if Ron was making excuses and sort of downplaying how his home and room looked because to him he felt it was obvious his family was poor and he was slightly embarrassed. But to Harry, it was a place of family and love and magic. In other words, to him it was a home which automatically made it the most incredible place ever. Anyway, sorry for the long essay, lol. Just thought I'd share.
Yea that’s one of the reasons Book Ron is such an interesting and realistic character, because his feelings are very real and could easily be a real life event for someone else out there in the real world. Which is also why some people feel really uncomfortable with his character because it hits too close to home.
In book one, on the train, ron pulls out his corned beef sandwiches that his mum made him, and is embarrassed by it and says, to justify it to Harry, “she hasn’t got much time, you know, with five of us” this further shows him being embarrassed by his background, trying to seem less poor to Harry
Ron was a genius on a very different level.. he was tactically better than any of the rest of the group. He had effortless solutions... he generally knew what was needed, even if he didn't know the spell....The devils snare for example. He was of quick wit through the books unless he was doing his moody and jealous thing over Hermione and whoever was showing her attention. His whole family were quick on their feet.. and none of them were exactly unskilled.
@@BrownSugarBeauty91 In the films Harry became a bland generic hero character with no personality or character but "hero", Ron became glorified comic relief and Hermione became a flawless perfect Mary Sue.
@@Xehanort10 I don't think so, he does have a personality but it's adapted to a more subtle reactions and expressions, while in the books he is deservedly sassy and more forward, in the movies he is more reserved, awkward in a stiffed manner to some folks, the kind that is hard for folks to figure out types, I like both personally To say he doesn't have a personality just cause he's more reserved and not as loud to get your attention is kinda weird, I mean if he was just a hero type of personality he wouldn't have any reactions to anything
@SCP 096 To bad writers these days "female empowerment" means creating a woman character with no personality or character traits except "strong woman" thinking them showing no emotion except a constant frown is emotional strength, making them a flawless Mary Sue who's loved by all men and friends with all other women for no reason, instead of being shown they're strong we're just told they are while they show no physical, mental or emotional strength whatsoever. Even worse writers think portraying all men as stupid, crazy or evil makes the women look strong.
@@alexandersmith4731 it's not really that weird, harry wasn't JUST more sassy and forward in the books and nothing else, he was also more cold calculating and often-times ruthless This is why being questioned by the sorting hat if he belonged in Slytherin after all weighted so heavily on him This is also where most parralels between Lord Voldemort and him are drawn and why Dumbledore says he reminds him so much of him.Which is a bad thing!Beceuse the guy literally murdered his parents and wants to murder him, and his LITERALLY an autocrat. Of course it weights heavily on him beceuse Harry doesn't want to be like that.The movies could've used that and potray how without his internal monologue Harry looks even more badass and sinister , but they just went with HeS a SoFt Boi, who's polite and reclusive and not so straightforward as in the books and isn't he so much more ReLaTaBLe...like, they had an opportunity to create a layered and multi-faceted character and they just made Harry more introverted and vulnerable and soft beceuse thats apparantly how he looked like in the books yup totally...Those kids in 2,3,4,5 and 6th year suree did think he was harmless. Oh, wait is that giant bird over the casle?? Oh, no, it's just harry stealing a flying car and driving across the country to crash to Hogwarts. Haha, classic insecure,soft Harry...
They completely erase Harry's sense of humour. It's so tragic because snarky Harry is one of the main parts of his personality, in my opinion, it's largely why he nearly got sorted into Slytherin, and it's also the reason I love him so much.
Eh... I think he largely almost got sorted in Slytherin because there was a piece of Voldemort’s soul in him. He shared some of his characteristics. But snarky and witty, he definitely was.
They also erase Hermonie's flaws. She is at times way too stubborn ALWAYS has to be right and gets upset if she gets bested by Ron or Harry. The movies strip Ron down, make Harry boring, and Hermonie perfect
@@Phoenix-pm2qr 100%. And that flaw is one of the reasons I loved her as a character, because it's one of _my_ flaws, especially when I was the ages Hermione was in the books. While Hermione is more conscientious/studious, in many ways I'm similar, and so a lot of my identity and self worth was (and to a lesser degree, still is) tied up in my intelligence and knowledge, to the point that I have experienced and understand her being upset by things like being called an insufferable know-it-all or similar -- _or worse_ -- by a teacher. But as this video helps illustrate, movies have a bad habit of reducing characters to tropes or 2-dimensional representations of people. Part of it is the limitations of the form, versus books and television that have more time to develop characters, but part of it is that writing is hard and like most things, most of the people doing it professionally really aren't all that great at it. Of course, being under pressure to deliver something hurts any creative endeavor, too.
One of the only movies that I can see keeps Harry's very snarky sense of humour is Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, one of the movies where I feel he acts the most like a teenager
@@DarnHooligan thé ‘Harry!’ ‘sir!’ lines always crack me up. When he’s on Felix felicius I almost think that’s the closest he gets to how he was sometimes in the books lmao
Absolutely, I think this video described it well, though - some of Harry's flaws are not sharing his thoughts with anyone and letting anger or crazy thoughts build up in him, and that's difficult to communicate in a movie.
Honestly I feel like they made him look worse by either cutting some of his best moments, adding in completely out of character decisions, or (like they did to Ron) giving some of his iconic moments to Hermione (deciding to escape Gringotts on the dragon is one example). One thing that will always really irk me is that they left out pretty much everything that happened after the 3rd task in GOF. The end of GOF/beginning of OOTP is where we really see how much of a toll this life is taking on Harry mentally and emotionally. So when they cut out Harry's trauma at the end of GOF, it invalidates his outbursts and blatant trust issues in OOTP and people tend to view them as bratty drama-king-esque tantrums.
@@martaevabetakova483 Right? it was so aggravating. When I was reading the books I was constantly thinking (screaming in my head) that, if Harry would just share his thoughts, it would make his life so much easier. well, if anything, these conflicts made me power through the series for sure. oh jeez, I'm going o to have to go through the books again. :)
When I was young, reading the books I got a crush on Ron, the charming loyal brave and more down-to-earth person. Hermione was annoying in the books and not as beautiful - she had her swan moment on the ball in book 4 but still was annoying in her actions around Ron meanwhile. Harry was this depressed, dark, nerdy character who needed to learn a lot about life and friendships and trusting others. He had his moments of confidence when he rescued the day each book at the end or as part of Dumbledores Army but otherwise was very depressing, helpless in social situations and suicidal around his faith etc. I liked Ron, he was optimistic and awkward but kind and protective. He rescued Harry from his crazy family. He was good company for Harry, without him Harry would be a depressed bullied loner at school and nobody, including Hermione, would have talked to him.And without Ron Hermione would be bullied loner sitting in the library all day, always perfect grades.
When I was playing the LEGO Harry Potter games, my best friend and I were always fighting to NOT play as Harry, because we both didn't like him that much in the books (as you described him perfectly, he was moody and brooding). The loser had to play Harry in the levels in which one of the two players was a mandatory Harry^^
Ron was one of the first literary characters that made me literally laugh out loud. Harry *gets sent Firebolt in post anonymously* Hermione: Wait, are you going to fly on that ? Ron: Well what do you think he’s going to do with it? Sweep the floor? (Or words to that effect). I remember laughing so hard at that.
Also when he said “From now on, I don't care if my tea leaves spell 'Die, Ron, Die,' I'm chucking them in the bin where they belong.” Fuck, that made me laugh my head off.
What also sucks about the whole "if you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too" switch is that there's a whole parallel lost here. Ron protecting Harry is supposed to be a parallel for Sirius protecting James. If I remember correctly, there's reference to some kind of look passing over Sirius's face, and him saying something unusually kind to Ron (about sitting so he doesn't hurt his leg further, I think). Sirius, in that moment, is feeling all kinds of emotions because he's seeing himself in Ron, and wishing he, Sirius, had protected James better. The irony is deeper because Ron is also the one who was protecting/befriending/trusting Scabbers/Pettigrew when he shouldn't have been -- just like Sirius had, all those years ago. The movie loses this nuance because, for some reason, we needed yet another badass Hermione moment when she already punched Draco Malfoy in the face -- a move that was ALREADY movie-enhanced with the upgrade from heat-of-the-moment slap to cold, borderline-calm punch.
I'd never thought about the scene with Sirius in book 3 like that before, but you're right - there are a lot of parallels between Sirius and Ron. So interesting, thanks!
That actually would make the internal comparison from Harry in _Order of the Phoenix_ , between Ron and his father James, even stronger, as it makes me think of Ron especially, and in ways, Harry and Hermione, to have a sort of "spirit of the Marauders" but without the same baggage they had, differences from the old, but still having the best of it... I don't know a better way to put it, sorry.
Now I do love what they did to the punching scene and I wouldn't change that but I would like to point out how much they changed the scene, it goes farther then changing the line from Ron to Hermione In the book dog Sirius first goes for harry but Ron pushes him asside which allows Sirius to grab Ron's arm but in the movie he just takes him and skips Harry, there's nothing brave about it. Then in the shrieking shack, in the book, after Harry jumps on Sirius Ron and Hermione both join in on the fight which allows Harry to grab his wand and almost kill him, remember he has a broken leg. But in the movie Harry just defeats Sirius on his own which makes the scene much weaker.
Exactly, and it's not even something that you could say is reading into the subtext because even their Patronuses are meant to reflect Sirius and James. Harry's is a stag, James' Animagus form, and Ron's is a terrier, Sirius' Animagus form.
@@abbywolffe4114 Well, Sirius was more a general "feral dog", not a specific terrier, but in the same family so definitely a notable connection. I mean, after all, Moody turned Malfoy into a _ferret_ which is a type of _weasel_ and Draco is, however distantly, related to the Weasleys somewhere. A bit of meta jab at Malfoy being related to a "blood traitor" family that he derisively calls "Weasel" at least once.
What I'm most angry about is Rupert Grint. He's an amazing actor, his facial expressions and noverbal communication is just FANTASTIC. Just imagine what he'd be able to do with book Ron... We were robbed of an even greater performance than the one we got (because, let's be honest, his character was awful but the acting was certainly not).
This is so interesting to watch as someone who never read the books and fell in love with this series through the movies. I always loved Harry and hermione and I always felt like after the first couple of movies Ron was just kind of there. I should’ve known, having read many other series turned into movies that Ron was always a stronger character in the books! It shocked me to learn that a lot of the lines that hermione said were actually Ron’s, because a lot of those lines were why I loved hermione and Harry’s relationship - which of course would have made me love Ron and Harry’s relationship in the books and would’ve made my blood boil seeing it on screen. And it makes me mad finding out how much Ron stood up for hermione in the books whereas in the movies he would use those moments to be comic relief or use hermione as the punchline. It’s why I always felt like they would never work as a couple. I have heard the same about ginny, as I feel in the movies she is honestly a nothing character and cannot understand how she and Harry ended up together. But hearing from people how she was in the books I feel robbed of the character she could have been on the screen. In summary, I really need to read the books 😂
Another Thing how they ruined Ginny Weasleys character to push more for Harry and Hermione. Ginny is one of the best Female characters in the book and she is best for Harry. But Becoz the screenwriter wanted their own fanfic of harry and Hermione, they completely ruined Ron and Ginny Weasley. Pathetic!
I actually think thay made all of the Weasleys bad. They were more complex and interesting in the books. All of them starting from Arthur and Molly and with all the 7 kids.
Steve Kloves and David Yates shipped Harry and Hermione, so when they found out that in the books they are not the endgame couple, both Kloves and Yates took out their anger and frustration by destroying both Ron and Ginny
Actually Rupert has a flourishing career, he's been in movies and TV shows regularly, even while still doing HP. But I do agree that they made Ron look dumb in the movies (I'd blame the screenwriter more than the director) and it had a horrible impact on the story
Noelia Baccaro yeh his career has stated to grow a bit, but after Harry Potter he went off the radar for years, Daniel Radcliffe was so lucky to break the barrier of his role as Harry Potter
@@nbac26 also o think Rupert said that he is not that interested anymore in acting,he bought a ice cream truck and traveled a lot so there's that hahaha
@@Queotracosamariposa he's starred in three different TV shows in the past couple of years (Snatch, Sick Note, The ABC Murders) and he is currently starring in M Night Shyamalan's show Servant, so I'd say he's still quite interested lol He's kept himself very active professionally, but whatever he does is not covered by the media in the way Dan and Emma's careers are, that's why it seems he's not interested. It's actually the media not interested in him.
@@ape8887 Meanwhile Daniel is doing whatever he wants, like playing a farting corpse, Kylo Ren's roommate, a madman with guns stuck to his hands, a Playmobil spy, and Igor. He's at least having fun with it.
A great example of this, is in chamber of secrets, when Harry is hearing the bassalisk, in the book Ron states that "hearing voices isn't a good sign, even in the wizarding world." they then give this line to Hermione which doesn't really make too much sense for Hermione to know that over Ron
Also, If i Remenber Well, The Line "If you want to Kill Harry, You have to Kill us first" was Originally from Ron but in the Movie Hermione was the one to say
I know this has nothing to do with Ron but the same thing happened when they gave Hermione a Dumbledore line, A DUMBLEDORE LINE!!! "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself"
I love how book Ron was always ready to fight. He’s is a Ride-or-die friend and he is so amazing. Him saying “if you’re gonna kill Harry you have to kill us too” while struggling to stand kind Of proved that for me. he mostly needs to be held back from attacking people (mostly Malfoy). He comes from a wizarding family and uses his fists more than magic to fight.
He also almost attacked _the Minister of Magic_ when Scrimgoer seemed ready to attack Harry. That one blows me away every time. _That's_ standing up for your friend!
@Balanc-Joy918 that's one think I like about the Weasley family in general, even with Arthur being in the ministry himself it seems they all have a disregard for bureaucratic authority. Even Arthur enchanted the car. That's not exactly legal...
Ron in the movies: *stands around and looks at the dungeon* “we have to do something” Ron in the books: “You can have me! Keep me! HERMIONE” *sobbing as he’s hitting the walls and trying to get to her*
In the Deathly Hallows, I almost totally understood why Ron left. I could really put myself in his shoes and feel that paranoia, betrayal, and hopelessness. In the movie it felt more like a hissy fit.
It WAS a hissy fit. Ron abandoned Harry for the *second* time when he did that. Why isn't anyone giving Harry some credit here? Ron abandons him, and he welcomes him back with open arms. And Ron said in the book because Dumbledore gave him the lighter that brought him back to Harry and Hermione, that Dumbledore always knew he was going to leave. But Harry, being awesome, says, "No, he always knew you were going to come back." And yeah, of COURSE being in that situation would be extremely hard! And Harry REPEATEDLY said before they left that neither of them were required to come with him. But they INSISTED. Edit: Ok, "abandoned" is the wrong word. More like briefly left, maybe...?
@@anusritineogi3168 well, ya gotta point... Even through all my ranting, I actually quite like Ron. It's just that he abandons Harry *twice,* and is extremely jealous.
@@Tzimisce25 look, I get Ron. I see where he's coming from. I'm just pissed he thinks that Harry's famous for "defeating" Voldemort as a baby, (and the only known person to have ever survived an Avada Kedavra curse) while Harry looks at it that he's famous for watching his parents get murdered. I'm also pissed that he abandons Harry twice. But, overall, I like Ron.
I don't remember Harry being that dumb in the books... I remember him being fairly intelligent, if emotionally stunted and easily led by those in authority, likely due to the systematic abuses in his childhood. I mean, he only really slacked off in school when Ron was there, otherwise he did his classwork and managed to have decent grades.
i completely disagree, to me its a pain to watch hp4 for exemple because of how unbearably dumb harry became in the movie, its too annoying... harry in the books is not exceptionally smart but he gets on alright on his own, and has some talents. the movie harry is just stupid and dull
It's like they gave Ron all the flaws! He's a lovely character, really. If I could, I'd turn back time and fix the script along with y'all and fix the character development.
Harry: "Gosh I wonder what monster could be hidden in the school by the snake man with a snake on his banner that loves snakes? Hmm maybe it's a spider?"
Harry: "Gosh, I wonder who wrote these additions to my books, a shame I haven't been looking at this exact handwriting on the board in Potions class for several years"
If you ever watched “avatar the last airbender” Ron is like Sokka where hermione is like Katara. They are both genius and talented but their intelligence is different. They both have what the other is missing so compliment each other as a perfect couple. Ron has a kind of heat of the moment-think outside the box, resourceful-brave intelligence, and hermione pure knowledge and ideas. Ron contributes a lot to plans and the groups strategies . I wish the movies did paint him as more than a gag. His character is one to be admired by all.
@@vondonstrut218 The movies are deeply divisive. The books have just a lot packed into them - hundreds and hundreds of pages packed with world-building, character development and whatnot. The first two films hold up to the books - they portray Ron as brave and strategic (the chess scene or his part down in the CoS) and Hermione more like the annoying know-it-all (she has more breakdowns over little things, makes the cat-hair mistake, has a crush on Lockhart). But in the later, longer books there was so much going on with so many characters that all had some complexities and more plot so that the film team streamlined things by massively simplifying Rons and Hermione's characters.
The babbity rabbity line is actually not an isolated thing. Part of rons character is that he's lived his whole life in the wizarding world, and has a bit of culture shock every time he realizes something he's taken for granted as common knowledge his entire life needs to be taught to harry and hermione. It's a subtle thing that helps the wizarding world feel more real and lived in, and cements his role in the group as the one who shares things like that.
And I would not call that reaction that far fetched. I have no idea where I first read or heard of hänsel & gretel or expect everyone to have read the borthers Grimms collection, but I am quite surprised if anyone tells me they don't know the story because of course everybody knows (no they don't).
Weasley is our King In the books, he stood by Harry in almost everything. In the movies, he was constantly being comic relief and blundering. That's why we all book fans sing Weasley is Our King
In the books, his whole family was a riot (especially how they interacted), they were witty, cool-headed, and I always felt like they could lighten any situation. But in the movies, instead of being witty and making the joke, Ron IS the joke and rather than laughing because he’s brightening a dark situation, we’re laughing at his incompetence, which isn’t worth the sacrifice of his character
the humour, or lack of it, in the movies is one of the things that bothered me and could've been easily avoided. Insted of making those lame, superficial jokes, that aren't even that funny, they could've just maintained the book one's. They're so many and from so many different characters. They wanted to give the audience the feeling that things were getting serious, but that doesn't mean you have to completly take the humour and colour (let's not talk about that!...) out of the story. Regarding humour and Harry's characterization book to films: as they made Harry this calmer less flawed version of his book-self thay also took his humour, which was dark and sarcastic. Once again, they white-washed him
@@troson8732 People actually laugh at Ron being butt of the joke? Seriously? Even years ago to my untrained eye seeing ron act like a complete buffon is dreadfully boring, I never even recognized that was supposed to be a joke.
Ron was someone I actually quite liked in the book. He had street smarts and a blunt, honest attitude. Movie Ron? They replaced his character with an oaf whose sole existence is lifting other characters up. Ps: "beige dishragification" is a term I'm borrowing
@@rorrim0 Yeah. Exerting the slightest effort to do anything takes away all of game Ron's energy. In the Chamber of Secrets game he was 12 going on 112.
Not only did the movies fail to do Ron justice and most of the times made look him and Harry helplessly dumb, but they also made Hermione almost unbearable, impossibly smart and capable of everything. I know people that didn’t read the books and simply find her annoying and I can perfectly get it. How could a flawless character ever be relatable? It might have seemed a good idea, in the early ’00, to show a strong female role model for little girls to look up to, but how could ever in this world a screenwriter want to write a flawless, impeccable character? This seems incredibly stupid to me like, is Kloves actually a professional or an amateur screenwriter? It would have been nice if the fans of the movies could have had the chance to appreciate her character despite her exuberance, pride and her being tactless and lacking of empathy at times.
Fast forward to 2023 and almost every female character in TV a movies are Hermione-esque. No faults, strongest, smartest, bravest, no character arc or trials to overcome and be changed by.
JKR: "Who couldn't love Ron!" Who? Well, apparently the screen writers, the directors.... and ultimately, his creator. Seems that a lot of people had little love for the earthy, loyal, smart Ron in the books. They collectively went for the easy movie trope, the dumb comic sidekick. And the movie lost a lot of potential for doing so.
Exactly. As I've written elsewhere, to this day, JKR feels, rightly or wrongly, that Hermione, or at least her archetype, is still underrated. As she said in 2014 during Wonderland: “You don’t see a lot of Hermiones in film or on TV except to be laughed at… The intense, clever, in some ways not terribly self-aware, girl is rarely the heroine and I really wanted her to be the heroine. She is part of me, although she is not wholly me.” So she feels, consciously or subconsciously, the need to prop Hermione up. To give her a fairer shot in fiction. The Potter series was becoming, with each book out, increasingly a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, coinciding with the rapid growth of the Internet. And in that context, it was a now-or-never chance to redeem Hermione’s archetype. And that’s why the narrative is so slanted towards her. In 2011, for instance, she said, discussing her first meeting with Kloves, that “Ron’s so easy to love”… the unspoken follow-up of what she’s saying is “…and Hermione’s so difficult to love”. It is therefore the case, looking at the interview excerpt I posted above, that between the three members of the Trio, she thinks that Ron is the most easy to love. This is why in 2005, she admitted to being “uncomfortable” by the mere concept of Ron bashing. That whole idea perplexes her, because for her Ron is already seen as great, whereas Hermione isn’t. She understands why Hermione is not liked. Which is why, at least for her, it is Hermione, and not Ron, who needs to be propped up by the narrative… to get more people to appreciate a character like her. Only problem is, she may have overcompensated. Because as she has admitted, she has never reread her books… and so probably thinks that we’re still in the 1997-2000 era of fandom. And I wonder whether if she actually went ahead and spent a substantial time in the fandom (particularly among the fans of the movies), to find that many people actually seriously think the inverse, that Hermione’s great and easy to love, and Ron’s the worst and difficult to love; and discovering that this bias against Ron is simply ingrained in the fandom, rather than hearing about a second-hand account from two canon-loving interviewers (Emerson Spartz & Melissa Anelli) about a handful of rabid Harry/Hermione shippers… I wonder whether she would see the Frankenstein she inadvertently created.
@@ethancoffey3491 the point is actually pretty dead on. The Frankenstein is only wrong because Frankenstein is the doctor. The more accurate analogy is that she didn’t realize she’d become Frankenstein and Hermione was her monster.
@@stefan4159 Because Rowling is self-obsessed. She wrote Hermione to be a reflection of herself, including her perceived strengths and weaknesses. She protected the shit out of her like she was the Razor’s Edge, and any criticism of the character is essentially self-deprecation. A similar thing happened in her terrible, disgusting transphobic detective novels where the girlfriend/secretary is a one-to-one self insert.
10:00 - "You asked us a question and she knows the answer! Why ask if you don't want to be told?" I don't think I'll ever forgive them for cutting this line from the movie. This line not only showed Ron willing to stick up for Hermione in a very public setting (one of the many ways that he showed he cared for her), but it also showed Ron being brave enough to confront *Snape* head-on, in the middle of class, in front of *all* his peers, and say what essentially everyone (including the readers) were thinking. But no. Instead we get Movie Ron agreeing with a *teacher* who is blatantly bullying a *student* just because she's smart and isn't afraid of showing it. 😒
you didn't really read that chapter enough if you only remember that line, he was angry at Snape for what he said but the chapter also said he called her the same thing on occasion. it just showed that he was kinda a hypocrite and he risked making things worse when he could have reported his behavior instead
@@aaron75fy I'm sure reporting Snape did a ton for students lol I always thought it was so weird how Dumbledore had to have known how shitty he was and still let him teach young kids
@@HufflepuffShortie not to Dumblebore, I doubt he does anything without an agenda. I mean to the ones above him, I'm sure if pressured parents would talk to the board of governors about shoddy teaching. it has a better chance of doing something than getting detention
@@aaron75fy I really don't agree with your reading of Ron's intent. I didn't see hypocrisy in the narration mentioning that Ron called Hermione a know-it-all often at all. I read it as just a friendly insult without genuine maliciousness behind it and an early indication that Ron really cared for her that much that he'd impulsively try to defend her honour from a teacher he was intimidated by. The fact that the narration specifically says "he calls her a know-it-all twice a week" right before the line of dialogue when he stands up for Hermione was supposed to directly show us that while he might casually throw the phrase around Hermione himself he didn't really mean it since he got pissed when someone else with malice directed it at her. Remember, this isn't Movie Ron, this is Book Ron; Book Ron isn't stupid.
@@fulldisclosureiamamonster2786 look I don't really care about whether you agree or not, the fact is there is a line in a latter book where Ron said "if I ever insult you again" to which Hermione actually said "then I know you're back to normal" which literally indicated he never stopped. you can read that any way you want but the fact is Ron and Hermione as a couple was shoddily written and if the event happened in real life with the same personalities they would not WORK! even Rowling admitted that was an error in judgment and if you can't trust the author who can you trust?
For me Rupert was the best actor out of the 3, the way he showed his emotions in his facial expressions made us understand his thoughts, while book harry a lot of times looks grumpy the movie harry never does, and I don't know if this is the scrip fault or because Daniel couldn't show complex expressions, and the same goes for hermione, because I didn't like Emma's version of Disney Belle, she didn't change the way of playing hermione, it seems like she was playing the same character.
I think Daniel can act out complex emotions and Harry's flaws, but for the sake of it being a classic 'hero story' movie, they cut it. The hero is the one who is a blank canvas so we can all see ourselves in him, a lot of the times his 'hero-ness' defines him. A lot of stories have similar lack of personality in their main characters: Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Bella Swan. But because they are bland, we can all project ourselves onto them. And this idea goes back to writers like Victor Hugo, who wrote an amazing story about the Three Musketeers from the perspective of the guy who just accidentally walked into the plot. Harry is this kind of character in the movies. It's a comercial decision.
@@MissBentuy I expressed myself wrong, Daniel wasn't very good while he played harry but after the saga ended, he played a lot different characters and he improved a lot
Woah, pretty late but I have to add one thing to the fight and Ron leaving. I feel like many people forget about it but when Ron left, he immediately felt better without the horcrux and wanted to come back but he was caught by snatchers and by the time he came to where they were staying Harry and Hermione had left. Then he went to Bill and Fleurs where he used the deluminator to get back. Plus he also went once in between where he couldn't get in because of the enchantments but Harry had heard some rustling and left early.
Ron it book 1 to Hermione: ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT? Hermione to Ron in book 7: ARE YOU A WIZARD OR NOT? They are so perfect together and you can't convince me otherwise.
@@mayacrod Ron didn’t have to die. Why would killing him off be the alternative it doesn’t make any sense. Honestly, pretty much all of the relationships in the books lack chemistry if you ask me. Clearly romantic subplots are not J. K. Rowling’s forte.
Ron at Malfoy Manor *In the movie:* Hmm kinda sucks here *In the book:* HERMIONE! HERMIONE *In the Stephen Fry audiobook:* *HEEEEERRRMMIIIIIIIOOOOOOONNEEEEEE!!!!! HHHHEEEEEEEEEEERRRRMMMMIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNEEEEEEE*
Book Ron: is a lovable street smart dude Book Hermione: is a nervous know-it-all Movie Ron: Annoying idiot Movie Hermione: unflawed, boring, pretty girl They took Hermione's flaws and Ron's strenghts and just scrapped them.
I'm convinced some of the filmmakers in later films thought Emma Watson would sleep with them if they portrayed Hermione as the most perfect person in the universe.
Guys, hes a literal chess genius even by Wizard standards. Theres a reason why people long thought Dumbledore was a timetravelling Ron back in the book-only era.
It upsets me that they made Hermione perfect so she would be a "better role model" when the reason I love and look up to her is because she isn't perfect! The golden trio (+Ginny) are honestly my favorite characters because they all have something I relate to and they're just realistic teenagers who have been put in a crazy situation. Harry is funny but hotheaded. Ron is compassionate but insecure. Hermione is intelligent but socially awkward. Ginny is fun but sometimes brash. They all have an equal amount of positive and negative traits. That's why they're all interesting characters who I look up to. Too bad the movies couldn't understand that. EDIT: It was honestly difficult for me to get through this video having to see the movie clips of Ron being massacred, since he's my favorite character. I'm so happy you understand how wonderful he is.
@@piretiris8223 I was referring to Fleur. Then again, I think Ginny had good reason to dislike her because Fleur insulted their home and status. My point being is that Ginny isn't afraid to be rude, at least to people who deserve it.
I personally don’t like book Ginny or book Ginny really all of the female characters in hp except for the adult woman (Molly, McGonogall, exc) Luna, and Hermione
Something that has to be considered is time crunch. All 8 movies are about 20 hours of screen time. I imagine most people took more than 20 hours to finish the first book. It doesn't necessarily mean they didn't understand them, but there's not nearly as much time for characterization, and in absence of that, many things don't make a lot of sense.
@Shajida Islam I...kinda disagree. An adaptation should be able to stand on its own without having to rely on knowing what happens in the source material. And not getting the characters and the story right is one of the biggest no-nos of any adaptation.
@@johnxavier272 That's what I thought was going to happen in that scene. The way that scene is it seemed like had the Death Eaters not attacked the Burrow Harry and Ginny would have gone upstairs and fucked.
Ron assuming Harry & Hermione knew about beedle the bard makes sense. It's just like someone moving to a different country & fitting in really well. Over time people stop thinking about explaining things to them if they haven't needed to for years. And most of us automatically assume the things we've known since we were toddlers are universal, until we stop to question it
Really? In the books Ginny was mostly a invisible Fangirl in most of the books, barely in the narrative, in Half Blood Prince and The Deadly Hallows she become a Mary Sue, everyone tell Harry how awesome she was, how beautiful she was, how great Quidditch player she was, but never actually show it. The only thing that they did change is give her more screen time, but other than that she is nothing more than a Fangirl like in the books.
@@TheKeyser94 Ginny did get a rocky start, but once she got out of that awkward middling phase, she became this sassy, sarcastic, and strong tomboy. She would needle Ron, play pranks with Fred and George, and if memory serves, she even called Harry out on his bullshit at one time.
@@Mothman_In_a_T-Pose Really? You know that because she actually is describe in the narrative doing that or because everyone else tell Harry how awesome she is? I think that is the latter on, not project yourself in a blank slate like Ginny.
@@TheKeyser94 Tone down the aggression, yeah? If you reread the books, Ginny has always had an undercurrent of inner strength. In the early books, that was overshadowed by her crush on Harry. As soon as she let go of that and moved on, Ginny came into her own as a character. I'm not saying she is the best written character, but she is honestly nothing like the insecure, limp-spined girl in the movies.
@@Mothman_In_a_T-Pose If you read the books, you would know that she barely existed in the first five books, and the last two books her feats were tell by third persons, because Rowling forgot the rule, show not tell, and because Ginny is basically a Mary Sue, anyone can project whatever stupid belief of the character they have into her, that what you are doing now, projecting.
Yeah, also one litle thing. In the movies no one reacted at Malfoy's comment, but if I remember clearly in the books Fred and George have almost beaten him up. (They didn't, but wanted to)
Ikr? I always wondered why people describe Hermione as this witty, sarcastic , popular pretty girl. She was a bookworm who was kind of a bossy know-it-all but loyal and clever and brave at the end of the day, but she was in no way social. She relied on Harry and Ron as her only friends. If she had any close friends outside of the two of them she wouldn't need Ron to explain what a mudblood is to her. She would already know from her social life what mudbloods and purebloods are Ron didn't tell either her or Harry that beceuse by not telling them he was trying to shield them from having to deal with the fact that some people might want them dead beceuse of who they are(their blood status)
It makes more sense in the book because Ron had grown up in the magical world and hated pureblood supremacists like the Malfoys who thought purebloods were better than Muggle borns and half bloods. The Weasleys were the good kind of purebloods who knew it didn't matter because purebloods, Muggle borns and half bloods are all witches and wizards anyway. Hermione on the other hand had only been in the wizarding world for a year or two at the time of Chamber of Secrets. The writer Steve Kloves who had a Hermione obsession justified Hermione already knowing what a Mudblood was by saying she read it in a book. I highly doubt there was a "Magical Slurs" book in the Hogwarts library or anywhere else. Yes Hermione loves reading but not everything she knew came from books. There are some things you can't learn from books. "She read it in a book" was just a lazy Kloves excuse.
I knowwww, I’m always greatful that Harry Potter book to movie adaptation was not crucified like a lot others are (see: Percy Jackson), and I try to not have unrealistic standards but it really does hurt, the missed opportunity of showing Ron as he was :(
Blk Barbie honestly a small part of me wishes the Harry Potter movies were ABSOLUTELY terrible because then, like the Percy Jackson fandom, everyone would have read the books...
Update & Corrections:
🍏 I pronounced library wrong.
🍏 It's splinched not squinched.
🍏 I was wrong about the Babbity Rabbity line it's in the books. I might think it's silly, but he says almost the same thing for similar reasons.
🍏 Wowowow over a million views. Thank you so much! Don't forget to subscribe. (If you wanna... 😳)
I would love to see a video about ginny. Subbed and liked
You also miss pronounced the summining spell
@@lahlybird895 summoning*
@@piingufps Right
This was a great video. Thanks so much for your efforts. I hope to see more!
Movie : laughing at Ron
Book : laughing with Ron
Yep pretty much
YES!
Well said!😂
mmmmm laugh at or with thats were bullying starts
@@jimbo5973 I read the first line in Snape's voice
It killed me so much that Ron's reaction was so mellow in the malfoy manor. Book Ron lost his shit and was constantly banging the walls my dude.
Hermione's torture was also way toned down in the movies. It kinda ruined Bellatrix's fear factor tbh. Like in the movie they just roughed her up a little, but in the books they straight up Crucio'd her over and over. Ron's raw reaction to hearing her screaming her head off in the books was genuine and horrifying.
@@jennaleclaire2654 I read that Hermione's torture scene was originally around 20 minutes longer, but was cut down because it was deemed so disturbing that it would have given the film an R rating, which the studio didn't want. Shooting that scene was also very emotionally and mentally taxing on Emma Watson, so they didn't want to film anything too potentially harmful. While I agree that Ron's reaction should have been more explosive and raw, I understand why the torture scene turned out the way it did.
Movie writer clearly shipped Harry Hermione to the detriment of every character including them.
In the films you'd think Hermione was a random girl Ron had just met being tortured not his girlfriend.
exactly!! like that scene in the book made me love Ron even more, but in the movies its like.....
I wanna throw out here that Rupert Grint did a decent job with what he had.
I feel like Rupert gets overlooked a lot when talking about the Harry Potter cast. Hell, Come Fly With Me even made a joke about it by having someone hand Rupert a screen play saying that they wanted it to go to a talented actor and could he please pass it along to Daniel.
He got shafted by unfortunate changes to his character. It shows talent that with what they did to Ron he only comes across as an oafish twat as opposed to a complete dickhead
He did a splendid job. If it were someone else, I think I wouldn't be able to stomach movie Ron.
More than decent * amazing*
Scherazade , Teller of Tales he did an amazing job the writers just messed up Ron in the films
Rupert Grint has such an amazing "Harry Potter" name.
I hate how people take Hermione's side in the Scabbers seemingly being eaten by Crookshanks argument because like, hello??? This is Ron's pet who has been in his family for AGES. He's known Scabbers for forever and suddenly his friend's cat supposedly eats his PET and she just tells him to get over it? I feel like people overlook this because we learn that Scabbers was in fact a bad guy but like, Ron didn't know that!! Yeah I'm totally on Ron's side, especially because all he wants is an apology.
Yeah, Ron was definitely the more reasonable one in that argument.
I think it also may the bias that people like cats and not rats. Rats are typically seen as vermin.
Also, to be fair, cats chase rats. Cats are free roaming for most owners. Ron should be keeping his rat in a safe container. They have unbreakable charms, the cat won't get in if Ron were a more responsible pet owner.
@@kaylar.8126 ...now that you've said that, it seems like the most obvious solution in the world. I can't believe I've never... well, I never thought about how Ron was keeping Scabbers contained when he wasn't present at ALL.
I think the bigger problem is that with it being Peter you retroactively hate the rat and wish crookshanks did kill him. As a kid I kinda thought crookshanks had that magical familiar intelligence and he somehow knew scabbers was Peter, which isn’t helped by the weird scene where he pushes the knot in the whomping willow to get through the passage. That in particular felt like foreshadowing that was never followed up on.
@@kaylar.8126 I get where you're coming from, but why should Ron have to add extra protection when his pet should be safe in his room where Crookshanks really should not be able to get into? I don't think cats should be that free roaming that they can go into other people's spaces like that. If Crookshanks did live in the same room as Ron that would make more sense, but yeah I feel like Hermione should've kept Crookshanks from going into rooms he shouldn't.
"She's not an effortless genius; she's a genius through effort" I absolutely love that
thinking about it like that, it's no wonder she was upset when they canceled exams...think of how long she must have studied for them...for that to go to waste..
I didn't; it's a misuse of the word genius.
@@ergot1803 I'm pretty sure that she knew her use of the word wasn't completely accurate. Its stated to get a point across
@@pageturner72 But how does her intention and knowledge relate to me not enjoying the quote due to the misuse? Her intention and knowledge about the word do not change the fact that this is a misuse of the technical term of genius. This technical mistake, be it intentional or unintentional, ruins the quote for me personally.
Also: how can you be "pretty sure" about that when the word is commonly misused as synonymous with extraordinary intelligence? How can you be "pretty sure" she is aware of this distinction? The entirety of the quote suggests that she isn't, as no one can become a genius through mere effort, but no potential genius actualizes their genius without effort, and no genius is a genius through excelling at school, for a genius is a genius through creativity enabled by divergent thinking, conscientiousness, and extraordinary intelligence, not through memorization and learning, which are the results of mere intelligence and conscientiousness - the use here is a complete negation of the technical definition of genius.
I am not saying she necessarily isn't aware of this distinction; but, seeing as her usage and the common usage suggest the contrary, how can you be "pretty sure" she is aware of the distinction?
@@ergot1803
I did not like the quote at first when she said it either. I understand that it is annoying to see words such as genius being used incorrectly but it is also important to understand that to some degree the content and message that the quote is sending is valid even if the word use is not.
Usually when I dislike a quote i consider the context it was used in. This is why the original commentor said s/he liked the quote. Because s/he spotted the parallels between the quote and the story of harry potter, and the way that hermione identified with one definition of genius. Regardless of whether the word was used correctly, it works in the context it was used in and sends an interesting message to some people. The original commentor was not saying that s/he disliked the quote because of its word use, but because of the message it was sending.
You are absolutely not obligated to enjoy the quote. I never said this. But the original commentor was judging this quote when it was used in context. You judged it out of context. Thats why i tried to point out to you that the creator of the video most likely understood that she wasnt using the word in the completely correct way, but was using it in context so it made sense, and to some people it sent a pretty interesting message. You judged the quote based on it's content, you looked at it very objectively, judging whether the word usage was correct rather than whether the message the quote was sending was correct. That's nitpicking. You're pointing something out that is likely obvious to most people. Your opinion is not as uncommon as you may think.
Now, if you had said that you disliked the quote because you didn't believe hermione to be someone who gained her intelligence through effort, where you were disagreeing with the deliberate message the phrase was conveying, then that would have been understandable. But disliking the quote for its word use? That seems like you don't dislike the quote itself but rather the manner in which it was conveyed.
The biggest thing I think is the problem with Hermoine stealing Ron's line of "If you want to kill Harry you have to get through us," is that Ron did this while standing up with a broken leg. That's is massively huge in the realm of his loyalty to his best friend, and it was stripped away because Hermoine was given all the bad ass scenes and Ron was left as a pathetic sidekick.
I really need to read the books 😅
@@magnus5747 Read them. But do obliviate the BS films from your mind.
The Weasleys in the books are a different BEAST. Harry is super sassy and more proactive.
And Hermione is more realistic and flawed.
Draco and Snape are total assholes who do just one good thing instead of being the sympathetic misunderstood cinnamon rolls.
You're really be astounding how different GoF and HBP books are.
@Seth Williams almost ;) Phoenix
Hermione’s delivery of the line just sounds bad too. Not that Rupert necessarily would’ve done it better but still. It’s another drop in the bucket I guess
@@magnus5747 if you havent read them already i will warn you, you will be VERY disturbed by snapes behavior given Alan Rickmans, amazing, but different portrayal of the character.
If Rupert Grint had been given the chance to play "Book Ron", he would've been, by far, my favorite character.
The Parents Are Dead moment is a pretty good moment tbh
@@turkishundelightful5382 he was the best actor out of the three imo, I wish they made his character like this books bcs in the books he’s my favorite
Book Ron is a different animal but the same beast, not even comparable to movie Ron (🤮)
I would have payed several movie tickets to watch that movie. And it would have added depth to all three of them.
Both ron and ginny were ruined
Now im convinced the movie makers hate the weasleys'
One that irritated me the most was actually the fight with the troll in book one. Book Hermione was so scared and out of it but Ron remembered the levitating spell and made the judgement himself, beating the troll. But movie Hermione was so confident and cool headed despite almost dying and had to remind/urge Ron on the levitation spell. I really hate that.
The "stronk and brave" trend started a long time ago...
Goblet of Fire when Moody shows up and Ron mentions him.Hermione says Alastor Moody the auror. Like why would Hermione know the names of the aurors. Or the battle at Gringots books it was Harry's idea to take off on the dragon, but of course movies was Hermione. One of the few things that bothered me.
@@rubyanne4909 Hermione already feels like some overpowered self-insert in the books, even though Rowling had the sense to give her SOME flaws. The movies just make her the true main character, like she could do everything in the story by herself AND better without the biggest idiot from the books (Harry) and the biggest moron from the movies (Ron).
The effect, I heard, is called Flanderization. It happens in almost every single TV show and most, if not all, movie franchises. It means the writers focus on one tiny quirk of a character and make it procedurally larger and larger until it becomes their only trait. Hermione is smart and talented, so that's all she is. Ron feels (and most often is) inferior so let's make him inferior in every aspect. It just makes the side characters easier to write, it makes them require less screen time and makes the team of 50 mediocre writers able to focus on the protagonist that they want to focus on. But actually, in Harry Potter movies the focus is shifted from the characters to events and scenography (like that ball scene, like the start of the year feast, like the ministry battle with slow motion) because there is a lot of those to adapt. It works in its own way, with people being amazed while looking at Quidditch matches and wand staring (when people battle and the light between wand shows up and who stares the loudest wins). The drawback is that the characters and the story get changed, simplified and stop mattering.
yeah her shouting "swish and flick" wasn't in the book if i remember and it was kind of neat because the callback to the argument they had earlier was just obvious and we were like "they just kind of had a moment"... the narrator mentions he's packing or whatever and then he just blurts out "wingardium leviosa"
Yeah, it made me question wjy she didn't do it herself... heck she had the time mimic the wand movement.
Girl, if you have to lecture someone how a spell works do it yourself!
I felt so awkward witnessing Harry’s and Ginny’s moments together.
I cringe every time, it’s like something I shouldn’t be watching.
There was no real development
to be fair their relationship was a 👎🏽 for me in the books as well
i dont trust rowling with romance, she thought snape's everlasting obsession with lily was romantic 😬 i think she accidentally lucked out with ron/hermione and how cute they are ahshfjgkf
@@oof-wi7hp I feel like it also came out of left field in the books.
@@oof-wi7hp You take back that snape comment right now. I have "Always" tattooed on my bicep. I need Snape and Lily lmao
@@kos_m824 rip to you my friend 😔
@@kos_m824 jilly for life. As someone who has been in an obsessive relationship snilly rubs me the wrong way. Snape didn't love lilly he was obsessed with her. It was infatuation
Tbh they took all of Ginny’s personality traits and gave them to Harry or hermione as well.
The weasleys had the downfall rip
I'm pretty sure they pawned some of Ginny's personality traits for pennies, hell some probably got dropped in the lake. If movie Harry became somewhat of a blank slate, Ginny became an empty void.
Harry didn’t really have any personality tho haha
@@croft4746 Movie Harry was certainly watered down but he still largely has the personality he had in the books.
Harry in both is kind of a brat as he gets older. I don't mean that in a bad way, but he is very impulsive, very hot headed to balance out his heroism and good nature. He's very self centered, kind of arrogant and gradually learns to be better. Harry is stubborn and abrasive, tends to be moody and is kind of an asshole (granted he's got good reason a lot of the time). In a lot of ways he is exactly what Snape accuses him of being, something he utterly refuses to even consider at first and gradually comes to realize and accept upon learning just what an ass his father was. He's also fairly predictable, something that is actually a major plot point in book 5 and referenced again in book 7 as a serious weakness of his. All of that still holds true in the movies (barring the whole disarming spell blowing his identity being cut from the movie iirc) with both his positive and negative traits being on full display, as are the impacts of them on himself and others.
Harry is the one case where I'd say his weaker characterization in the movies was almost solely down to the limitations of what you can fit into a book vs a movie. It's all still there in the broad strokes but a lot of his characterization is lost due to losing his internal monologue and condensing an entire year into a single movie for each book.
While Ron was flanderized to a ridiculous degree and Hermione was given a injection of pseudo protagonist, Harry isn't as much a victim of change like those two as he is a victim of omission.
Ron has traits outright taken away and given to Hermione. Hermione is given a lot of Ron's good traits. They are fundamentally different than their book counterparts. Harry is largely still the same character, just not given the screen time to flesh him out as in depth as the books did. Imo Harry is only different due to the differences in medium where Ron and Hermione are drastically altered in ways that go beyond omission due to run time and differences in format.
Movie Ron and Hermione were written as different characters than their source material, movie Harry is just a less fleshed out version of his.
Ginny should've been the one punching Draco.
Here’s a change no one ever talks about: Ron was the one who noticed Harry’s hand in the Order of the Phoenix, not hermione. Ron was always way more observant about Harry’s mood than hermione was. Like after the World Cup when he suggested they play Quiditch to take their minds off of everything and Hermione insisted they go to bed. He’s just better at paying attention to his friends well beings.
Yes, even though Order had a different writer who was more fair to Ron and Hermione's characters, the consistent ruining of them from the first four films affected the fifth one.
Another change I hated in Order was the RoR scene. In the book, Ron and Hermione bickered about their D.A skills and Ron appreciated her.
But in the film, they make a joke of his character by making him say "don't worry I'll go easy on you" and then getting rekt by Hermione.
@@kavishbedi9281 its funny how the GBC/GBA and PS1/PS2 games are much more faithful to Book Ron than the fucking movies are.
This comment is gold
Like another commentor said, I imagine that this kind of emotional intelligence and quick wit comes from the experience of having many older brothers to be nagged by and being given the stinkeye from other wizarding families who didnt like his father. Ron has shoes to fill, and where his siblings and friends excel academically or in their own niches, hes the one whos most able to keep up with them.
He's a pisces
10:47 There’s nothing more out of character for Ron than AGREEING WITH SNAPE just to tell Hermione that she’s a knowitall and kick her while she’s down. If there’s two things that Ron doesn’t like, it’s Snape and unfairness.
Also, what kid in their RIGHT MIND agrees with a professor IN FRONT OF EVERYONE when their friend is getting yelled at by a teacher no one likes?! Normally that would borderline social suicide.
Especially because in the book, he DEFENDS her in this scene!
That's true. When it's between your friend and someone you hate TO THE BONE you side with your friend, not matter who's right.
@@StarOnTheWaterexactly
😂
He didn’t say it in front of everyone tho just in Harry’s earshot
You don’t know how sad i was when they gave ron’s iconic line: “If you have to kill Harry you will have to kill us too” to hermionie
That broke my heart when i read the book
His leg was literally broken when he said that too
@@nameslesss :(
That’s what makes it so brave...he was like injured on the floor practically bleeding to death and he still stood up for his best friend. Now that’s loyalty!
That was Ron's dailoage?
Honestly though, Rupert Grint is genuinely a good actor.
The script screwed him over
honestly believe Rupert is the best at conveying emotion out of the three.
I thought maybe he did too good a job of portraying Ron’s fear of spiders. It felt like J.K. Rowling lost her love/respect for Ron.
@@strawberryshortcake4342 kinda felt that too, quite sad about it mate
Daniel Radcliff played Harry, Rupert Grint played Ron - Emma Watson was simple player herself in a idealized way.
Is somehow the same with Johnny Depp - in it's "best Roles", he simple played him in the best/funniest way. Great Actors on the other side playin' her role in the best way.
@@strawberryshortcake4342 You can thank Steve Kloves for that. At the time before movies were released (circa 2000) there were many Ron fans and few Hermione fans. She was so happy that in Steve Kloves she had found someone who was as much a Hermione fan as she was.
WHEN YOU GET RID
OF CHARACTER FLAWS
YOU GET RID
OF CHARACTER.
right. When translating a book into a movie you'd expect the movie to be exactly how the book portrays it until moments/things that were not described in the book, or until moments where it's entirely subjective interpretation of things happening. It feels like the movie has more flaws than the book, probably because it's not made by the original author that has put a lot of time into writing the books. Afterall, it's generally the author that knows what's best for their own book.
(teehee I'm imagining that you're clapping between each word. Or maybe banging a wand on a desk for each syllable.)
Also, yes. I agree. It seems like that was basic knowledge in the past, but somehow, it has gotten lost in translation in this modern world.
ron ginfer
THIS.
Flaws don't constitute a character. That's a flawed (no pun intended) view of the story writing. What makes a character interesting and alive is character development. It can often coincide with having flaws, but making an equivalence there would lead you to wrong conclusion (and results, if you are a writer).
Here's an example of a good character:
An old man, obsessed with traditions and order, who is thrust into situations where he has to change his ways and learn something or be shunned for his behavior. His stubborn desire to stick to traditions makes him ridicule and hurt his friend who is of a different race and culture.
Here's an example of a bad character:
A young energetic guy, who desires to be better than those who came before him, but is struggling with slothfulness. He tries to go in on adventures, but his flaws end up making him just a burden. Author then proceeds to do nothing about this problem.
Getting rid of flaws doesn't rid you of character. Flaws may be used as a tool for story progression and a stepping stone for character growth. But it's not the only way to achieve both, and they alone mean nothing.
I understand Hermione being given a lot of the “smart” lines, but they should have at least given the “brave” lines to Ron. Defending Harry, showing him standing up for his friends, etc.
A lot of what Hermione was able to explain by claiming she read it could have been explained by Ron by claiming he grew up hearing it.
Feminism is a zero sum game. Men cant be equal to women, because that would mean that women being less then men is actually womens fault. So men instead are put down to raise women up.
The smart lines shouldn’t be given to Hermione because it’s already abundantly clear that she’s intelligent. We should be able to see that Ron is smart but he has no patience for traditional learning.
@@MoJones9919agreed
@@MoJones9919that’s exactly how I think of him, he is smart but doesn’t have the same passion for learning
@@jebes909090that’s not what feminism is at all, feminism is wanting equal treatment, not for one other the other to be treated better.
Ron knew all about pure blood supremacy and reign. He experienced it all. They were thousands of scenes where his character could have had dimension but the movies didn't pay him any respect
Also, Ron’s parents fought during the first war against Voldemort. His father, mother, and brothers told him everything that happened. It would make sense if Ron was the one who told Harry and Hermione about pure blood supremacy.
@@khfan4life365 Not just Ron's parents. I'm pretty sure his Uncles, Gideon and Fabian Prewett got pretty brutally murdered. Harry now has Fabian Prewett's old watch as well now, proving that the Weasley's really do consider him a part of their family.
@@JokeCubed the entire Prewett family fought in the first war just Molly was the lone survivor yet they all fought so courageous and died like a hero
Unrelated, but they murdered nevil. He had redeeming qualities in the books by being good at herbology, but in the movies he just gets made fun of until the deathly hallows where he immediately switches to christ reincarnated
True. People forget how they ruined Neville too.
In the book, he literally screams at a bewildered Voldemort that he'll rather fight than surrender and he raises the sword and instantly slays Nagini.
But in the movie, he limps like a coward and makes a generic speech and Voldy's just laughing at him.
Oh, and why did they cut out St.Mungos??? That scene still makes me cry. 😭
I also didn’t like how some scenes made a fool out of Neville’s character.
Idk why but in the deathly hallows I just found him really annoying because of how "arrogant" he seemed. I haven't read the books so maybe he was better there
@@Hello-qv2fx really? How so? I’ve never heard that opinion about Neville before so I’m curious!
@@terra_the_nightingale135 I honestly don't know why I feel that way. I just didn't like how he put himself in dangerous situations and when I first watched that speech scene I almost didn't care.
@@terra_the_nightingale135 and it's weird because I found him funny in the previous movies
Ron is my favorite of the golden trio. They really did so many of the Weasleys DIRTY. Ginny is probably my favorite of the student characters and they literally reduced her to Harry's girlfriend and nothing more.
and even then they took out most of the time they were actually together from the books
@@stasiatheo really?
Minister of magic...um I mean minister of -uh- muggles arrest this person he doesn't like Harry Potter 😂 lol.
Btw why?
@@stasiatheo well your r quite right.
Btw you sure would be a Harry Potter fan.
@@stasiatheo I recommend you watch the great wizarding war from the channel broad strokes.
It is made on the Marauder's Lilly and Snape .
I liked it .
It has a lot of episodes every few month
I guess I'm fortunate in that I didn't like the book Ginny either, so they didn't ruin anything for me (in that aspect). She was too "smooth". Like a dork trying to write what they think a cool person would do. There's not enough flaws, which I guess is because she plays such a small role.
The idea that Hermione doesn't know what mud blood is is probably one of the Best bits of subtle world building within the series itself
Exactly, why would she know that term? Also, shes essentially finding out shes in a marginalized group and people are going to dislike her for who she is. Kind of a missed opportunity
And the fact Ron is SO mad, FOR her. Even knowing she doesn't fully understand the term, and doesn't know it's supposed to hurt her.
And the fact Draco was using this vile slur as a child, showing just how intense the indoctrination he went through was as a kid. Children generally don't see race or class, they aren't prejudiced beings. You have to really beat hatred into someone to make them say that as a little boy..
@@PieonaneunFlower which is somehow the funniest thing about it. Draco tries to insult her the worst possible way and all she thinks of is _Should that hurt me?_
But I also love this scene for teh reason that it's clear that in all the books she read it was never mentioned, it implies a little bit that this part of the society isn't written about, so that the people who don't have to live with it can just ignore it. And because of that Hermione didn't know about that.
The sort of thing that isn't written in a book. Something more culturally learned.
“Shoelace” will forever piss me off. Harry and Ginny were a pretty good couple in the book, but in the movies the two have less chemistry than Cedric and Fawks.
@@scaranvostok3637 EXACTLY
Don't you dare say anything bad about Cedric and Fawkes, their struggle to break social norms and get accepted as a couple was amazing in the books. Inconsiderate and narrow-minded people like you just don't understand.
@@SantosAl Truly compelling I must say, their relationship is what kept me reading
@@SantosAl yes
i wouldn’t say pretty good but definitely better than movies
Harry: yes.
Snape correcting him: yes, sir.
Harry: no need to call me sir, professor.
He’s the boy who sassed
This comment deserves more attention
Classy, boujee, ratchet
For anyone not understanding the comment: That literally happened in the books.
I still lose my shit whenever I remember this or someone references it-his impact😔✊🏽
This is exactly how they should portrait Harry in movies.. so sad they didn't...
Rupert's acting alone saves Ron's character in the movies. Even when Ron is doing something unlikeable or is in the background of a scene, Rupert is able to do a lot. He manages to display complexity in Ron, particularly his feelings for Hermione, insecurity, hurt, etc. in subtle ways such as line delivery, posture, and facial expressions. I think Rupert is definitely the most natural actor among them and even with the character of Ron poorly written, he still is my favorite thanks to Rupert's acting.
Certainly agreed!! Oh, what I would give to see Rupert shout "WELL, ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT???"
Same. He's the reason why I love movie!Ron too. Thank God Rupert was the best actor out of three!
@@gelifilms "movie!Ron" Why'd you write it like that it looks like a bit of code
💯yes!!
@@littlemoth4956 oh i just got used to book twitter HAHAHAHAHA we usually write "movie!ron" or like "book!harry" and i just got used to it sjfkskd
It wasn't just Ron that they turned into comic relief, but the entire Weasley family. They're all clearly highly intelligent people. The parents seem less poor and more the type of people who spend money on experiences, rather than things. When they win the lottery in book three, they take a month long trip to Egypt, rather than buy a new house, etc. They also take the family to the quidditch world cup final, which can't be cheap. The twins obviously excel at potions and sports, rather than simply the baffoons they are made to be in the movies. And Ginny just gets turned into a background character who constantly pines after Harry, while Harry ignores her. It is rather uncomfortable what the movies did to that whole family.
Jenny 💀
I love in book 5 when the twins leave Hogwarts and leave a swamp in the school, Flitwick doesn’t want to clean it up because it’s such good magic. I think it shows that the twins were incredibly talented and the flitwick had a spark of fun. I’d always thought charms would be one of the most enjoyable classes at hogwarts.
Ginny Weasley
Ginny being short for Ginevra.
So, did you just forget that in the books they took that same trip? They also go to the world cup in book four, and it's explained that they got the tickets from Ludo.
No, they're definitely poor, the tickets for the world cup were a gift.
Every time I see the “your cat ate my rat” scene in the movie, I notice Harry in the back, not talking. I wonder if he ever thought “you know, Hedwig could have eaten scabbers.”
Well in the books harry was always pretty neutrsl when ron and hermione get mad at each other Xd
WoW
in the prisoner of zakaban harry aalso turned against hermione when she sold his new firebolt to mcgonagall for checking
hedwig is pretty much always kept in a cage or aviary, owls are treated like birds in the series and don't really hang out in the common room like other pets.
@@DanteStevensO yeah, all the bird pets hang out in an entire wing (heh) dedicated to them. It's in several of the games and I think one scene with Harry and Cho in the books
Ron always struck me as being more street smart. Like he has knowledge of things that you can only learn from having five older brothers.
Jenni Locke
yeah!! & he had the knowledge about the wizarding _world._ sure, hermione knew tons about magic itself, but ron was arguably the one who had the most knowledge. he was the one who really taught harry about things imo. there's a difference between memorization/comprehension & actually living through something.
Ron has wisdom and common sense. He benefits from knowing the Wizarding world. He knows and understands nuances and culture, in ways Hermoine and Harry can’t quite. I hate when he’s portrayed as an oaf.
@@Amsayy But that is what happened for the movies. Wyh following a book that lines it out when changes are more fun and the guy even mentioned that Hermione was his fav char. It is a wonder that the movies was not renamed as well.
@@Amsayy So what you're saying is Ron invested in Wisdom and Charisma while Hermione min-maxed for Int and Harry is just kinda all over the place.
Edit: Consistent capitalization.
Exactly!
1. Book Ron was unswervingly loyal with an extraordinary degree of social intelligence. He often had the edge over Harry and Hermione when it came to reading the terrain and instinctively navigating the wizarding world.
2. Book Ron was hilarious. He was not so much the butt of the joke (as he became in the movie) as the wisecracker, with an incredibly quick mind and wit.
3. Book Ron was the love of Book Hermione's life. The movie played it out as though Hermione chose between them, whereas canonically Harry was never an option for Hermione because she never wanted him. Ron was her source of comfort and companionship when Harry was off brooding, or talking to Dumbledore. She fell asleep holding hands with him at Grimmauld Place and was inconsolable, yet resilient when he abandoned them - Ron and Hermione shared an intensely intimate relationship that Harry was never a part of. He even comments in the book that watching them together at Grimmauld Place makes him feel lonely. Ron is the one who holds Hermione when she is crying at Dumbledore's funeral.
4. Book Ron was a badass. He was driving a flying car and doing non-verbal spells in his second year. He protected Harry from Sirius Black's Animagus and got bitten and dragged into the Shack himself in exchange. He was the only one who caught on that Hermione was behaving strangely and showing up randomly. He consistently defended Harry from suspicion and was bullied with an anthem for underperforming at Quidditch, yet stuck by Harry well into a Ministry infiltrated by Death Eaters and on the hunt for Horcruxes. He took over as a natural leader when Harry was distracted by the Hallows. He was indispensable during the Battle of the Potters and of Hogwarts, and destroyed 2 Horcruxes.
5. Rupert Grint could have played Book Ron beautifully, if only the screenwriters were not so invested in Mary-Suing Hermione. I have nothing against Emma, but Hermione too was realer, more complicated and more compelling in the books. The movie portrayal of Ron came at the cost of both Ron and Hermione's characters.
Ramsha Ali Khan yes totally correct. And Ron new more about the wizarding world coz Harry and her I one were raised by muggles
Yeah Harry and Hermoine makes no sense in book canon. They drive each other nuts when Ron is not there. Hermoine is the girl who can never leave anything well alone which actually gets in the way of Harry taking the time to stop and figuring out what he needs to do. And to Hermoine, Harry presents a question that doesn't have a right answer but because if her nature she cannot stop trying to find one.
Yeah the movies make me so frustrated especially when people who have only seen the movies start hating on Ron and saying that Hermione is too good for him. It just makes me really sad.
Thanks for this. Especially the part where he's funny cos he's witty, not cos he's a bumbling doofus.
Man, your words inspire to take HP book and read them all :D
It always was a little strange that Hermione explained the concept of mudbloods and purebloods. What book did Hermione read that gave a rundown of racist terminology in the wizarding world? Ron legit grew up _in_ the wizarding world. Bizarre.
It could have honestly just been a book written by a pureblood fanatic, a book on any topic. It's not like any of the Slytherins were hiding their disdain for muggles, even when they thought Voldemort dead. One could say that Dumbledore would surely ban all the books with racist terms from use, but I'm sure the ministry was filled with Slytherins who might not want to make that happen. And Dumbledore really only banned the really dark magic books (namely the ones with Horcrux descriptions) and only banned them in the school.
@@TrykusMykusbut Hermione not knowing about the mudblood term was honestly one of the best subtle world building within the series, I don't think we need to come up with far fetch theories which aren't probably canon to justify Hermione's knowledge. It's fine if Hermione doesn't know about a thing or two of the Wizarding World, she is a twelve year old witch, not the greatest witch in the history of the Wizarding World.
Rupert Grint was the character with the most expressiveness thanks to the actor. It's definitely the writer's fault for doofing him up.
Thank you!!! I was so mad at Steeve Kloves he screwed up the characters so much especially Ron and Ginny
@@bookandanimelover4life582 istg he had something against the Weasleys
It was Rupert Grint's overacting through inexperience that made Ron look like a comic relief character. Overreacting to anything dramatic no matter how small. You can tell by the last movies that he had grown and taken note as he played a much calmer/composed Ron but by that point his overdoing it as a youngster had already left its mark as making Ron the goofy one.
@@supafrancis I disagree. You can argue that every kid overacts. Even more, Emma Watson used to do the same, especially in the first two movies. I think the writing could've easily moved away from the comic relief aspect simply by having Ron grow alongside Hermione. Instead, they chose to make her the vital friend, while making him the disposable one.
Agreed. And it was the opposite for Harry: written well, but poorly casted--sorry, Daniel Radcliffe. I think Hermione and Emma Watson were the perfect pair.
The actor did a fine job. It was the writing that ruined his character.
Yautja Prime It’s just that he’s told to portray the character that way. They really stiffed Rupert Grint
@@sunniqa899 Yes, that's what I said. Lol
For what he had to deal with, Grint did a stellar job.
Ye
Totes totes. I think he especially stood out when they were kids. Felt like he was getting the tone of his lines much better than Emma and Daniel were back then
The silver doe scene is what pissed me off the most about the movies. In the book, when Ron came back and saved Harry, there was real EMOTION and they hugged. It felt like they were actually REAL FRIENDS, which they were as shown through so many touching scenes in the books where they actually cared for/appreciated each other. In the movie, Harry just stared at Ron and never really showed his gratitude, the result of the movies' terrible portrayal/betrayal of their friendship.
Oh I know! Ron looked and felt guilty asf, so Harry comforted him and said Dumbledore knew he'd always come back at the end of the day. He also said he really redeemed himself and that events always sounded cooler when you talk about them than when you live them. What I'd have given to see that on screen...
@@PhebusdesTours "You made up for it today" said Harry. "Getting the sword, destroying the Horcrux, saving my life..."
"You make it sound a lot cooler then it was" said Ron.
"Stuff like that always sounds a lot cooler then it was, I've been trying to tell you that for years" said Harry.
And then they hugged.
...
And that scene makes me cry!! I didn't get any of those emotions in the movie, or any sense that they were ever friends at all the way they portrayed their relationship past the second movie...
@@HiHi-lt1cb Ikr! This scene was so understated yet so emotional.
And yes, it doesn't look like Harry and Ron are even best friends, whereas in the books, Ron constantly roots for Harry and is the first person Harry goes into when he has a problem or questioning. It is made clear that Ron is Harry's main confidant, not Hermione.
@@HiHi-lt1cb IKR
@@marianat1393 i feel bad for movie blokes barely know anything about the character true personality or even the wizarrding world itself
I feel like they didn't only do Ron dirty, but also the actor playing him. I can imagine that many people he met in his life projected Ron's personality onto him and treated him accordingly (if even in a subtle way). He played that role through puberty, so the perception of Ron probably has an effect on Rupert's (self-)image to this day.
And it DEFINITELY had an effect on Emma Watson, in the other direction.
@@robertlombardo8437yeah, the beauty and the beast movie clearly shows that
Hurt his career prospects as well.
@@poppinc8145i know Daniel Radcliffe doesn't need money and is able to do low budget films he thinks are interesting, so I think Rupert and Emma are also likely set for life from royalties.
I mean there's probably a reason why Rupert Grint quit acting after Deathly Hallows Part 2 while Dan and Emma didn't I guess.
No chemistry and boring story between movie Harry and Ginny. The movies had me rooting for Luna to end up with Harry, at least she had a personality.
J Villa YES! Agreed.
It didn't help that unlike book Ginny who loved Harry for who he was and didn't care about his fame and being "The Boy Who Lived" and all that film Ginny came off more like Romilda Vane in that she acted like a horny fangirl who lusted after him rather than loving him. Her saying "Don't you trust me" before feeding Harry was really suspicious as if the pies she was feeding him had love potion in them and she wanted to get it into his system. And the fact that she came down the stairs in only a bathrobe, tied his shoe in a scene with camera shots that made it look more like she was about to blow him and them nearly kissing before the random Burrow burning scene suggests that they'd have gone upstairs and had sex. Since later filmmakers were obsessed with Hermione they probably thought making Ginny look like a creepy stalker would make the idea of Harry and Hermione as a couple better. It didn't.
true
Good thing there's fanfiction to make this sort of thing happen. ^_^
I honestly didn’t expect Harry to end up with anyone. Maybe Cho Chang (I definitely spelt that wrong) and Harry could.
I’ll never forgive the movie for giving the line “if you want to kill Harry you’ll have to kill us too!” to HERMIONE instead of Ron. Like please, Ron’s leg (foot?) was broken and it took all his energy to even STAND, yet he still confidently stood by Harry and looked a known murder/criminal (they didn’t know Sirius was innocent yet) in the face. The movie just made Ron all scared and stupid, when here in the book he was a true freaking Gryffindor.
I love Ron 🤧
I wouldn't be too mad for that change, except Hermione gets plenty of moments like that. Taking yet another from Ron just feels too much
Exactly! And in the movie, his leg isn't even broken! In the book he was almost passing out from the pain but he still stood there, willing to die for his best friend
@@zuzanabartekova4823 And in the book!! He broke his leg by jumping in the way to PROTECT HARRY from the Grimm! 🤦🏽♀️
Yup worst sin of the films
Ikr, Hermione is PERFECT in the movies in every single way i would not have been suprised at all if they called the movies ''HERMIONE GRANGE R AND THE PHILOSPHERS STONE'' etc.
This happened with snape as well, with the opposite effect. Book snape was not the constantly calm, level headed, even tempered man that movie snape was. Book snape yelled, got angry, was irrational, and was human. He was often really cruel to Harry too.
There is a very, very good reason that Snape's character was changed: Alan Rickman is almost twice as old as Severus Snape in the books. Book Snape is one of the youngest teachers at Hogwarts, possibly the youngest. He's a hotheaded man who experienced tremendous suffering in his teen years and allowed that to embitter him. He's a genius with a lousy disposition so it makes sense for him to be hot-headed and emotional because of his age and past.
Movie Snape appears to be about 50 years old. It would look very strange to see him shouting and carrying on.
@@trequor I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for changing a large part of an essential character, but ok.
Yes, hence the fact people make Snape out to be a sacrificial hero while in truth he was just a bully who treated kids like s**t for no reason at all. Hating Harry at first sight because he happens to look like James and bullying Neville because he wanted him to be the child of the prophecy and killed along with his parents.
@@trequor
That's not a good reason at all to remove a character's flaws and essentially white wash them. Snape dies at age 38 in the books; his life has sucked and he died tragically young, and he was a complicated person. He's not the saint the movies portrayed him as - he's deeply flawed and even Dumbledore calls him out in the Prince's Tale for being selfish. The movies tried to make him lovable without remembering that Snape is a morally grey person yet also a bully.
@@l.n.3372 Snape is not a bitter old man. They made the choice to cast an older actor and that choice logically resulted in changes to the character.
The tragedy of movie Ron Weasley is that they made him into the very thing he feared the most:
An irrelevant sidekick to Harry who couldn't stand on his own.
In the books, this is a reoccurring theme, all the way up to the seventh when the Locket tries to manipulate his own fears about being less than his brothers and Harry.
The movies didn't do him dirty, they did him filthy.
Honestly the devil's snare scene in the book is my favorite just because of the line:
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD!? ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT!?"
Hermione is such an interesting character because of how paradoxical she is. She is extremely logical AND extremely emotional.
And in the books Hermione understandably panics when Devil's Snare is strangling Ron and temporarily forgets she's a witch. But in the film they have Ron be an idiot who won't relax so the plant will let him go and Hermione stays calm. So the bad film characterisations of "idiot Ron" and "Mary Sue Hermione who reacts unnaturally to situations in the name of "being strong" were in the films from the start. Bad writers don't understand that in real life many physically, mentally and emotionally strong people panic in stressful situations. Good writers with well written flawed characters understand that as well. The film writers apparently thought Hermione staying perfectly calm while her then friend and future boyfriend and husband was being choked to death and not screaming which anyone man or woman would do if picked up by Grawp was being a "strong woman." When really it made film Hermione come off as a cold sociopath.
@@Xehanort10 They were children at their first year of hogwarts as well, so it makes perfect sense that Hermione would start thinking of a mundane way of starting a fire that didn't involve magic. She has only been a witch for less than a year after all. Meanwhile, Ron's been born and raised in the magic world, so he doesn't have the same problem even as he's being choked to death.
@@Xehanort10 I also think it's more realistic if they panic because anyone would panic when they are getting strangled with devil's snare
And I love how Hermione got her own version of the line in book 7 where she and Ron are trying to get past the Whomping Willow and Ron wishes Crookshanks was there to press the button to turn the tree off. Hermione then shouts “Crookshanks! Are you a wizard or not!” That reminds Ron that he is magical. It shows that even the best witches and wizards have moments of panic.
In all honesty, most of the Weasleys aren't adapted well in the movies. Ron was made too derpy, Ginny wasn't the charismatic tomboy, Mr Weasley's intelligent and insightful side was dropped (except for that one scene in the Leaky Cauldron in PoA), Mrs Weasleys fearful insecurity of losing her children wasn't very present. Heck, even the twins (probably the best adapted of the Weasleys) are less whimsically rebellious and more bitingly mischievous in the books. And they have a stronger relationship with Ginny.
Ron was my favorite character in the book, and he was robbed in the movies.
Percy Weasley and Bill Weasley were also basically cut from the series.
Percy is in the first movie, but then makes brief appearances in the background of the fifth and last movies.
Bill's even worse. I don't think they even mention in the movies that the wedding in the seventh movie was for Bill and Fleur.
Jordan Holt yeah most casual fans don't even know those characters exist when they watch the movies
I agree totally. I loved the Weasley's and the movies just didn't do them justice (or just didn't mention some at all) In a sense they were Harry's family from the beginning and each one of them shaped who he became as a person in their own unique ways. Its a shame the movies changed so much or left so much out about all of them. Also I have to say Ron was one of my favorite characters mostly because he was the realist of the group and the underdog who maybe didn't live up to Harry's fame or Hermione's intelligence but he proved his worth in the end.
And Charlie???! Did they even mention his existence!🥺🥺
I match the movies maybe ten times before I understand that percy was a weasley. He seems just like an older gryffindor.
I thought Bill was just fleur fiancee because I missed the "this is my brother Bill" information..
When I read the books I was so amazed by the 3 older brothers that I didn't really known existed and angry that they ripped us of the amazing family the weasley are
What they did to Ron was bad. What they did to Ginny was a travesty, and I expect 4 rolls of parchment about it on my desk tomorrow
👏👏👏
Agreed! Ginny was an actual badass in the books, she took after the twins in the best way. She was so lame and plain in the movies that it seriously annoyed me that she ended up with Harry. Like it annoyed me so much
4 rolls of parchment written with a certain quill...
"Books good, movies bad" written with a very, very large font. Print it an voilla! You've got your 4 rolls of parchment.
@@grzegorzha. One word on each roll. "BOOKS." "GOOD. "MOVIES." "BAD."
Done.
I feel so seen right now. You perfectly explained how I've felt about Hermione's character in the books vs the movies. In the books, Hermione is the smartest kid in school but is very naïve about the magical world (and a bit naïve in general, as a girl of that age should be). The scene where they get into the trap door protecting the sorcerer's stone and Hermione starts thinking like a muggle when faced with the devil's snare, is the perfect example of this. The movies robbed Hermione of this depth by just making her know everything. Changing the scene with the devil's snare was, of course, the worst offense in the simplifying of Hermione because I don't think any other scene portrayed her naivete as well as that did.
i love this.
Also, book Hermione was smart enough to make Polyjuice Potion at the age of 12, but she was still head over heels in love with Lockhart and didn't want to acknowledge his incompetence, even when he made Harry's bones disappear.
@@PhebusdesTours That's a great point.
The devils snare is from book one not the chamber of secrets, not that it really matters good comment
@@leaffinite2001 Oh my gosh you're right! How silly of me!
I need a “the problem with movie Ginny” video.
Liz Bartlette yes she was one of my favourite characters. So disappointed how they portrayed her. She was a wild independent woman and smart. In the movies she is just blah
Yessssss!!!
Ginny in the books was a seriously very powerfull and gifted witch. She knew "reducto" at her third year and was talented to the point she could give Bellaxtrix a run for her money.
Joy Byrne Ehhh.... I wouldn’t say smart. Easily strong willed and independent, definitely, but smart? Maybe on the emotional level, but other than that, I’d disagree. She’s still one of my favorite book characters tho :)
I agree!
also can we just talk about how when Ron was gone in the book deathly hallows, Hermione was really upset. She would cry herself to sleep and stuff. Yet in the movies, when Ron is gone, Hermione and harry have romantic scenes, which confuse all viewers.
They weren't romantic, really. Just because a man and a woman dance, doesn't mean there's romantic feelings involved...they were/are really, really good friends.
Eliška Tesařová they literally almost kissed and the directors most definitely wanted to give us the impression that they were going to
@@mariefabre2105 And they should have. Rowling messed up. Harmony forever.
Guitarsquatch M. The main character always gets the girl. This was a nice change. I respect all fandom though
@@mariefabre2105 Well, Hermione wasn't just "the girl" she was the heroine of the series. She and Harry both deserved the best. She married one of her bullies and he married someone that was damn near a non entity.
I have to say, I think JK Rowling kind of sold Ron short in the books as well. It’s pretty clear that Ron is very good at wizards chess and that means he’s a very tactical person. She never really built on that. Especially with the fact that they actually go to war.
When Ron came back in DH, he seemed to take over a bit.
wow......can I say one thing..........I love you. I have waited to hear this for long time.
Blatant favouritism. Extremely obvious as well. One of my only complaints about HP especially the movies
Exactly! I would’ve loved to see Ron take charge in laying out strategies to the DA and OotP during the battle of Hogwarts like he did in the first book/movie as a
way to book-end his character arc. Like it would have come full circle from being a strategical genius in chess to a strategical master in an actual battle. Maybe even throwing in some chess references while he makes his play. Harry = Bishop, Hermione = Queen’s Rook, Ron = Knight. Just my thoughts.
LaylaRose1708 freaking BINGO!!! That’s just about exactly what I was thinking.
This is therapy.
I will never not be mad about what the movies did to my precious boy.
"Why ask if you don't want to be told?" Is THE most badass thing anyone ever said in hp and the movies can bite me
I see that and raise you, "There's no need to call me sir, Professor."
But what about "Harry has done well on all Defense Against the Dark Arts tests set by a competent teacher."?
""Snape!" ejaculated Slughorn"
@@expertionis794 typw that without the exclamation mark and the quotation marks...
"I'll join you when Hell freezes over," said Neville. "Dumbledore's Army!"
Ron is actually my favorite character. Even in the movies. He is a person. He has flaws. HES A TEENAGE BOY. He swears and is kinda lazy. Very relatable. He is also the youngest boy of his family. He doesn’t feel loved or noticed and he meets a friends who feels the same but in a very different way. Also Ronmione is perfect because they both teach each other such important lessons. All I can say is that Ron is a true Gryffindor at heart
Same! When I read the books as a child, I WAS Hermione. I was a not-so-pretty know-it-all who cared about her grades too much. She was the perfect surrogate character for me. But Ron was sooo likeable. He was witty, funny and so loyal.
I have to say, I think JK Rowling kind of sold Ron short in the books as well. It’s pretty clear that Ron is very good at wizards chess and that means he’s a very tactical person. She never really built on that. Especially with the fact that they actually go to war.
@@huyendang6731 ya and I think she’s like oh ya he’s who Harry would miss most, but we never really see so much between them. One of his character traits is that he has trouble because he’s over shadowed by everyone, but by the last few books, he is just overshadowed by the rest of his family!
SAME
I liked Ron in the movies but he kinda got disrapected
I never liked Ron that much, then i read the books, found out he's my absolute favourite character. No doubt, no hesitation - he is the best and I will defend him till I'm dead. I absolutely hated what they did to his character in the movies. like I was so fucking shook when I was reading the books and realized "oh so they took all his best traits and gave them to either Hermione or Harry, well thats fucking great" Ron Weasley is my king, im out
I've never understood people's love of Ron, books or movies. I cannot forgive his attitude in Goblet of Fire when he won't believe Harry about not putting his name in. I would never have accepted Ron back as my friend if that were me, and I actually lost a bit of respect for Harry when he did. For as much as everyone hypes up his loyalty, he sure abandoned Harry real hard when Harry needed him. Which is odd given him following Harry into like 4 different life threatening situations over the previous three years.
I also understand where the jealousy comes from, but anyone who betrays their friends that hard does not deserve to have them as friends. I don't care how many older brothers they have.
Matthew Pelletier he was just a 14 year old for gods sake and if you cant understand then ypu dont deserve a friend like him. He made a mistake and apologized. People make mistake and unless its sooo bad they deserve to be forgiven. Ron did one mistake and lots of good things. But for his one mistake he sould be not forgiven?
@@hannijr6120 Well it seems we find where you and I don't agree. I believe that what Run did was sooooo bad. He didn't just make a mistake, he basically called Harry a glory seeking asshole and left him to fend for himself in a life threatening situation that he got forced into. If I'm Harry, I don't forgive that, maybe ever. I might eventually, but I certainly wouldn't do it after one lame apology that wasn't even actually an apology. Ron never actually said that he was sorry. He admitted that he had been wrong, but he never actually apologized.
@@matthewpelletier6900 to be fair, Ron was kinda the forgotten child. Ginny was the little girl his mother had always waited for, Fred and George drew attention constantly with their pranks, and the older boys all were seen as great and respectable by Molly, she was very proud of them all.
She loved Ron very much of course, but I don't feel like he had as much attention as the others.
He was poor, and couldn't afford the same things as the other kids.
And then he met Harry, and stayed in his shadow. He was a great friend and was always there for him even though he was never treated as a hero like harry was.
And 14 is the age of teenage crises, and his emotions got the best of him. All I'm saying is, while he should have believed harry, it's understandable he snapped at one point.
And though I love Harry's character, he didn't try to talk to Ron that much either after their fight. They were just two teenage boys being stupid, and eventually made up.
Matthew Pelletier he still tried to help harry. But i think you still forget that he was just 14 year old teenager. I think deep down he knew the truth.
27:55: "Ron's line ' WE thought you knew what you were doing,' as in he and Hermione, turns into 'I thought you knew what you were doing'" - I feel like the movies in general completely leave out how much of a team Hermione and Ron were sometimes. They were prefects together, they were the ones protecting Harry together, worrying about him all the time, talking him out of bad plans together when Harry had his angry teenage moments (which you barely see in the movies), they spent weeks together in Grimmauld Place in Order of Phoenix, before Harry was able to come. Then in book 7, Ron was there for her when Hermione changed her parents' memories, and all throughout the book until Ron's departure, the two act very couple-y already - holding hands, hugging all the time, etc. With the movies, people get genuinely confused when Ron and Hermione end up together, in the books it makes perfect sense.
All such great points!!! I basically made the same arguments on the Super Carlin Brother's video about shipping Harry and Hermione.
@@caitlinpirrera6754 I’ve never understood any of the Harry Potter shipping at all, other than what’s in the books. What’s in the books for the most part makes perfect sense and is the only thing that would work for the characters, the way that they are. Especially anything with Draco Malfoy and any of the good characters, I’ve never understood that at all given that they all very much dislike him. I would assume that Harry and Hermione shipping idiocy comes from the movies, but not once in the books is there any hint to that in the slightest, so it’s dumb.
@@imperialinquisition6006honestly it's mostly to satisfy movie fans, who are actually shipping Emma and Daniel than Harry and Hermione, swap Emma Watson in Ginny's role, and the shipping would be all about Harry Ginny 😂😂😂
@imperialinquisition6006 All of the Draco shipping is because Tom Felton is attractive and charming. It's purely based on movie fans having a crush on him and being unable to separate Draco from Tom. Same for Snape and Alan Rickman.
You also forgot to add that in DHP1, they even had the AUDACITY to remove the actual dance scene Ron and Hermione have in the book at Bill and Fleur's wedding.
Ron asks Hermione to dance with him, and she smiles in confusion. Krum gets annoyed and asks Harry if they are together, and Harry replies "Errrr...... sort of".
It added to their developing love story and showed how much Ron has matured from his mistakes from fourth year.
But in the deleted scene filmed, Krum and Hermione dance, while Ron has a pouty jealous look on his face in the background.
It makes me so mad I swear the crew really had a thing against gingers.
Yeah they also ruined ginny I’m not forgiving them for that
I have to repeat it to people who didn't read the books, this scene never actually HAPPENS. While Ron asking Hermione to dance speaks volumes about his character development. He's no longer this teenager who asked her too late then freaked out because she went with somebody else, he's become more confident and doesn't want to make the same mistake. But hey, let's totally change it and throw Ron's development out of the window...
@@enjoyerofgames- Ruined??Ginny was butchered!! Never forgiving them for that
Tbh, yes, Brits seem to have a thing against gingers.
@@lordofrims Hollywood too. Ever notice how it's always the gingers who get race swapped?
Ron: is a super popular and beloved character
Steve Kloves: I’m bout to end this man’s career
now lets end Steve Klopps career
@@ah_yes07 yes
You used that meme totally wrong
lmao
@@ah_yes07 yeeeeeeeessssss!
My son and I always joke that in the movies, Hermione's middle name is Hermoine Exposition Granger because she explains EVERYTHING even things that there's no way she should know more than Ron. He's the only one of the Golden Triad who has lived in the wizarding world exclusively.
Exactly! Like in the books he was the one who explained about Mudbloods, Purebloods, Slytherin etc. He knew so much from growing up in the wizarding world, stuff Hermione wouldn't know just from reading about it
And he is the one who knows about the DH before they do, but just didn't know it! I mean they had never even heard of Babbity Rabbity and the cackling stump!
Hermione was the only one of the trio who "really" studied, so I can believe that she knew more than Ron about magic world.
If you noticed Ron know a lot about insignificant things like fairy tale and mud-blood. But he didn't show nothing really interesting or significant about magic world. So it is logical that Hermione know more then him, even if he raised in magic world. It is just like indian student in UK who studying history know more about UK than a British guy. But Hermione as we know, learn about everything so, who know more the person who study or those who not and just living?
You can notice the Ron's really knowledge of magic world in the situation with Flamel where he didn't know nothing about him just like Harry and Mione, but he is "magic-born" so he should know.
The weasleys should have had answers and helpful add ons to everything though. Hermione studied the magical world, that's no substitute to actually being apart of the history. Telling me Charlie and the Twins, and all older siblings had not heard and researched the stories and conspiracies of their own world. Percy was a prefect, the twins knew the entire castle and grounds and had a penchant for knowing what was going on in the school at all times. Charlie is and works with some of the most weathered and traveled wizards and witches in the world. Bill works at fricking Gringotts, and Ron and Ginny are the younger siblings to all of them. Hearing stories. Imagine the late night conversations the weasley family had about he who should not be named or Harry potter. Molly not wanting to say anything and arthur giving little things up. Hermione shouldnt have had all the answers. if anything their should have been moments where Ron had to bring her out of her book brain and into the real world where its not actually so cut and dry always. Thats something i missed from hermione and rons interactions (not so much with harry). She doesnt have a grasp of the nuances of the wizarding world. SHes book smart. Book smart people are supposed to get wake up calls occasionally in tense situations not always have the answers.
@@PavelPavlovskyPP Ron's more like how people could tell you various football legends, game play-by-plays, and various other things, but couldn't tell you the origins of football (rugby to anyone else). Hermione could tell you the history of football, but wouldn't understand the appeal, or the nitty gritty of it.
It's annoying that Hermione knows more about the wizarding world and magic than Ron, and it's not easily explainable by saying she just reads more or is more studious, it simply doesn't make sense and seems forced. Ron grew up with wizard parents and siblings, his dad works in the Ministry. He should be the one teaching Hermione and Harry about the new world they found themselves in. Her constant "I read it in a book" is such a lazy explanation, and it makes Ron's family look like uneducated people who didn't teach their children anything or never left their house.
But that's only in the films, in the books it's obviously Ron who knows more, For the films, Steve Kloves had a Bias for Hermione, and much more for Emma Watson, so he did what he did for his "favourite" character.
@@RabiyaRavenclawI know, I know :) I was just describing how Ron was ruined in the films, that it doesn't even make sense to steal his lines and give to Hermione
It’s like they had Lucius Malfoy in the writing room when it came to dumbing down the Weasley family
The movies also almost never cover Ron's poverty issues. Like envying Harry for not even noticing a bunch of gold dissapeared from his pockets, plus the fact nearly everything he had belonged to an older relative.
The one scene I remember from the book is when Harry had a shit ton of gold in his vault, so he tried to hide the view from the Weasley's because he noticed they had very little and didn't want to embarrass them or make them uncomfortable.
also Ron got really obsessed that Harry didn't tell him about the vanished gold, showing that Ron is very proud and want to pay his deeds. i kinda liked that on him.
And scenes like how his yule ball robed were horrible got turned into comic relief in the movies. But in the books Ron was insecure but his friends supported him
@Imaru Lewis Lucius Malfoy doesn't have a job-he's old money. Arthur Weasley is less an MP and more a civil servant for a branch of the government that many of the wizard elites wish didn't exist.
@Imaru Lewis To build on what Michael said, Lucius plays a role similar to an American senator, but without the part where they do things outside of Congress. So he can vote on and propose laws, but doesn't have to make sure to be voted back in, because his power comes from the amount of money previous Malfoys amassed and Narcissa being a Black.
On the other hand, the Weasleys don't have much old money because their family is a younger one, and (if I recall correctly) most of the power that they do have comes from the family that Molly married out of. Plus some influence from supporting the side that won in the first war against Voldemort. Combine that with Arthur working an underpaid government job and having to support more kids. That's why the Malfoys are so much more powerful despite them technically being of equal standing.
Basically, Ron was made mean and stupid to make Harry look nice and Hermione look smart
Finn Youngman Correction: Harry was also made indecisive and easily freaked out to make Hermione a strong and capable leader
the movies made me so annoyed at hermione that i forgot why i liked her in the first place. hermione’s one of my favorites, and the movies made me despise her. it’s really sad honestly.
(before you yell at me i like hermione a lot, i think she’s one of the best characters in the BOOK. movie hermione sucks.)
they made her so out of character in so many ways tbh.
Ron was mean cause he was raised in a household of rowdy boys. Not til Ginny came along was there a feminine element, but even she learned to be rowdy to keep up.
@@margarettburns7544 but this video is about the difference between Ron in the films, he was meaner in the films than in the books so that doesn't justify it
@@finnyoungman2674 Harry was abused by his family without the knowledge that he could fight back. He was afraid that if he did he wouldn't have a place to go. On the other hand Ron grew up learning to fight back and fight for his own place in his family.
In the books, Ron was the character who was mentioned the most after Harry. And in the movies he is the character who stands most of the time in the background, few steps behind Harry and Hermione, like an unimportant side-character. The movies told us a story about a strong DUO, but the books told us a story about a strong TRIO.
I would have loved the Trio way more than I liked the duo-
to the point where, when the 7 books were fed to an ai it produced:
Ron's Ron shirt was just a bad as Ron himself.
the movie made "the golden trio", "the golden duo + comic relief"
@@JSHADOWM could you explain?
@@alecity4877 just look up "Harry Potter and the Portrait of what Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash"
I'm a zoomer so I read the Harry Potter books years after watching the movies. I was very surprised to find out that Ron is a completely different character in the books. The movies make it seem like he's the lovable idiot or the trio's pet, when in the books he was often the sane person who tried to keep Hermione and Harry from doing stupid shit.
Yesssss. When people ask "who's your favourite character?" and I say "Ron", they be like "...!?" I MEAN BOOK RON PEOPLE. _BOOK RON!_
@@Dolores.Umbridge Book Ron stole the spotlight too much from Harry I feel. The best Ron is somewhere between the books and the movies
I agree and all but why on God's earth are you called Umbridge?
Same!!!
I like both characters and I love the movies but Ron should’ve been more like book ron
Blame the writers, not the actor. Rupert Grint doesn't deserve the hate he gets.
Agreed. Rupert Grint did the best he could with what meagre characterisation he was given. Pretty much everything good about the movie version of Ron was due to Rupert Grint's sheer talent as an actor.
I love him. He did a great job, I think
actually blame Steve Kloves he was an H/Hr shipper that he moved Ron to "goofball" so instead of it being about the Golden TRIO as a whole it was more "Harry/Hermione and their good friend Ron who they let tag along."
I absolutely agree. He brought life to Ron! RG could have easily fumbled his portrayal of Ron up, but he nailed his humor, mannerisms, and always was there for his friends. I mean, eve rut one forgets that when it came down to defending Hermoine's honor, he was the the one to step up to Draco. Despite whether it backfired or if it worked he was there for his friend. Harry woulda just stood there. Ron's always been there for his friends.
@Rachtop Actually, Rupert's doing really well for himself. He was nominated for a National Television award last year, has two series going on simultaneously (one of which he's also producing), and upstaged John Malkovich in the recent BBC adaptation of the Poirot novel 'The ABC Murders'. He actually has more projects going on than both Dan and Emma (the latter of whom averages only one project every two years). The only reason people rarely hear much about Rupert is that the American media have never been interested in him or his career. I'd argue he's actually got a better acting career than both Dan and Emma. Almost all the things he's in are really good, and he's usually the best thing in them in the small amount of times that they aren't very good.
Here's the thing. In the books, Ron is not a comic relief character. HOWEVER, he is absolutely a comedic character, a distinction that the screenwriters apparently weren't sophisticated enough to gather. He's a very funny person, with a lot of wit and jokes in him, but it rarely suggests that he's actually stupid. The limits of Ron's humour in the films is when we are supposed to laugh AT him because of how dumb he is, but most of Ron's humour in the books stem from his personality and the way he interacts with people. Experiencing him in the books is more like hanging out with a fun friend than anything.
Exactly, some of my favourite Harry-Ron moments in the books were them just having fun making snarky remarks during classes or when they'd be in the common room together comparing notes on their homework, taking the piss with silly predictions.
I know the movies have only so much time to work with, but they cut out so much that actually shows the friends actually _being friends_
Ron and Harry in the books: Two BFAMs who wouldn't exist without the other.
Ron and Harry in the films: Why the hell are they even friends?
THIS! Book Ron is so quick, witty and funny. It's why Harry is drawn to his light-hearted personality and finds it so much fun to hang out with him after how miserable his childhood years were. He's so much more than just the butt of the joke.
@@30251 Yes, and the films do a crap job at showing how emotionally miserable Harry was when he and Ron fought in GoF and DH.
In the films, he's all smiling with Hermione and you wonder why Movie Ron is a disposable garbage bag.
Was it in GoF? I forgot, but i distinctly remember a scene where book Ron in divination class goes "Can i look at Uranus too Lavender?", pure genius 🤣
How much they screwed up Ron and Hermione's relationship.
Book 1: it was him who successfully used the levitation charm. Hermione didn't show him the wand motion
Book 2: he was ready to kill malfoy because he wished death upon her. He was so worried when she got petrified.
Book 3: he defended her against snape for calling her an insufferable know it all.
He offered her to help her with the buckbeak case even though he hated study and research. And Hermione hugged him and then she apologised.
He made sure that she was eating properly.
Book 4: Hermione's jealousy when Ron was swooning over fleur.
Book 5: Hermione kissed him on the cheek to distract him from the weasley is our king song.
Book 6: when dumbledore died she cried on his shoulder. And he comforted her.
Book 7: when she told him that she modified her parents memory charm he comforted her.
When the deatheaters attacked them in the cafe his 1st instinct was to push Hermione out of harm's way.
He begged bellatrix to torture himself instead of Hermione.
And his reaction to her screams when bellatrix was torturing her... it was unbearable in the book. He was sobbing and pounding his fists in the wall.
Then his concern for the house elves brought that kiss. He remembered the house elves when Hermione herself had forgotten about them
Not to mention in the books Ron gave Hermione SOOOOOOO many compliments.
And the films didn't INCLUDE any of these. No wonder film watchers don't understand the pairing. And then they dumbed him down in favour of Hermione. Made Hermione a flawless goddess. Smh!!
Thank you for taking the time to write this!
House Elves ?
That scene where Hermione is getting tortured and Ron flips out... shit, I felt that.
@@xtzyshuadog they got caught up in everything leading up to the battle of Hogwarts that it was Ron that remembered they were in the castle and not Hermione IIRC
Nice list but you forgot:
- Viktor Krum. That brought out HUGE jealousy in Ron, to the point it over rode his own fan boy love of him.
- In fact, the whole Yule ball Ron obsessed over who was taking her etc.
- How Ron would snap at her when Hermione would say something that may imply she liked Harry, which Hermione would hastily correct (pretty sure when Harry was talking about kissing Cho and Hermione reassured his kissing, Ron snapped something like “How would you know?”)
- Ron would give her perfume etc as gifts.
- When they were staying at Serious Blacks house, Harry would find them asleep next to each other with their hands almost touching, implying they fell asleep holding hands.
Things the movie did well:
- Awkwardness when the two were outside the Shrieking Shack at Hogsmeade
- Rons jealousy at the Yule Ball/anger at Krum (no lead up tho)
- They did include the perfume Ron gives her
- They NAILED the way Ron looked at Hermione at Bill and Fleurs wedding. Also they ran to each other instantly when they became under attack.
Ok, I have officially hit sadness level of Harry Potter Nerd now so Im good 😂
"She needs to sort out her priorities" is still one of the funniest lines I've ever seen in a film. Grint is fantastic.
"Ron's so easy to love"
Then they decided"Let's fix that" Ron got done dirty
I locked onto that too. I mean, I thought he was awesome in the movies, but I thought the goal was to give all characters ample depth, y’know?
I find it weird that JK considered liking Ron a red flag for the director because "he's so easy to love"
Like huh?
@@phantomdriver2010 It’s because Ron was the absolute fan-favorite before the movies and she wanted Hermione (who was not that popular at all in comparasion) to be more liked.
They overcompensated
He was awesome in the movies like someone else said in this comment section, but I wish he had more from the books
also they changed HARRY character as well, like??? harry was supposed to be this ironic sassy boy, in the movies he is so dead idk
It’s because Hermione need to shine, of course, not Harry. The producers sure do use favoritisms
I prefer shy Harry than sassy Harry. It makes him more relatable. Harry wasn’t supposed to be an extraordinary boy, he is... just Harry. Making him be badass makes him kinda weird, as the point of the character is that he is a normal boy who is supposed to be extraordinary.
@@imdumbbut1681 but sassy is not necessarily badass. He was a boy who grew up in an abusive household where he was absolutely powerless, so talking back quietly was always his only way of getting some back. He had this dynamic with Uncle Vernon as he did with Snape.
D Z I know that it isn’t necessarily badass, but in the books he seems like one, and it makes him less relatable.
@@DizzyBusy him taking shots at and talking over the head of the dursleys were the better parts of the books. It also showed that he was very impulsive risking peace over satisfaction
Ron really was done dirty. But one of the moments that really stood out to me in the books with Ron that doesn't really get talked enough about was the scene where they're at Hagrid's and Ron suddenly realized that the leprechaun gold he had given to Harry had disappeared. He asked Harry why he didn't say anything about it, and Harry told him honestly, "I had forgotten about it". And then Ron ultimately says "I hate being poor". To me, it really gave more depth to Ron's character, because he's usually witty, funny, and chipper and yet you always suspect that he has some insecurities he's trying to hide. But in that moment, idk it was just a profoundly vulnerable moment for him and it made his character more sympathetic like Harry. Speaking of whom, that scene in the book also showed a striking contrast between Harry and Ron.
Harry grew up in an abusive, unloving household and even though the Dursleys deprived him of many material goods including his own proper bedroom for most of his childhood, he doesn't really care about material goods and all he's ever really wanted in life was a loving family (as the Mirror of Erised showed him). And the fact that Harry literally had a pocket full of gold at one point and just "forgot" about it really shows his lack of interest or concern for money that he has now that he has his parents' fortune.
Ron, on the other hand, grew up with a large and (overall) loving family, but his family has constantly struggled to make ends meet likely for as long as Ron can remember (having had five older brothers go to school before him). I can't help but wonder if Ron sometimes felt like a burden to his family, an extra mouth to feed.
Then in the second book, there's a scene where Ron is showing Harry his room and seems to be downplaying how his room is and making excuses like "It's not much but it's home" and then Harry finally says something on the lines of "This is the most incredible place I've ever been". Looking back, I can't help but wonder if Ron was making excuses and sort of downplaying how his home and room looked because to him he felt it was obvious his family was poor and he was slightly embarrassed. But to Harry, it was a place of family and love and magic. In other words, to him it was a home which automatically made it the most incredible place ever.
Anyway, sorry for the long essay, lol. Just thought I'd share.
Yea that’s one of the reasons Book Ron is such an interesting and realistic character, because his feelings are very real and could easily be a real life event for someone else out there in the real world. Which is also why some people feel really uncomfortable with his character because it hits too close to home.
That last paragraph made me tear up omg. That Ron feels embarrassed but it’s Harry’s dream is such a perfect duality. Opposites attract right?
In book one, on the train, ron pulls out his corned beef sandwiches that his mum made him, and is embarrassed by it and says, to justify it to Harry, “she hasn’t got much time, you know, with five of us” this further shows him being embarrassed by his background, trying to seem less poor to Harry
I'm going to be completely honest I wouldn't mind living in he Weasley house
Very well said. I love your long essay dude
Ron was a genius on a very different level.. he was tactically better than any of the rest of the group. He had effortless solutions... he generally knew what was needed, even if he didn't know the spell....The devils snare for example. He was of quick wit through the books unless he was doing his moody and jealous thing over Hermione and whoever was showing her attention. His whole family were quick on their feet.. and none of them were exactly unskilled.
“Book Hermione need her friends just as much as they needed her” THANK YOU! I’m tried for movie people bringing up how Hermione “carried” the boys.
Yup they were the TRIO and all needed one another. The movies ruined the characters IMO
@@BrownSugarBeauty91 In the films Harry became a bland generic hero character with no personality or character but "hero", Ron became glorified comic relief and Hermione became a flawless perfect Mary Sue.
@@Xehanort10 I don't think so, he does have a personality but it's adapted to a more subtle reactions and expressions, while in the books he is deservedly sassy and more forward, in the movies he is more reserved, awkward in a stiffed manner to some folks, the kind that is hard for folks to figure out types, I like both personally
To say he doesn't have a personality just cause he's more reserved and not as loud to get your attention is kinda weird, I mean if he was just a hero type of personality he wouldn't have any reactions to anything
@SCP 096 To bad writers these days "female empowerment" means creating a woman character with no personality or character traits except "strong woman" thinking them showing no emotion except a constant frown is emotional strength, making them a flawless Mary Sue who's loved by all men and friends with all other women for no reason, instead of being shown they're strong we're just told they are while they show no physical, mental or emotional strength whatsoever. Even worse writers think portraying all men as stupid, crazy or evil makes the women look strong.
@@alexandersmith4731 it's not really that weird, harry wasn't JUST more sassy and forward in the books and nothing else, he was also more cold calculating and often-times ruthless
This is why being questioned by the sorting hat if he belonged in Slytherin after all weighted so heavily on him This is also where most parralels between Lord Voldemort and him are drawn and why Dumbledore says he reminds him so much of him.Which is a bad thing!Beceuse the guy literally murdered his parents and wants to murder him, and his LITERALLY an autocrat. Of course it weights heavily on him beceuse Harry doesn't want to be like that.The movies could've used that and potray how without his internal monologue Harry looks even more badass and sinister , but they just went with HeS a SoFt Boi, who's polite and reclusive and not so straightforward as in the books and isn't he so much more ReLaTaBLe...like, they had an opportunity to create a layered and multi-faceted character and they just made Harry more introverted and vulnerable and soft beceuse thats apparantly how he looked like in the books yup totally...Those kids in 2,3,4,5 and 6th year suree did think he was harmless. Oh, wait is that giant bird over the casle?? Oh, no, it's just harry stealing a flying car and driving across the country to crash to Hogwarts. Haha, classic insecure,soft Harry...
They completely erase Harry's sense of humour. It's so tragic because snarky Harry is one of the main parts of his personality, in my opinion, it's largely why he nearly got sorted into Slytherin, and it's also the reason I love him so much.
Eh... I think he largely almost got sorted in Slytherin because there was a piece of Voldemort’s soul in him. He shared some of his characteristics. But snarky and witty, he definitely was.
They also erase Hermonie's flaws. She is at times way too stubborn ALWAYS has to be right and gets upset if she gets bested by Ron or Harry. The movies strip Ron down, make Harry boring, and Hermonie perfect
@@Phoenix-pm2qr 100%. And that flaw is one of the reasons I loved her as a character, because it's one of _my_ flaws, especially when I was the ages Hermione was in the books. While Hermione is more conscientious/studious, in many ways I'm similar, and so a lot of my identity and self worth was (and to a lesser degree, still is) tied up in my intelligence and knowledge, to the point that I have experienced and understand her being upset by things like being called an insufferable know-it-all or similar -- _or worse_ -- by a teacher.
But as this video helps illustrate, movies have a bad habit of reducing characters to tropes or 2-dimensional representations of people. Part of it is the limitations of the form, versus books and television that have more time to develop characters, but part of it is that writing is hard and like most things, most of the people doing it professionally really aren't all that great at it. Of course, being under pressure to deliver something hurts any creative endeavor, too.
One of the only movies that I can see keeps Harry's very snarky sense of humour is Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, one of the movies where I feel he acts the most like a teenager
@@DarnHooligan thé ‘Harry!’ ‘sir!’ lines always crack me up. When he’s on Felix felicius I almost think that’s the closest he gets to how he was sometimes in the books lmao
They cut out a lot of Harry's flaws in the movies too.
Absolutely, I think this video described it well, though - some of Harry's flaws are not sharing his thoughts with anyone and letting anger or crazy thoughts build up in him, and that's difficult to communicate in a movie.
Yeah... she went over that in the video
Honestly I feel like they made him look worse by either cutting some of his best moments, adding in completely out of character decisions, or (like they did to Ron) giving some of his iconic moments to Hermione (deciding to escape Gringotts on the dragon is one example).
One thing that will always really irk me is that they left out pretty much everything that happened after the 3rd task in GOF. The end of GOF/beginning of OOTP is where we really see how much of a toll this life is taking on Harry mentally and emotionally. So when they cut out Harry's trauma at the end of GOF, it invalidates his outbursts and blatant trust issues in OOTP and people tend to view them as bratty drama-king-esque tantrums.
@@martaevabetakova483 Right? it was so aggravating. When I was reading the books I was constantly thinking (screaming in my head) that, if Harry would just share his thoughts, it would make his life so much easier. well, if anything, these conflicts made me power through the series for sure. oh jeez, I'm going o to have to go through the books again. :)
its because hes ginger
When I was young, reading the books I got a crush on Ron, the charming loyal brave and more down-to-earth person. Hermione was annoying in the books and not as beautiful - she had her swan moment on the ball in book 4 but still was annoying in her actions around Ron meanwhile. Harry was this depressed, dark, nerdy character who needed to learn a lot about life and friendships and trusting others. He had his moments of confidence when he rescued the day each book at the end or as part of Dumbledores Army but otherwise was very depressing, helpless in social situations and suicidal around his faith etc.
I liked Ron, he was optimistic and awkward but kind and protective. He rescued Harry from his crazy family. He was good company for Harry, without him Harry would be a depressed bullied loner at school and nobody, including Hermione, would have talked to him.And without Ron Hermione would be bullied loner sitting in the library all day, always perfect grades.
Wow! Excellent observation- so true! Makes me love ron even more than I had.
When I was playing the LEGO Harry Potter games, my best friend and I were always fighting to NOT play as Harry, because we both didn't like him that much in the books (as you described him perfectly, he was moody and brooding). The loser had to play Harry in the levels in which one of the two players was a mandatory Harry^^
Ron was one of the first literary characters that made me literally laugh out loud.
Harry *gets sent Firebolt in post anonymously*
Hermione: Wait, are you going to fly on that ?
Ron: Well what do you think he’s going to do with it? Sweep the floor? (Or words to that effect). I remember laughing so hard at that.
I actually laughed reading this comment
Also when he said “From now on, I don't care if my tea leaves spell 'Die, Ron, Die,' I'm chucking them in the bin where they belong.” Fuck, that made me laugh my head off.
"Percy wouldn't recognize a joke if it danced in front of him naked wearing Dobby's tea cozy"
omg yes
user36able 😂😂😂
What also sucks about the whole "if you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too" switch is that there's a whole parallel lost here. Ron protecting Harry is supposed to be a parallel for Sirius protecting James. If I remember correctly, there's reference to some kind of look passing over Sirius's face, and him saying something unusually kind to Ron (about sitting so he doesn't hurt his leg further, I think). Sirius, in that moment, is feeling all kinds of emotions because he's seeing himself in Ron, and wishing he, Sirius, had protected James better. The irony is deeper because Ron is also the one who was protecting/befriending/trusting Scabbers/Pettigrew when he shouldn't have been -- just like Sirius had, all those years ago.
The movie loses this nuance because, for some reason, we needed yet another badass Hermione moment when she already punched Draco Malfoy in the face -- a move that was ALREADY movie-enhanced with the upgrade from heat-of-the-moment slap to cold, borderline-calm punch.
I'd never thought about the scene with Sirius in book 3 like that before, but you're right - there are a lot of parallels between Sirius and Ron. So interesting, thanks!
That actually would make the internal comparison from Harry in _Order of the Phoenix_ , between Ron and his father James, even stronger, as it makes me think of Ron especially, and in ways, Harry and Hermione, to have a sort of "spirit of the Marauders" but without the same baggage they had, differences from the old, but still having the best of it...
I don't know a better way to put it, sorry.
Now I do love what they did to the punching scene and I wouldn't change that but I would like to point out how much they changed the scene, it goes farther then changing the line from Ron to Hermione
In the book dog Sirius first goes for harry but Ron pushes him asside which allows Sirius to grab Ron's arm but in the movie he just takes him and skips Harry, there's nothing brave about it. Then in the shrieking shack, in the book, after Harry jumps on Sirius Ron and Hermione both join in on the fight which allows Harry to grab his wand and almost kill him, remember he has a broken leg. But in the movie Harry just defeats Sirius on his own which makes the scene much weaker.
Exactly, and it's not even something that you could say is reading into the subtext because even their Patronuses are meant to reflect Sirius and James. Harry's is a stag, James' Animagus form, and Ron's is a terrier, Sirius' Animagus form.
@@abbywolffe4114 Well, Sirius was more a general "feral dog", not a specific terrier, but in the same family so definitely a notable connection.
I mean, after all, Moody turned Malfoy into a _ferret_ which is a type of _weasel_ and Draco is, however distantly, related to the Weasleys somewhere. A bit of meta jab at Malfoy being related to a "blood traitor" family that he derisively calls "Weasel" at least once.
What I'm most angry about is Rupert Grint. He's an amazing actor, his facial expressions and noverbal communication is just FANTASTIC. Just imagine what he'd be able to do with book Ron... We were robbed of an even greater performance than the one we got (because, let's be honest, his character was awful but the acting was certainly not).
Exactly!
Fr
Right he was a natural since movie 1
If he had been a bad actor, people wouldn't hate Ron, rather they'd just laugh at him...
I feel he is the best actor of the three by far, while Emma is the weakest. Yet they make it all about Emma and Daniel.
This is so interesting to watch as someone who never read the books and fell in love with this series through the movies. I always loved Harry and hermione and I always felt like after the first couple of movies Ron was just kind of there. I should’ve known, having read many other series turned into movies that Ron was always a stronger character in the books! It shocked me to learn that a lot of the lines that hermione said were actually Ron’s, because a lot of those lines were why I loved hermione and Harry’s relationship - which of course would have made me love Ron and Harry’s relationship in the books and would’ve made my blood boil seeing it on screen. And it makes me mad finding out how much Ron stood up for hermione in the books whereas in the movies he would use those moments to be comic relief or use hermione as the punchline. It’s why I always felt like they would never work as a couple. I have heard the same about ginny, as I feel in the movies she is honestly a nothing character and cannot understand how she and Harry ended up together. But hearing from people how she was in the books I feel robbed of the character she could have been on the screen. In summary, I really need to read the books 😂
Have u read them yet u really should their better then the movies
Another Thing how they ruined Ginny Weasleys character to push more for Harry and Hermione. Ginny is one of the best Female characters in the book and she is best for Harry. But Becoz the screenwriter wanted their own fanfic of harry and Hermione, they completely ruined Ron and Ginny Weasley. Pathetic!
It is quite appreciative of you that you realised all these without even reading the books. Well- researched !
I actually think thay made all of the Weasleys bad. They were more complex and interesting in the books. All of them starting from Arthur and Molly and with all the 7 kids.
Steve Kloves and David Yates shipped Harry and Hermione, so when they found out that in the books they are not the endgame couple, both Kloves and Yates took out their anger and frustration by destroying both Ron and Ginny
The directors made Ron look dumb and it had a negative impact on the story and Rupert Grint’s career
Actually Rupert has a flourishing career, he's been in movies and TV shows regularly, even while still doing HP. But I do agree that they made Ron look dumb in the movies (I'd blame the screenwriter more than the director) and it had a horrible impact on the story
Noelia Baccaro yeh his career has stated to grow a bit, but after Harry Potter he went off the radar for years, Daniel Radcliffe was so lucky to break the barrier of his role as Harry Potter
@@nbac26 also o think Rupert said that he is not that interested anymore in acting,he bought a ice cream truck and traveled a lot so there's that hahaha
@@Queotracosamariposa he's starred in three different TV shows in the past couple of years (Snatch, Sick Note, The ABC Murders) and he is currently starring in M Night Shyamalan's show Servant, so I'd say he's still quite interested lol
He's kept himself very active professionally, but whatever he does is not covered by the media in the way Dan and Emma's careers are, that's why it seems he's not interested. It's actually the media not interested in him.
@@ape8887 Meanwhile Daniel is doing whatever he wants, like playing a farting corpse, Kylo Ren's roommate, a madman with guns stuck to his hands, a Playmobil spy, and Igor.
He's at least having fun with it.
A great example of this, is in chamber of secrets, when Harry is hearing the bassalisk, in the book Ron states that "hearing voices isn't a good sign, even in the wizarding world." they then give this line to Hermione which doesn't really make too much sense for Hermione to know that over Ron
Also, If i Remenber Well, The Line "If you want to Kill Harry, You have to Kill us first" was Originally from Ron but in the Movie Hermione was the one to say
Well I guess we should asume Hermoine read it some where 🙄🤦♀️
Also she didn't know what mudblood means in the books Ron is the one who explains that to her and Harry.
I know this has nothing to do with Ron but the same thing happened when they gave Hermione a Dumbledore line, A DUMBLEDORE LINE!!! "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself"
I love how book Ron was always ready to fight. He’s is a Ride-or-die friend and he is so amazing. Him saying “if you’re gonna kill Harry you have to kill us too” while struggling to stand kind Of proved that for me. he mostly needs to be held back from attacking people (mostly Malfoy). He comes from a wizarding family and uses his fists more than magic to fight.
He also almost attacked _the Minister of Magic_ when Scrimgoer seemed ready to attack Harry. That one blows me away every time. _That's_ standing up for your friend!
He was the Sirius Black to Harry's James Potter, but they couldn't even give Ron a bleedin' motorcycle SMH...
Man’s has fire in his hair, heart and fists.
@@lysander3262 he did get an ice cream truck
@Balanc-Joy918 that's one think I like about the Weasley family in general, even with Arthur being in the ministry himself it seems they all have a disregard for bureaucratic authority. Even Arthur enchanted the car. That's not exactly legal...
Ron in the movies: *stands around and looks at the dungeon* “we have to do something”
Ron in the books: “You can have me! Keep me! HERMIONE” *sobbing as he’s hitting the walls and trying to get to her*
In the Deathly Hallows, I almost totally understood why Ron left. I could really put myself in his shoes and feel that paranoia, betrayal, and hopelessness.
In the movie it felt more like a hissy fit.
It WAS a hissy fit. Ron abandoned Harry for the *second* time when he did that. Why isn't anyone giving Harry some credit here? Ron abandons him, and he welcomes him back with open arms. And Ron said in the book because Dumbledore gave him the lighter that brought him back to Harry and Hermione, that Dumbledore always knew he was going to leave. But Harry, being awesome, says, "No, he always knew you were going to come back."
And yeah, of COURSE being in that situation would be extremely hard! And Harry REPEATEDLY said before they left that neither of them were required to come with him. But they INSISTED.
Edit: Ok, "abandoned" is the wrong word. More like briefly left, maybe...?
Emz :3 because he literally saved harry's life by risking his own life. After that who WOULDN'T forgive him?
@@anusritineogi3168 well, ya gotta point... Even through all my ranting, I actually quite like Ron. It's just that he abandons Harry *twice,* and is extremely jealous.
@@youdontneedtoknowwhoiam6640 well, you would not be? He is poor, youngest son, sidekick of a world famous boy, who has talents in sports too.
@@Tzimisce25 look, I get Ron. I see where he's coming from. I'm just pissed he thinks that Harry's famous for "defeating" Voldemort as a baby, (and the only known person to have ever survived an Avada Kedavra curse) while Harry looks at it that he's famous for watching his parents get murdered. I'm also pissed that he abandons Harry twice. But, overall, I like Ron.
They also made Harry about 1000% less dumb in the movies and so, of course, they gave Ron all the oblivious/insensitive lines
I don't remember Harry being that dumb in the books... I remember him being fairly intelligent, if emotionally stunted and easily led by those in authority, likely due to the systematic abuses in his childhood. I mean, he only really slacked off in school when Ron was there, otherwise he did his classwork and managed to have decent grades.
i completely disagree, to me its a pain to watch hp4 for exemple because of how unbearably dumb harry became in the movie, its too annoying... harry in the books is not exceptionally smart but he gets on alright on his own, and has some talents. the movie harry is just stupid and dull
It's like they gave Ron all the flaws! He's a lovely character, really.
If I could, I'd turn back time and fix the script along with y'all and fix the character development.
Harry: "Gosh I wonder what monster could be hidden in the school by the snake man with a snake on his banner that loves snakes? Hmm maybe it's a spider?"
Harry: "Gosh, I wonder who wrote these additions to my books, a shame I haven't been looking at this exact handwriting on the board in Potions class for several years"
If you ever watched “avatar the last airbender” Ron is like Sokka where hermione is like Katara. They are both genius and talented but their intelligence is different. They both have what the other is missing so compliment each other as a perfect couple. Ron has a kind of heat of the moment-think outside the box, resourceful-brave intelligence, and hermione pure knowledge and ideas. Ron contributes a lot to plans and the groups strategies . I wish the movies did paint him as more than a gag. His character is one to be admired by all.
This is a really good comparison! I wish they developed Ron's character in the movies as much as Sokka's develops by the end of season 3
@@tararobinson5923 But I guess that's why Avatar is like a universally acclaimed series, and harry potter is deeply divisive lol
Sokka is more like movie ron than book ron IMO
@@vondonstrut218 The movies are deeply divisive. The books have just a lot packed into them - hundreds and hundreds of pages packed with world-building, character development and whatnot. The first two films hold up to the books - they portray Ron as brave and strategic (the chess scene or his part down in the CoS) and Hermione more like the annoying know-it-all (she has more breakdowns over little things, makes the cat-hair mistake, has a crush on Lockhart). But in the later, longer books there was so much going on with so many characters that all had some complexities and more plot so that the film team streamlined things by massively simplifying Rons and Hermione's characters.
This has become a movie trope, sadly. Although hermione would not have gone to that fortune teller.
The babbity rabbity line is actually not an isolated thing. Part of rons character is that he's lived his whole life in the wizarding world, and has a bit of culture shock every time he realizes something he's taken for granted as common knowledge his entire life needs to be taught to harry and hermione. It's a subtle thing that helps the wizarding world feel more real and lived in, and cements his role in the group as the one who shares things like that.
And I would not call that reaction that far fetched. I have no idea where I first read or heard of hänsel & gretel or expect everyone to have read the borthers Grimms collection, but I am quite surprised if anyone tells me they don't know the story because of course everybody knows (no they don't).
Weasley is our King
In the books, he stood by Harry in almost everything.
In the movies, he was constantly being comic relief and blundering.
That's why we all book fans sing
Weasley is Our King
omg
I forgot about the Weasley is our king chant
Weasleys rock!
I always read that song in the tune of "Now That We're Men" from the first Spongebob movie.
🧑🦰👑
What I hate the most about adaptation is that they strip Ron of his wonderful sense of humour.
Dude, seriously. He is hilarious in the books, even more so than Fred and George, I thought.
In the books, his whole family was a riot (especially how they interacted), they were witty, cool-headed, and I always felt like they could lighten any situation. But in the movies, instead of being witty and making the joke, Ron IS the joke and rather than laughing because he’s brightening a dark situation, we’re laughing at his incompetence, which isn’t worth the sacrifice of his character
the humour, or lack of it, in the movies is one of the things that bothered me and could've been easily avoided. Insted of making those lame, superficial jokes, that aren't even that funny, they could've just maintained the book one's. They're so many and from so many different characters. They wanted to give the audience the feeling that things were getting serious, but that doesn't mean you have to completly take the humour and colour (let's not talk about that!...) out of the story.
Regarding humour and Harry's characterization book to films: as they made Harry this calmer less flawed version of his book-self thay also took his humour, which was dark and sarcastic. Once again, they white-washed him
I always found Ron a so so guy anyhow...
@@troson8732 People actually laugh at Ron being butt of the joke? Seriously? Even years ago to my untrained eye seeing ron act like a complete buffon is dreadfully boring, I never even recognized that was supposed to be a joke.
Ron was someone I actually quite liked in the book. He had street smarts and a blunt, honest attitude.
Movie Ron? They replaced his character with an oaf whose sole existence is lifting other characters up.
Ps: "beige dishragification" is a term I'm borrowing
Saying "Bloody hell" being frightened of spiders and jokes about him always being hungry are all there is to film Ron.
@@Xehanort10 Then there is video game Ron, who gets tired by doing absolutely nothing.
@@rorrim0 Yeah. Exerting the slightest effort to do anything takes away all of game Ron's energy. In the Chamber of Secrets game he was 12 going on 112.
They did the same to Hagrid
Nessmess you should watch a very potter musical series from starkid that does a great parody of the movies
Not only did the movies fail to do Ron justice and most of the times made look him and Harry helplessly dumb, but they also made Hermione almost unbearable, impossibly smart and capable of everything. I know people that didn’t read the books and simply find her annoying and I can perfectly get it. How could a flawless character ever be relatable? It might have seemed a good idea, in the early ’00, to show a strong female role model for little girls to look up to, but how could ever in this world a screenwriter want to write a flawless, impeccable character? This seems incredibly stupid to me like, is Kloves actually a professional or an amateur screenwriter? It would have been nice if the fans of the movies could have had the chance to appreciate her character despite her exuberance, pride and her being tactless and lacking of empathy at times.
Fast forward to 2023 and almost every female character in TV a movies are Hermione-esque. No faults, strongest, smartest, bravest, no character arc or trials to overcome and be changed by.
@@chillpengeru exactly, and this has grown boring and flat very quickly. This is one of the syntoms of lazy screenwriting, in my opinion
JKR: "Who couldn't love Ron!"
Who? Well, apparently the screen writers, the directors.... and ultimately, his creator. Seems that a lot of people had little love for the earthy, loyal, smart Ron in the books. They collectively went for the easy movie trope, the dumb comic sidekick. And the movie lost a lot of potential for doing so.
Exactly. As I've written elsewhere, to this day, JKR feels, rightly or wrongly, that Hermione, or at least her archetype, is still underrated. As she said in 2014 during Wonderland: “You don’t see a lot of Hermiones in film or on TV except to be laughed at… The intense, clever, in some ways not terribly self-aware, girl is rarely the heroine and I really wanted her to be the heroine. She is part of me, although she is not wholly me.”
So she feels, consciously or subconsciously, the need to prop Hermione up. To give her a fairer shot in fiction. The Potter series was becoming, with each book out, increasingly a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, coinciding with the rapid growth of the Internet. And in that context, it was a now-or-never chance to redeem Hermione’s archetype.
And that’s why the narrative is so slanted towards her. In 2011, for instance, she said, discussing her first meeting with Kloves, that “Ron’s so easy to love”… the unspoken follow-up of what she’s saying is “…and Hermione’s so difficult to love”. It is therefore the case, looking at the interview excerpt I posted above, that between the three members of the Trio, she thinks that Ron is the most easy to love.
This is why in 2005, she admitted to being “uncomfortable” by the mere concept of Ron bashing. That whole idea perplexes her, because for her Ron is already seen as great, whereas Hermione isn’t. She understands why Hermione is not liked. Which is why, at least for her, it is Hermione, and not Ron, who needs to be propped up by the narrative… to get more people to appreciate a character like her.
Only problem is, she may have overcompensated. Because as she has admitted, she has never reread her books… and so probably thinks that we’re still in the 1997-2000 era of fandom. And I wonder whether if she actually went ahead and spent a substantial time in the fandom (particularly among the fans of the movies), to find that many people actually seriously think the inverse, that Hermione’s great and easy to love, and Ron’s the worst and difficult to love; and discovering that this bias against Ron is simply ingrained in the fandom, rather than hearing about a second-hand account from two canon-loving interviewers (Emerson Spartz & Melissa Anelli) about a handful of rabid Harry/Hermione shippers… I wonder whether she would see the Frankenstein she inadvertently created.
@@stefan4159 ur right about her wanting to further the Hermione character, but Frankenstein is a bit much
@@ethancoffey3491 the point is actually pretty dead on. The Frankenstein is only wrong because Frankenstein is the doctor. The more accurate analogy is that she didn’t realize she’d become Frankenstein and Hermione was her monster.
@@stefan4159 Because Rowling is self-obsessed. She wrote Hermione to be a reflection of herself, including her perceived strengths and weaknesses. She protected the shit out of her like she was the Razor’s Edge, and any criticism of the character is essentially self-deprecation.
A similar thing happened in her terrible, disgusting transphobic detective novels where the girlfriend/secretary is a one-to-one self insert.
Well...
10:00 - "You asked us a question and she knows the answer! Why ask if you don't want to be told?"
I don't think I'll ever forgive them for cutting this line from the movie. This line not only showed Ron willing to stick up for Hermione in a very public setting (one of the many ways that he showed he cared for her), but it also showed Ron being brave enough to confront *Snape* head-on, in the middle of class, in front of *all* his peers, and say what essentially everyone (including the readers) were thinking.
But no. Instead we get Movie Ron agreeing with a *teacher* who is blatantly bullying a *student* just because she's smart and isn't afraid of showing it. 😒
you didn't really read that chapter enough if you only remember that line, he was angry at Snape for what he said but the chapter also said he called her the same thing on occasion. it just showed that he was kinda a hypocrite and he risked making things worse when he could have reported his behavior instead
@@aaron75fy I'm sure reporting Snape did a ton for students lol I always thought it was so weird how Dumbledore had to have known how shitty he was and still let him teach young kids
@@HufflepuffShortie not to Dumblebore, I doubt he does anything without an agenda. I mean to the ones above him, I'm sure if pressured parents would talk to the board of governors about shoddy teaching. it has a better chance of doing something than getting detention
@@aaron75fy I really don't agree with your reading of Ron's intent.
I didn't see hypocrisy in the narration mentioning that Ron called Hermione a know-it-all often at all. I read it as just a friendly insult without genuine maliciousness behind it and an early indication that Ron really cared for her that much that he'd impulsively try to defend her honour from a teacher he was intimidated by.
The fact that the narration specifically says "he calls her a know-it-all twice a week" right before the line of dialogue when he stands up for Hermione was supposed to directly show us that while he might casually throw the phrase around Hermione himself he didn't really mean it since he got pissed when someone else with malice directed it at her.
Remember, this isn't Movie Ron, this is Book Ron; Book Ron isn't stupid.
@@fulldisclosureiamamonster2786 look I don't really care about whether you agree or not, the fact is there is a line in a latter book where Ron said "if I ever insult you again" to which Hermione actually said "then I know you're back to normal" which literally indicated he never stopped. you can read that any way you want but the fact is Ron and Hermione as a couple was shoddily written and if the event happened in real life with the same personalities they would not WORK! even Rowling admitted that was an error in judgment and if you can't trust the author who can you trust?
For me Rupert was the best actor out of the 3, the way he showed his emotions in his facial expressions made us understand his thoughts, while book harry a lot of times looks grumpy the movie harry never does, and I don't know if this is the scrip fault or because Daniel couldn't show complex expressions, and the same goes for hermione, because I didn't like Emma's version of Disney Belle, she didn't change the way of playing hermione, it seems like she was playing the same character.
I think Daniel can act out complex emotions and Harry's flaws, but for the sake of it being a classic 'hero story' movie, they cut it. The hero is the one who is a blank canvas so we can all see ourselves in him, a lot of the times his 'hero-ness' defines him. A lot of stories have similar lack of personality in their main characters: Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Bella Swan. But because they are bland, we can all project ourselves onto them. And this idea goes back to writers like Victor Hugo, who wrote an amazing story about the Three Musketeers from the perspective of the guy who just accidentally walked into the plot. Harry is this kind of character in the movies. It's a comercial decision.
@@MissBentuy I expressed myself wrong, Daniel wasn't very good while he played harry but after the saga ended, he played a lot different characters and he improved a lot
Actually I agree Rupert did show Ron 's complex character with ease but other two characters were written in that way it wasn't the actors'fault
I agree, although I find Daniel to be quite expressive in movie six.
Yeah he's not his fault if the writers gave him awful lines and turned the Ron character into a comic relief
Woah, pretty late but I have to add one thing to the fight and Ron leaving. I feel like many people forget about it but when Ron left, he immediately felt better without the horcrux and wanted to come back but he was caught by snatchers and by the time he came to where they were staying Harry and Hermione had left. Then he went to Bill and Fleurs where he used the deluminator to get back. Plus he also went once in between where he couldn't get in because of the enchantments but Harry had heard some rustling and left early.
Ron it book 1 to Hermione: ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?
Hermione to Ron in book 7: ARE YOU A WIZARD OR NOT?
They are so perfect together and you can't convince me otherwise.
ROMONIE SUPREMACY
Nahhh there wasn’t enough build up to that relationship. I like the idea of them being together but it was sudden and forced.
WhoAteMyFries cap
@@eka455 I agree it could have been better, but it was either Ron and Hermione ending up together or Ron getting killed off.
@@mayacrod Ron didn’t have to die. Why would killing him off be the alternative it doesn’t make any sense. Honestly, pretty much all of the relationships in the books lack chemistry if you ask me. Clearly romantic subplots are not J. K. Rowling’s forte.
Ron at Malfoy Manor
*In the movie:* Hmm kinda sucks here
*In the book:* HERMIONE! HERMIONE
*In the Stephen Fry audiobook:* *HEEEEERRRMMIIIIIIIOOOOOOONNEEEEEE!!!!! HHHHEEEEEEEEEEERRRRMMMMIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNEEEEEEE*
stephen fry is king lets be real
Agreed
I can hear it in my head 😂
This should be higher
Where can I listen to it?
Book Ron: is a lovable street smart dude
Book Hermione: is a nervous know-it-all
Movie Ron: Annoying idiot
Movie Hermione: unflawed, boring, pretty girl
They took Hermione's flaws and Ron's strenghts and just scrapped them.
I'm convinced some of the filmmakers in later films thought Emma Watson would sleep with them if they portrayed Hermione as the most perfect person in the universe.
They just gave Hermione all of Ron’s good qualities, and didn’t do anything to make up for it.
Obviously, characters being written to be better people...makes better characters like both have better in it easy
@@hoodieninja4983 And they made Hermione worse in movie 4
@Xehanort10
That’s creepy...
Guys, hes a literal chess genius even by Wizard standards.
Theres a reason why people long thought Dumbledore was a timetravelling Ron back in the book-only era.
It upsets me that they made Hermione perfect so she would be a "better role model" when the reason I love and look up to her is because she isn't perfect! The golden trio (+Ginny) are honestly my favorite characters because they all have something I relate to and they're just realistic teenagers who have been put in a crazy situation. Harry is funny but hotheaded. Ron is compassionate but insecure. Hermione is intelligent but socially awkward. Ginny is fun but sometimes brash. They all have an equal amount of positive and negative traits. That's why they're all interesting characters who I look up to. Too bad the movies couldn't understand that.
EDIT: It was honestly difficult for me to get through this video having to see the movie clips of Ron being massacred, since he's my favorite character. I'm so happy you understand how wonderful he is.
If Ginny is judgemental, then why is she friends with Luna?
@@piretiris8223 I was referring to Fleur. Then again, I think Ginny had good reason to dislike her because Fleur insulted their home and status. My point being is that Ginny isn't afraid to be rude, at least to people who deserve it.
@@summer_the_rae ok
I personally don’t like book Ginny or book Ginny really all of the female characters in hp except for the adult woman (Molly, McGonogall, exc) Luna, and Hermione
Something that has to be considered is time crunch. All 8 movies are about 20 hours of screen time. I imagine most people took more than 20 hours to finish the first book. It doesn't necessarily mean they didn't understand them, but there's not nearly as much time for characterization, and in absence of that, many things don't make a lot of sense.
Damn, all this just reminds me of how sharp, witty and full of personality Harry's inner thoughts were in the books. I really don't like the movies.
I agree. Harry made even the most boring people or situation seem entertaining and exciting, but the movies really failed to capture that.
Well clearly the movie writer's inspiration for Harry's character came from the plastic cup he found on the street.
harry's only good movie was the 6th. he was only a good character when he was with hermione
Shajida Islam as a TV show.
@Shajida Islam I...kinda disagree.
An adaptation should be able to stand on its own without having to rely on knowing what happens in the source material. And not getting the characters and the story right is one of the biggest no-nos of any adaptation.
*Ginny ties Harry's shoe.*...Because everyone knows...she's not your woman until she ties your shoe. That's why they call it tying the knot, kids.
@@johnxavier272 It is
Yis
Yikes.
@@johnxavier272 That's what I thought was going to happen in that scene. The way that scene is it seemed like had the Death Eaters not attacked the Burrow Harry and Ginny would have gone upstairs and fucked.
Edd Zone coming from a kid: Thanks old man.
Ron assuming Harry & Hermione knew about beedle the bard makes sense. It's just like someone moving to a different country & fitting in really well. Over time people stop thinking about explaining things to them if they haven't needed to for years. And most of us automatically assume the things we've known since we were toddlers are universal, until we stop to question it
Also, if I remember correctly, he actually said something along those lines in the book😂
@@alisemaleneohme4666 he did, I was thinking that. Hermione had to remind him that her and harry were raised by muggles
Harry, Ron and Hermione are like caricatures of their book versions. Ginny is unrecognizable as a character apart from the color of her hair.
Really? In the books Ginny was mostly a invisible Fangirl in most of the books, barely in the narrative, in Half Blood Prince and The Deadly Hallows she become a Mary Sue, everyone tell Harry how awesome she was, how beautiful she was, how great Quidditch player she was, but never actually show it. The only thing that they did change is give her more screen time, but other than that she is nothing more than a Fangirl like in the books.
@@TheKeyser94 Ginny did get a rocky start, but once she got out of that awkward middling phase, she became this sassy, sarcastic, and strong tomboy. She would needle Ron, play pranks with Fred and George, and if memory serves, she even called Harry out on his bullshit at one time.
@@Mothman_In_a_T-Pose Really? You know that because she actually is describe in the narrative doing that or because everyone else tell Harry how awesome she is? I think that is the latter on, not project yourself in a blank slate like Ginny.
@@TheKeyser94 Tone down the aggression, yeah? If you reread the books, Ginny has always had an undercurrent of inner strength. In the early books, that was overshadowed by her crush on Harry. As soon as she let go of that and moved on, Ginny came into her own as a character.
I'm not saying she is the best written character, but she is honestly nothing like the insecure, limp-spined girl in the movies.
@@Mothman_In_a_T-Pose If you read the books, you would know that she barely existed in the first five books, and the last two books her feats were tell by third persons, because Rowling forgot the rule, show not tell, and because Ginny is basically a Mary Sue, anyone can project whatever stupid belief of the character they have into her, that what you are doing now, projecting.
Also in the books Hermione doesn’t even know what a mudblood is until Ron explains it
Its the only thing i dislike about chamber of secrets because other then that id argue that was the best book-movie adaptation
Yeah, also one litle thing. In the movies no one reacted at Malfoy's comment, but if I remember clearly in the books Fred and George have almost beaten him up. (They didn't, but wanted to)
@@SevenPr1me I agree the Chris Columbus Harry Potter movies are the best adaptations
Ikr? I always wondered why people describe Hermione as this witty, sarcastic , popular pretty girl.
She was a bookworm who was kind of a bossy know-it-all but loyal and clever and brave at the end of the day, but she was in no way social.
She relied on Harry and Ron as her only friends.
If she had any close friends outside of the two of them she wouldn't need Ron to explain what a mudblood is to her. She would already know from her social life what mudbloods and purebloods are
Ron didn't tell either her or Harry that beceuse by not telling them he was trying to shield them from having to deal with the fact that some people might want them dead beceuse of who they are(their blood status)
It makes more sense in the book because Ron had grown up in the magical world and hated pureblood supremacists like the Malfoys who thought purebloods were better than Muggle borns and half bloods. The Weasleys were the good kind of purebloods who knew it didn't matter because purebloods, Muggle borns and half bloods are all witches and wizards anyway. Hermione on the other hand had only been in the wizarding world for a year or two at the time of Chamber of Secrets. The writer Steve Kloves who had a Hermione obsession justified Hermione already knowing what a Mudblood was by saying she read it in a book. I highly doubt there was a "Magical Slurs" book in the Hogwarts library or anywhere else. Yes Hermione loves reading but not everything she knew came from books. There are some things you can't learn from books. "She read it in a book" was just a lazy Kloves excuse.
Book written Ron + Rupert Grint’s acting would be 🥰🥰🥰🥰
factsss
I knowwww, I’m always greatful that Harry Potter book to movie adaptation was not crucified like a lot others are (see: Percy Jackson), and I try to not have unrealistic standards but it really does hurt, the missed opportunity of showing Ron as he was :(
yessss
Blk Barbie honestly a small part of me wishes the Harry Potter movies were ABSOLUTELY terrible because then, like the Percy Jackson fandom, everyone would have read the books...
ooooh this, so much