its just something iv noticed but why do the spells that they use in the movie have a different effect to what they are supposed to? (if that makes sense)

like in OOTP hermione uses stupefy on ron and it sends him flying across the room, surely its only supposed to stun?
and in POA harry uses expelliarmus on snape and that seems to send him flying as well?

i dont know why but its just something that bugged me for a while, just wondering if anyone else feels like this or if theyv noticed this?

I've noticed that. But I think, in the books, it's easier to read what's being done and to imagine it, whereas in the movies it would be more visually pleasing to see the spell do something big, like throwing people across the room then to have them stunned and just standing still. The movie makers want people to go 'Wow!' at these little things, they don't want us just sitting there watching someone get stunned without having them do anything but stand there. It is annoying that they change these things but for the movie it is necessary.

I have to agree with Triad. I think they want the spells to look bigger. It would look so good if you just have someone getting stuned it would be more dramatic if the go flying and hit something. its the way hollywood does things.

yea i get what your saying, it is a lot more exciting to watch someone being thrown across a room rather than them just dropping... hope that didnt sound too wierd!

i didnt notice that. althought, while reading hbp, i read abotu sectomsempra! i thought that was what malfoy used against harry in the dueling club for the snake. Then i looked back and saw it was sepentsorcia.

yer the whole stunning thing bugged me a bit and in movie 5 harry teaches the DA levicorpus- or at least it gets used on nigel... so in the 6th movie how is ron going to find out about the HBP spells in the book coz harry is supposed to use levicorpus as a n-vb (non-verbal) spell as ron walks past... spose it doesnt realy matter much tho

Yeah, it wouldn't be very interesting in the movie for someone to just kind of stand there. Much more interesting for them to fly backwards. I guess it's just the price you pay for allowing the movie to guide your imagination for you instead of letting it fly free by itself?

I absolutely love the movies, and I agree that the spells had to have more 'oomph' in the films, but they could`ve changed it up a little instead of having them just blast you off your feet. I mean, why bother saying an incantation if you`re going to get the same results just by waving your wand at someone half-heartedly?

The one that bothered me was Rictusempra in Chamber of Secrets. It`s supposed to make the victim laugh uncontrollably or some such, but again they`re just blasted off their feet with no other effect. Why not blast, then uncontrollable laughter? Same for the Stunning spell; if the victim MUST go flying, fine, but they shouldn`t be able to get right back up after being STUNNED. They`re great at special effects, why not have a moment of parallysis (I spelled that wrong), with like yellow electrical currents or something momentarily flashing on the body(not too flashy) - or something to that extent? Or just not get up for a few minutes? The camera has plenty of things to focus on while said person is 'Stunned.'

The movies should not have used blasting off everyone. When Malfoy disarms DD in HBP his wand just flies away. I think that JKR has reasons like this to create different spells rather than use a single spell on all occasions

I have noticed that but it doesn't really bother me. The one spell mistake thing that really bugged me was in the Department of Mysteries Bellatrix uses the killing curse on Sirius when I think (but the book leaves it open to interpretation) that she only used a stunning spell in the book.