The following was a post made by gryffin_hauz_88 via PM to me that I believed deserved its own thread, so please address all replies to gryffin. Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I noticed that some of the readers are referring the HP characters according to what they see on HP movies or the actors/ actresses that playing the character. One good example is Draco Malfoy and Tom Felton. I've been in the official thread about Draco Malfoy and one of the rules there is the thread is about Draco and not Tom. Why? Because some now are reffering that the characters in the book and the actors are the same but they're not.

Another example is the H/Hr, R/Hr shippers or any other shippers. They want the character to be together as well as the actors and actresses who are playing the character.

I know, maybe because the actors are really talented and they really act well but for me, the characters from the book and the actors from HP books are different.

What I want to discuss here is that when we say, for example, Harry Potter, are they thinking of Harry Potter as the character from the book or the one who's playing Harry Potter in the big screen, Daniel Radcliffe?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as an addendum, on my part, the character discussion thread gryffin referred to should not have had any discussions about Tom there...that discussion is about the character, not the actor, who does not have any bearing on the Malfoy in the books. Just to clarify.

I always refer to the character from the books, never such as explained above because it's really wrong isn't it, to say I really like Hermione she's hot, because you've never really seen her and if you mean Hermione from the movies you're saying that you like emma Watson, the actress. Of coures you have a image of Hermione in your mind while reading the books but we haven't seen her as you have, so it wouldn't fit in.
Hermione in the films are the director's image of Hermione, and in my opinion she doesn't really look too much like Hermione as she is described in the books. I am now only talking about how she looks like because I think Emma is a great actress.

Thank you, Dana for helping me... You're the best!...

In my opinion, I sometimes refer the characters as the actors regarding on the physical appearance. Sometimes, you can't help thinking of actors playing the character especially, in my case, I've seen first the movie before reading the books. The first time I read HP books, I'm thinking about Daniel Radcliffe when in the book, Harry is being described. Maybe, it's because, as I've said, my eyes first seen the actors than my imagination about the characters in the book.

I agree with Lulu about Emma and Hermione. It's because of the hair, I guess.

I agree with gryffin_hauz_88.

I saw the movies, all three of them befor I read the books, so when I read I picture all the characters already introduced by the movies as they are.

Course I have to use my imagination more with the new characters.

Funny thing but it might have been one of the reasons I liked the books so much, I already knew the characters. Then again I'll never know

I think why people think that the actors are sort of like the characters in the books becasue JKR describes how everyone looks in the books.....so the director, when choosing his cast, takes the best actor who also looks like how JKR decribed them in the books....do you get what im saying?

One obvious difference between the movies and the books is Dudley though..in the movies he has brown hair but in the books it specifically says he has almost white blond hair..I find it really hard to get over when I am reading the books now that I have seen the movie...I now picture Dudley like a bigger version of Tom Felton lol..

To tell you the truth, I do not like the movies because they have ruined how I picture some characters.
Ron, for example. Ron was suppose to be tall and gangly. Rupert Grint (in the beginning, he -has- gotton better, I suppose) is short and definatly not gangly.

It does confuse me when people mention the characters from the movies instead of the books. I don't think it is right...but I am not a fan of the movies.

But it is inevitable...I suppose. Dan will always be Harry. Emma will always be Hermione. Rupert will be Ron.

At least we still have Peeves.

It's interesting to see how many people visualize the actors when thinking of the characters in the books. I saw the second film before I read the books and yet I never see the actors as the characters. I get so immersed in the books that I never give a second thought to the films while reading. I enjoy the actors' performances, but realize that they are only actors. I have my own image of Harry and it's not Daniel Radcliffe.

What I find almost disturbing is the matter Dana (Forgive me if you prefer to be called something else other than your screen name) pointed out regarding the various shippers wanting to see the actors get together. I suppose in a way it seems like an invasion of privacy. The actors do a nice job, but they aren't the characters. Wishing for their personal lives to go in a certain direction is really none of our business. It's particularly odd when I see fan fiction about various actors dating. I'm not sure people are really seeing the actors in this case. I think they're confusing fantasy with reality. I could go on about the various real person fan fiction, but I won't do that here.

Hiya and welcome to the forums, Balfurd!!

Yeah, Dana is fine...I prefer it actually...seems kind of wooden when people address me as Dana_Scully.... Or Louise is fine too...

Just to clarify though, that first post was made by gryffin_hauz_88, I just copied and pasted it from a PM... That being said, I do echo the sentiments though...it's a little weird when people seem to blur the line between fantasy and reality. I guess it's just an old Hollywood thing that leading men usually start something with their leading ladies (well, maybe not usually...but I think it's fair to say fairly frequently, at least) - people just like to see other people getting together, I suppose. Transferring what goes on off-screen between actors to what goes on between characters in a book though is an inevitable consequence of making films from books, I suppose - it's a natural, if highly unrealistic, thing to do.

I have to admit though that when I read the books now, it is Dan, Emma, Rupert, Alan, Gary and so on that I see. But then, coming to the books from the films originally, I suppose I never really had a chance...

hey i read the books first then i watched the movies, so i had an idea in my head of what characters lookd like. when i watched the movies i was really supprised that emma, rupert and daniel looked like the characters in my head.

the only thing i would have changed on hermione/ emma would have been her hair because it was supposed to be REALLY busshy oh and i would of made her teeth bigger. am i right when i say that hermione in the 4th book was supposed to have straight hair and her teeth were not as big and she was supposed to be un recignised by ron?

the character hagrid in the book was described to be REALLY tall and wide but in the movies hagrid isnt as tall and wide as i hoped.

voldemort is also not what i would of thought he looked like but hey.

lol

please reply to tell me what you think

(I LOVE HERMIONE AND RON)

MOD Edit: Netspeak is not allowed. "plz" should be please and "u" should be you. Your post has been edited. Please be more careful next time.

I really don't have any problems with the casting in any of the movies except for Dumbledore. I think they really played down his character in the movies and made him too much of a senile man.

Yes the actors are not exactly the same as the book, because they're actors they're supposed to be better looking except in the case of Sirius Black, because he was suppose to be really good looking, even though he was dirty, miserable, and crazy you could still see that underneath it all he was good looking. Although Gary Oldman is a good actor he's not much of a looker, and I also imagined Lupin as much younger and with a much kinder face. I can't really accept the Lupin portrayed in the movies.
In my mind I still think of the characters as separate to the actors, which is really weird, because I thought that I would be definitely affected but I'm not. Maybe because it's my friends always talking about the actors as themselves and not as the characters, so I can easily separate them.

I read the books before I saw the movies, so there were some characters which I just thought.... no-- that's not right. Like someone mentioned, there are some cases of obvious differences such as Dudley, and I have to be honest and say that Sirius Black was nothing like I pictured him (not better or worse, just different)

There's also a lot of things that I'd imagined while reading- scenary mostly- which I think was added to by the movies. I have a pretty visual imagination as it is, however being able to put characters- whether my own or the ones from the movie- into a particular place is a real benefit.

However I have noticed a lot of people who seem to confuse the characters and actors- in particular people who haven't read the books. The kids I work with were playing celebrity Heads and one of them was Dumbledore. The other kids told him that he was very wealthy (because he's an actor and in movies), and had a new movie coming out soon. They just couldn't seem to distinguish between the character of Dumbledore and the person playing Dumbledore.

Well for me because I read the books after watching the films my images of the trio are of the people in the films, though I wish this wasn't so because I think it would be somuch better toimagine them in my own way. With the books that haven't been on the big screen yet it's amazing to think how the characters look. For example Cedric Krum and Fleur don't look anything like I'd imagined them to be. It's so much more fun imagining the characters yourself than having them put before you in a film

i also saw the first movie before reading the books and since then its hard to get a picture of what J.K. is describing, not what the movies are like. i try not to refer to dan, emma, and rupert when i am talking about the movies unless i am talking about how i think the actors are doing.

I'm one of those who have read the books before the movies.. I felt that the apperance of the actors for Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all extremely similar to what I had imagined myself.. but when I watched the PoA movie, I was rather surprised at the director's depiction of Sirius and Lupin.. I guess I never pictured Sirius so ragged (though he was..), and Lupin so.. er.. plump! (Must be the chocolate!)

I read the books before I saw the movies, so I had made an image of them for myself and when I'm referring to the character from the book the image in my head will pop up, not the way the actors play them which is great btw)
The only thing that sometimes complicates things a bit for me is that I've read the books in dutch and the translator came up with new names for most of the characters and sometimes I don't know who it is when I read the English name(s)

sometimes, when i think of harry potter, i think of daniel, but not always. i had an other idea of harry after i read the book. for instance, daniels eyes are NOT green, and his hair is NOT black and messy..Rupert looks a bit like how i imagened ron to be, but emma so totally NOT like hermione...but i can't help but thinking of them as harry/ron and hermione now..

I think Daniel is a great Harry, Ron is a great Ron (with a hair cut), but Hermione...she looks good naturally, but they've tried to make her too much like Emma. It really bothers me when people refer to the actors as characters or vice versa. It's like "why would Hermione choose Ron when Emma and Dan have better chemistry." or "Emma and an look better together". That is rather unintellingent, they're actors.

Yeah, it's so frustrating when people refer to the actors rather than the characters...

When I read the books, I still see Hogwarts and the characters as I originally did, before the movies. Sometimes, though, Dan and Tom Felton pop in there...but it's usually just the two of them, for some reason. Or sometimes I can hear Alan Rickman saying Snape's lines. Everything else, though, all the characters and scenery, is the same.

Interesting, isn't it? Sometimes I just want them to stop making the movies, because I don't *want* to picture things like the movies. Does anyone else feel this way??

Yes, now I picture the actors, and I wish I didn't. It messes up my imagination. Like I can't even make up an image for Scrimgeour or Lavender. It's really weird.

But then, you can't blame us for imagining the actors for that. I mean, we were not given the chance to imagine what do Harry, Ron, Hermione, Draco, the professors, etc. who had been on the first three books/ movies. But now, personally, I have the chance to imagine Mad- Eye Moody and the other characters in books 4-6.

Kat, I agree with you but you can't blame them about why Hermione chose Ron if Emma and Dan has a better chemistry because on the other side, I think Rupert and Emma has a better chemistry. And it's the movie. A movie based on a book so they can't change it.

Yeah, same here. I came to HP through the movies - after CoS. I had read all the books by the time PoA came out, so I couldn't help but see the trio, Hagrid, Snape, Dumbledore etc the way they were in the films, but the really weird thing is that I actually imagined Sirius as Gary Oldman before I even knew that he'd been cast...how's that for a premonition? Moody...mmm....yeah, Brendan Gleeson pretty much fits the bill, although personally I viewed him more as Laura Freeman did (if you haven't seen her artwork, Google it...absolutely brilliant and Jo herself has commented on her...) and Karkaroff is exactly as I pictured him, so I'm not doing too badly so far!

Now, if Emma Chambers gets cast as Tonks and Patricia Routledge as Umbridge, then I really will be on a roll!

I used to never think of the actors as the characters in the book. But now, I can't help it. But i'm ok with that because I like to think of them as the characters in the book. It gives me a description to go by.

Yeah I agree that it is hard not to picture the actors when you think of the characters especially the trio. But I didn't really like the way Lupin and Sirius were portrayed and I still have my own picture of them. So maybe the rest of the characters were casted pretty good... especially Alan Rickman as Snape. He made me love the character even more.

Yea, I agree that Emma looked the part exactly and even Dan and Rupert but a great many other actors came as a shock and made me feel disappointed…Mad eye moody for an example was so much different in my imagination than what it actually turned out to be but the actor was even better!
I think the director knows who’s best to pick, therefore we have to agree to who acts the part because even though they may not be perfect, they might have been better than all the other people auditioning…
But I must say most characters came as a shock…like I never imagined Neville o be like that , speaking in that particular accent and I never thought Barty Crouch (Junior) would be like that but he seemed perfect for the part all the same

Read only the first HP book before i saw the movie, and i actually found the first movie disappointing cos i went to see it like the day after i finished the book. That said, unless you read all the books before you go see the movies, you'll always have some residual image of how the character looks like on screen, even if like me you read anyway too fast to even start caring.

That said, i think the two Phelps Twins are hot.

You know the weirdest thing for me is Snape. The way JK draws him, he looks like he could definetly be evil. But I have a hard time believing "Snape is a bad guy" because I have a hard time believing that Alan Rickman is a bad guy. You know?

Whenever I'm reading, I'm picturing Alan Rickman, and it's coloring my judgement of Snape. I believe Snape is good mostly because the actor who plays him seems incapable of being a true bad guy. If they got some really shifty jerk to play Snape, I might have an easier time with his seeming evilness.

The same thing happens with Voldemort in GoF. Yeah, he looks terrifying and evil, but look, there's Ralph Feinnes' (sp?) eyes in there, and those eyes don't convince me of their evilness. It's mostly in the actor's eyes, I guess. If the actor is not an evil maniac in real life, their eyes won't look convincingly evil. So I may be watching Voldemort trying to kill Harry, but I'm not very convinced. In the books I can imagine the evilness of the characters very convincingly, but once they get some "nice guy" on screen pretending to be evil, it just doesn't work for me.

That's one thing that kind of stinks about the movies, is that the actors color your judgement of the real characters from the books. It influences your liking of certain characters and your disliking of others. And especially for me, it means I won't believe Snape is evil!

Both Dumbledores disappointed me in some ways. I thought Richard harris looked the part, but I didn't see the energetic and humourous Albus that the books described. He was far too serious for the dumbledore I liked in the books - always making little jokes and being a little bit kooky but at the same time, having the ability to eminate power and respect. Richard Harris looked so feeble and gave the impression that he was about to keel over and...well...you get the picture. Ironic, that...

The new dumbledore in the GoF movie seemed way too out of control and like he was losing his grip most of the time. I think most people would agree with me when I say that I was shocked at the scene where he comes barging into the room after harry's name is selected from the goblet of fire, and then grabs harry violently and yells at him. It was such an un-dumbledore-ish gesture that I was totally appauled. In OotP, dumbledore gets angry at Umbridge when she man-handles Marietta (the sneak) for not coughing up an explanation. She grabs marietta and shakes her. It seems ridiculous when dumbledore does this to harry in GoF.

I agree about Ralph Fiennes. For the purpose of film making I think he's appearance isn't that bad, but Voldemort in the books is inhuman. He's a person who has never felt a warm feeling in his life! I don't blame Ralph for not knowing how to get that across sucessfully.

In terms of Alan Rickman playing Snape, here are my thoughts. I read in a biography of Jo that she based Snape on her Chemistry teacher, for whom she had much respect. It seems as though he wasn't a bad guy, just awfully strict.

So in a way, that kind of makes me think that Snape is simply a very lonely, slightly mad and misunderstood man. Plus he lives under enormous strain: wether he's good or bad, he must constantly keep up a lie to either Voldemort or Dumbledore!

Alan Rickman brings his character's restrained frustration brilliantly to screen. He's so good in fact, that I've gotten the feeling that Jo has more and more written Snape with Alan in mind. His dialogue in the books sound progressively more like something Alan's Snape would say.

If you compare him in book 1 to the Spinner's End chapter for instance, you might see what I mean (or I'm imagining things - which is possible, since Alan Rickman's involved!)

Anyone who completely disagrees/agrees?

i read the books before i the films and was pretty impressed at how similar some of the characters were to the ones i had imagined.

harry was pretty much how i had imagined him apart from the fact that i pictured the scar in the centre of his forehead.

hermione in the first film was exactly how i pictured her. i wish tho that in the later films her hair was more bushy because then in the ballroom scene there would be much more of a difference between the two images.

ron i agree did not look quite how i pictured him. he wasn't skinny enough but his expressions are my ron down to a tee. i loved the bit in cos when he sat up in bed and talked about the spiders. it was priceless.

alan rickman as snape was a genius idea. he is my perfect idea of snape.

something i have to say is that the actors that play Ron, hermione and harry are very close to those described in the books and even DD though i think the first one was the best one. But what always bothered me is Aunt Petunia and Dudley are described as having blonde hair yet the actors have dark brown.

Agree, maybe they are close to me because I started to read after I have seen the first movie . But Ginny, Cedric, Krum and especially Dumbledore were another in my imagination.

And sorry for offtop, who can tell the right transcription of "Hemione", I know that I can see it in 4th book, but "Her-my-oh-nee" doesnt tell me anything. (is it Hermaionee, I read the english version of book, but couldnt find the english version of movie, in my language Hermione sounds like Germiona, Harry - Garry, Hufflepuf - Puffendui , Ravenclaw - Cogtewran)

I read the books before I saw the movies. When I read the books, I have a distinct picture of Harry, Ron, Hermione, and everyone, for that matter, everything that is in the book. I can hear thier voices (no, I'm not crazy) The movie has done an excellent job of portraying the world, but the books are filled with complex things a movie is never able to imitate, and the actor, though they are close to my ideas, never are exactly the same as the characters in the book.They are connected, but I definitly think of the book characters and the actor differently. For tme, the moin difference is the voices, I just have a totally different idea of how their voices sound. i don't see how you can think of them interchangeably, and I definitly don't ever think of Ships applying to real life, but I suppose if you saw the movie first...

Well, having been a Harry Potter reader for quite a long time, I read the books and saw the movies in the order they came out. So, I guss that means I read the first two -- or three? -- books before seeing the first movie.

Once I read the first beek, I had pretty good mental images of the characters. I used JK Rowling's descriptionms and made a picture of how I thought they would look. Then again, I was pronouncing some things wrong that I would never have corrected if I never saw the movies (such as saying Hermione as "Hermy - one" )...

Once I saw the SS/PS movie, those pictures were completely wiped out of my memory. Still today I cannot remember what I thought the characters looked like. When I read now, I have Dan's, Emma's, Rupert's, Tom's, etc, etc faces in place. (I can still boast to the fact that the late Richard Harris still holds his place as Dumbledore in my mind...Michael Gambon hasn't done it for me )...

I have never been a fan of the movies, so then the question is posed: if I were given the choice now, would I not see any of the movies? I guess my answer is that I WOULD. I just couldnt miss out on the chance to do anything HP-related.....obsessed or what?




_daviD

I watched the first movie and then read the books, so Harry started out as Dan. However, having read the books hundreds of times now, I have formed mental pictures of all the characters in my mind and none of them resemble the actors' portrayals. Except for Alan Rickman, the definitive anything. His got a sort of Midas touch - any role he plays turns out perfect. He always gets it right, imo, so he doesn't count here

Aaaanyhow, there are two Harry Potter worlds in my mind. The usual one (my own) and the one that comes up every now and then and disturbs my peace. The movies influence my world a bit, but after some time everything returns to normal. Obviously some things that the actors do that work for me, which I maybe only thought of as I saw them do it, stick, but overall I've got a clear line between the books and the movies.

Nothing beats Jo does it?

Oh, David! How dare you bash David and Gary!!!

I can't imagine two more perfect people for those roles!! Gary was exactly as I envisioned Sirius - personality wise, if not quite in looks. Visually, I expected him to look more like he did as Dracula or the Reverand in 'The Scarlet Letter', but it's all good...so long as the character was spot on, which I really think it was.

As for David...well, I love him to bits and again, personality wise, he was perfect, IMHO. But I'd always envisioned Lupin as being a tad more...I don't know...it's hard to put my finger on.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with them both though. I'm just sorry they didn't get more screen time. They better had in OotP...

I have more issues with Gambon's Dumbledore right now more than anyone else, though I'm still disappointed that Patricia Routledge didn't go for Umbridge...and I really wanted Anna Chancellor or Emily Watson as Bella, but there we go..let's just see how the make-up goes.

Anna Chancellor! She'd have been great! I never really followed what happened with that casting, but what an idea! Ah well...

I was rather rooting for Imelda Staunton for Umbridge, but I don't know Patricia Routledge so I couldn't say which one I'd prefer, really. As for Gary's Sirius - I completely agree with you, Louise. His character is great, but Gary looks more like Sirius in real life than in the movies. I'm not complaining, though, not at all - he's great!

David's Lupin - I thought he should be just a tad more ... assertive, I guess. He should be a bit more of a leader figure, but I don't know how he'll do that. I love his Lupin overall - and a lot of David has gone into my current image of Lupin, but the Lupin of the books and Lupin of the movies are not exactly the same. Maybe it's the script - it's a bit soppier than I would have expected.

Aah, I just watched some selected bits from GoF, and the adults in general are great - even if their costumes aren't always that fresh. Mike Newell made the kids quite aggressive - if a joke bombed, Fred and George would never fight about it - they'll be laughing the loudest! And although I laugh at the Phelps twins, their not nearly how I imagine the Fred and George...

Oh well, the movies have their merit, but I still know which I prefer.

Ofcourse we know that Slughorn calling Ron Rupert was JKRs little joke, as Harry does actually correct him in his next line of dialogue.
By the way I think the actors are great, they've sort of grown into the characters. I can pretty much read the books without the actors faces in my mind although when I first read SS/PS before the movie incidentaly, I had an image of Alan Rickman from Robin Hood Prince of thieves in my head. I agree with the people that say the late great Richard Harris was the better Dumbledore, his speaking voice is more what I had in mind. Even in the later books I find some of the dialogue used by JKR is very Richard Harris. Saying this I must say in Michael Gambons defence that they were very hard footsteps to follow.
Oh and the Phelps twins are too tall to be the Weasley's.

Why do you think the Weasley twins are too tall to be the Weasleys? I think they are perfect, they've grown on me just like Fred and George grew on me when I first read the books.

I also think that the actors aren't in any way like the characters! They have both been brought up in very different enviroments and situations, even is those are fictional situations!

I'm going to ad that I like Harry in the books better than Harry in the movie, I think Daniel isn't a very good actor and can't portrait the emotional nature of Harry

What do you think about that?


Fraggle

Fred and George are supposed to be shorter and stockier than Ron. The Phelps twins are tall and gangley.

As for the actors not being anything like the characters, well that's true, but I think that JKR was probably very happy with the choices made when they were cast in the roles.

Daniel though, has 'become' Harry. If you ever saw him pre HP in David Copperfield you wouldn't say that he's not a good actor. I think for a child he was excellent in the role, and I can't imagine anyone else as Harry now.

I agree about Dan Radcliffe, ET! He was a great child actor, I think he'll just get better and better. I never did see David Copperfield, but did recently see him in The Tailor of Panama. In one of the last scenes, his movie parents, Geoffrey Rush and Jamie Lee Curtis, have had a hard time and made up, and they're crying. Little Dan comes down the steps and gets that wary, worried, little boy 'my-parents-are-crying-do-I-say-something-or-pretend-I-don't-see-it' look down pat! So cute!

As for the physical probs like the Phelps twins being too tall, we kinda have to go with the flow, lol. They probably didn't know when they cast them that they'd get that tall. Likewise, I think Tom Felton was actually shorter than Dan when they made the first film, and now he towers over him. You never know what these kids will do as far as growth spurts! Looks like Dan Radcliffe isn't going to get too tall, but he still has time.

I'm with anyone though who says Michael Gambon was either miscast or simply doesn't understand his character.

I like all the actors how they are, they couldnt be any better. Well they could but no one can do that good. The Phelp twins are good I think.

There is always something lost in the translation from book to film. Rarely something is gained, but that too happens sometimes.
Casting of the Harry Potter films must be difficult. There are so many important characters and none of them are cardboard figures, so if you are a book reader like me, you will have formed an image in your mind of what that character looks like. Jo Rowling doesn't give precise descriptions, so everyone's thinks up the details that are missing and the resulting concept of the character's appearance must be different.
Now comes the plan to make a film, and the casting department knows that if they mess it up all those millions who love the book are going to hate the film. It's one hell of a job. They have a large list of individuals that have to be available all at the same time, and there are restrictions: British characters have to be British, etc.
What luck that Britain has so many incredibly good actors. Even so, the casting has been brilliant. To find children that can continue to play the characters throughout the transition period of their own adolescence is no mean feat. All the major characters survived except the one that puts a big black smudge on the casting record -- Dumbledore.

Harry continues to be perfect. One problem about reading is that once the mind fixes an image of a child, it tends to stay the same and not grow up. Dan Rathcliffe's acting in the films helped my book-Harry to grow up.

Ron looks different to the boy I see when I read the books. The book-Ron is taller and has large hands, etc., but Rupert Grint plays the character so fantastically that I'd say something was even gained in the translation. The scene with the slugs. The chess game. The spiders. Brilliant! And as he is growing up, he is beginning to look more and more like my image of the book-Ron.

Hermione was exactly the way I pictured her. I was sorry that the bushy hair disappeared after the second film, and now her hair is only a bit unkempt. Her voice is perfect. One wonders what kind of an actress Emma will be in other films, or whether it is simply that she doesn't have to act to be Hermione. Even in the GoF interviews she talked exactly like Hermione, saying things that Hermione could have said, right down to being a bit of a know-it-all towards the boys.

Neville was brilliant. I love every scene that he is in. My image of the book-Neville was rather vague, but now it has been completely supplanted by the film-Neville.

Draco was great. It's amazing that Tom Felton wants to be a fisherman rather than an actor. I wonder how many fishermen would not rather be an actor.

Dumbledore (the first one, not the second -- for that see my comments in other threads). Richard Harris made a perfect Dumbledore. Those who say that his voice isn't powerful haven't listened properly: a voice doesn't have to be loud to be commanding. Think of his "Back again, Harry?" speech in the room where Harry found the Mirror of Erised. Do you doubt that this man is Evil's most formidable opponent? Would he use power in the same way that Evil does? Of course not...

McGonagall couldn't have been better. Maggie Smith made the transition from old spinster aunt to Hogwarts professor as if the witch in her has always waited to come out. I can't wait to see the scene in her office with Umbridge during Harry's career interview.

Madam Hooch has few scenes, but she is portrayed perfectly by Zoë Wanamaker. It makes you want to see more of this sprighty no-nonsense witch!

Hagrid is perfect. Can you imagine anyone else playing him? When your face is completely hidden in hair, you only have your eyes, your voice and your body language to express yourself with. Have you ever seen Robbie Coltrane in other roles? He is a great actor and he made me completely forget what the book-Hagrid looked like.

Snape is not quite the book-Snape, but I can't imagine anyone else doing as well as Alan Rickman does. They could have bothered to make him play a bit more greasy and slouchy, but he is creepy enough to make up for not quite being the "slimeball" that he is supposed to be. In every other aspect he is perfect. I am sorry that the PoA script did not follow the book exactly in the Shrieking Shack -- the writing in those chapters is just so incredible and it lays down an important foundation for what is to come. Still, I love every scene that Snape appears in. Why did they cut out half of the scene of Harry's first Potions lesson? That was the book-Snape, to the letter. More! More!

Sirius Black -- what a pity that Gary Oldman doesn't have more scenes. I am looking forward to meeting the sulking, frustrated fellow in 12, Grimmauld Place and all the scenes he has with Snape. He was brilliant in PoA. His "madness" and the delivery of the line "I have done my waiting! Twelve years of it! In Azkaban!" is simply unforgettable, as is the way that he tried to hold on to Remus as he transformed.

Remus Lupin looked completely different from the one I had imagined reading the books. I was quite taken aback at first to the point of thinking he was miscast. He looked far too approachable to me; I had always pictured him angular, gaunt and a bit frightening. Someone whose looks would belie his actions. Even David Thewlis looks too nice and cuddly he has managed to supplant my book-Remus so that now I don't quite remember what I would have liked to see instead.

Peter Pettigrew was absolutely amazing. Timothy Spall was so convincing as a man who lived twelve years in the body of a pet rat.

Mad-Eye Moody made me cringe when I first saw him. Could they really not have done a better job with that eye? He wasn't nearly as tall and scarred and deformed as I had pictured him. Did the budget run out? Fortunately, his voice and manner made up for what his appearance lacked.

Gilderoy Lockhart was brilliant. Down to the wonderful extra touches in the film, like the way he snatched a hairpiece to take with him when he attempted to escape, and the little bonus appearance at the end of the film's credits. Every letter that Jo Rowling wrote about him was there, and more. I so hope to see him at St Mungo's later. I've seen Kenneth Branagh in many roles, notably his Shakespeare series. He has a most amazing range. He transforms into a character with such ease. It must have been great fun for him to play Lockhart!

Fudge was reliably good. So were Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang, Crabbe and Goyle, Lee Jordan, Angelina Johnson, Seamus Finnigan and too many others to mention.

Trelawney -- you'd never think that it is Emma Thompson! It takes a good casting director to see how perfect she can be once you give her the wig and some shawls. What a performance. That woman can play anything and anybody.

Amos Diggory deserves a special mention. Picture the scene at the Maze, in which Harry brought back Cedric's body and the cheers turned to screams of horror. I had never heard of Jeff Rawle before. I think that it was his acting more than anything else that made most people in the cinema cry. I still get a lump in my throat thinking about it.

Rita Skeeter was miscast in my opinion. In the books, she is not pretty but pudgy. There's nothing wrong with her acting, but she simply isn't the Rita Skeeter that Jo Rowling wrote. Even if a slim figure is more in keeping with the size of a mosquito.

The Fat Lady -- I liked the first one (Elizabeth Spriggs) more than the second one, much as I am a fan of Dawn French.

Lucius Malfoy -- I simply love how Jason Isaacs portrays him. The drawling voice and the haughty sneer are just perfect. The time that he loses his cool at the end of CoS is brilliant, as are the extra visual touches that the film added to the book-Malfoy: the staff in the cane, the hair, the costumes and jewellery.

Molly Weasley -- I've seen Julie Walters do so many things, but she is perfect as the mother of the large Weasley family.
Arthur Weaseley doesn't quite look the way I pictured him, but he is doing a great job.
The Weasley twins are brilliant. So what if they are the tall ones instead of Ron. They are perfect as the mischievous students who are very clever but just don't believe in the kind of education that puts them in a constricting mold. I love the way the Phelps twins play these pranking geniuses. When I read Bajab's humourous fics about Fred and George, I always hear the Phelps twins' voices. That's how good they are (and how good Bajab's writing is)!

The Dursleys are suitably unpleasant. Richard Griffiths is a great actor. He made a fantastic Swelter in "Gormenghast" and Fiona Shaw had some experience showing her long neck as Irma Prunesquallor in that same production, and they are both excellent Dursleys. Their son Dudley is well played by Harry Melling.

Argus Filch was great. So was the Muggle caretaker of the Riddle house, Eric Sykes! What a great role for Sykes.

The young Riddle was wonderfully handsome and self-assured the way Christian Coulson played him, but I couldn't see him playing the older Riddle, the one who returned to the limelight after disfiguring his body and soul by making all those Horcruxes. It was only logical to replace him, and I was not disappointed. The adult Voldemort is creepy and slimy and vindictive, but also delightfully joyous to have a powerful physical form again.

I could go on and on, and not find casting errors. On the whole, the performances have been outstanding if not brilliant. Everyone knew what they had to do except Michael Gambon, whose preference to be the director's tool was disastrously combined with a director who did not know the character.
Well, this has been a looooong post. I hope you enjoyed it. A film's success begins with a good casting, and the casting of the Harry Potter series of films has been outstanding. Some of the inspired choices have worked out so well that they're nothing short of a stroke of genius.

Ahh the only discrepancy i found was well Dumbledore. I love the characer to death... but the film versions so far are not pleasing. Richard Harris, if he was younger would have been brilliant. But i couldnt imagine him in any action scenes and his voice, im sorry to say, was too croaky and hoarse. Now michael Gambon..... i think if that man would get a backbone and read the books he would be perfect. His voice is exactly how i imagined it... I love the way he looks, wardrobewise but the dirty nails need to go. If he can get in touch with the character and the director doesnt have him attack harry again, I think Michael Gambon would be perfect.