Explaining what went weird with Ron Weasley
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2019
- Big old analysis of how Ron Weasley from Harry Potter got the short end of the stick.
🐍Twitter: quinncurio?lang=en
🍏 Discord Server: / discord
🌱Patreon: / quinncurio
🍐Tumblr: / quinncurio
🐢 Instagram: / quinncurio
3:11 Why did this happen to Ron?
7:01 Hermione Granger
17:20 Harry Potter
25:00 The Final Example & Conclusions
Pottermore illustrations like the ones in this video are typically drawn by AtomHawk, Jim Kay or Charlie Bowater although the website doesn't credit who exactly did what. I'm like 95% sure all the pictures I used are Charlie Bowater.
00:07, 9:05 and 28:27 Music by Patricia Taxxon: patriciataxxon.bandcamp.com/ 
Развлечения
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
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 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.
The worst part about giving Ron's lines to Hermione is that it not only undermines Ron's character; it undermines Hermione's as well. One of Hermione's main character traits is that she can't function under pressure. In the troll scene in PS, Hermione literally freezes when Harry tells her to run (There is no advising Ron's wand movement.). In the shrieking shack in PoA, Hermione is cowering when Ron stands up to Sirius. Even in the later books, when Hermione is in a stressful situation, her instinct is to freeze before she gets her bearings and fights. That's what makes Hermione brave enough to be a Gryffindor. Because despite her instinct to freeze, despite not doing well under pressure (which must grind her gears as a perfectionist), Hermione still fights. She still follows Harry and Ron into situations that put her at a huge disadvantage (since she can't plan things out properly like she prefers to).
In the movies, Hermione doesn't have that fear, so her standing alongside Harry and Ron in each of their battles doesn't have the same impact. In fact, I would even go so far as to argue that Movie Hermione isn't as brave or courageous as Book Hermione since bravery can't occur in the absence of fear.
Also in the first book when they fall into the Devilsnare plant, Harry tells Hermione (who is the only one with access to her wand at the moment) to light a fire, to which she replies in panic “but there is no wood around!” And then Ron shouts “HAVE YOU GONE MAD, ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT” That bit makes me chuckle every time.
Yeah…. Hermonie in the movie is probably the worst of the trio
I still prefer the book versions
@@tgiacin435Same❤
As an actor, it's tough to really nail a character at their age. I remember some of their interviews towards the end of the movies and they all admitted they didn't like their first works and wished they had did it differently so they could be different in the later movies. Me personally, when I get a script, if there is source material I'll look for it and read/ watch that first. Then I'll read the script and jot down character traits as I read them compared to the source material. The traits that appear the most I'll work as my base. Then I'll study when the other traits appear and do my best to portray those in similar situations. Then I'll make slight changes in an attempt to give an arc. I actually wouldn't mind seeing the movies redone with new actors to see how different it is.
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...
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.
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
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.
Every single Harry and Ginny scene is so awkward tbh...
I know looking back it their romance even in the books kinda comes out of left field.
@@HOTD108_ They don't seem to have much chemistry in the films at all... I'd say that's the real issue. Awkwardness wouldn't necessarily be a bad think if their relationship was really believable..
I guess its feels really set up unlike the other relationships which had more growth
TBH I felt like the actors had pretty good chemistry but what failed them was the writing.
The books did it way better. They still needed a bit more buildup even there, but the movies just butchered any character that Ginny had
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
Grint is an amazing actor, check out his roles after Ron Weasley, he nails every scene he is in. His recent work is Servant on AppleTv.
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.
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
"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
@@pictureglum9095 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.
“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
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.
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.
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
@@KatievonW Rupert's honestly great. Daniel and Emma are living rich, acting lives and Rupert's just...got an ice-cream truck x'D
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.
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!
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.
Yates is a simp, simple as that
Ron in the books was smart, funny, a complete badass, and awesome. Here are a few things that prove Ron is a lot smarter/braver/more powerful/better friend than people think.
In book one, when they were playing chess, every time a piece was taken out, it was blown to bits. Ron 100% thought he would die when he sacrificed himself. He was willing to sacrifice his life at age 11 to help his friends.
In book two, he performed a nonverbal spell perfectly(the slug spell). Sure, it backfired, but that was only because of his broken wand. If it wasn't broken, it would have worked perfectly. Non verbal spells are taught in 6th year because they're so difficult. Ron did it perfectly at age 12. Ron also followed Harry into the forest to meet the acromantulas. He faced his biggest fear for his best friend at age 12. And if the cave in didn't separate Ron and Harry, he totally would have been right next to Harry, fighting the Basilisk.
In book three, he stood up on a broken leg, delirious with pain, walked in front of Harry, and told an extremely dangerous, insane mass murder that if he wanted to get to Harry, he'd have to go through him. Again, he was willing to give up his life to save his friend at age 13. Terrible they gave that line to Hermione in the movies.
In book four, almost everyone I know thinks that Ron was jealous of Harry and that's why he turned on Harry. I don't believe this is true. I have another theory. We all know by now that Ron has confidence issues. He feels that he's never valued, he's never anyone's first choice. This is amplified by how his own family treats him. I mean, come on. Percy gets a new Owl, but Ron has to use an old wand? Even when it broke, it took a near death experience for them to replace it. In book four, Ginny gets a good looking, really nice dress for a dance she isn't even supposed to go to. Ron gets some ugly ass dress that was probably one of his Aunt's old dress. So, I believe that Ron wasn't jealous, he was sad and angry because he thought that Harry had abandoned him. Think about it. A couple nights before the champions were announced, they were talking about how if they were gonna try and trick the goblet, they'd do it together. Then, Harry gets chosen out of the blue. In Ron's mind, it probably looked like Harry snuck out on his own and put his name in the goblet without including Ron. It probably felt like Harry was ditching Ron to go on to better things. And that idea was only reinforced that night when Harry was talking to Sirius. Ron came down because he was worried about Harry since he never came up for bed. And what happens? Harry yells at Ron, throws a badge at him, and basically tells him to go fuck himself. That's pretty harsh. And even with all that, Ron immediately turns around and apologizes to Harry after the first task. And after that, he helps Harry any way he can. Ron wasn't jealous and the only reason people think this is because Hermione said that that was what she thought was going on. He was a true friend. Oh, and he was what Harry would miss most, not Hermione. Suck on that, "Ron wasn't a good friend" people.
In book five, in one of the scenes, Ron, Luna, and Ginny are chased into a room by four death eaters. Ginny's ankle gets broken, and Luna takes one out with a reducto, but we don't hear how the other three get taken out. This probably means that Ron subdued the other three death eaters on his own in a three vs one before being hit by a curse himself. Of course, we don't know if this is true, but if it is, Ron is a fucking badass.
Explain Ron ditching the crew during wartime in book 7
@@idreamoftentacles8080 He didn't ditch them.
For one, most of what made him leave was the locket's influence. Once he was outside the influence of the locket, he wanted to come back immediately.
Two, All he did was step outside and Apparate away. It was stated that he wanted to come back immediately afterwards. So what he did was basically the wizards equivalent of stepping outside for some fresh air. The reason he wasn't able to come back immediately was because he was captured by Snatchers, and after he got away and Apparated back to where he thought the Campsite was, he wasn't able to find them. It was stated that he spent two days wandering around in the snow trying to find them. That shows how much he regretted leaving.
In conclusion, Ron didn't ditch them. He stepped outside for some fresh air and to clear his head, and was prevented from returning.
He became an Auror for a reason #teamweasley
@@idreamoftentacles8080 Bro did you read the books?😂 He left because the NECKLACE was brainwashing him, stupid
Also remember, Ron with 3 brothers turn the tide of the Battle of Hogswart, forcing Voldy to stop everything he is doing and rush to Bellatrix's aid. And they face voldy + bella head on until their mum gets her 1 vs 1 duel with Bella. That means and armada of death eathers taken out by 4 brothers, Ron being right in the thick of it
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.....
"Hermione is not an effortless genius, she is a genius through effort."
*rock Lee liked that
Exactly
yess
Indubitably.
@@christianmcnally4323
I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING!!!!!
YESSSS!!!!
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.
One of the things I never see really discussed (although a clip is included in the video) is that scene at the end of the Half-Blood Prince movie, where Harry and Hermione are discussing Harry going off to destroy the horcruxes, and Ron's sitting off behind them, not involved in the conversation. What on earth was that about? In the book, Harry tells them he's going to go off on his own to finish Dumbledore's mission and RON is the one who first says, "We'll be there, Harry... We'll go with you wherever you're going." For the movie to not only take away Ron's lines here, but to have him sitting away from Harry and Hermione and not even utter a single word for the entire scene has always burned me up.
Yes, I noticed it too. This is not discussed enough.
I read somewhere that Rupert was sick that day. He didn't want Emma and Daniel to get infected that's why he was far.
this is why I only like watching the first 2 films, the rest were Yates trash
@@keepitsecret-dl1pr I feel the same way, I think the first two films are the only ones that truly embody the spirit of the books. The rest of them lean to much into humorous moments, turning light whimsy into goofiness and well-rounded characters into caricatures of themselves. And because they leaned to far into jokes, and spectacle too, the emotional moments don't hit as hard
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?
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 was literally a chess grandmaster at 11. Also he was extremely knowledgeable about the wizarding world itself (although we can write this off by saying that he grew up in it but still). Not only that but his street smarts are on an incredible level (he has like 5 brothers after all, two of whom are respected figures in high ranks of wizards, while the twins are like the gods of mischief). And he is also the most loyal one, even trying to help out Harry while they were sulky on each other. (both in GoF and in Deathly Hallows). whats worst is that most of these traits were massacred in the books, either by giving the line/role o Hermione or just straight-up leaving the part out.
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
@@leaffinite3828 Oh my gosh you're right! How silly of me!
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.
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.
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
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^^
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 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
This is therapy.
I will never not be mad about what the movies did to my precious boy.
"She needs to sort out her priorities" is still one of the funniest lines I've ever seen in a film. Grint is fantastic.
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'
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.
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
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 😂😂😂
WE GET IT WRITER, YOU HAVE A THING FOR HERMIONE. THIS IS NOT YOUR FANFIC
I mean, I agree with the sentiment behind your statement, but it's wrong. He's a fan, and it's fiction loosely based on the novels.
@@ErdrickHero is joke. U no get
JeremyAGW ur life joke, you no get SARCASM AND FACT
I think that's also the way the acting went
Ema Watson acting made Hermione very interesting and lovable character, even as a child (I found she was the best of the three as an actor). Ron's actor (not that I blame his acting at all, he's good) made a lot of "dumbish" mimics.
It might be that characters were influenced to go that way by the acting. I guess when following a book; you can't change too much characters and story, but your characters will still be influenced by the way they are played
You should be more respectful i think
Harry and Hermione get a playful dance while Ginny ties Harry's shoes...
Ywah holy crap Harry and Hermione have so much more chemistry than any other characters.
Harry and Hermione: get angry at Ron after he left because he suspected that they bang each other behind his back
Also Harry and Hermione: have a dance and nearly bang each other behind Ron’s back, confirming his suspicion
I don't ship either but harry and hermione would make way more sense
You know that that dance doesnt even happen in the books, right?
@@maksimdjalic9594 Exactly. This video talks about how the movies ruined Ron character. My point of bringing up the dance was to say it developed Hermione and Harry seemly more romantically than his shown development with Ginny and it wasn't even in the books. Yet the movies failed to include romantic development that was in the books with the couples that were endgame. And the movies also invented the shoe tie scene and it was really cringy. To me, a dance is more romantic than tying someone's shoes. If the movies were going to create their own romantic development they should have did a better job at actually developing the relationships that happened in the books.
I had this friend once who was a Red Sox fan. I am a Yankee fan. Our entire friendship began by arguing over this, and basically that was the character of our friendship forever after. We argued about EVERYTHING. Other people thought we didn't like each other. That man was the brother I never had and almost every interaction he and I ever had was an argument about something. He passed away a few years ago and I will never find another sparring partner like him.
All that is to say that I completely get Ron and Hermione's bickering as something they experience very differently than Harry does.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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...
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*
I think the Harry Potter film directors just hate the Weasleys in general and don't want them to be happy lol
To be honest, the films were a wonderful part of my childhood (minus #6), but they MURDERED Ginny's character arguably more than Ron's. I didn't actually notice Ron getting dumbed down until much after the movies came out.
Steve Kloves was famously pro-Harmione. I think he even took a break and didn't direct the 5th movie since that's when the 7th book was revealed and Romione was finalized as endgame (though it was kinda obvious all along). Both Ron and Ginny stood in the way of Harmione, so they suffered the most. Most of Ginny's character development is also in the 5th book onwards (since that's when Harry starts noticing her romantically), so she didn't even have a solid foundation before being completely butchered.
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.
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
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
I love how Rowling was very happy when she found out the person who would make the movie liked Hermione a lot. Hermione's literally her self insert.
So what?
@@TheMightofDab it's just kinda funny
@@TheMightofDab what do you mean so what
@@patrickchuan4550 there's a lot on record of rowling saying hermione was basically her self insert. she can love ron too, the op wasn't saying that she couldn't, they were saying that it was funny that rowling was happy that someone liked the character that shares a lot of similarities with her
@@pinkiepielunagirls4541 i believe we are stucked in a semantic argument where we both most likely believed in the similar things but the nuances in our definition of 'author insert'/'Author Avatar' is preventing us from agreeing.
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!
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.
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
The problem is they tried to make Ron a foil of Harry's and Hermione's best traits. So he often acts cowardly, dumb, mean, and clumsy to counteract the others bravery, intelligence, kindness, and athleticism.
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.
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
Ron was a chess genius, so he should really be a great strategist. But we never see it
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.
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.
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...
Ron being frightened makes him more relatable, and mirrors what the audience feels, he is also a comic genius.
For all the time they spent perfecting Hermione or pushing the Harry and Hermione ship, they missed out on the one moment that defined Hermione's loyalty to Harry and the strength of their friendship to me - in Goblet of Fire, when everyone turned against Harry except for Hermione, after he was chosen as the 4th champion. However, in the movie, he was shown being alone or hanging out with Neville.
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
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
@@noeliabaccaro1981 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
@@perturb-arte1577 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.
It honestly sucks to be Ron cause of the 3 he is always the one with the family that watches over the group but is constantly the one overlooked in the group. To me the fact that Ron was so good at Quidditch without the good luck serum proves he was the true brawn of the group. In every movie even POA where Ron is in the hospital, Hermione and Harry don't get anything done without real help/information from Ron. Ron being a good dude from the start is really the sole reason Harry didn't join Slytherin. Honestly made the Weasley name legendary again, he knows he isn't as talented or powerful, but his love and devotion to friends and family has him stepping in front of pure evil to protect people who are supposed to be badasses
Harry was the best at quidditch right from first year being the youngest seeker. What do u mean ron was true brawn just b'cuz he did well without potion😂
@angelyuqi6709 a lot of Harry's abilities come from Voldermort's horcrux being in him but when Ron started gaining his own confidence, his abilities got a lot better. Even Hermione who is supposed to know everything doesn't know a lot of the stuff Ron knows and even being technically the weakest of the group abilities wise, Hermione and Harry are lost without Ron.
I am so happy seeing so many other people who have read the books share the same grievances about the movies that I have. I appreciate the movies for bringing the story to life, but nothing beats the books. I know you can't put everything from the books into the movies but there's just so many changes and things left out in the movies that it feels so different.
harry in the books: sassy and ironic.
harry in the movies: oblivious and boring,
ron in the books: loyal and witty
ron in the movies: jealous and funny,
hermione in the books: know it all and flawed.
hermione in the movies:✨perfect✨ ginny in the books:strong and badass ginny in the movies: a personality of a piece of paper.
Exactly! I totally in agree!!
Even a piece of paper has more personality than movie Ginny...look how they've massacred my girl :(
I only have one correction, Movie Ginny: SssshOOOOeLaCe
This is definitely true..
Uh, book ron was also jealous and funny.
*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.
Weird or not, Rupert Grint's portrayal and acting were stellar and I never thought of Ron as an underrated or comic relief character.
At 13:20 Hermione's horrific menace of a cat, who is currently being discussed in the context of a gruesome murder, jumps up and clearly begs the cameraman for a pat.
Awwww haha that cat deserves all the pets
Lol I never noticed that. Good catch. That's adorable
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.
"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.
I love coming back to this video every so often. Ron was my favourite character when I was growing up and seeing what the films and a great deal of fanfiction have done to him was tough. It's nice to see others who don't have pathological hatred for him.
Really hope that HBO fix this issue when they do the series...but most likely they will make this and other things even worse.
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"
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
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.
Looking back, I wonder if the Harry & Hermoine being closer friends than Harry & Ron might have been an extension of the actors relationships. Daniel and Emma seem like mates, whilst Rupert tagged along.
It does feel like the movies done Ron a disservice and instead made Harry and Hermoine feel more like the power duo, with him as the third wheel. I think this was pretty intentional, Ron was the comic relief while the others were the heroes.
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
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
It went from the trio being:
Harry: Humorous and brave, but also had a bit of a hero complex
Hermione: smart and talented, but also a bit of a know it all
Ron: knows a lot about the wizarding world and is loyal, but also is a bit of a slacker
To:
Harry: is brave
Hermione: is perfect and gets bullied for no reason
Ron: is stupid
The big problem that I found and I think this video only lightly touches on is how much the movies rely on the viewer having read the book. The biggest example of this I can think of is the death of Hedwig since really she got about 5 minutes of screen time in the movies total, but the death happens the same as the book, its accompanied with sad music and it lingers for a second, and then Harry says one line about it at The Burrow, and the viewers are expected the feel the same as the books deaths, when Hedwig could have filled a whole chapter with her interactions with Harry. Another example could be Snape, in the movies hes only really mean when the boys aren't paying attention or is acting on his past bullying, whereas in the books we know he was also mean to the other students to an extreme point of giving Neville panic attacks as well as the Bogart. This change makes Snape in the movies the unsung hero, whereas snape in the books just can't be redeemed with the same revelations, but throughout the movies your still expected to hate snape because you were expected to have read the books, and this definitely was okay back when the movies were coming out, its just now having rewatched the movies and haven't read the books in so long that I could look at the movies for what they were on their own.
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 😂
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 🤣
It's the strong women Hollywood trope that destroyed the movie-Hermione. Book Hermione was a great, well balanced character who showed real strength and development, earned her respect and her happy ending. She was a truly strong female character. But movie-Hermione was only a trope woman. She couldn't have a good character arc with relatable development because Hollywood thinks strong women have to be strong by nature and can have no weaknesses from the beginning. So to make her look good, they had to make her superior. They couldn't take away from Harry, because he was the main character, so they had to dull down Ron, so Hermione could appear superior instead of equal.
there is something to be said about the fact that a lot of the time, they translated the TONE of the books wrong. they turned GoF into a romcom when the book was originally about classicism and wizards trying to come together despite cultural differences, and so many important scenes surrounding those themes were cut out in the name of weirdly fluffy romance scenes
I always hated how draco stans would bash the weasleys, so they could write edgy dark drarry fics where harry ditches the dirty poor weasleys who were only using harry to gain wealth. You'd be shocked by how many fics are out there like that.
Draco Stan's get on my nerves..
Let's be honest, people love Draco because Tom Felton happens to be handsome. Harry thinks that Draco is even worse than Dudley because he's a school bully and an anti-Muggle supremacist, but does Dudley have fans? Of course not. Draco has basically everything you can hate about a person: upstart, smug, racist, rich and haughty, spoilt af, and a faker (when he pretended to suffer like hell after Buck's scratch which he bloody well deserved). But for some reasons he has an excuse because he's hawt *eyeroll*
@@PhebusdesTours Agreed, it’s really only because Tom Felton is good looking. I was watching some cuts the other day, and they had actually filmed a scene at the final battle where Draco runs back after joining his parents and throws the Elder wand to Harry to kill Voldemort. There were so many people in the comments who were angry they cut this scene from the final film saying they did a disservice to Draco and didn’t want to give him a deserved redemption arc. I’m sorry, what redemption arc?? I’m personally glad they didn’t keep it because that would stray so far from his character in the book (not that they haven’t done other characters dirty). I’m tired of this nonsense.
@@PhebusdesTours Agreed. People only like Draco because he's good looking in the films
Why do people always choose to stary away from decency...
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.
in the spider scene i never notices before how grint changed his voice. At that age that kind of voicework is phenomenal
IM SO GLAD OTHER PEOPLE NOTICE THIS!
I always thought that it was weird that they completely changed Ron’s personality in the movies.
Like, does no one else remember in the books that he was actually really savage? 😂
He literally took something from a kid just because he was Prefect🤣
Also in the movies he always holds Harry back from fighting Draco….When in the books Ron was ALWAYS ready to fight Draco, no matter what.
Harry holds Ron back from Draco more than Ron to Harry…
The Malfoys were the Weasley’s enemies before they were
Harry’s.
Harry and Ron were a team. Ron wasn’t Harry’s henchman.
"Hermione is not an effortless genius, she's a genius through effort." LOVE THIS LINE♡♡♡
People misunderstand when characters call Hermione the brightest witch of her age. It just means she's smart for her age not a total genius who knows everything ever.
@@Xehanort10 So she is a normal kid and not lisa simpson an adult in a kid's body.
@@icecreamhero2375 Lisa's an annoying self righteous bitch.
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
While I'm not a fan of the romantic writing in HP, I've always liked Ron's and Hermione's relationship. It's very rare we get a healthy relationship where constant debating with each other is the focal point, sans actual arguments, like the Wormtail vs Crookshanks breakup.