J.K. Rowling brought us the world of Harry Potter and endowed it with an impressive number of secrets. Some she only revealed after the last book had been written, some are found by fans, and some aren’t hidden at all. For example, despite the fact that the movies are iconic to so many people, some characters don’t exactly match their descriptions from the books.
We at WeGoRo are curious to see how different the book characters are from their movie counterparts. And you? Did you know that when the first book was written, Professor Snape was just over 30? Tell us about your observations in the comments.
Harry has his mother’s green eyes, and the wild hair that refuses to be styled came from his father. Unfortunately, these important aspects weren’t reflected in the film. However, Daniel Radcliffe has still done a great job playing the little wizard with his own eye color.
Hermione is like an 11-year-old J.K. Rowling’s self-portrait. The author chose a thick bush of chestnut hair and large front teeth (which she reduced in her second year when Malfoy’s spell ricocheted into her) to be this little sweetheart’s distinguishing features. Nevertheless, Emma Watson has very nice teeth from the very first movie.
Ron wasn’t spared either. He has a long nose and freckles that are nowhere to be found on Rupert Grint. Well, at least they got the hair right. Rupert played Ron perfectly, but why not add a few missing elements?
Alan Rickman is a great Severus Snape. You can’t deny that. But we should not forget that he was supposed to be just a little older than 30 at the beginning of the first book. To our dismay, the whole franchise suffers from age overstatement, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Richard Harris, who played the role of Dumbledore in the first 2 movies, was a better representation of the original character. Unfortunately, he didn’t live to star in the next movies and was replaced by Michael Gambon. And that is not a problem, but what happened to the blue eyes and half-glasses that made Dumbledore’s image complete?
When "Mad-Eye" Alastor Moody appears in Goblet of Fire, he is described as a man with a badly disfigured face and tip of the nose. In the movie, however, he looks just fine apart from the eye and several lines on his face. Is a movie auror’s job as dangerous as that of the original character?
Viktor Krum was tall, slim, and had a hooked nose. He also had thick eyebrows and dark hair and looked awkward on the ground. None of these qualities are to be found in the movie (despite maybe a tiny bit of dark hair). That’s a pity.
The Mrs. Dursley in the book had a long neck that granted her the ability to spy on her neighbors. She also had blonde hair, which her son, Dudley, inherited. None of this is in the movies.
The professor of transfiguration was 56 years old when Harry came to Hogwarts. And although Maggie Smith perfectly portrayed the image of Minerva, the book character is way younger.
Professor Umbridge certainly had some resemblance to a frog thanks to her round bulging eyes, large mouth, and pale loose skin. And, of course, the finishing stroke: a small black bow resembling a fly in her short mouse-colored hair.
In the book, Rufus resembled an old lion because of his "mane" of graying ginger hair and his style of clothing. He wore wire-rimmed glasses and limped. Despite his disagreements with Harry, Scrimgeour did resemble a lion: the symbol of Gryffindor. He’s got all the courage in the world.
He got huge scars in his fight with the werewolf Fenrir Greyback, which grotesquely disfigured his face (although Fleur Delacour didn’t love him less because of it). In the movie, however, we can see just some mere scratches.
Aristocratic Narcissa Malfoy had long white hair, which made her look like a drowned woman. It’s not quite clear why she was given 2-tone hair in the movie.
Preview photo credit Warnerbros