The Harry Potter series has a lot of fans, and many of those fans have very strong opinions about the books and the films based on them. While I love the films for what they are, there are still plenty of things that I would've changed about them. If I could remake the films I would make the following changes:

 

- The relationship between Harry and Ginny wouldn't be so random, forced, and awkward. There would be some actual development for both Ginny and their attraction to one another.

- Ludo Bagman would be involved. I was really upset that they completely ignored his character.

- Likewise, Peeves and Winky would be present.

- It would be explained that Lupin, James, Sirius, and Peter made the Marauders Map. (My parents have only watched the films and they had no idea about this until I told them.)

- Hermione said quite a few of Ron's lines in the books, I'd fix that. I felt like Ron really had to take the backseat. Sometimes it felt like he was around as Hermione's love interest rather than Harry's best mate.

- One of my favorite Dumbledore lines would have been included in the sixth film: "I'm not worried, Harry. I'm with you."

 

I know I'm forgetting a whole bunch of things but that's enough for now. What about you all? Is there anything you'd change?

All of the above. I was really peeved (pun intended) when they left Peeves out of the movies. Filch was amazing but he was missing his archnemesis. I can understand why they left out the Ludo Bagman and Winky subplots in the fourth movie. It was long enough as it was. I would've loved to see Bagman on the big screen though! Honestly, in order to fit everything in, they should have split the books into two movies starting with Goblet of Fire. I think that's the major thing I'd do differently.

As much as it annoys me when a story is split into multiple films, I think you might be right, @Sim-antics. The first three are short enough that they can fit nicely into a single film. Prison of Azkaban is 317 pages long while Goblet of Fire is 636 pages long. That's nearly twice as long! The Goblet of Fire film was only fifteen minutes longer. That's an awful lot of material that's been left out. We didn't get to see anything about SPEW either. I think Goblet of Fire was the one that upset me the most.

@Sim-antics, I'll admit that the overall plot of Goblet of Fire really did work just fine without the subplots. The Ludo Bagman plotline just happens to be a particular favourite of mine. Don't ask me why! I have no idea. There's just something appealing about Bagman's character. Splitting up the films into two from GoF on wouldn't be a bad idea. Then again I thought they did an odd job of splitting up Deathly Hallows. The first part didn't feel like "standalone" material.

 

@Evie, that's wild! I was trying to recall what other things they've left out of the films and I thought of Rita Skeeter's secret and her whole subplot with Hermione. That's yet another Goblet of Fire subplot. I think that film may be the one where they messed up the most.

It's a good plotline! I always liked Bagman too. He was shady but likable at the same time. I feel like those kinds of criminals are usually likable people, you know? That's how it all works. I also like the fallen "golden boy" kind of storylines too. I agree, DH seemed to be split at a weird point but the book was sort of that way too - the beginning was slow, the ending was absolutely not. I thought they added some weird stuff to the first movie too, like that dance between Harry and Hermione. It was just...weird and filled with a little too much sexual tension if you ask me. I think they did a lot of pandering to Harry and Hermione shippers in the films and that bothered me, and not just because I'm a big fan of Ron and Hermione. I just like that it was always just friendship between the two of them and JK didn't resort to stupid love triangles.

The fallen golden boy storylines really are wonderful! You're right about the book being the same way. The very beginning of the book was action-packed but the middle was very slow. I thought that dance was a really weird thing to add too. I always felt like Ron got overshadowed in the movies. I don't know why they went that route. I guess they just wanted to showcase the strong female character more. I can't really fault them for that, I guess. I just wish they hadn't given some of Ron's lines to Hermione, especially when he was in the scene and could have easily said them himself.

This might upset a lot of people but I would recast Hermione. Emma Watson is great and all, but she is just way too pretty for the role. In the fourth movie, when she was supposed to have her big transformation, she barely looked any different. I liked how they poofed her hair out in the first couple of movies but then they just let her be a bombshell from the third movie on. That just isn't how Hermione was supposed to be. I'd also recast Ginny because she didn't really have a big transformation either. The actress just really wasn't all that great either.

I'd just avoid doing movies all together and make it a TV series instead. You can mostly get the first 3 books done fairly close as they're short, but the Goblet of Fire and beyond are just too lengthy to fit in even a 3 hour movie.

 

So I'd do a TV series and do 1 season per book. Maybe the first 3 books in the first 2 seasons, then 1 season per book after that.

That wouldn't be a bad idea, @Zack T. That's an even better idea than splitting up all of the films from Goblet of Fire onward. Plus, it would help make time for all of the content from the books as well as anything additional they might want to add for fun. One book per season sounds good. The first couple of seasons could always be shorter than the rest.

@Hal I know JK Rowling has said all three of them - Dan, Rupert, and Emma - were way too good-looking. She even said that Emma wouldn't have gotten the role if she'd seen what she looked like ahead of time. I think if they'd made her hair just like it was in the first two films it would have been distracting to the point of absurdity. I agree with you about Bonnie. She's not the best actress. They also didn't give her much to work with.

 

@Zack T I would love to see it as a series. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up doing something like that in future.

@Maya I could agree with that, at least for Rupert and Emma. I think that Daniel looks pretty spot on though. He looks just like the illustrations. You're right about the hair though. That would've been distracting. They still could've done something though. Eh, I don't know if Bonnie could've handled it if they had given her more.

You're right, @Hal. Daniel really does look exactly like the illustrations. There's a reason that JK literally picked him out of a crowd of people to play the part. His acting wasn't great in the beginning, but he really blossomed over the films. All of the kids did. You're probably right about Bonnie too. She would be a recast for me as well.