Case Study - Harry Potter Franchise

The Harry Potter franchise is one of the biggest and highest grossing movie franchises of all time. It has been extremely successful in working off the original novels and turning them into a delightful on screen set of movies, as well as attractions and exhibitions all across the globe. 

 There are seven original Harry Potter novels written by J.K Rowling: 

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - June 1997
• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - July 1998
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - July 1999
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - July 2000
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - June 2003
• Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - July 2005
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - July 2007

Although there were seven books, Warner Brothers split the last book, The Deathly Hallows into a part one and part two, resulting in 8 films being released between 2001 and 2011. 

My opinion before the research:

Controversially, I watched the movies before I read the books, meaning I never got the full experience of being able to imagine the world before seeing it transformed on screen. I think that the Harry Potter movies have such a magical and engaging aura that is extremely rare in the movie industry. Whether it be watching the actors grow up on screen and seeing their real connections with one another, or seeing the wizarding world and mythical creatures come to life, there is something for all audiences to enjoy.  

How accurate are the actors to the characters?:

As a British writer, J.K. Rowling insisted on having an all British cast for the Harry Potter films. Although it was advised that an American cast would attract a bigger audience, J.K Rowling took the initiative to stay true to the location of the novels and create a more realistic British wizarding world. 

Even more surprisingly, many of the young actors and actresses had very little professional acting experience, or absolutely no professional experience at all. You'd expect that when deciding to film such an important and well awaited film series, they would tend to pick experienced actors with a large following. 

Harry:

The main character in the books and movies is of course, Harry Potter. When Daniel Radcliffe first started the role at twelve years old, he seemed a perfect individual for his character through appearance and mannerisms. He continued this journey through the entire franchise, completing it at the age of 20. In the first Harry Potter book, he is described in the following way:

"Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair and bright-green eyes. He wore round glasses held together with a lot of Sellotape."  

Young Daniel Radcliffe fit quite well into his character's appearance, apart from one main flaw; he had blue eyes. One very important recurring motif throughout the novels is that Harry has exactly the same eyes as his mother, Lily Potter, who had notorious green eyes. He is told frequently by many characters that he has his mothers eyes, but in the movies this was not the case. 

When the film crew tried to put green contact lenses in, Daniel Radcliffe had a big allergic reaction, so the producer had to ask J.K Rowling if they could change the eye colour. Since they changed Harry's eye colour to blue, in the very few scenes where Lily Potter appears, the actress also had blue eyes to keep the connection between them. 

Therefore, although there is a difference between the novel and movie, the correlation between mother and son was well executed on screen. 

Ron: Ron Weasley is the best friend of the protagonist in the franchise and is played by Rupert Grint. He is described to be: "tall, thin and gangling, with freckles, big hands and feet, and a long nose."

Whilst Rupert is ginger as all the Weasley family were, he is not necessary tall nor lanky. Nonetheless, the portrayal of arguably one of the funniest and most foolish characters in the novels was done well by Grint as he became a fan favourite. 

Hermione: Hermione Granger is one of the most intelligent witches at Hogwarts, even though she was born of two ordinary parents, and she was played by Emma Watson. Prior to being cast in Harry Potter, Emma Watson had only ever performed in school plays, so she had no professional acting experience at all. For a girl of 9 to be cast in such an enormous project must have been a huge risk, but it fortunately paid off. 

In the novel, Hermione is described as having frizzy, untamable dark hair, brown eyes, and protruding teeth. Whilst Emma Watson was able to bring the appropriate hair and eye colour to the screen, she did not exhibit protruding teeth. Through the years of Harry Potter, Emma Watson was seen as too attractive to play Hermione Granger who is supposed to be a very plain character. Even J.K Rowling herself said that Emma was too good looking to play her character, but Emma said in an interview that she thought this was a back handed compliment and intended to prove that she was more than a pretty face. In the movie industry, this is known as adaptational attractiveness, where characters who would normally be ordinary and of standard appearance are played by people much more good looking to make the film more attractive to audiences. However, it is unfair to blame the casting department since nobody could imagine how beautiful Emma Watson would become when she was cast at the very young age of 9. 

Draco: Being put in Slytherin, Draco Malfoy immediately became the nemesis of Harry Potter, and Tom Felton was able to bring this role to life perfectly. In the novel, Draco is said to have "platinum blonde hair and ice grey eyes," and in order to achieve this, Tom Felton dyed his naturally brown hair on a weekly basis. Although his eyes aren't exactly an icy grey, they are most likely the closest you could get naturally with his very light blue eyes. Even at the young age of 13, Tom Felton was able to portray an excitable boy as well as someone who had the potential to do evil things, which he did in his next seven films. 

Dumbledore: Over the course of the eight films, two different actors played Dumbledore. 

The first was Richard Harris who played the headmaster in the first two movies, but unfortunately had to be replaced by Michael Gambon for the other films as he passed away two weeks before the premiere for the Chamber of Secrets. Whilst Gambon's portrayal of the powerful wizard was pretty accurate to the descriptions, "tall and thin, with long silver hair, that looks long enough to tuck into his belt and a long beard.", he could not rival the warmth that Harris ultimately brought to the role in the first two movies. 

Some Famous Faces prior to their appearance in Harry Potter:

• Ralph Fiennes - Lord Voldemort was played by Ralph Fiennes who was already noted for his diverse roles, but gained further attention through being the main antagonist in the series. 
• Maggie Smith - Had a lot of experience in acting before taking up the role of Professor McGonagall
• Robbie Coltrane - J.K Rowling said she imagined Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid even when she first began writing the books.
• Helena Bonham Carter - Gave an excellent portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange with her long, thick hair and dark features.
• Gary Oldman - Had been in many films before joining the series in the 4th film. 

Negative Differences: 

Turning the Harry Potter books into films was such a huge project that it was inevitable for some mistakes to be made. Whilst there are many positives, some of the booklovers would argue that there are negatives that, to this day, remain a huge disappointment. 

1. The portrayal of Ginny Weasley  

A main difference between the books and the films is how different the youngest Weasley sibling was on screen compared to how her character was originally written. In the books, she has been described as, 'the epitome of Gryffindor - brave, sassy, powerful, and just all-around a good person,' whereas in the films, her unique sense of humour and any depth of character is stripped from her. In the movies, she is no more than a background character and a wallflower waiting for the protagonist to love her back. As a result of her being a two dimensional character on screen, her relationship with Harry becomes even more disappointing. They have very little connection and absolutely no chemistry on screen, meaning that their relationship seems very staged and awkward alongside many other meaningful connections we see elsewhere in Ron and Hermione or Fleur and Bill. 

2. The death of Voldemort 

In the film, Voldemort's death is made to be a spectacle using special effects. After being struck by a spell, Voldemort slowly disintegrates and dies in the Courtyard, allowing people to witness the disappearance of evil. Whereas, in the book, he experiences a simple death in which his body remains and is left in a random room to show the lack of sorrow the wizarding world felt towards his loss. Many people prefer the original ending for Voldemort as it shows that after all his evil schemes, he couldn't stop the elder wand and died just like any normal person. 

3. Where Fred & George get their joke shop money from

In the films and the books, it is a reoccurring theme that the Weasley's are a poor family and it is a struggle for Mr and Mrs Weasley to support all of the siblings. Therefore, when the Weasley twins open their joke shop in The Order of the Phoenix, it is a mystery as to where they managed to get the money from as it had been none existent in the past four movies. However, in the books, it is explained that Harry gave them the 1000 galleons he earned from winning the Triwizard Tournament so that they could open their shop. Once again, a sentimental relationship has been removed from the films and has made the relationship between Harry and the Weasleys seem one sided as they give him a place to stay and treat him like a son. 

Positive Differences: 

In the Half Blood Prince movie, the Weasleys house is burned down by the death eaters whilst the family stand around and watch in horror. In the book, the Burrow is not burned down, but it reminds the viewer of the imminent danger and spreads the message that nowhere is safe anymore. 

Also, the lack of involvement of The Marauders in the films is a big change from the novels. The Marauders are the previous generation of wizards who attended Hogwarts, including James Potter (Harry's father), Remus Lupin, Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew. They were a tight knit group who were all placed in Gryffindor. Because we learn so little about them in the movies, certain events have a lot smaller impact than they would have if we'd known about how close their friendship was. For example, we learn that it was Peter Pettigrew, not Sirius Black who told Voldemort where to find Lily and James Potter. If you haven't read the book, then this betrayal is not very impactful, whereas if the Marauders history was incorporated on screen, these events could have evoked many more emotional feelings. Similarly, it is hardly mentioned why Professor Snape hates James Potter and Sirius Black, making him seem like a bitter man, but in reality, we should have been shown the history between them from when they attended Hogwarts. 

Critical Reviews: 

On Goodreads, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has over 8 million ratings, and an average review of 4.47 stars. With over 5.2 million five star reviews, it is a very highly rated book amongst the reading community. Many written reviews stated that they shouldn't have waited so long to read the books, and that it creates a more magical world than what comes alive on screen. Therefore, this suggests that the books do have a special aura that couldn't be captured when taken to the screen. 

The highest rated book on Goodreads is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows which is the final book in the series. With over 3 million ratings, it produced an impressive 4.6 star rating with 72% of reviews giving it a five star rating. However, the Deathly Hallows book was published in 2007, meaning 5 of the 8 films had been made and released prior to the final book's publication. Therefore, there is a high probability that the final book had such high popularity as people had watched the other films and were inspired to read ahead to discover the rest of the story. 

Comparing the Goodreads star rating against Rotten Tomatoes Audience rating: 

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 

Book - 4.47 stars out of 5 

Film - 82% 

The 4.47 stars equates to a percentage of 89.4% so the general consensus for the first book is that the novel is better than the film. 

Many top critics said that is very entertaining for children, but lacked some of the magic that was expected. Claudia Puig who is a top critic from USA Today said 

'The movie ultimately lacks the book's delightful whimsy and much of the sly verbal humor that made Rowling's tales so charming. Rowling wrote a book that's clever and witty, as well as scary, fanciful and sometimes sad. But not enough of that emotional range ends up on the screen.'

It is uncertain whether there was a lack of emotional range due to the premature ages of most of the actors and actresses, or a lack of depth within the script itself, but overall it seems that both audiences and critics alike preferred the first book over the film. 

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Book - 4.43 

Film - 80%

The 4.43 stars equates to 88.6% meaning that once again, the book has been ranked higher than the film. 

Amongst top critics, there seems to be quite a controversy over the quality of the second film, whilst some described it as 'darker, funnier and finer' than the first, others seemed to have a very negative opinion, calling it 'short of magic.' 

However, one critic did say, "Rather than better or worse, the films were almost an extension of the books, wonderfully bringing to life JK Rowling's fantastical Wizarding World as the definitive franchise an entire generation grew up with." 

This is very useful for my EPQ question as it suggests that movies are never supposed to ruin or lose the authenticity of the novel, but instead are supposed to extend the original world and bring a sense of reality to the words on the pages. 

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Book - 4.57 from 3.6 million ratings 

Film -  86%

The 4.57 stars equates to 91.4%, following the pattern that the novels are being ranked higher than the films. Although, even though the audience rating was 86%, the opinion amongst top critics resulted in a score of 90%, almost placing the third film on a level playing field with the novel.

Top critic, Nicole Arthur from the Washington Post said that the Prisoner of Azkaban was 'everything the first two films were not: complex, frightening, nuanced.' Whilst Chris Columbus directed the first and second films, it was Mexican film director, Alfonso Cuaron who took over the third one, which may be a determining factor for the sudden darkening change in direction that the series seemed to take.

Stephanie Zacharek, writing on behalf of Salon, described it as 'the first true Harry Potter movie -- the first to capture not only the books' sense of longing, but their understanding of the way magic underlies the mundane'. The Prisoner of Azkaban has been deemed excellent among critics, perhaps due to the introduction of a darker story which appeals more to the adult generation, compared to the brightness and joy that attracted children previously. 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Book - 4.56 from 2.9 million ratings 

Film - 74%

The 4.56 stars equates to 91.2%, showing that the Goblet of Fire novel has been ranked above the film once again. However, although the audience rating was only 74%, the critics rating is 88% which is substantially higher, meaning that from a professional perspective, the film is of a high standard. Nonetheless, it still isn't seen as being as good as the novel. 

Top critic Paul Byrne posted a negative review saying, 'It's too episodic, relying on action rather than emotion. The pace is headlong, so that the characterisation suffers.' In the very same review, he comments that there is 'less sense of fun' in this film compared to the three previous and the book itself. This suggests that no matter what direction the directors attempt to bring to the screen, it can never rival the original novel. 

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 

Book - 4.5 stars from 2.8 million ratings

Film - 81% 

4.5 stars equates to exactly 90%, meaning that the fifth film continues to be ranked below the books. Also, for once, the critics average was lower than the audience rating, coming in at 78%. 

Top critic, Wally Hammond, writing on behalf of Time Out said 'Performances are more mature, the soundtrack less grandiose, and Yates executes some thrilling set-pieces.' Given that the young actors were around 16-18, it meant that they had chance to learn from their experiences and obviously progress from when they started the franchise at 11 years old. The films are just as much a story of growth and childhood as they are action and magic. 

However, some other critics did not see the Order of the Phoenix in such a positive light. Joanne Kaufman from the Wall Street Journal said, 'Director David Yates, who is new to the Potter franchise, moves the story along briskly, at the expense of texture and nuance.' The Order of the Phoenix novel is the longest of all seven books, coming in at a whopping 766 pages. Trying to condense everything down into a 2 hour 20 minute film would be impossible, meaning that inevitably some crucial or favourable parts of the story had to be cut out. However, although some critics had negative opinions on how Yates decided to make the films, he went on to direct the next three films, concluding the franchise having directed half of the films. 

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince 

Book - 4.57 stars from 2.7 million ratings 

Film - 78%

4.57 stars equates to 91.4% meaning that the novel is still ranked above the film, as all the others have before. However whilst the audience rating is 78%, the rating from top critics is 84%, meaning that from a professional standard, the film is of very good quality. 

One review from Kevin Maher writing on behalf of the Times simultaneously lightly compliments the Half Blood Prince whilst slating the previous five movies. He says, 'The strangest thing about the new Harry Potter movie is not that it's unusually good, which it is, but that it unequivocally illustrates just how poorly we've been served by the previous five instalments in the franchise.' You'd expect that with the changeover of directors to David Yates in the fifth film, that the quality of films would have improved with The Order of the Phoenix. However the fact that it is the sixth film which impressed this reviewer so much   suggests that it is not the directing style that made it so great, but perhaps the storyline or acting.  

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1 & 2) 

Book - 4.61 stars from 3.1 million ratings 

Film (Part 1) - 85%

Film (Part 2) - 89% 

4.61 stars equates to 92.2% meaning that both part 1 and part 2 of the Deathly Hallows films are ranked lower than the books on audience rating. However, the critics review of the Deathly Hallows Part 2 reached an average of 96%, meaning it is the first film that has actually ranked above the novel itself. Splitting the seventh book into two parts naturally meant that Part 1 felt incomplete and had viewers wanting more. Therefore, the arrival of the final film brought a sense of closure, making it higher ranked and generally more preferred. 

Part 1 

Although it had a higher audience rating of 85%, the top critics rating was 77%, which is 19% lower than what they gave to the final film. The consensus was that the Deathly Hallows Part 1 'can't help but feel like the prelude it is, but Deathly Hallows: Part I is a beautifully filmed, emotionally satisfying penultimate installment for the Harry Potter series.' 

Lou Lumenick from the New York Post seemed to believe that the book was separated into two films purely as a money making scheme. He describes it as 'Beautifully shot but a soulless cash machine, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 delivers no dramatic payoff, no resolution and not much fun.' Although it makes sense that the director would want enough time to fully conclude the films, it does seem too little too late since so many crucial parts of the franchise have been cut out due to lack of screen time in the previous films, especially Order of the Phoenix. 

Part 2

The general consensus amongst top critics was that the last film was, 'Thrilling, powerfully acted, and visually dazzling, Deathly Hallows Part II brings the Harry Potter franchise to a satisfying -- and suitably magical -- conclusion'. Being the one film that was ranked above the book suggests that after seven previous failed attempts, the film makers had finally brought all necessary aspects to the same high quality in order to create an impressive, and almost perfect conclusion to a well loved franchise. 

It is very hard to find a negative review from critics for Deathly Hallows Part 2. 'For a grand finale to a truly epic, good-natured franchise, this is a perfect goodbye that's very hard to beat.' was a comment from a critic from Sydney, whilst a London critic said, 'The finale is a great British triumph, twice as good as its predecessor, highly recommended.' 

Overall, taking both audience ratings and the ratings of top critics into account, it seems that the books will always be held above the films, whether that be due to the quality of the writing, or inclusion of more information that could not be carried to the screen. However, doing this case study made me realise some of the most important things in making a successful book adaptation. 

There needs to be: 

• High standard of acting 
• A conclusion at the end of each film, even if there are plans of continuing the story in the future
• Dramatic scenes, but also a sense of comedy 
• The ability to not cut out crucial parts of the plot, or even minor aspects which people enjoy 

Wider Impacts of the Films: 

Alongside the films, Harry Potter has been transferred into many different things across the world: 

• Warner Brothers Studio Tour London - Opened in 2012. Includes real sets, props and outfits from the Harry Potter series. It is one of the biggest attractions in London, people travel from other countries to experience the making go Harry Potter. 
• The Wizarding World of Harry Potter Orlando - Universal Studios has recently opened the Wizarding World of Harry Potter which has rides, Hogwarts, experiences and so much more which draw people in from around the world. 
• King's Cross Station - At King's Cross Station, there is a monument representing the fictional platform nine and three quarters from Harry Potter, showing how the locations of filming have been popularised by the franchise. 
• West End - Due to the popularity of the eight films and books, J.K Rowling released Harry Potter and the Cursed Child in 2016 in the form of a script. It was highly anticipated by audiences, and has since become a famous West End show in London as well as a best selling book. 
• Hogwarts Express Scotland - In Scotland, there is a 84 mile trip that tourists can take on the Hogwarts Express which allows them to experience the fictional journey to the magical school whilst enjoying the beautiful views of the countryside. 
• Across the country, and the world, there are Harry Potter themed restaurants, cafes, stores, and activities, making it the most famous and popular franchise of all time. 
• The 3 prequel films have been released following the films, continuing to attract viewers of all ages. These include Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, The Crimes of Gindelward and The Secrets of Dumbledore. 

As of 2021, Harry Potter is the third highest grossing franchise in the world, worth a huge 9.2 billion dollars. It is only behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars. 

Although the books would have attracted readers, it was the films that popularised the franchise and made it into a world wide phenomenon. Therefore, the adaptations were beneficial to the original literature by popularising them, resulting in people going back to read the books after they'd heard about the films.