steve kloves

in the books, the primary problem with Ron’s robes is the lacey collar and sleeves. There’s no mention of that disastrous pattern mismatch, those massive sleeves, or the velvet bowtie.

The fact that:

1. Ron initially thinks the robes are Ginny’s dress (who didn’t have a dress like this back in the 80s/90s?)

2. When he removes most of the lace with a severing charm, the robes look normal except for the slightly frayed sleeves/collar

makes me think that his robes looked much more like the picture on the left.

Of course, the filmmakers went out of their way to put him in the most ugly set of dress robes in existence. Surprise, surprise.

I don’t think most Potter fans understand just how close these movies are to the books. Most book-to-film adaptations are near unrecognizable to the source. I think Kloves did a fantastic job at adapting the material and stayed as true to the books as possible. I also think it’s absurd to suggest that he tried to manipulate the material to fit some “ship”. He’s a writer, not a fanboy.

Steve Kloves, I think I speak for most Harry Potter book fans when I say: why??????

Cause even if the answer is something along the lines of “making Hermione a strong female character,” my response is: she already is one. Everything about who she is makes her a “strong female character” (although I have so many issues with that phrase that I could write several blog posts about it). You don’t need to steal lines from Ron to make that happen.

For the most part, I think you did a decent job with the adaptations (particularly the early ones), especially given the constraints of time and the differences between the mediums. But this particular change makes no sense to me and I am genuinely really interested in the reasoning behind it.