Any time a beloved book series becomes a movie (or eight), fans trip over themselves to point out how the film version fails to capture the detail and magic of the books. With nothing is this more true than with Harry Potter and, to be fair, fans have a point. Like you know how [SPOILER ALERT. THIS IS A SPOILER ALERT. DON'T GET MAD. SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO GET SPOILED] during the book version of the Battle of Hogwarts some of Slytherin stays and fights Voldemort, but in the movie Professor McGonagall has the entire house locked in the dungeons? What was that bullshit? Or how about when Ron finally finds his way back to Harry and Hermione using the deluminator and says, "[Dumbledore] must've known I'd run out on you" and Harry responds, ""No. He must've always known you'd always want to come back"? How could they have cut that?
One Reddit user took our nerd-rage a step further and compared the physical descriptions of four of the main characters from the books with their movie counter-parts. Of course, the filmmakers had no idea when they first cast 11-year-old Daniel Radcliffe that he wouldn't grow into a tall and lanky Quidditch player, but, hell, they all now have millions and millions of dollars piled in their Gringotts vaults, so let's have a go at them anyway.
"Harry Potter" Characters In The Books Vs. The Movies [Buzzfeed]
Perfect. Absolutely perfect.