The casting choices for the Harry Potter movies were undeniably close to the character counterparts in the books. Each actor and actress thoroughly embodied their respective characters and brought them to life in a magical way. However, there were some little differences between the characters in the book and their film versions that we just can't help but point out.
For most people who have just seen the movies, these minor details don't really make a major difference. However, to those who have read the books, some of these details were presented as part of the character's signature look. And Harry Potter book fans take these things very seriously. Here is a list of some of the most poignant differences between the descriptions in the book and the way that the characters were portrayed on screen. Some of this may come across as nitpicking, but we're just here to point it out.
HARRY POTTER'S EYE COLOR
In the books, Harry's eyes are described as green. It's a big part of the books because it's mentioned many times that he has his mother's green eyes. Further, his green eyes are what connects him to his mother long after her passing, especially when people who knew her make those remarks. But Daniel Radcliffe's eyes are blue, so in the movies, Harry has blue eyes. The reason these weren't changed was simple: rumor has it that Radcliffe couldn't wear green contacts because he was either allergic or sensitive to them. So, they just left his eyes alone. Simple enough.
HERMIONE'S TEETH
When Harry first meets Hermione in the books, she's known for having "rather large front teeth" (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) and thick, bushy hair. Later on, Madam Pomfrey shortens her teeth, but for the first little while, they're supposed to be big. They got the hair down in the movie, but her teeth appeared relatively normal. In the DVD commentary for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, director Chris Columbus revealed that they originally gave Emma Watson a set of fake teeth to get the look, but they only ended up filming one scene with them because they were too impractical.
RON'S HEIGHT
There is a pretty substantial difference in Ron's height between the two mediums. In the books, Ron is supposed to be significantly taller than Harry and Hermione. If you do the math based on the various descriptions of Ron compared to his siblings and friends, it would seem that he's supposed to be in the ballpark of about six feet and two inches. In real life, Rupert Grint is about five foot seven inches, so in the movies Ron isn't taller than Harry and Hermione.
PETUNIA DURSLEY'S HEAD
Aunt Petunia, Harry's dreaded aunt who begrudgingly takes him in as a child, was also changed for the movies just a little bit. Petunia is described in the books to have blonde hair and "nearly twice the usual amount of neck" (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone). On some other occasions, she's described as horse-faced, implying that her face is also supposed to be long and thin. However, in the films, she has dark brown hair and a regular amount of neck, changing from this original description.
THE WEASLEY FAMILY'S MISSING FRECKLES
One of the signature family traits throughout the entire Weasley family is that they have red hair and freckles. In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it's written that "all the Weasleys have red hair, freckles, and more children than they can afford." While everyone does have the signature red hair in the film, no one has freckles. Not one of them. Again, this isn't really a big deal but it was part of what made the family stand out in their own way during the book series.
VOLDEMORT'S EYE COLOR
Harry Potter isn't the only character who fell stray from his original eye color. Voldemort is supposed to have red eyes, as described throughout the books. It wouldn't be that important in the grand scheme of things, but in the book, the red eyes are supposed to be part of his overall menacing character. Imagine how much scarier Voldemort would be if we saw him with those red eyes. However, it could have been worse. We could have ended up with a different actor for Voldemort entirely, which wouldn't have been the same.
DUDLEY DURSLEY'S HAIR COLOR
While the character in the film got the mannerisms and the character of Dudley down, he was missing one element from the books: the hair color. Rowling originally describes Dudley has having blonde hair. He's supposed to have inherited this hair color from his mom. Since they changed the color of Petunia's hair for the movies, it's likely that they just did the same for Dudley so that their hair color would match.
MAD EYE MOODY'S FACE
One of the signature components of Mad-Eye Moody's appearance in the books is that his face is badly disfigured and he's missing the tip of his nose. He loses this piece of the nose at some point during the conflict in which baby Harry successfully defeats Voldemort. So, realistically, he should have been missing this piece throughout all of the movies. Instead, he just has a regular nose and some facial scarring.
NARCISSA MALFOY'S HAIR
In the movies, Narcissa has shoulder-length hair with a signature two-tone black and blonde color. But in the books, she's described as having long blonde hair like the rest of the Malfoy clan. According to the costume designers, they decided to go with this look to connect her with her sister, Bellatrix, who has dark hair. This does make sense, and you have to admit that the two-tone hair color does set her apart.
TONKS' HAIR, EYES, AND FACE
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix offers this description of Nymphadora Tonks: "She had a pale heart-shaped face, dark twinkling eyes, and short spiky hair that was a violent shade of violet." Meanwhile, in the film, Tonks does have violet hair, but it's more of a pastel shade instead of the violent shade in the books. It's also shoulder length in the movies and not the short and spiky style that defines her in the books. Her eyes are also not dark in the movies, as Natalia Tena has green eyes.