Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Harry Potter books are pretty different than the movies. This can be seen in depth over here.

My question however, is whether JK Rowling ever directly contradicted the movies with later books in ways that she hadn't before. In other words, a situation where the movies did not contradict canon up to that point, but where they did (inadvertently) contradict later book canon.

Did JK Rowling ever directly contradict the movies?

Inspired by this answer.

share|improve this question
Here's a timeline showing when the books and the films were released. It shows the order of release was: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4, film 1, film 2, book 5, film 3, book 6, film 4, film 5, book 7, film 6, film 7a, film 7b. – SQB Feb 29 at 9:23
Relevant:… – Matthew Read Mar 1 at 9:32
@MatthewRead - I find this even less relevant than SQB's comment. – ibid Mar 1 at 12:35
up vote 44 down vote accepted

Yes, at least twice.

Both come from Philosopher’s Stone, which was released a year after the book version of Goblet of Fire:

  • In the film, after escaping from Fluffy for the first time, Ron and Harry accompany Hermione up the stairs to her dormitory (1h3m).

    When they try to pull the same stunt in the book Order of the Phoenix, they discover the stairs are charmed so as to make this impossible:

    “Let’s go and tell her,” said Ron. He bounded forward, pulled open the door, and set off up the spiral staircase.

    He was on the sixth stair when it happened. There was a loud, wail- ing, klaxonlike sound and the steps melted together to make a long, smooth stone slide. There was a brief moment when Ron tried to keep running, arms working madly like windmills, then he toppled over backward and shot down the newly created slide, coming to rest on his back at Harry’s feet.

  • In the book, Harry loses consciousness before Quirrell dies.

    Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm and hung on as tight as he could. Quirrell screamed and tried to throw Harry off – the pain in Harry’s head was building – he couldn’t see – he could only hear Quirrell’s terrible shrieks and Voldemort’s yells of ‘KILL HIM! KILL HIM!’ and other voices, maybe in Harry’s own head, crying, ‘Harry! Harry!’

    He felt Quirrell’s arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down… down… down…

    He’s conscious for Quirrell’s death in the films, which should be the trigger for him to see Thestrals in subsequent years. But he doesn’t start to see them until Order of the Phoenix, to match the timeline in the books – because Thestrals hadn’t been introduced yet.

share|improve this answer
Your second one is the same as the one in TenthJustice’s answer, in case you hadn’t noticed. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 29 at 7:53
One might be able to blame the first on the difference between accompanying and going by themselves. – CodesInChaos Feb 29 at 8:12
Re. your first point (not being able to visit Hermione in OotP) I have a nagging feeling (but could easily be mistaken) that there was something in the books about this "anti-liaison" protection kicking in in later years (when pupils were old enough to need keeping apart), and so might not have been present/active in the first year. – TripeHound Feb 29 at 10:25
@TripeHound Nothing in the books about that; their fifth year is the first time they try it, and Hermione's response is that the founders considered girls more trustworthy. – Anthony Grist Feb 29 at 12:06
Regarding the Thestrals - surely baby Harry being awake should have triggered the susceptibility to the Thestrals, unless there is another requirement for the trigger, such as a need for the dead person to have a meaning to the survivor at the time of the death...? This would cancel out Quirrell's death as a trigger, just as it did for both of Harrys parents (babies that young recognise care givers but are not cognitively able to form attachments). – Moo Mar 1 at 11:08

I’m not sure this is quite cut and dried as you’d hope, but the first thing that comes to mind is Lavender Brown’s skin colour.

(In)famously, by now, Lavender Brown was a minor character in the first movies, with no lines. She was portrayed by two black actresses: Kathleen Cauley (unverified) in Chamber of Secrets and Jennifer Smith in Prisoner of Azkaban.

When the first movies were made, of course, Half-Blood Prince wasn’t out yet and the casters didn’t know that Lavender would become an important character later on. The books never actually give a proper description of Lavender, but Half-Blood Prince does have the following quote:

Harry looked into the corner she was indicating. There, in full view of the whole room, stood Ron wrapped so closely around Lavender Brown it was hard to tell whose hands were whose.

While this could just be hyperbole, it at least implies that Lavender is white. If she were black (at least if she were as dark in skin tone as Kathleen Cauley and Jennifer Smith are), there would be absolutely no trouble telling her and Ron’s hands apart, regardless of how closely wrapped around each other they were.

share|improve this answer
Reminds of the meme where it shows how Harry, Hermione, Ron changed throughout the films, then it says Crabbe changed the most by becoming black xD – user3564421 Feb 29 at 9:36
Now you have to prove that Ron is a white redhead. – Paul Draper Feb 29 at 13:13
Captioned image that illustrates her skin bleaching progress. – user1717828 Feb 29 at 14:12
@Paul D’you know, that’s a good point. It’s definitely more heavily implied that Ron is white than Hermione (cf. the recent Noma Dumezweni débâcle), but I can’t think of anywhere in the book where Ron or Harry’s skin colour is stated outright. It would be extremely rare, though, to have an entire family of people who all had red hair, freckles, and dark skin. One or two members of an interracial family, sure; several entire generations—unlikely. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 29 at 16:01
@JanusBahsJacquet - Aren't all three of them featured on the cover art for every book? At least the editions I've seen (both UK and US) have them. Do the original first-run editions not show them? Minor characters like Lavender we might not know much about, but the three main characters are pretty well established in general appearance (at least in terms of obvious stuff like skin color). There's even sketchwork of the main cast by JKR herself to be found, though from what I've seen they're not in color, so could be ambiguous. – Darrel Hoffman Feb 29 at 20:25

This isn't quite what you're looking for. But the latter part of your question ("The movies said something which didn't contradict canon at the time, but Rowling subsequently wrote something to contradict it") makes me think of the problem of the Thestrals.

At the time the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone film came out, Order of the Phoenix had yet to be written. A minor plot point from that book is that there are creatures flying around Hogwarts that only those who have seen death can see. Harry sees them for the first time after seeing Cedric Diggory die at the end of the previous book.

But in the films, Harry sees (causes, really) the death of Professor Quirrell, which he's unconscious for in the books. This leads to a plot hole in the movies, where Harry suddenly sees Thestrals he's supposed to have been seeing for the past four years.

Again, not quite what you're looking for, but an interesting case of the filmmakers writing themselves into a corner because they didn't know what was going to be in future books.

share|improve this answer
The Thestrals were always a problem for me because Harry should've been able to see them right from the start, having witnessed his parents' murders while an infant. Mind you he was probably too young to remember, so maybe that doesn't count. (Also, maybe he was asleep or in another room? Never quite made clear.) – Darrel Hoffman Feb 29 at 15:22
I believe when asked this, JK Rowling said that Harry never witnessed his parents' death, he was in his crib. – TenthJustice Feb 29 at 20:42
The real headscratcher is that Harry doesn't even see Cedric's death: "A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes." – TenthJustice Feb 29 at 20:43
What matters for perceiving thesrals is not seeing death but experiencing irrecoverable loss. IOW, baby Harry could not comprehend death, so it is irrelevant whether he saw his parents murdered or not. Similarly, he did not mourn Quirrell, so it does not whether he passed our before or after he died. And, by the same token, seeing the act of Cedric's murder is less important that mourning it. – sds Feb 29 at 21:28
@sds - But if that's the case, then anyone who was emotionally close to Cedric would then be affected, whether they witnessed his death or not, probably moreso than Harry as he'd only known him for about a year. Everyone mourned Cedric - he was a popular guy - but only Harry saw Thestrals because of it. In fact, in that case it wouldn't even matter if they were actually dead or merely irrecoverably gone, like Neville's parents, who are as good as dead, but we never heard of him being able to see Thestrals. – Darrel Hoffman Feb 29 at 22:50

yes, here is another example: in the movie "The Prisoner of Askaban", when Harry rides the gryphon he really enjoys it, while in the book he is scared and ends up dizzy.

share|improve this answer
Which book are you referring to? If it was PoA, then the book came first, so the movie is contradicting the book, which was not the question. (There are countless examples of that.) The question is about places where the books contradicted something in a previous film. – Darrel Hoffman Mar 1 at 16:23
And it's not a gryphon but a hippogriff. – Arnaud D. Apr 9 at 22:47

No, she didn't. She had the whole series plotted out, the books were all out before all the movies were made, and in fact it was the other way around. The movies often wanted to do things that contradicted canon, and she would tell them they couldn't do things. She wouldn't say why, just told them they couldn't do certain things.

She has said this in several interviews over the years, and Alan Rickman has said he had to resist certain lines because he knew they were not what she had in mind.

share|improve this answer
From my experience, she wouldn't even tell them when they were mispronouncing the main antagonist's name. JKR didn't really get so involved in the films, and she definitely let them go against the books in numerous ways. – ibid Feb 29 at 4:44
The films were clearly being made [while the books were still being written and published. – neilfein Feb 29 at 4:50
According to this timeline, the first and the second movie were released between the fourth and the fifth book. Likewise, the third movie came between the fifth and the sixth book, and the fourth and the fifth movie between the sixth and the seventh book. What could have happened (and did, according to the other answers here) that they took some liberties in the first movie that were contradicted by the (unreleased at the time of filming) fifth book, for instance. Oh, and welcome to the SF&Fantasy Stack, btw. Did you take the tour yet? – SQB Feb 29 at 9:18
@SQ No, otherwise they would have gotten a badge. – Mithrandir Mar 1 at 7:53
This is not a terrible answer, so I'm sorry it's received so many downvotes. You could improve it if you found quotes for JKR and did an edit to include. Please don't let this discourage you from further participation. You're always welcome to delete this answer and post a new one. – CreationEdge Mar 1 at 16:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.