Book vs Movie

I haven't read Twilight and don't intend to. The only reason I watched the movie is because I adore Jackson Rathbone and wanted to see him in 20 feet of digital projection. I enjoyed, even bought the movie and plan to see the rest of the saga but I'm kind of particular about vampire books and these just don't sound all that good to me. But. I have read the Harry Potter books and I must say that this one was the worst in terms of following the book (the movie was terrific, if you judge it as it's own entity, separate from the book, but it didn't follow the book very well at all). The first three were very close but they were shorter books with less to squeeze into a 2 and a half hour film. 4 and 5 were longer books so naturally some of the less important, side details would be cut. And that was fine. But in this one, they left out a lot of very important information and kind of skimmed over what was there. I think that it's absolutely a judgment call on the part of the writers, directors and producers and in both cases - Harry Potter and Twilight - the authors have been very much involved in the scriptwriting processes so if, in the case of Twilight, Stephanie Meyer thought the story wouldn't suffer by leaving out what was left out, I guess, as a writer, I trust her (and J. K. Rowling's) judgment.

I agree that they should have followed the book a little bettr. I understand they were trying to make the moving not incredibly long but i would have sat through a longer movie to see some additional scenes.