Harry Potter Books vs Movies
By skullious029
@skullious029 (23)
United States
October 30, 2012 3:18pm CST
I bet there are a lot of comments that people would have on something like this. Course the books are most the time better than the movies, course if you are the type to actually sit down and read them. I like the books myself, but I also watched the movies. Movies came first for me, because I didn't want to watch them expecting something. I do that with most movies that are about books. I liked who they had playing as the characters, of course there were many things the books had that the movies didn't, but seeing the movies first helped so that I wouldn't look for them until after I read the books. Hope you all comment on what you think about it. =)
5 responses
@darkmeiji (48)
• Philippines
5 Nov 12
I have been reading the Harry Potter books even before plans were made to turn them into movies and I can say that I prefer the Harry Potter books more than the movies. As in most books that are turned into movies, there are a lot of details and explanations that were not included in the movies due to the the constraints in time and the natural limitations of visual media. Unfortunately, the director, script writer and producer of the movie on the one hand, and me on the other hand did not agree on which details should be in movie.
One example is when the Marauder's Map was confiscated by Professor Lupin. In the book, it was explained that the creators of the Marauder's Map - Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs - are Harry's father and his friends themselves (including Professor Lupin, Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew) and that the nicknames were based on their animal forms when transformed (Lupin since he is a werewolf and the other three as Animagus forms, if I remember correctly.) These were not explained in the movie and while it did not really break the plot or the continuity of the story, it is for me an important part of the story.
Another example is at the end when Snape showed Dumbledore the shape of his Patronus and Dumbledore referred to Lily Potter. The relevance was not explained in the movie.
@skullious029 (23)
• United States
5 Nov 12
Another example would be the mirror, the broken mirror. It showed up in the 7th and 8th movie, but it was never explained how he gotten in in the movies.
@darkmeiji (48)
• Philippines
6 Nov 12
That's right! And that mirror was very important too since Harry Potter would have known Sirius Black was safe if he remembered to use the mirror and Sirius Black might not have to die.
@atv818 (1980)
• United Arab Emirates
30 Nov 12
I haven't read the Harry Potter books but I'm sure they are better than those seen on the big screen. Don't blame the movies since they can only include a part of those found in the books. You cannot squeeze everything in 2 or 3 hours worth of film. I'm sure that Directors are exerting their best efforts to give the finest special effects to make up for the missing excerpts.
@skullious029 (23)
• United States
1 Dec 12
course, it would just be nice if they could. Even though I think that is supposedly why they are making more recent movies into many parts, although I think that is just a crock on some. all well
@doroffee (4222)
• Hungary
31 Oct 12
The casting for the movies was pretty okay with some exceptions (they totally miscasted Tonks, in the books, Tonks was kind of a hippie, not a top model type of person who was that timid that she was in the 5th movie... but I didn't really get why they chose Ginny, either... anyone with a brain would have known from the book that Ginny wasn't that ugly or weird-looking as a kid, she was just described as how a teen boy -Harry- would see a kid girl... nothing against the actress, and I don't think she's that ugly, but in the end of the book, Ginny was described as a typical beauty, and the girl playing Ginny is definitely not one)... and the first 4 movies were okay, the 4th being my fave (but I missed the part when the twins were deceived at the quidditch cup, best scene EVER!!!)... but afterwards... I saw the 5th one, which was a major letdown... several factual mistakes, poor designs (the twins' big prank was soooo dully done in the movie), I only liked how they depicted Umbridge. Then I saw parts of the 6th one, and that one was a disaster, esepcially with the dialogues. I didn't even care to watch the other two, I was so disappointed in the last two I saw. I didn't wanna weaste time and money on them.
@skullious029 (23)
• United States
1 Nov 12
actually the last two were actually well done, they followed the book, almost to a t. But I can't say for certain though.
@Sindelle (824)
• United States
30 Oct 12
As you said most people will agree that books are usually better then the movies however the Harry Potter movies were done very well. I always enjoy it when I get to see one of my favorite books on the big screen as long as it a decent movie. I hate it when they dramatically change the ending or a movie or they have bad acting. Usually though with a well known good book Holloywood tends to do a good job though.
@MiaFerrari (51)
• Argentina
30 Oct 12
Well, in most cases I prefer the books because they are more descriptive and let you know the characters better. But I just hated Harry Potter and the goblet of fire for different reasons. I even doubt the director or screenwriters even read the book. Harry is portrayed as a greedy arrogant guy who wants to win at all costs (for example, doubting whether to leave Diggory behind in the maze, which NEVER happens in the book) and is just happy and proud to be in the triwizard tournament (like when he asks other Griffindors if they wanted him to open the dragon's egg... that isn't in the book either).
I mean, I understand they have to adapt the plot for the big screen, but changing the personality of the main character is just wrong
