Do the movies do the books justice?

Australia
February 6, 2007 6:55pm CST
I have read and re-read and re-read the Harry Potter books. I am honestly addicted! When I went and saw the movies, I was so angry because they had little in common with the book! Some parts were cut out, others put in the wrong order, some characters are saying others lines and some were just made up! I think the director for the first two movies did alot better job then the one who did the 3rd. Hagrids hut wasnt down a sheer cliff, it was down gently slowping hill.. I know that they cant replicate the books right down to each word, but it would be better if they tried too!! What do you think? Do the movies do the books justice? Are there any other book/movie series that are the same??
2 people like this
14 responses
@hashman (27)
• India
8 Feb 07
even i was disapointed when i saw the movie but i later realised that the reason that i was angry was not because the movies were bad but because the actors chosen in the movies were nothing like i had imagined harry potter characters to be. it seemed to be an altogether different harry potter.
@tipik93 (89)
• Czech Republic
8 Feb 07
Yes, this is FACT, all movies and books are different. But all films and books are different. Tis is normal. Books are very long and film have got only 150 minutes...
• India
8 Feb 07
I think if they cover up the whole book in the movie it would be really great .It doesn't matter how much long it is coz every potter fan would really like his imagination to be seen on screen.
@juicemilk (2286)
• Australia
7 Feb 07
I don't understand why people get mad when the movie's not as good as the book....when is it ever? The movies are based on the books, they are not an exact representation, of course things will be different and bits left out. Many people don't even read the books and just watch the movies, so they really are two separate things.
• India
7 Feb 07
Yes mate Movies do Suck It is jus because of different directors and different styles its a commercial part and more over hav you heard an audio book the first book goes on for 7 hours second book goes on for 8 hours third goes to 12 fourth to 20 fifth to 23 hours and the half blood prince has 30 * 4 * 6 min = 980 mins and so on U seriously cant cover them up , in jus one hour and 30 minutes say 2 hours hence u hav to edit only main parts can come in and now comes the problem every main part jus doesnt come of itself it comes from tiny tiny parts which a movie cant cover hence they hav to create their own story the patethic movie of all was prisoner of azkhaban i really lost my love towards the movies since the third movie came first two were quite good third and fourrth were very poor no big expectations abt the fifth movie I always hear the book , and visualise myself :)
• United States
7 Feb 07
Honestly, sometimes I think people might be better off it they just left certain types of books alone with regard to making films, based simply on this very question. All of us that are members of the Potterverse have such strong opinions about what we would like to see. I generally agree with you that the first two films were probably the best adaptations, but those two books happen to have something in common: they're the shortest two books. Once you start getting into Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix territory, the books are just so massive that to do one film is almost an impossible undertaking. Mike Newell did the best he could with GoF. That all being said...that line from the PoA movie: "Spiders...they want me to tapdance. I don't want to tapdance." "You tell those spiders, Ron." Now that's funny. I happen to think the films do as good a job as they can, given an impossible situation, just like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings. But in almost all cases, the book will be better. Except for Princess Bride...the movie is much better.
@CADOIT (25)
• United States
7 Feb 07
I HAVE NEVER READ A BOOK WHERE THE MOVIE WAS BETTER SPECIALLY A SERIES
• India
7 Feb 07
no i do not think so, it is impossible to show such details in such a short time.....so movies like da vinci code, runaway jury, disclosure, pride and prejudice which are based on bestselling novels are not that great, even if they are blockbusters...just ask any harry potter book fan....he will say aargh to the potter novies.... i do not blame the producers, but it is not possible to create the same mood as books do.......
@Dumpertaker (1188)
7 Feb 07
The movies will never do the books justice, sadly that is the fact with most movies that are based on books...and the simple reason is that the mind's eye is better at telling a story than any movie maker.
• United States
7 Feb 07
I think it depends on how you view the situation. Some people just read the books, never see the movies-so the movies make no matter to them. Some people just watch the movies and do not read the books, to they do not know what they are or are not missing and really enjoy the movies. Then there are those of us who are doing both. I watched the first two movies before I read the books, then for the rest of the books, I read them before the movies came out. I liked watching the movies first THEN reading the books because I didn't know what was changed or missing. The books added to the movies. I think they did a great job with the movies, they are not supposed to be identical to the books...though that would be nice. Think of other book/movies. Gone with the Wind comes to mind. The movie was quite a bit different from the book. Example, Scarlett had more than one child in the book....movie, she only had Bonnie. I think one of the reasons for changing books and thier movie is so people do read the book or when they see the movie they want to read the book. Teachers also know whether or not a child has read the book or just watched the movie. With Harry Potter being a "childrens" book technically, this would be rather nice....children who are supposed to read the book and not just watch the movie can be caught if they try cheating. Just my input, great discussion topic!
• Pakistan
7 Feb 07
not at all!! it sure is fun watching them bt they r no way near as good as the books....
@zeena2 (8)
• Canada
7 Feb 07
I think that u need to consider the fact that JK Rowling was on set for every movie and if i didnt go to the book than she would have said something. But i do agree that they went off track alittle the first one i found was the worst and the third ur right the events were out of order like when he gets his firebolt, there is suppose to be a big thing about dark magic and all that and ya so i guess i do agree but i do realize that they were done to the best of the ability of the producers.
@erique (466)
• Indonesia
7 Feb 07
yeah the movie don't cover the books, that's absolutely. Because the book bring our mind to create the imagination of the harry potter's world. it's different with movie, which has make it's own visualization of harry potter's world, and maybe for some people feel dispointed with the visualization from the movie for the books. it's just like LOTR too, i more like the books than the movies.
@emeraldisle (13145)
• United States
7 Feb 07
Well I do enjoy both but I also agree the firs movies were done more towards the books especially in comparision to the last movie. There was so much left out of Goblet of Fire and that one was disappointing. The other three I enjoyed a lot more and thought they did a decent job of following the books. I know they can't do everything in them in 2 hours so I understand taking things out or compressing them but with Goblet there was just too much left out.