Which one is better, Harry Potter books or Harry potter movies?

I agree with you when you say that this question has been asked umpteen number of times. But, what I felt was that the questions asked till now were emotional in nature. I mean that those discussions were started either by complete devotees of the books or the lovers of the movies. What I wanted was, keeping all the emotions aside, and taking into account all the difficulties, hard-work and perspiration, visual affects, stunning graphics and so on, which would and should be considered better?..:)

Ah, so are you saying that you want the subjective removed from the answer? Cause yes, you are definitely right in that people come at it with a lot of bias. I have had many discussions, however, on the difference between film and literature that did not involve a specific book, and therefor it was pretty much just about the technical details. No devotees. The differences pretty much come down to visual interest versus internal processes. And everyone is going to differ on which of those is better, because both have their own exclusive strengths. Some times it does depend on which story you are talking about.

Of course, the reason I've discussed this so much is because I studied English Ed in college. So I'm probably a little biased towards the written word. But for the most part, I think they both bring something different to the table, and have their own value. Maybe that's why I don't get upset when the movies differ from the books.

(Sorry this is a late response by the way. If you want to talk more, I accepted the friend invite if you want to message me.)

I completely agree with you. Reading a book increases the scope and level of imagination which is not possible while watching a movie. The way you relate to each of the characters while reading the book, you won't be able to do the same while watching the movie. Also, in the movies many scenes had to be cut due to the time constraints.

Yes, if they hadn't cut out huge pieces from the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, there would probably have been six films, not three. Some things from books just don't translate well to the cinema though.

I've never actually tried reading Lord of the Rings, so don't take too much away from this, but everyone I know says the books are way too slow and boring. I've always seen LOTR as an example of how film CAN better a book. And yes, at least two of those people did read the books before the movies came out.*shrug* Maybe I should give them my own go at it.

The twenty or so years at the beginning of the first book between Bilbo leaving and Frodo following him didn't really add all that much. The main bits taken out of the books that could possibly have added to it were the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs at the beginning and the Scouring of the Shire at the end.

you would have added many of the interests into your profile. Click on the one for which you want to start a discussion. Go to the discussion tab, click on Start discussion. Provide the subject and description. Click on submit and then its live on the net for other to respond!! Hope that is helpful..:)

Making a reader visualize also depends on the talent of the author...:) The more descriptive he/she is, the more easily can the reader visualize. Visualization also depends on the how avid a reader is.

Here, you will be biased towards the movies because you have not read the books. But, I think, once you read the books that is when this question arises about which is better..:)

Hey, why don't you try reading the book. It's really exciting and I love to visualize. Honestly, I would rather read the book than watch the movie. There never has been any Harry Potter movie that I appreciate. I really move reading.

Its a fact that the books make one feel like a part of the wizard world. BUt, if suppose you haven't read the book, then probably the movies might have the same effect, eh?
Though the movies could not incorporate everything that was in the book, even then the way it was showcased it made the audience feel a part of the world through its graphics and visual effects which itself is a daunting task for the script writer and the director as well as the actors to portray each and every character so convincingly.

Yes, its true.. And i do love the graphics of the movie. I really love movies because they show me what i imagined in while reading the book.

But i guess the question would not apply to someone who has not read the book, don't you think? If someone has not both read the book and seen the movie he cant compare both. And in fact there are also many people who dont like to read books at all. So from their perspective if you look at it books are crap!:P lols!!!

And another important point is that i have read several books and seen their movies and some of them no matter how well made did not compare to reading the book. When i took a friend with me who had not read these books i always think about his perspective and how he would feel about it or what he might feel confused about and sometimes i just find points i would not have understood about the movie if i hadn't read the book in the first place. And this is the reason why i feel books are better.

Yes another reason i find that i can feel like i am the part of the authors world when reading a book is that what i imagine then is my own imagination.. I am free to see it as i please. There is not boundation on what imagine.. And even where i choose to see this imaginary scene from, however the movie is something the director is showing us. Its his point of view and i have to see it the way he wants us to. Its like watching someone else's life, but when i read a book i feel like i could have been one of the friends of the main character or even a student in his school just because i can choose where i am seeing him from. But these are my own feelings.. Other people might feel differently.

I have really never felt like a part of the wizard world when i saw the movie and as a matter of fact even the movie i am completely crazy about.