Harry Potter: Books or Movies?
- Thread starter Olorin
- Start date
I should contribute to my thread too XD
The books (and movies) are very important to me, I grew up with them and read the first one when it initialy got released, I still have the books (a lot more than 7) and dvds as well as blu rays (the big box, which i Love) and even old VHS' on a prime location in my room right there next to my Tolkien and One Piece stuff
still read the books and rewatch the movies ,mit's been a part of my life for about 17 years (I think) a large majority of my life, at first i disliked the movies as adaptations but I learned to separate the 2, i love both the books and the movies though overall i do prefer the books, the story is definitely better in the books, bit there is something about the acting and the setting in the movies thats just fantastic to me, and at the end of Deathly Hallows 2, At the movies, it was actually the only time I saw the majority of the audiance burst out in ruckus applause and cheer, it really was THE story of my generation
My favorite two books are Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, than The Order, than Goblet, than The Prisoner, than the first one and last is Chamber of Secrets
As for movies, my favorite is Half Blood Prince, although I agree its the worst adaptation imo it is the best movie and I said I learned to separate them from books, my least favorite movies are 1, 2 and 4 (because I was too distracted with Harry's stupid hair)
My favorite characters are Dumbledore, Hermione, Sirius and Lupin and also Snape and Harry
The books (and movies) are very important to me, I grew up with them and read the first one when it initialy got released, I still have the books (a lot more than 7) and dvds as well as blu rays (the big box, which i Love) and even old VHS' on a prime location in my room right there next to my Tolkien and One Piece stuff
still read the books and rewatch the movies ,mit's been a part of my life for about 17 years (I think) a large majority of my life, at first i disliked the movies as adaptations but I learned to separate the 2, i love both the books and the movies though overall i do prefer the books, the story is definitely better in the books, bit there is something about the acting and the setting in the movies thats just fantastic to me, and at the end of Deathly Hallows 2, At the movies, it was actually the only time I saw the majority of the audiance burst out in ruckus applause and cheer, it really was THE story of my generationMy favorite two books are Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, than The Order, than Goblet, than The Prisoner, than the first one and last is Chamber of Secrets
As for movies, my favorite is Half Blood Prince, although I agree its the worst adaptation imo it is the best movie and I said I learned to separate them from books, my least favorite movies are 1, 2 and 4 (because I was too distracted with Harry's stupid hair)
My favorite characters are Dumbledore, Hermione, Sirius and Lupin and also Snape and Harry
Last edited:
Books. Many people find it too bothersome to read, however I always felt like that reading Harry Potter was almost as if I was watching a movie. This even reached up to a point I was certain some things had appeared in the movies, while they didn't, just because I could visual them so strongly.
However I only started to read the books after I saw The Goblet of Fire as originally I wasn't really interested in reading the books and I said to myself I would just watch all of them in the cinema. I was under the impression that it were all individual stories. Yes about the same characters, but each time it was a different adventure independently from the previous ones and watching the first three movies only supported that impression.
And then came the 4th movie. It didn't make any sense whatsoever, it was full of weird plot holes I didn't understand and then suddenly it's over. I was like "what the hell, Voldemort has just returned, I still do not understand how that was possible, but why didn't Harry beat him? Why suddenly is there going to be a sequel while it's already the 4th movie?". This is the only time I was totally confused after leaving a movie theater. It felt like I received an uppercut. This really annoyed me and I started questioning my impression of Harry Potter. So the next day I immediately read The Order of the Phoenix and coincidently the Halfblood Prince had been released soon after that. I came quickly to the realization that all the books formed and intricate puzzle that could only be fully understood after reading all the books. Many plot lines and characters popped up I had never seen and all the books neatly joined together.
So then after reading the 6th book I decided to read the first 4 and then finally the 4th movie started to make sense. It then really struck me that the movies can not be properly understood without reading the books. The movies are good for the visualization of the story and especially love the the comedic relieve between characters they added, but as a story? Books were better.
I perfectly understand that you can't make a complete replica of a book, however even someone who never read the books should have noticed that the plot was regularly flawed towards the later movies. People who read the books automatically fill in those gaps, but that's not possible for people who haven't. I also didn't like that they altered some of the more important scenes. One of my favourite scenes in the books was in the final that suddenly everyone out of the blue attacks the Death Eaters: Centaurs, thestrals, the inhabitants of Hogsmeade, the parents of students, the house elves of Hogwarts....and then finally they gather in the great hall after having beaten all their foes except Voldemort who has a showdown with Harry. Nothing of that in the movies. I mean I was already slightly mad in the books as I was certain Mr. Weasley's car would lead the charge going all "vroom vroom motherf*", but then they completely removed all of that in the movies and there are many examples of things like these.
As I said I can understand that they can't make an exact replica, but it bothers me that they fundamentally changed things that they could have easily done like in the books.
However I only started to read the books after I saw The Goblet of Fire as originally I wasn't really interested in reading the books and I said to myself I would just watch all of them in the cinema. I was under the impression that it were all individual stories. Yes about the same characters, but each time it was a different adventure independently from the previous ones and watching the first three movies only supported that impression.
And then came the 4th movie. It didn't make any sense whatsoever, it was full of weird plot holes I didn't understand and then suddenly it's over. I was like "what the hell, Voldemort has just returned, I still do not understand how that was possible, but why didn't Harry beat him? Why suddenly is there going to be a sequel while it's already the 4th movie?". This is the only time I was totally confused after leaving a movie theater. It felt like I received an uppercut. This really annoyed me and I started questioning my impression of Harry Potter. So the next day I immediately read The Order of the Phoenix and coincidently the Halfblood Prince had been released soon after that. I came quickly to the realization that all the books formed and intricate puzzle that could only be fully understood after reading all the books. Many plot lines and characters popped up I had never seen and all the books neatly joined together.
So then after reading the 6th book I decided to read the first 4 and then finally the 4th movie started to make sense. It then really struck me that the movies can not be properly understood without reading the books. The movies are good for the visualization of the story and especially love the the comedic relieve between characters they added, but as a story? Books were better.
I perfectly understand that you can't make a complete replica of a book, however even someone who never read the books should have noticed that the plot was regularly flawed towards the later movies. People who read the books automatically fill in those gaps, but that's not possible for people who haven't. I also didn't like that they altered some of the more important scenes. One of my favourite scenes in the books was in the final that suddenly everyone out of the blue attacks the Death Eaters: Centaurs, thestrals, the inhabitants of Hogsmeade, the parents of students, the house elves of Hogwarts....and then finally they gather in the great hall after having beaten all their foes except Voldemort who has a showdown with Harry. Nothing of that in the movies. I mean I was already slightly mad in the books as I was certain Mr. Weasley's car would lead the charge going all "vroom vroom motherf*", but then they completely removed all of that in the movies and there are many examples of things like these.
As I said I can understand that they can't make an exact replica, but it bothers me that they fundamentally changed things that they could have easily done like in the books.
What bothered me the most in the movies is the example you pointed out (final battle, I still remember the shivers i got when the last book got released), the battle at the end of half blood prince (well the talk between order members and friends after the battle really) and my favorite parts of HP in general, the talks between Harry and Albus
I also missed Teddy Lupin
and happy fun times at the burrowBut another aspect of the books that I love, imo, they nailed in the movies, the leisure time and normal school trouble of hogwarts and the fantastic chemistry between the 3 core characters ... and the setting, omg the land around hogwarts was astounding, just as with LoTR in New Zealand (though a lot shorter) we went on a Harry Potter tour of sorts with friends ... too bad the only actors i ever got to see on a london premiere are the twilight cast XD though it was still fun
Last edited:
Books. I was a huge fan back in the day but I only read up to the goblet of fire. The movies were still pretty good. Aside from Harry/Ron/Hermione, I'd pick Snape for favs. It's been a long time since I read/watched this series.
As i haven't read all the Harry potter books for me to come to a solid conclusion that which is better then the other. I wasn't a big fan of the Harry potter Franchise until recently my friend, sort of, forced me into reading the first book. I had watched all the movies so i considered it a waste of time until i finished the first book, i was amazed, the details were incredible, lots of the stuff i read never happened in the movies and the pacing was just so right. I had fun watching the first 3 Harry potter movies but had helluva lot better time reading the first 3 books. So far, i'll say i'm enjoying the books more.
The plot wasn't flawed in the movies, it just couldn't fit all the necessary details so you basically ended up with a summarised version with many things unreasoned.
To capture the full picture of the books, they would have had to split each book into multiple films but it could've felt drawn out quite quickly. All in all, the movies did a fantastic job of capturing the world in it's feel and essence.
The exact same thing happened to me, only I did halfway through the movies.
I know you can never stick everything that happens in a book into its movie adaptation, but it shouldn't leave any plot holes behind that do get covered in the books.
For example in the Goblet of Fire where did Voldemort come from? Where did Barty Crouch Jr. come from? They just suddenly popped up without any kind of explanation. Death Eaters appeared almost at the beginning of the movie, making it appear like it was all planned, but at the end when Voldemort is resurrected they didn't know what hit them. Somehow Barty Crouch Jr. also disappeared. They had him in custody, but then in the next movie the Ministry of Magic became their enemy, this despite that they had a prime witness. Percy Weasly suddenly appears at the side of the Minster in the 5th movie etc. In the books all of this has been explained properly.
This is not about capturing the full picture. When you turn a book into a movie, you need to choose which storylines you want to follow, but you need to follow those all the way to the end. It happened frequently that they just took bits and pieces of a storyline and then throw them into the movies.