|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:57 pm
Now I know most eveyone will vote for books and let me just say, more power to those people. I personaly feel that the movies, while meag-ultra-uber cool leave out to many things, or make them diffrent in little ways. I understand that movies can't be like 5+ hours long (which the 4th one night have been if they had included everything) but still, you can put in things like argument is they paly a big part and also, things that will come up in later book that need to be shown (like Rita Skeeter and the whole *cough* illigal animaguis*cough*). What are your thoguhts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:50 pm
Now that I think about it. The books will always better than the films. The fourth film was poorly done. I didn't like it. I liked the first trial but that is all. But before i get side tracked and start talking about how horrible the fourth film was, I think that some movies do have certain things that go with the books and then they have things that are really different. I have real point to this post other than say that the books are so much better than the films because the books rely on your imagination, and with that the sky is the limit. Thats all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:52 pm
I've always thought that books were better. I think it's much more fun to put yourself in the middle of the story instead of watching someone else's point of view on it. I like the detail of the books that you can't get out of the movies. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:13 am
*claps* very well put. i think the movies are just an excuse to get more fangirls to like harry potter, but only for the boys that are 'teh HAWT' in the movies. They probibly dont even read the books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:06 am
The books are easily my favorites. I found the movies to be choppy and when a major charater isn't showed as much in the movies as they are in the novel, the directors and actors tend to overdo the persona of said charater (i.e. Mad Eye Moody and Sirius).
Not to mention the career stopper the films could be! Poor Daniel, all casting agents would see him as is a confused young wizard with oversized glasses. Ouch! Being type casted hurts! Hopefully, he'll be able to find work after the movies.
Another thing that really annoyed me about the movies is the considerable lack of important Ghosts (ala Peeves and Bloody Baron and skant appearances by Nearly Headless Nick) and lack of very important house elves (ala Dobby and Winky).
Leaving things like that out screws up the forshadowing for the next movies. So instead of being slightly surprised, people are going to be quite confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:01 pm
I don't really see the books and movies competing. The major purpose of the movies is to get more people to read the books. It's worked like a charm so far. After each movie book sales skyrocket and the reader base grows in leaps and bounds thus giving leaway for more expenditure on the movies. Content wise a book will always be able to do more than a movie just because it allows for internal monologue and emotional ambiguity. That said I think the films are some of the finest to ever come out just for the sheer fun factor. Downside being that they can't show everything you want to see from a book in the movie mainly due to filming time and audience attention span. But as to their place in their respective genres I think they're both really quite great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:54 am
I would vote for a Tv-series instead of making movies for each book(you get more time for a series then a movie and can probably fit in more into a series.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:26 am
To the movie dislikers, I can only say that the movies are worth the time put into them. Can you honestly say they shouldn't have been made? I have a friend that had sworn off Harry Potter (she's a huge LotR fan and she thought Harry was just a rip-off) until she watched the movies. The magic portrayed in the films woke her up to the magical world of Harry Potter, and because of that she's now as impatient as I am for the seventh book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:31 pm
I have been against the make of movies since about Prisoner Azkaban, making a Tele-serie (points at earlier post)could have provided more plot development and not leaving parts half-chewed.(And now I am not talking about the left out parts from the books)
Since christmas I have been more critizing towards filmadaptions(bear me when I try on the LOTR sweatdrop )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:02 am
I ended up watching the movies first, then reading the books, because I was still little when the books came out. Actually, I found that if you watch the movie, THEN read the books, you appreciate the movie and the book a little better. ^_^ Odd logic, but it's true! When the "Half Blood Prince" movie came out, I read the book before I watched the movie, then found that I didn't like the movie half as much as I liked the last ones. (Of course, it could of just been all the STUPID mistakes there were in the movie... the whole "your shoe's untied" bit was really weird... O_o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
