The films aren't as good as the books

[~Tindómë~]

I love the Harry Potter books, but when the film came out, I was extremely disappointed. There are so many things I felt the film neglected. The acting was terrible except for the few decent actors who weren’t chosen just because of their looks, and it didn’t give off any of the magic you experience through the books.

Are there any other people who agree with this view?

[Monkfish]

When does a film ever manage that?

(we`ll all convienently forget PJ and a certain LOTR for the moment!) :D

[Kristin]

I did enjoy the movie. For one thing, it was very visually appealing.

I definitely prefer the book, though. :) And for the most part, I like how things are in my imagination more than I liked what was on screen.

[Colli]

:)

I agree, Kristen. I thought the movie was really entertaining, and, with the exception of the CGI, was really well made.

But movies can in know way compare to their book counterparts. I've give anything to remember what I first thought Snape looked like, but I can't remember. :( I just think about Alan now. (which is ok. ;))

I'm really kind of afraid to see Lupin and Sirius on the big screen. I don't want to lose this picture I have of them in the back of my mind.

[Rivenlas]

I agree. I adored the books, and I liked the movie really well, but it isn't as good.

[Katia Elanor]

I love the books and at first I liked the movie, but the more I saw it, the less I liked it. Maybe I'll try to see it again now that it's been almost a year to see how I like it. I think CoS looks more promising, and I hope they do a better job.
I know some people didn't like the movie because of everything they left out, but I thought the flaws were quite the opposite--they stuck too closely to the story. I dunno. *shrug*

[Irys]

Movies are just about always not as good as their counterparts. Books can go into so much depth that movies can't because of time constraints. But movies can still be an enjoyable counterpart to the books.

[Molk Fx]

I was one of the silly people who watched the movie before I read the book, IMHO both were very good.

[one.elven.girl]

I don't think I would have read the books if i had seen the movie first. I might say this only because i did read the books way before I saw the movie and thought that they were infifnitely better. I simply don't think that the movie does justice to the books at all. :( Which made me angry because I really, desperately wanted the movie to be wonderful, and to be just like it was in my head. This, of course, was not so.

I agree with Katia. They tried to put too much into the movie and in doing so, left too much out. I know this may not make sense, but to me it does. I think it's ok to leave things out, as long as you don't stray from the essence of the story, and don't take anything out that's vital to the story.

I agree also with Tindome. The acting was... mediocre to say the least. It infuriated me beyond belief that the movie was not splendid.

I could write an essay on this, but I'm going to shut up now, because no one wants to read a post that's this long.

[Remus]

I sort of agree with what you're saying, I think the books are far far better than the film. But, I'm still convinced the film could've been far worse than it was. At least they had a predominantly British cast and I didn't think the acting over all was that terrible. I thought they had done quite well to get most of the book into something like 2 hours.

[Anarie]

The movie was wonderfull, and the actors were briliant !!! Can't understand why you people didn't liked it.

[Monkfish]

Originally posted by Anarie
The movie was wonderfull, and the actors were briliant !!! Can't understand why you people didn't liked it.

Hear Hear!

Chris Colombus:notworthy

[Katharina]

Originally posted by ~Tindómë~
I love the Harry Potter books, but when the film came out, I was extremely disappointed. There are so many things I felt the film neglected. The acting was terrible except for the few decent actors who weren’t chosen just because of their looks, and it didn’t give off any of the magic you experience through the books.

Are there any other people who agree with this view?


YES!!! I felt the exact same way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG when I told my friends that I felt like that they couldn't understand why--
But I've learnd to appreciate it now. I've seen it three times and the last two was better then the first. I'm looking forward to the second but I don't expect it to be great. That's when it becomes better :cool:

[Katharina]

Originally posted by Anarie
The movie was wonderfull, and the actors were briliant !!! Can't understand why you people didn't liked it.

The actors S U C K!

[ElfTBD]

Well, I don't totally agree, but I can't totally disagree either...

see, the movie can never be anything like the book...for one thing, some scenes were totally changed (eg: the fluffy scene, heck, even the scene where McGonagall's talking to them before they get sorted!)...but that's Hollywood for ya...and there are details in the book that just couldn't fit in the time allowed, or else the movie would have been probably 4 hours long (although, I know *I* wouldn't have cared, I'm sure the general public wouldn't sit through a 4 hour movie that wasn't say, Gone with the Wind, you know?)

However, (and hear me out on this one!) the movie was very true to the book, and the major plot lines and most of the essential dialogue was there...I'm rereading The Sorcer's Stone again, and I've recently watched my tape of the movie, and the important dialogue is almost verbatim out of the book (the Mirror of Erised scene comes to mind)....from what I've read, JKR was pretty involved in the production process as far as the script goes and she was pretty confident that Chris Columbus would do a good job because a) he was pretty excited about being able to do it and b) he was recpetive to her wish for an all british cast...

and one more thing (sorry, I didn't mean to write a novel ;) )....I think the actors are great...one complaint I heard was that Harry was too detached...I think he was played brilliantly...i mean, a kid who was raised as he was, then finds out they lied to him about his parents and all that wouldn't be too trusting or happy, even when finding out he's going to be a wizard...although, I do think they overdid Hermione a bit...but she got better....:D

[Deagol's Bane]

I agree (with the first post, I mean). Of course, movies aren't usually as good as the books. I don't think Fellowship the movie was as good as the book, but I think it was better as a movie of its book than HPatSS was of its book (you know what I mean, I think).

I enjoyed HP, but I hoped it would be better (same with AotC).

Whether or not the acting was good or bad is probably just up to opinion. Personally, I thought all the adult actors were fine. Malfoy and Harry especially disappointed me, and the rest were just ok.
The movies couldn't build the characters up as well as Rowling does and that is what, to me, makes the books so good.

Still, I enjoyed it, and I'm even more interested in seeing CoS.

[Niniel]

I saw the movie first .and liked it very much , after reading the books I still think it is great!!! The cast is perfect (especially Alan Ricman and Harry )

[Jennie]

I agree with ~T~. I have to say, I absolutely hated the movie. With some reflection, I have decided that it is NOT, in fact, the worst movie I have ever seen ;), but it's certainly still in about the top ten.

I don't like to say "the book was better," because, well, I nearly always think that the book was better, and I try to remember that comparing a book and a movie is comparing apples and oranges. However, the movie, both on it's own (as much as I can tell, since I'll never have a chance to see the movie without having read the book first! :D), and as an adaptation was, IMO, bad.

It DID keep a lot of the dialogue and action from the books, which made many people say it was true to the books. To me, though, it didn't keep the SPIRIT of the books. It was contrived. It wasn't magical. We didn't get to KNOW the characters. In other words, I didn't CARE when Ron sacrificed himself in the chess game, because I didn't KNOW Ron. I also think that the movie assumed prior knowledge of the book--probably a relatively safe assumption, granted ;), but pretty poor movie-making skills all the same. In the long run, I would have rather had more changes and kept the spirit (like LOTR), instead of the "let's keep the dialogue as an empty shell" approach that the filmmakers took.

Of course, I'm sure I'll still see all the rest of the movies (however many they make) at least once in the theatre. Sigh. It's a hard life, doncha know... ;) :D

[Peregrinning Took]

I agree--wholeheartedly....The movie just didn't have enough HEART!!! It was like they were rushing through the books to finish the 2 and a half hour deadline the movie had to have....Cutting out all the good parts, I might add. Plus, they had hardly any dialogue from the books...In LotR, sure, it might not be in all the right places (:D) but atleast it's there!!!

Plus, they *accidently* forgot to mention who sent Harry the Invisibility Cloak...O_o

[mallorniphredil]

I agree. But like LOTR, there is no way you can stuff all the little details in a book in one small movie (It didn't help that my favorite book scene was cut-it was the potions puzzle that Hermione solved at the 'cellar' where the Sorcerer's Stone was being kept. :D). As for the acting... Rupert Grint was great, and so were most of the faculty/teachers. Emma Watson was OK, and I could stand her. But Daniel Radcliffe...

I was disappointed by the first movie, but I'm crossing my fingers that Chris Columbus will make The Chamber of Secrets great! :D

[one.elven.girl]

Hermione was just too prissy for me. I respect Emma Watson for undertaking the role, but I don't think she did a good job of it. But to each his own. We can all have different oppinoins on it, and that's ok too. I just think it could have been better. It could have been worse, but it could have been better.