Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Hello again! Theres always been an on-going question about whether or not the Harry Potter films are as good as the books. What do you think?
message 1:
by
Ciara
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 04, 2011 10:27AM
I think that the books are slightly better, because there is more going on, and there is more to learn about in the books. Of course, the films are really good, but they don't show everything that happens in the books.
reply
|
flag
I agree. its really easy to get lost with movies.
I enjoy the movies, and what makes them good a the group of actors that are in the films. But the movie will never ever be as good as the book. As all of you H.P movie buffs, you will note that in the 4th movie "GOBLET OF FIRE" things were left out, such as DUDLEY'S TON TOUNGE incident, and instead jumped to the scene where Harry is having that nightmare that did occour in the book, but they did not have Barty Crouch jr. in it at all. Then they leave out the eldest Weasley bros. Bill and Charlie. So to me the movie can never be as good as the book. Although I do like them. I feel they could not have gotten a better actress to play the vile, evil Bellatrix. Man how I love to h8 her character. Super actress.
I enjoyed the movies, I thought they were very good adaptations especially when you compare them to adaptations of other books but the books are so much better.
I was actually surprised how good HP movies were, especially Deathly Hallows part 1&2 who were my favourites. I still think though that movies can't show as many personal feelings, thoughts and emotions, so I agree with Connie - movie can never be as good as the book.
Yes it is unargualbe that the H.P movie DEATHLY HALLOOWS pt.1&2 were the best. Seemed to be as accuarte as can be. You know it took me a month after I read the book, that I realized that the creature that was underneath the bench, it was the fragment of soul that was voldies. I was so confused at the time, till I thought about it over and over again.
The books are always better. That goes with any movie.
The books are better!!!!!!They're just plain awesomer!
Yeah..I agree. In the movies it is SO much more confusing and they leave like major parts out.
Ok, that's not even a question in my mind. The books were a work of art, the movies could've been better. There were a couple of moments when I thought that the movies could be considered masterpieces in their own right. (I have high and rather specific standards, such as character development and special effects. I am very picky about my special effects.) I felt this way up until the 5th movie. At that point, it seemed the writers were more concerned with making money than making art. There were moments, I will consent, but the overall quality died a bit after the fourth movie. And then we get to DH Part 2. To me, even in the realm of movies in general, this was not very good. It was no where near as well-done as the previous movies had been. The special effects were lacking (A LOT) and they moved so far away from the integrity of Harry Potter itself that it just became a ridiculous movie in my eyes. Had I not even read the books, Part 2 would certainly not have been my favorite. As for the book always being better than the movie, that is up for speculation. For the majority of the time, this is true. However, it depends on the material and the audience. One instance where the movie was more interesting to me was, I hate to say it, Lord of the Rings. I am a totally fantasy buff and LOVED all three of the movies. I also LOVED The Hobbit, so I figured I would enjoy TLOR too. This turned out to not be the case. I gave up halfway through the Fellowship. (I will be attempting again; no book can defeat me!) So you see, it all depends on the person and their own personal preferences.
However, with Harry Potter, there is, again, no question. J.K was better, by far, than the screenwriters.
I think the movies are horrible. The first and second are okay. They're cute and follow the story. I own those two and watch them sometimes when I'm down sick. Starting with 3 I don't even like them. I've watched all except 7p2, because I wouldn't pay to see it in the theater. I'll watch it at some point, just to give it a chance, but probably not until my cousin buys it and I borrow it. I've even viewed 3-6 a second time each to really try to give them a chance. I just can't like them. Too much is left out. They are so choppy that it feels like someone's saying "and then this happened and then this and then this and then this". There's no real character development and no 'down' scenes to just let you get into the story. It's like a visual summary that misses key points.
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE THE MOVIE! you know, i like the movie ALOT but i still like the book more. but i have to say, i was not dissapointed by the movie
Really??
What does this "really" mean .a fan question . answer me
The BOOKS are waaaay BETTER than the movies! No question about it!
As an author myself, I know that I can do a lot more in a novel than a scriptwriter can do in a movie. I can get inside my characters' heads. A film can't. It's all visual and auditory. That being said--I think Steve Kloves could have done better. But that's just MHO!
The books are better because they have more detail, but the movies are as good as they could possibly be.
I feel the books are better because they are more detailed and give you a more full, complex story. However, I never cared for JK Rowling's writing style - what little was in the films to me always seemed better executed. As an example, when Hermione talks about how she had to perform a charm on her parents to send them off to Australia, it was relatively emotionless - she was just telling Harry what she had done in an attempt to have him understand that they had all lost something. When you saw her doing it in the film, I truly empathized with how painful it must have been. This is really partly a peeve with how Rowling did the limited third person though - we only ever had insight into Harry. Nobody else's emotions were as charged as they could have been.
Shélah wrote: "I feel the books are better because they are more detailed and give you a more full, complex story. However, I never cared for JK Rowling's writing style - what little was in the films to me alway..."Hmmm, I must say I have to disagree with you there. I suppose, for someone like me, who has been with the characters for so long, I can feel their emotions even when I can't actually get inside their head. I am so used to seeing the world through Harry's eyes that I can now see past it, and the characters have more dimension than they did before. In fact, for a story as gigantic as Harry Potter, limited third person would really be the only way to go. Very few authors can do omniscient third person, especially in fantasy, and it makes it very easy to have discrepancies and mistakes. Part of the fun of reading Harry Potter is trying to break out of Harry's mind and examining the story from other viewpoints. It forces you to use your intuition and imagination, but you can get there if you try.
I understand your point, but I disagree. :)
Emma: I understand your point as well (and I too have been with the characters for a long time), but I don't think you should have to work that hard to get any emotion out of the characters. Emotions are just part of the problem, and a minor one. It's just an example of one thing that I think was done better in the films. The films felt more real as well - I always found the writing somewhat contrived. It was like she was trying to tell a dark story but couldn't find an appropriate voice. This is really a matter of preference, I suppose.
Half Blood Prince was the worst adaptation of book to film. Chamber of Secrets was the worst book imho, and for me also is the worst movie in the series. All of the movies though succeeded at bringing the magical world to life...what charmed me most about the first movie was how they hit all the major scenes and situations pretty much as I had pictured them in the book, and they managed to carry that more or less through the series.
I have just re-read the fifth book. I suppose it now proves, for me, that the books are just a little bit better. All of the actors and actresses are fantastic and talented, but one thing really stood out. When J.K was describing a character, the actor/actress looked nothing like she had described! I suppose that not much can be done, but I feel the films would have been better if the characters had something in common ( other than Ron and his family having red hair! ) So, for me, the books are still a little bit better.
For me, the books were alot lot better and the movies were kinda crap. First of all, they skip some of the parts that happen in the book. I know Harry Potter books are real long, but I don't care. Second, if you haven't read the Harry potter books you would have no idea what the movie is about and you would think it's bull. Like for instance, if you watch the first movie because in the book in explains everything.
I think that both were really good but I like the books a *tad* more.
Only the last two movies were good and that's because they made one book into two movies, and there was a lot of details that one usually misses in a movie.
I love both, but the books a lot more. The actors they chose to play each character were a great choice. When i re-read the books, it's those actors i see in my head. But it annoyed me that they left a lot of stuff out of the films or changed things from the book. Even when they said they were spliting DH into 2 parts they still missed stuff out. I would gladly have sat through the films even if they were a few hours long, if they'd have put everything in from the books. It's a shame they can't add stuff to the films now for those that would watch longer versions, just to see it done properly. :)
The books were better. The movies were done pretty well. But a lot is left out of the movies that makes the plot make sense. The HBP and DH1 were disappointing movies. I havent seen pt 2 yet.
The books are better, by an absolute country mile! The films leave a lot out, rush through what they leave in, and some of the acting is painfully bad.
only an idiot would think that the movies are better, we all know that the books are the best, they capture that special feeling that that the movies cant
movies destroy the imagination. i loved reading the 5th part but the movie was rubbish
I'm prone to the books more. I think if somebody watches the movies without reading the books, it can be confusing for them at times. They pretty much stay true to the book but have to leave out a lot of little details that add up to a lot in the books.
books are better than movies for me always, but i think hp movies are ALMOST as good as the books... almost.
I'm with you on that one, Reilly. I think the 4th and 5th movies weren't that good, though. But the 7th movies were amazingly good!
Zakari wrote: "I'm with you on that one, Reilly. I think the 4th and 5th movies weren't that good, though. But the 7th movies were amazingly good!"And see, I thought the two Deathly Hallows movies were amazingly bad. Especially Part 2. It was almost as bad as Pirates of the Caribbean 4. (ok, well maybe not that bad. I swear, that is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. And that's saying something.) As I said before, I thought the writing was awful, the special effects deplorable, and everything was overly-dramatized. Again, even if I had not read the books, I would still not have liked Part 2. It just wasn't a very well-made movie, in my opinion.
Are you kidding? Of course the books are better! They let your imagination run wild, and as soon as you see the movie, BAM! it all falls into the already pre-set patttern of the director and how he sees the book. I liked the first movie a lot though. The rest of them are a bit dark and I don't particularly like them.
Books=105% amazing. Movies=95% amazing. Love them both!!
Zakari wrote: "I'm with you on that one, Reilly. I think the 4th and 5th movies weren't that good, though. But the 7th movies were amazingly good!"Totally, Zakari
Book are always better but Harry Potter movies didnt ruin the book. So books better but movies right behind them
I reckon the books are way better than the movies. They left out so much good stuff and made some really good characters seem like.... not good stuff. ;)
The movies were pretty good, and I am totally with Fiona. :)
The movies were pretty good, and I am totally with Fiona. :)
I loved both. The books are rich in detail, and it was brilliant to be able to imagine the magical world she created as I read them. But then I also feel loved most of the movies - great casting job and the effects/sets really brought a lot of that world to life in a way that enriched how I imagined things. Having said that, I REALLY hated the 6th movie - just horrid! :(
I agree - but the Dumbledore part was so sad!!! The bit on that island was scary too - with the Inferi...
The movies don't stay true enough to the books...too much detail is left out. The books are a million times better.
the movies lost the ideas totally.they paint a bad picture of the epic tale which has become an alienablepart of growing up.the creators of the harry potter movies have very condescending taste about the theme
and ideas that forms the string which holds the seven
books together-like friendship,taking a stand,love,
speaking for underdogs.it appeared they were just
contended with cool special effects and business.
they should make a 3D animated version with directors
who are good in capturing ideas like Tim Burton.remember 9 or sleepy hollow?that is the kind
of vision needed for books of this scale.
Amit wrote: "the movies lost the ideas totally.they paint a bad picture of the epic tale which has become an alienable
part of growing up.the creators of the harry potter movies have very condescending taste ab..."
I agree. :)
part of growing up.the creators of the harry potter movies have very condescending taste ab..."
I agree. :)
The Harry Potter films are pretty good, but it goes without saying that the books are WAAAAY better. Always.
Emma wrote: "Zakari wrote: "I'm with you on that one, Reilly. I think the 4th and 5th movies weren't that good, though. But the 7th movies were amazingly good!"And see, I thought the two Deathly Hallows mov..."
Emma, you're still stuck on that face ripping aren't you?
Luv both !!:D But the books is a tad better :) the movie just can't have all the details from the books..
The books are better, but the movies make fabulous precursors. I would recommend seeing the movies first so that when reading the books, the characters are already developed and cemented in your brain. The movies aren't even half of what's in the books.
Nancy wrote: "The books are better, but the movies make fabulous precursors. I would recommend seeing the movies first so that when reading the books, the characters are already developed and cemented in your b..."That's a good way to put it. I did find the movies to help with reading the books, but I also read some of them before the corresponding movies came out, and I did fine with them. It does help, though.
Aurora wrote: "Nancy wrote: "The books are better, but the movies make fabulous precursors. I would recommend seeing the movies first so that when reading the books, the characters are already developed and ceme..."Actually, I've finished Deathly Hallows but have yet to see the movie. I'm suffering from withdrawal and am glad I still have the movie to look forward to, makes me feel like it's not quite over yet. #impathetic
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Trains and Lovers (other topics)Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (other topics)
