Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
discussion
Book vs Movie
date
newest »
newest »
Book. The movies are soooo overacted and corny. Though the special effects nearly make up for it, I'll admit that..
Books the detail is so much,and that is lost in the movies
no doubt the book !! i wish they could make the movie just according to the book without editing it ! i know the movie would be more dan 3 hours! but still Harry Potter won't mind ! what say ?
I definitely enjoyed the books more than I did the movies (which I stopped watching after Goblet of Fire).
The books, definitely. The films are great, they did an amazing job, but reading a book gives you so much more than a film can.
Andy wrote: "no doubt the book !! i wish they could make the movie just according to the book without editing it ! i know the movie would be more dan 3 hours! but still Harry Potter won't mind ! what say ?"True.Hell,I would watch a 6hr movie if it is made.But the budget would be too large to handle.
DIDJAPUTCHANAMEINDAGOBLADAFIIIIR *knocks Harry over*I think that sums it up pretty well.
Nyssa wrote: "I definitely enjoyed the books more than I did the movies (which I stopped watching after Goblet of Fire)."5 and 6 weren't great, but I really would recommend the last two. They really, really tried to stick to the books like they should've done all along. Those two are definitely worth seeing.
I enjoyed the books more, of course! I read them when I was a kid, and things looked better, brighter, more exciting in my imagination than in the movie.
Unless you're dealing with a novella, like Breakfast at Tiffany's, the book is usually always better than the movie. I think the Harry Potter series did very well though. It could have been totally destroyed, like The Mists of Avalon.
I think it was the best series of books that were ever converted into movies, but the books are most definitely better!! I'm just glad they turned out better than The Lightning Thief movie!!
Books, so much more detail and you can imagine however you want the scene to be.
The films leave out SO MANY important details. To be frank, if I never read the series, I would probably dislike Harry Potter. Obviously the books are better. The books explains everything and what Harry was thinking, &c., &c.
The books and the movies are both so flipping good!!! My vote is both.
Kathy wrote: "Unless you're dealing with a novella, like Breakfast at Tiffany's, the book is usually always better than the movie. I think the Harry Potter series did very well though. It could have been totally..."they did kill The Mists of Avalon didn't they
Rachel wrote: "Nyssa wrote: "I definitely enjoyed the books more than I did the movies (which I stopped watching after Goblet of Fire)."5 and 6 weren't great, but I really would recommend the last two. They rea..."
It seems, by all accounts, that Deathly Hollows (together) was really really good. I might watch them on day.
Oh, I've been wondering... did they happen to show the epilogue as well?
my vote is both
I love the audio books which are really well done, I find the jokes and plots easier to remember when listening to the book acted and the readers are AMAZING! I saw a couple of the movies and my recall of the plot is entirely different to the actual book plot WTF!So I think I'll give the movies a miss and stay with the book. Or I'll watch them to compare, like I did with LOTR
I liked both, but I couldn't believe how many different things were left out of the movie that seemed important to me in the book. Cedric, for one. He wasn't a big part of the movie at all. I do like the movies though. I know you can't show everything, so I understand leaving some things out, but I would've rather had them add a half hour to the movie and show a little bit more.
The books,definately had more substance and texture,because each reader adds the demension of their own vivid imagination to the words MsRowling put on the page. That is why reading is so much an indiviual and enpoering activity.The movies are fun to watch,and have the broad essence of the story told in the books, but they cannot portray every aspect of the book,without losing some vital aspect,that some readers found valuable to their enjoyment of the book.
The books give such a depth that they cannot capture in a film.even if the movie were four hours long, you would never feel like you were there, like you do with the books.
Books always.
Though I love the book, I really think that the movie is better. I thought the back-story about Barty Crouch and his son in the book was a bit average and that the story they used in the film was a lot better. However, I thought it was a bit strange that Sirius Black and Dobby play significant roles in the book but Sirius Black is featured once and Dobby isn't present at all.
Deidre wrote: "Book. The movies are soooo overacted and corny. Though the special effects nearly make up for it, I'll admit that.."agreed
The Books. I loved them so much that the movies never pleased me.
I can't watch the movies. I find myself getting restless and bored. They spend so much energy on the special effects and music that the characters and story get lost.
Houry wrote: "I can't watch the movies. I find myself getting restless and bored. They spend so much energy on the special effects and music that the characters and story get lost."same i dont like the movies the books are waaaaaaay better.
The book's better
The books are always better than the movies, and this one is no exeption.
the books because they have more details so it's more interesting
I can't believe that's even an issue. BOOKS ALL THE WAY!
Books of course! They let you use your imagination in a way movies never can. Movies tell you exactly what to think about what things look like, what they should be like... Books allow you to put together your own picture in your head; much more satisfying I say.“I love books, by the way, way more than movies. Movies tell you what to think. A good book lets you choose a few thoughts for yourself. Movies show you the pink house. A good book tells you there's a pink house and lets you paint some of the finishing touches, maybe choose the roof style,park your own car out front. My imagination has always topped anything a movie could come up with. Case in point, those darned Harry Potter movies. That was so not what that part-Veela-chick, Fleur Delacour, looked like.”
― Karen Marie Moning, Darkfever: The Fever Series
I loved this book and movie! I think they were my favorites. But I liked the book better.
I admit the books do explain stuff pretty good... and I do love them but i think that 4,5,6,7 movies are better than the books 1,2,3 were terrible
I liked the movie the most out of all the other movies, but i still liked the book better
I liked the movie the most out of all the other movies, but i still liked the book better
I haven't read the full series, but I have seen all of the movies. I keep saying I'm going to get those books and read them eventually but you know, life keeps happening and keeping me too busy to read a series.That being said, I'd say it's a mixed bag with the ones that I did read the book for. The books are intersting in that I got to learn more in the way of details and character motivation, and the movies definitely cut things that would have been "good to know." But all in all, I did like the movies too.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
I really can not choose!