Are the Harry Potter films not detailed enough or just right?

[Guest Anime Otaku]

The Harry Potter's were very true to the books (they messed up the look of Tonks though) but they did lose some stuff just because they didn't want to make a 5 hour movie.

[Guest ScottyB]

The Harry Potter's were very true to the books (they messed up the look of Tonks though) but they did lose some stuff just because they didn't want to make a 5 hour movie.

 

There's just little things that piss me off about the films.

 

Also, wait until the sixth film, whilst it does look like it's going to be a good film, they've added things to it,

such as an attack by Belatrix Lestrange and another Death Eater on The Burrow, and they've taken away two aspects of the book I thought were pretty central to the plot. Firstly, they've taken all but two of the memories out and they've excluded Dumbledore's Funeral, which is vastly important when it comes to the start of the seventh book.

 

Edited June 6, 2009 by John Hancock

[Paul 584]

Seriously, Taj is right. Im a fan of the Potter books, but theres only so much that can be filmed. I think they have done the best they can to balance the story without boring the hell out of the audience.

[Guest ScottyB]

It's not that I disagree, it's just I'm an elitist fan of the books, and naturally I want the films to be the best films ever.

 

Sod it, I'll just blame the people for not wanting to sit through longer films :P

[Paul 584]

Elitist fan of the books? Just so Im clear, you mean just 'big fan of the books' yeah? Just elitist cn be very loaded as a word. :)

 

 

But yeah, I could sit thorugh a longer film if done right.

[Guest ScottyB]

Yeah, big fan is more suitable.

[Guest Saz]

A film with a toilet break anyway...

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

I dont think anyone can really expect the films to cover every single line of the book. Its just such a different medium, the HP books are so detailed and you simply cannot cover it all in a movie. I think all of the films so far have remained astoundingly true to the books, as much as they possibly can. There's been no giant 180s or plot holes or changes or anything like that, just the necessary trimming. So I think they're fine.

[Guest Y2James]

I walked out of Harry Potter alf way through when it was in cinema, so making it longer would be a big mistake. Never read the book.

[Guest Nemesis Enforcer]

I love the films (well I did until Order of The Phoenix which I found a bit boring) and have never read the books, but my mum and brother have and they prefer the books much more then the movies and both agree that the more movies they make the less of the books theme is in them.

 

I will have to read the potter books some day and see for myself I guess

[Paul 584]

To be fair though, the books became just so full of crap, pointless stuff as they went on it was stupid. Rowlin really needed her editors to reign her in a bit. I remember reading reports that they just stopped critisizing in case she stopped writing.

[Guest Nemesis Enforcer]

Like I said I have never read the books myself so have no idea what their content went like, I am just going by what I have been told by people about how the films compare to them, Laura, the woman nextdoor to me, said the same thing too but her main gripe with film of Order was Ron stopped saying "bloody hell..." :lol

[Guest Shane O Mac]

I'm a big fan of both the books and the films. The first 4 films I thought were fine, would of liked more of the Quidditch World Cup, but other than that...I thought that things they left out didn't make too much of an impact. I was slightly disappointed with OOTP, but then as others have said, the films would just be too long.

[Nimf 324]

I love all the books and have so far loved all the films. But i've always been able to seperate them. I think though the books are aimed at younger people, they were meant to be the kind of books parents read to them so the parents could miss out the 'boring' parts. The films have just done that - made them into parent edited versions of the books, to keep younger ones watching for longer. If the films were any longer, there would be a lot of people not going to the cinema to see it (can you see an 8 year old sitting for any longer than the length of the films now?) and waiting until they are on DVD so they can have a break part way.

[Guest Fiona]

I've loved all the books and the movies that have been made so far. Yes there is a lot missing out of the films but enough is there. I've found the films make people want to read the books to get the whole story. Quite a lot of my friends read the books after seeing the movies.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

To be fair though, the books became just so full of crap, pointless stuff as they went on it was stupid. Rowlin really needed her editors to reign her in a bit. I remember reading reports that they just stopped critisizing in case she stopped writing.

 

Huh? The books got properly epic as the series progressed. I don't see where any reigning in is needed at all. The only weak spot in the series is Harry's atypical teenage emotional melodrama being compressed to one book, making him quite possibly the single most annoying main character ever in Order of the Phoenix, especially the beginning. Only time I ever put a HP book down and stepped away for a few days. The closing stages being as epic as they were is its only saving grace. It was always going to make for the worst movie.

 

As for the movies, my only gripe is changing things that don't need changing. Little things, that is left as they were, would only be a positive to the people that read the books, and not mean anything at all to the people who haven't.

[Paul 584]

Epic my arse. They got crammed full of un-needed crap. Lok at the first book, a good length considering it was a childrens book, and the story was there, along with sub plots. Thne look at the last book. Stupidly long, a section in the middle that as there seemingly just to pad it out and a messily handled sub plot with Ron.

 

She needed someone to point out the crap so she could remove it.

[Guest Saz]

I think the blood prince was a set up book which really was pointless myself, I felt at the end that despite the drama within the texts, Rowling was just padding out another book, knowing (or being persuaded) that one more book would make her a lot of money.

 

I do agree with DS about the pointless stuff, though she could have written "I am a fish" 300 times and people would have bought the book and critically acclaimed it :)

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

I had absolutely no problem with the final book. The books got thicker, yes, but only because as the story developed there was so much detail to cover, and I dont think that was a bad thing at all.

 

The Ron thing I disliked not in a "this is just crap" way, but in a "Noooo dont leave you asshole!" way, so that was good work as far as I'm concerned.

 

I think the bit in the middle (I assume you're referring to all the time spent wandering around sitting in the tent) had to be there, simply to get across how impossibly impossible it all seemed. If they had solved all of the Horcruxes in 50 pages it would have been a bit too contrived. It made you think "They have no idea what the hell they're doing - how the Christ are they going to do this?", before they'd hit on something or make the right turn or what have you, until you see that they will unravel it all, piece-by-piece. I liked it. Then again I liked everything about the final book (except the needless death and the epilogue) and everything about all of the books, actually, so maybe its just me.

[Paul 584]

Not at all Jim Bob. A good editor can, and will cut down the length of a book and keep the story, plot and feel intact. But they just rushed the last few books out and barely touched them, which was a mistake. The better written books were the first few, after then Rowling started trying to get cleverer than her talent could stretch to. She is lucky as to having a series that itself is fantastic, and that covered her flaws.

 

Her imagination + good editing = fantastic storys. I'd have loved to have read the last 2 books if they were properly scrutinised by editors.

 

 

 

I should stress that I did enjoy the books anyway. :lol

[Guest Anime Otaku]

What I thought was bad was the end of the last book, it was a bloodbath for no real reason, especially having major characters die and not showing how. Though I have to say I am hoping the exchange between Bellatrix and Mrs Weasley remains.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

Though I have to say I am hoping the exchange between Bellatrix and Mrs Weasley remains.

 

If this isnt in the movie, my friends and I will riot. No exaggeration. We will start a riot in the cinema. "NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU B*TCH!" is one of the highlights of the entire series.

[Guest Dante Spears]

With the exception of the third film, which needless removed about 3/4 of the plot of the book to make way for singing frogs, I've been generally pleased with them. However the sixth on seems to be in the hand or a pack of dullards, so I'm not sure how to react. One thing that pisses me off was the removal of Kreacher (essentially) from the films which was completely pointless, and rather screws up the 7th film.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Epic my arse. They got crammed full of un-needed crap. Lok at the first book, a good length considering it was a childrens book, and the story was there, along with sub plots. Thne look at the last book. Stupidly long, a section in the middle that as there seemingly just to pad it out and a messily handled sub plot with Ron.

The fist three books are short...and? Starting with the beginning of the fourth the books take on a new element and stop being fun, barely sequitor installments of a boy away at school. As Harry became more and more intertwined with the wizarding world, there was more and more going on. It was like someone actually growing up. Becoming more one with society and generally doing more things. I don't see where taking massive chunks out of the last four books to make them size of the first three does anything other than diminishing them. It'd be making them shorter for the sake of making them shorter.

 

The part you pointed out specifically. I mean, really? They spend months trying to track down Horocruxes which they have very little clue as to their locations, and it's there just to pad the book out? Everything about that section, including Ron's eventual melt down, is to stress how fruitless and mind-numbing their efforts are. Should that have been cut away to make the Ron sub-plot COMPLETELY pointless and the struggle of this point in his life unmentioned just for the sake of shortening the book?

 

There's considerably more taking place around him as Voldermort's return takes shape and occasionally occurs, and the increased length of the books reflect this. The only time there wasn't a lot going on, the middle of book 7, there's a rather excellent reason for it.

[Paul 584]

I'm realy not in the mood for going over every stupid little problem with the book (Deathly Hallows), however I do recoment trying to find the review on Ferretbrain about it, a guy callled Daniel Hemmens did a chapter by chapter review. Admitedly I found some of his points petty (and God damn I can be petty about books), but they are true nontheless.