Harry Potter: Book Vs. Film, Part I Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 21 - 23 of 23
<<  <  1 2 3 
Geeyu 7/11/2011 6:02:25 PM

Ok, I registered just to comment on this topic. I'm 19 years old and it is The Harry Potter series that sparked my interest in reading in around the 2nd grade. I read hundreds of books afterwards, many better then it, but Harry Potter will always have a place my heart.

So, in my opinion, the movies were disastrous. First was bad, but they left out mostly unimportant details, same with the second movie. The third movie, even though i still didn't like it, was my favorite movie because it follows the plot the best, compared to the rest. After the 4th movie, I stopped wasting my time watching the movies, and my time wasn't even precious. After that I saw bits here and there of the movies, and what made me die a little bit inside, is the fact that every Death Eaters are flying. How hard was it to follow the damn plot and make them walk? It was supposed to be one of the most shoking thing to see Voldemor fly without a broom, and Snape should have been the only one who could have duplicate that feat.

All in all, what really digusted me is that it would have been so easy to just follow the plot, instead of inventing something else, which was worst, and they didn't do it.

Also sorry if I made mistakes, I didn't proof read my text and I'm french :P

manaleebbz 3/5/2013 5:44:51 AM

I love the Harry Potter books and films, I think both have their merits. What I think the books really captured was the whole idea of school and subjects and timetables, it was so exciting, you know finding out what homeworks they had to do - I mean it was really exciting stuff. Although the movies have amazing credits too, I think the actors were perfect for the roles, I think Alan Rickman as Snape is perfect, Maggie Smith as McGonnagal too was brill. I preferred the first Dumbledore to be honest, as someone said here, I agree that Michael Gambon was a little harsh and aggressive as Dumbledore, for example in the Goblet of Fire when he was all like "Harry Potter" and was all angry, it made me want to go and run into a corner it was that aggressive. Personally I prefer the first two films, the first film I think is my favourite of all time. They really do get a little bit complex I'd say after the fifth film - there's nothing very memorable about the half blood prince, to be honest that film has just wiped from me completely. The fifth and sixth film seem to blend together somehow into an abyss, although the Dumbledore scene was very sad and I loved the bit where they all held up their wands like candles. I will say that I loved the seventh film part 2, part one to be frank was rather boring and not much action in it. The last film was amazing, was so sad when Snape died, really wished they'd left out the nineteen years later bit though. I just really think that took away any realness of this magical world away, I just wanted them to leave it with their story at that time. If you've read the book you'll know what's going to happen nineteen years later, but to be honest it annoys me that J.K Rowling even put that in. Just leave it in the air a bit about what would happen or what could happen. But yeah anyway I've been a Potter fan since 10 years old and I'm 22 now :) and it really changed my life and made me really enjoy reading more than ever. I still havent found a book that matches up to it, a good series though is Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" it still captures some magic to an extent, just not in the same way as Harry Potter. But yeah well done J.K!

Harrypulp 7/13/2014 9:27:13 AM

 I agree with you. The Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite book and my least favorite movie. They left out to much from the book. It wasn't as exciting and didn't build up as much suspense as it could have. I didn't like their clothing. The time turner scenes were just boring and a lot wasn't explained well. 

<<  <  1 2 3 

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.