|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:24 pm
I love the books and movies. I can't say one's better than another because, this sounds a little weird, but they're two different works of art. They are both good but different in their own way. The thing about the books that gets a little annoying is like in each book it says....the young boy on privet drive with glasses and a scar and was different...blah blah...etc....we know who harry potter is, the recap just gets annoying.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:41 am
I actually didn't have an interest in Harry Potter until I saw the First Movie, and after that, I love it. although I like the first two better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:44 pm
I like the movies better then the books. heart
-But there are a few differences. as in appearences, in some cases. But of course, we had to take what we visualized from what we imagoned. wink
and I thought / think that, it was a good cast selection, and all for the movies.
_______________________________________
->I find it so-well that they didn't take popular-well-known people from other various movies, that played a "label character" that we knew the Actor / Actress by. heart
_______________________________________
But now, that I see the book-version-character, Harry Potter Compared to the Actor (Real-life) version:
instead of what I gave my imagonation to sweatdrop : all I can now see is what the movies are like or could be. sweatdrop
-I'm not complaining, heart I like the novels, and movies quite alot. heart
I just now understand that why movies are different from books often, xd
-So it doesn't easily confuse the Iconic Visuals like I do. rofl
-Yamna-Chan ^__^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:33 am
willowtree I think the reason that the films didn't cut it for me was because I was too invested in my own idea of the Potter world when the first movie was released. I discovered the books long before. I think that everyone will agree that when reading a book, they generate their own pictures and ideas of how everything and everyone looks. (For example, although I know that all the Weasleys are red-headed, I still picture Ron and Percy having darker hair, almost like Harry's. I know it's incorrect, but I can't help it.) To see someone make things look a completely different way makes it a little irksome for me. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElvenPrincess977 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:11 am
The books are way better than the movies, in my opinion. I'm generally a person who tries to separate books from their movie counterparts, you know, treat the movie like a movie and not like an adaptation. But with Harry Potter, it was just too hard, and I ended up being pretty critical about them. I actually read the first book after I'd seen the movie, and was quite amazed of how much they had changed. But all in all, the movies weren't horrible, they were just okay. The book were wonderful, so in comparison, the books are better. I hope that made sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:39 am
ok, here's my views. The books were way better than the movies, granted the movies added a bit more humor. For instance Ron's lines in CoS movie "Why spiders? Why not follow the butterflies?" and "Follow the spiders! Follow the spiders! When Hagrid gets out of Azkaban I'll kill him!"
and Hermione flat out decking Malfoy in the movie PoA instead of slapping him was a good change, though the movie itself was just a summary of the book.
I agree that they should've put peeves into the movies, he was as much of a main character as the Potter Trio or the Malfoy Crew. They're going to need him in the OotP movie when he gives a bow to the Weasley twins when they fly off.
The fact that they're screwing up on the dursleys is really irritating. They're not even going to introduce them in the upcoming film. Dammit I want to see Dudley's tongue grow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:34 pm
|
[The_Amazing_Chocolatier]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:09 pm
THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS ARE BETTER THAN THE MOVIES BECAUSE THE BOOKS GIVE MORE DETAIL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:25 pm
I think the Harry Potter movies are okay, but the books seem better. Somehow that's always the case. The books are always better than the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:50 pm
Yea the books are going to be better than the movies, because the nature of the stroy and charactor dynamics in this case are better expressed in an extended form. Some stories are best suited to film, some to novel form this is the latter.
As to which is the best...
I think the third one is the best from a film perspective. I dont know a terrorably large ammount about filmmaking and will be the first to admit it. but the first two films seemed a little like they were trying to walk in the footsteps of the books insted of bieng their own seprate works. This is where the third movie (and about half of the fourth) stand out. The third movie was a work all unto itsself, it offerd a slightly different take on the story and the charactors. Sometime this slightly shifted perspective is what we need to understand the charactors of a work of Literature to its fullest.
Also with the shift in medum much of the books content must be lost. A lot of the "magic" of Harry potter is in the detail and subelty that Rowling uses. this dosent translate well into film, where 2/3 of the action needs to take place on 1/3 of the screen. So filmmakers who adapt books are left with a delema, what takes one page to describe could span three or four minutes, or thirty seconds. Which should you pick, or if time is short should you leave it out all toghather. It is for this reason more than any other i think a DIRECT adaptation of the books is not only a BAD idea but near impossable in comercial hollywood today. (Do you realy want a BBC version of Harry Potter, I mean, come on.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:28 am
whoa. yeah. i have nothng to say now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:31 am
oh wait yes i do.
if the movies followed the books directly then the movies would be like hours and hours and HOURS long! you cant compact that much detail into the movie. if you hadnt read the books then you would be completely lost. Plus we wouldnt be able to complain about the books being so much better than the movie. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:10 pm
I thought the 4th book was better than the movie! i wanted to see all the house elf's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:31 am
blond_babe I thought the 4th book was better than the movie! i wanted to see all the house elf's! me too!! i wanted to see alot of things, but they didnt happen.... cry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[The_Amazing_Chocolatier]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/06/7f/19f4e83d257f06_flip.png?t=1398225404_6.00_11)
