Do the movies ruin the books?

[SorrowfulSoul]

Movie three sucked. Really sucked. Cuarón neglected some many important things that it's almost insulting how J.K. Rowling says that the third is her favorite movie. The first one was the best in my opinion. CoS was too long and didn't bring any emotion, too.

[Queen_Beruth]

Cuarón neglected some many important things

Many things were cut, but none of them were important. Why were the cuts important?

[huckleberry]

I just dont like the 3rd movie. if I havent read the book before the movie, I would barely understand it...

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by huckleberry

I just dont like the 3rd movie. if I havent read the book before the movie, I would barely understand it...

If the movie were difficult to understand, then why did the vast majority of the people who saw PoA like the movie despite the fact that the vast majority of people have not read PoA?

I still have yet to fathom what was so tough to grasp. The time-travel bit might be hard on people who cannot grasp 5 dimensions, but the rest of the plot was very straightforward and well laid out.

[crystal_joy]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

If the movie were difficult to understand, then why did the vast majority of the people who saw PoA like the movie despite the fact that the vast majority of people have not read PoA?

I still have yet to fathom what was so tough to grasp. The time-travel bit might be hard on people who cannot grasp 5 dimensions, but the rest of the plot was very straightforward and well laid out.

I agree. There were alot of things missing, things that would have been nice to see on screen, but it did not disturb the plot of the movie so much that it left viewers unable to understand what was happening.

[Allemande]

I personally felt that the first two movies were not that good, as Columbus basically took every single detail, whether it was important or not, and called it a movie. The special effects were not that good, although they improved a little bit in CoS.
With the exception of perhaps The Shawshank Redemption, movies are NEVER better than the books.
The only movie I feel is on par with the quality of the books is PoA. Cuaron managed to keep the storyline, without it being boring, and added in his own touches and extra things to the movie that made the world seem like it was real. I would be really happy if he comes back to do another movie.
But no, I do not think the movies ruined the books, because movies and books are two entirely different mediums.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Allemande

With the exception of perhaps The Shawshank Redemption, movies are NEVER better than the books.

I do not think that is always true for a lot of people. The most obvious example of which I can think is the Lord of the RIngs. I know quite a few people who really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings even though they do not like the book. The reasons why the people did not like the book varied, but they include: 1) very poor writing; 2) the failure of the story to get going; 3) no women in the story; 4) some very archaic ideas about class.

Finally, I simply know a lot of people who read so much for professional reasons that they just do not like reading for pleasure. (There are times where I can understand that!)

So, I think that the “better” depends on what you want out of a story. Books can develop characters much better than can movies. However, movies can deliver plot just as well and events even better than can books. So, if one prefers plot/event-driven stories to character stories, then one might easily think that a movie delivers the same story better than a book does.

[LunaFaze]

I always imagine the stories darker (much like Cuaron's), but Cuaron's form of story telling didn't exactly align with my impression. He really seemed to leave out important pieces of information in exchange for adding irrelevant scenes that weren't in the book. Chris Columbus told the story and there was some movie magic going on, but it seemed a little too juvenile. They could never "ruin" the books, but I think it definitely could deter new people from reading the series if they take the movies too much at face value

[lilly_potter]

If I had a choice, I would pick the books because it gives you everything that JKR intended.

The first 2 movies were good but PoA made me angry. I understand that you can't add every detail or else the movie would last for days. But at least get the ending right!! How is it going to be explained in GoF when Harry gets to go to Hogsmeade?

[Jennyalot]

I love the movies. I love the books. But the movie is a bit cheesy.

And, as some people already mentioned before, I would have never heard or thought of Harry Potter books if it hadn't been for the movies.

[Goldberry]

Nope, for me they're like a good visual aid. All the places I could never quite picture, like the Chamber of Secrets, now have a nice little scene to go in there whenever I reread the books. The people that have never read the books and have only seen the movies frustrate me, though, since you can't make them see what they're missing. You can't take all the people who just want to sit in the movie theatre for a couple hours and make them invest several hours reading the books when they're not that into it, but unfortunately then whenever they think of HP, they think of the movies, which are not really accurate portrayals (especially when I think of my main beef w/ PoA, which was moving the Marauder deal to GoF...grr; then a bunch of people, if they ever think that hard, are left totally wondering until they talk to someone who's read the book). But they're a nice tool for me, anyway.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by lilly_potter

How is it going to be explained in GoF when Harry gets to go to Hogsmeade?

If they bothered to include Hogsmeade in GoF (which I doubt), then it will not require an explanation - it is far too trivial a detail.

(This is comparable to JKR not bothering to explain that Harry retrieved his map from Moody’s office sometime at the end of his 4th year.)

Again, you must remember that most of the audience will NOT remember that Harry needs a permission form to go to Hogsmeade. When he next is seen there (probably in OotP), it will have been 3 years since the vast majority of the audience has seen PoA.

[chrisbll85]

I liked the 1 and 2 movie but the 3rd movie wasn't as good, don't get me wrong it was ok but they just cut to much out of it

[pili6]

well i have to be honet first....i was prejuice about harry potter....but in october 2004 someone lend me the movies H . PS and H CoS....and i really enjoy it and then i start the books and now i read all the books and i saw all the movies and here i am!! lol ....so i guess that people that give an oportunity to harry potter is the only one that understand that something magic is in the books and in the movies too..!

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by starrrie

Also, I think that younger kids might like the movies more than the books, because the books have loads of plot twists.

I think that it is the other way around. The younger readers tend to be much more “fundamentalist” in their purism. They also tend to enjoy the books more for particular scenes or characters that might not be included in the movies if they do not pertain to the story (e.g., winning the Quidditch Cup or Peeves).


Older readers tend to enjoy the story more for the themes. Hence, the criticism for P/SS and CoS and the praise for PoA, as the first two muddled the themes under too many irrelevant scenes or scenes that contributed only a little to the story or to the plot, whereas the third focused exclussively on the themes and plot.

[runitsandrew]

The movies provide an excellent visual aid for future readings of the books, but they don't live up to the praise of the books itself. The books have much more depth and story in them, I feel the movies have missed. PoA was a lot better than a jumpy SS or CoS, but it was still lacking the glory the books get, by a long shot.

Anyway, to the point: the movies do not ruin the book, entirely. They hinder it, a little, in the sense that someone's personal view of the story could be somewhat distorted by watching the film or by disappointing many fans by excluding many extraneous sub-plots. However, one thing is certain: they do provide a basis to which to view the castle and the exterier when reading.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Older readers tend to enjoy the story more for the themes. Hence, the criticism for P/SS and CoS and the praise for PoA, as the first two muddled the themes under too many irrelevant scenes or scenes that contributed only a little to the story or to the plot, whereas the third focused exclussively on the themes and plot.

The movies definatly attract more of the younger audience than the older, for what i've seen. The young adults and older enjoy the books more than the movies. Anyway, as for your comment, as much as the scenes being inconsequential as they are, I enjoyed them. They added a scene, visual aid, and even an introduction to the movies. PoA was definatly more commendable than SS/CoS, however, by the same reason you said. It focused more on the plot but still included those fun little scenes with the Whomping Willow and other areas in the forest; a job well done to the movie makers!

[gryffin_hauz_88]

Not to ruin but I like books rather than the movie. The movie just made us realize if our imagination was right or what...

[DarkSphynx]

I think in a lot of aspects, the first two movies kind of squash Harry Potter in general by being obviously aimed at infants. The third movie, I thought, was a lot better in actually capturing the atmosphere of the novel and I'm hoping the future ones will do the same.

[Lovechild]

The movies are good at portraying the flying scenes, and such - but for emotional depth I'll take the books any day.

Different mediums attempting to tell the same story though.. I think the movies don't exactly ruin the books, but they are unable to do them justice... in that way I'm disappointed with them.

[emmasnape99]

Nah, Rowling's too good a writer for her books to be ruined by mere movies.