| NotStan said: I thought movies didn't do the books much justice and have stopped watching them after the Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was particularly atrocious to me. As books they are OK - better than most but not the best to me. Film wise it's just too mainstream, oversimplified, and in some cases parts of the plot are missing - otherwise the films would have been extensively long, more of an entertainment than story telling. Although there are fantasy books that I rate higher than Potter, it's still good to see an author of a BOOK garner this much success in such a short time. |
What I didn't understand is, apart from the 2 part film the last book was made into, Chamber of Secrets (Which is my 'particularly atrocious' vote) was the longest of the films, made from the shortest of the books.... wheras Order of the Phoenix (which is the point I properly started enjoying the films, though it still has problems) is the shortest film from the longest book. I understand the film medium is more restrictive and things have to be cut (action scenes naturally take a while to protray in films, but can be described in a few pages), but they just seemed to make some odd decisions about what to cut and what to leave in.
In Order of the Phoenix for example Grawp could have even been cut from the book and it wouldn't have changed much else (a little fiddling with the reason behind Hagrid's absence, or even have him be absent for a shorter time) so it should have been an easy thing to cut from the film, yet it wasn't. The first two films horrendousness was mostly due to child acting, but there were some weird plot errors such as in the first film there is no mention of there being dirt on Ron's nose until Hermione points it out. There really is no point putting that line in if it wasn't mentioned earlier about Mrs Weasley trying to rub it off. I think they cut the first bit but forgot to cut the last.
