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

[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.

[Guest Zidane]

I thought four and five both dragged on a little too long, but six and seven were fine. I'm fine with Rowling erring on the side of detail though. I'd rather the books be too long than too short.

 

It's never really a satisfying experience watching a movie based on a book if you really like the book, I tend to find. Relatively important content gets left out, the characters don't look or speak like you imagined, the director sometimes doesn't interpret the scenes correctly, etc. I generally tend to just avoid them.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Zidane

[Guest dpddave]

The books are all great. Thought the films were crap though.

[Guest Taki]

Depends really on the eye of the viewer, what someone expects to see and what they dont. This is the same for all movies based on books. I think they strike the balance just right. I'm not shy of long films but taking a 9 and 7 year old to watch what could become a 5 hour movie easilt would be hell its ok for us adults but just remember who these books were aimed at. They have already got all the information they need they just wanna see it brought to life. Kids dont want 5 hours of drivvel just because Darkstar says this important bit was missed or Jimmy Redman is going to riot they want a family fun time out that they can go enjoy and talk about for days with their mates.

I'm sure they did actually film every scene in the books and when all the movies are finished like with LOTR they will release extended versions for everyone who thought there just wasn't enough bump to them.

 

xXx

[Guest Hanahbananabob]

I really cant wait til Harry Potter 6 comes out! I understand that they had to cut stuff out of the other films to stop it from dragging, but with this one and the Deathly Hallows they cant really afford to leave much out or else it will ruin the plot.

I much prefer the books though, whenever I watch the films i just end up getting annoyed at stuff they leave out or change lol.

And I've never liked The Prisoner of Azkaban film.....maybe its just me being thick but i could never make sense of the time turning scene...ahhh!

[Guest NeonShadowCat]

I've read the books and loved them all... I really have loved the movies as well. I think the reason they keep them as short as they have is because alot of kids are into them too. It's hard for them to sit through a long movie.

 

I wouldnt mind them being a bit longer. I've been impresses with how they have handled the special effects.

 

One of my best friends died a few years back... one of her complaints was "damn I won't get to know how Harry Potter ends."

[Guest Saz]

And I've never liked The Prisoner of Azkaban film.....maybe its just me being thick but i could never make sense of the time turning scene...ahhh!

 

Just comfort yourself knowing that it is paradox free.