This is really an interesting topic!! I have always enjoyed books over the movies that are made from them. I feel like I have more opportunity to use my imagination and visualization as well as the advantage for authors to add much more detail and information.
Well, I’ve read the book, I’ve seen the movie too. That being said, there's very few movie adaptations through the years that have met my expectations, but the Harry Potter series have been an exception. But I like the books for better character development, subplots, etc, but enjoy the movies for the visual effects.
I read some of the books but I saw the movies. I was disappointed by how much they had to cut out, but I understand the need for trimming the subplots... not that I would be opposed to watching a 5-6 hour Harry Potter movie.
But sometimes, I think the Harry Potter movies have stuck by the books as close as possible. Obviously, due to time restrictions, certain sub-plots have been cut out, but overall the movies are a pretty accurate reflection of the books. From what I've heard, Half-Blood Prince does remain fairly close to the book. How sweet would it be to be JK Rowling? The films alone have grossed over $4 billion, and that number will probably exceed $5 billion by the time Half-Blood Prince is done.
That's in addition to the theme park, books, and merchandise. (And I'm sure eventually a kids cartoon show involving Hogwarts in some way, shape or form).. I wonder how the Harry Potter franchise compares to the Star Wars franchise in terms of overall money generated? It'd be an interesting statistic.
I admit that I haven't read the "Harry Potter" books, except for the first 50 pages of the first so I could see what the fuss was about. But I have seen all the movies, including "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," which opens July 15.
So I'd like to generate some informed discussion about whether the movies reflect well on the books, and which of the formats you prefer.
The books have gotten quite long, so obviously some scenes and even characters have been omitted or changed. (The seventh book will become two separate movies.)
My last point to make is that the book is more descriptive. Two words describe Harry well, impatient and angry. There are countless times when Harry is too frustrated to concentrate on school work or Quidditch, which is like a wizard soccer game. The movie, however, seems it fit that he is suppose to be a patient, kind-to-everyone person. Further more, Professor Snape, Harrys potion teacher, is suppose to be really ugly in the book. The sport is completely gone from the film. In the book, Harry is back on the team and this time, Ron is on it too. This is a big deal and comes into play in their relationship. Ron is a good player, but he messes up a lot when he’s nervous. Some of his disastrous moments prompt the other teams to mock him with chants of “Weasley is our King.”
At the end, I would just say that the books are more enjoyable than a movie, this is what I felt. Many things you will see missing in the films. I think the books are more preferable than a movie as it describes things very well.
For more books & Movies details: Visit India Review Channel