2006-10-24 22:11:05 · 21 answers · asked by hannah t 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Other - Entertainment
because both the directors don't have the J.K.Rowling touch.
and they don't concentrate on the small details which make the books fun to read.
There is also the time factor.
2006-10-24 22:19:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though I am too bitter about the HP movies, but to some extent they do not live upto the bookish standards. I think the reasons are:
1- Readers have a free flow imagination and they make up their own standards. For example, Cedric Diggory in my head was someone different from the fellow who was casted.
2- The books are amazing! They give you detailed accounts of whatever that is happening; time restraints just hasten things up for the movie. Quidditch is an amazing spectacular game as the book depicts, and the movie shows it as a quick run.
2006-10-24 22:23:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anum. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book is 700 pages...the screenplay is only about 180 pages. That's a big discrepancy, don't you think? So they hit what they consider the high points and do the best they can with it. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed myself, but still...I love the movies, and because I've read the books first, I feel I get more out of the movies than those who haven't. As for the standard...well, the acting is great, the special effects are wonderful, and the scenery can't be beat. What's substandard about that?
2006-10-24 22:21:59 · answer #3 · answered by Barbara W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's like asking why apples don't taste as good as oranges. They are 2 completely different things. In a book, you can include so many details of what things look like, smell like, taste like, sound like and feel like. A movie is limited to sight and sound. In a book you can explore what the characters are thinking, but a movie imposes limits on how much information can be conveyed. A book can include so much more depth because it's not limited by time constraints. A movie has to pick and choose what scenes to portray in a 2 hour time frame. All things considered, I think the movies have represented the books fairly well.
2006-10-24 22:25:18 · answer #4 · answered by Pucca 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It isnt just harry potter, no movie ever lives up to the standard of the book. Its just that, a movie cant show some of the finer details of the book(time constraints).Also, when we read a book, we form our own picture of ppl and places and are often disappointed at the directors point of view.
2006-10-24 22:14:49 · answer #5 · answered by Sunrise 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's almost a rule that movies don't live up to the book. Remember 'The Borne Identity' and 'Supremacy'. Those are books, and they went way way way off the story line- and the story line was good. So everyone enjoyed those movies except me, coz I had read the book!
The only way to enjoy a movie based on a book, is to forget the book and watch the movie. Live in the moment - and all that.
2006-10-24 22:28:33 · answer #6 · answered by plush 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL. The answer to this is so obvious in my opinion!
1) Steve Kloves - the scriptwriter for all the HP movies up to the 5th movie (they dumped him and have gotten someone else to write the scripts now) - he chopped alot of good bits out, mostly to please WB's aim of making a "kids" movie, which means that it always has a 2 hour limit. He was responsible for scenes omitted, which you might have missed seeing on the big screen.
Granted, the books are big and voluminous, but that doesn't mean they can get away with wasting time by adding new (non-canon) scenes or excessive special effect scenes.
2) As mentioned above. Blame WB for marketing Harry Potter at young kids who can't even read and completely understand everything in the book. They ought to know it's more like a teen/young adult/adults book series. Marketing strategies means that they make the movies with kids in mind.
3) As usual with blockbusters, they over-do it with special effects and waste alot of movie time with this. (I point my finger especially at the stupid "dragon chase" scene in Goblet of Fire, which was a waste of time as Harry chased the dragon everywhere....so lame!)
4) WB can't be arsed to stay canon. For example, they couldn't be bothered to give Moody a decent magical eye, so they gave him some dumb one-eye goggled eye patch thing. Even Voldemort, who is meant to have GLOWING red eyes, just has boring, black eyes. Sometimes they even change the scenes quite a bit to suit the movie. This was particularly obvious in Prisoner of Azkaban, and will probably be more noticeable as WB have no intention of changing the 2-2.5 hours time constraint, as the books get thicker and the plots more complex.
5) A really good point is that your imagination is always going to contradict with what the movie shows, and even if it doesn't sometimes, it's always better to imagine it for yourself than watching the movie. The movie is just a bonus, but it is still annoying when they don't stay completely true to the book.
6) And finally, because it's Warner Bros. I believe that if it had been with Universal or New Line Cinemas (think Peter Jackson with "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy) and esp. with Peter Jackson directing, I believe it might have been expanded and been filmed better!
2006-10-24 22:49:23 · answer #7 · answered by Satinette 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Too much gets left out.
I think the way you imagine it is how you would like the fantasy world to be but the movies are someone elses vision.
Depends on how imaginative you are when reading and what images the text invokes.
Technology can never come close to the human minds potential.
2006-10-24 22:16:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Movies don't ever live up to the books. It would take to long to do the entire book from cover to cover.
2006-10-24 22:15:49 · answer #9 · answered by webwriter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because in movies there's time-constaint. they can not depict each and every detail given in the book . that's why ! beside's if u've read the book once , you know the story and hence there's no surprise element in the movie. you can tell what's going to happen in the next scene .
2006-10-24 22:15:30 · answer #10 · answered by whatever 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
u cant show all the story of harry potter in just 2 hours
2006-10-24 22:13:08 · answer #11 · answered by Naga Pradeep K. Goud 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋