Do you like Harry Potter?

Answer 1

I like the movies enough, though I like the books much more. I didn't really like the sixth book, but I'm still planning to read the seventh. I've decided I'm not even going to bother trying to guess what Deathly Hallows means. My favorite characters are definitely Fred and George, for things in the books that usually don't make it to the movies.

Answer 2

The Harry Potter books are excellent but i think that the increased pressure on JKRowling to make the 7th book the best will envitably lead to it being the worst. As for the films the effects are fairly good and its interesting to see how far the acting has come. In the first film the acting was poor but now its much better!

Answer 3

Harry Potter the kind of series that you either like, or hate - there's no middle ground. I LOVE the books, but I'm not much of a fan for the movies.

Answer 4

I love Harry Potter!!!! ^-^ Can't wait until the next book!! Been a fan for 7 years! Haha!

Answer 5

Absolutely!!! (i mean the books/movies, not talking about the character)

However the books are much better the movies in several ways, can't wait for book 7!!!

However, there something about the movies that a book can't give so the movies are pretty good too.

Answer 6

Very very much. Read all the books can't wait for the 7th book and July 13 (that's when the 5th movie premiers). Hopefully I will be old enough to go to the 6th and 7th premiers.

Answer 7

Very much, but the movies are losing a bit of their appeal to me because of all the material they are leaving out. The books are much better.

Answer 8

The books initially struck me as childish and formulaic, but grew on me in the end. By book four I was extremely annoyed with Rowling's formula of incorporated dozens of mysteries and having them all unraveled by Dumbledore in the end, but books 5 and 6 turned out to be fantastic novels on any level of reading.

But since you asked this question under "movies", I have to assume you're asking more about the movies than the books.

The movies are atrociously handled misrepresentations of the Harry Potter books.

The problems started with the very first movie in casting.

When you read the books, it's very clear that Harry Potter is disheveled, disorderly, with wild hair and glasses. The kind of kid that got picked on in normal school. But instead, they cast Daniel Radcliffe, a very handsome young man with very little acting experience.

Hermione in the books is likewise, is disheveled, nerdy, and unattractive. Like archetypical "teen movie girl", she gradually finds ways to correct her appearance; magically shrinking her buck teeth, getting her hair under control, etc. until in book four, she becomes so strikingly beautiful that Harry doesn't even recognize her in an evening gown. Because beautiful Emma Watson was originally cast (and no attempt was made to cover up her beauty), this transformation which was so powerful in the novel, never happens in the movie. You simply see the same pretty girl in a pretty dress. Consequently Ron's and Harry's reactions to her seem a bit overdone.

But the worst casting choice is Rupert Grint. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was his first movie, and it shows. Finally they found an actor whose face perfectly matched the description given in the book, and they sacrificed every shred of acting talent just to cast his face.

As a result, Harry's "best mate" appears in the movie to be very shallow, very predictable, and very archetypical, his one memorable facial expression being a look of confusion and dismay which he wears throughout most of every single movie.

But the problems don't end there.

For example, in Book Four, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, there are a number of scenes which are very important to the development of the characters. In the film version, they are left out, or worse, completely botched.

For instance, Harry's trials in the tri-wizard tournament in the book show Harry to be intelligent, resourceful, and clever. He beats the dragon by outsmarting the dragon with subtlety and skill on his broom. Not only does he beat the dragon, he does so with impressive speed. In the movie, the scene takes forever to resolve, and far from being shown as able to think on his feet, Harry is always one inch from being at the utter mercy of the dragon. Instead of outsmarting the beast, he spends his time on the run and barely surviving.

If you pay attention to the other trials of the tri-wizard tournament, you will see a similar pattern of ignoring the point of the story in the book in the attempt to dazzle you with special effects instead. The director should have learned what the negative reactions to Star Wars Episodes I and II and the third Matrix film have taught moviegoers everywhere:
All the flashy special effects in the world will never motivate an audience who doesn't care about the characters.

Another scene native to the book is one very important to the ongoing conflict between Harry and Snape and defining Harry's new relationship with (the fake) Mad-Eye Moody. In the book, Snape is about to catch Harry in his Invisibility Cloak, and Harry has DROPPED the Maurader's Map. The scene is fraught with tension and character subtleties as Moody (who can see Harry), rescues the Map (for his own reasons), but prevents Snape from catching Harry.

This scene, so important to the relationships between Harry, Moody, and Snape in the books, doesn't even occur in the movie. Once again, the movie ignores the subtlety of character personalities in favor of moving onto flashier scenes with special effects.

When filmmakers do this, it sends me the message that they don't care enough about the characters to focus on their personalities. As a result, the characters on screen have no personalities even though the ones in the book were FULL of personality, and all you get is a fireworks show instead of a story.

Worst of all, the movies are directed by entirely different people. Chris Columbus directed the first two, and did a fair job of making children's movies out of them. Like Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace, the first two Harry Potter movies move slowly and feel dry, but have plenty for children to enjoy.

A new director has control for the third movie, so the relationship between the director and the actors is lost, not to mention any mistakes Columbus might have learned. This change in the third movie leads to some different costuming choices. It doesn't matter much to me whether the kids at Hogwarts wear normal streetclothes or something more like what you'd find in Lord of the Rings; but either way, it should remain the same from film to film.

A different director is hired again for the fourth movie, and yet a different one worked on Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix (not yet released).

So in five movies, we've had four different directors.

How good would the books be if they'd had four different authors?

For novel-to-screen adaptations that remained faithful to the characterization and complex plot elements which made the books good in the first place, I recommend examining Peter Jackson's work with Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, or Andrew Adamson's work with The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

I'm not one of those snobs who hates the movie just because I liked the book, but while I am usually excited when a fantasy book-to-movie adaptation is announced, I own all six of the Harry Potter books... and not one of the DVDs.

Answer 9

tend to like hemione and hagrid more but sure i like harry potter

Answer 10

Yes, I love the books & movies.