Your opinion on Harry Potter movies.?

Question

I personally hate the movies, the barely even follow the plot of the books and leave out half the book! Ron and harry are supposed to be really skinny and them and hermione are supposed to be outcasts. Hermione is supposed to be not that pretty and have buckteeth until the yule ball and should have poofy and frizzy hair. I just think the movies could have been done better, what is your opinion?

I think they should try redoing the first one and make it a 5 hour long movie just to show the readers that they can make it near perfect and put in nearly all the details.

Answer 1

Yes. The movies could be way better. The books are much more interesting and less corny. I think that they cut out pivotal events and characters. For example, Winky the house-elf, Ludo Bagman, and I know that there's more but I can't think of them at the moment. The crying scene in PoA was too much for me, I burst out laughing. The werewolf was fake, and the dog? Why not just use a real trained dog, it can't be that hard? The problem with the movies is that it seems as if they are just doing enough to make lots of money, instead of the love of the books. The casting is horrid. I think Hagrid and McGonagall are great (funnily enough, it was J.K. Rowling who suggested the actors herself), Dumbledore (the first one, of course), and Snape and Filch. The three main characters are ok. but not always convincing, lacking some talent, and Ron looks nothing like I ever imagined. But worse than Ron is Lupin and Sirius, I mean, come on! you can do much better, While I don't think it's from lack of skill, I just think they don't match up. Most of the casting isn't a magical moment where the character is just how you pictured them or better. Take for example the Lord of the Rings. Which was genuinely trying to bring out Tolken's work. the casting was flawless. No complaints there. They even gave Ian McKellen a prosthetic nose to make it bigger. There are a lot of small things like this that Harry potter movies could do to improve. the changing of the directors and everything makes the series as a whole incongruous. What if George Lucas was suddenly replaced in Star Wars? While they are shifting the main audience to teens rather than children, you cannot change the fact that it seems that they are doing all they can to keep the movies in the spirit of the book series. While, not completely horrible, and will obviously make tons of money, will not be winning any oscars in the near future.

Answer 2

I take the movies as a seperate work. They are based on the books but the writers are also given their own freedoms (to a point).

Some things in the movies I think will just make non-readers confused. I wish they would have taken a few moments to explain that lupin, sirius, peter and James were the mauders who wrote the map that Harry has. Many people might have picked that up from the non explained point that Lupin knew the map was a map and how to work it.

But there are pieces in the books that were simplified by the movies, and it ended up working very well. Neville giving Harry the Guillyweed in the 4th movie, for example. They really didn't NEED dobby (I love dobby, btw)... it was established that neville was a plant wiz and it totally fits.

I love the artistry of the graveyard scene in the 4th, and the idea that it was almost taken word for word from the book helped a lot.

The rest of the changes and items left out, Well, i try and look at it from a movie makers stand point. Would movie goers really care about SPEW.. doubt it.

Answer 3

the movies are good but the books are better. When watching the movies it is important to view them in 2 categories: conneted to the book and not connected to the book. Yes they present the basic plot lines of the books and give the viwer the general idea. They do leave leave out details for many reasons though. The books are extremely long and a single complete movie of one book would take about seven hours. Very few people have the time or patience to sit thorough that. Also, they are not connected to the books completely becuase the point of them is to make money. They appeal to a much larger audience by leaving out details that only devoted readers care about.

Answer 4

I like the movies, but they could be much better. Instead of adding in Hollywood drama, they should be more focused on including very important plot devices. Certain things that don't have much importance are OK to leave out, but some things they leave out in the movie leave movie goers completely clueless as to how things really happened in the books. The first two movies mostly followed along with the book, but the last two have just used the book as a guideline. Things that weren't even in the books are now added into the movies to keep the theaters packed. It's terrible.

Answer 5

My biggest issue with the movies is the casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Following Richard Harris' death (he played Dumbledore in the first two movies), Gambon was cast after a number of other actors were considered. Gambon has been VERY vocal about the fact that he hasn't read the books and doesn't intend to. It definitely shows in his portrayal of Dumbledore. He just doesn't "get" Dumbledore. For an example of this, watch the scene in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" when Harry's name comes out of the goblet. Dumbledore cringes back, away from the goblet. For anyone who has read the books, this is absolutely ridiculous - Dumbledore would never cringe. And a few scenes later, when he is confronting Harry in his office, he RUNS. WHAT?!? Dumbledore would never run.

Ian McKellan would have been a much better choice for Dumbledore, in my opinion.

Answer 6

I think for the complexity of the books the movies did an amazing job. I agree that the books are light years better than the movies but......... I had never read any of the books until I had seen the first movie and then my interested was piqued. So I guess for the that reason alone I am pleased that the books were turned into movies.

Answer 7

I totally agree. I think the first movie was the best at following the book. The actors were so little and Hermione DID have frizzy hair. What pissed me off a lot were Harry's eyes: they were supposed to be green, it's mentioned so often in the books, and Dan Radcliffe's are blue.

But the studios like to make their mark, make them more commercial.

Answer 8

I think the movies are amazing.

What the hell are you talking about when you say they don't follow the plot? They follow almost exactly until they have to CUT STUFF OUT. If they didn't do that, the movies would be 5 hours long a piece. Nobody wants to sit for five hours watching a movie.

Just because descriptions are changed doesn't mean a damn thing, either. Get over it. Nothing's perfect, and something is changed in EVERY SINGLE movie adapted from a book.

Oh, oh! I just remembered. McGonagall, she's supposed to have black hair, but Dame Maggie Smith has red! OH NOES! THE WORLD IS GOING TO END BECAUSE THEY CHANGED HER HAIR COLOR!

=)

You'll live.

Answer 9

They tried their hardest, but the movies simply didn't grasp the atmosphere of Hogwarts and their characters. The first movie was the best and then it just went down from there. Of course, they had to cut out some stuff, but in the fourth movie, they made really awkward transitions from scene to scene. Overall, it just didn't capture the magic. The actors and actresses are good (except the second Dumbledore just doesn't act like Dumbledore); it's just the plot and characters that don't work out.

Answer 10

My opinion goes something like:

Sorcerers Stone. Chris Colombus does a good job of bringing the book to life. Naturally as Harry Potter is a fantasy world he's got to use lot's of special affects, but the story remains the key to the movie, and as such he pays it more attention than the effects. They become just the tool they should be rather than more important than the story itself. Naturally there are many differences from the book, but at least there's no rushed feeling and Colombus at least tried to stay fairly close to the book. Best movie of the series so far.

Chamber of Secrets. Columbus returns as director. Again he seems to follow the book as well as can be expected for most movies based on books. But sadly this time he's more intrested in the special effects, spending more time with them than he does the actual story. As such, the non-effects oriented scenes seem more rushed and the story becomes more of a means to getting to the next effects oriented scene. But at least the story's still important enough not to pull quite the same hack job on it as will happen with future movies. Leaving it overall the second best of the series.

Prisoner of Azkaban. Colombus steps down as director, becoming producer instead. Alfonso Cuaron steps in to butcher.... I mean direct the third movie. No, I mean really do mean butcher the third movie adaptation of the book. Only scenes Cuaron seems to like from the book get much in the way of screen time, otherwise most scenes feel far too rushed. Some things, such as the talking shruken heads, get added when we could have done without them. Others get even get changed for the worse, like no students being allowed in the Three Broomsticks on the day Harry learns why Sirius is believed to be in league with Voldemort. And still others are moved well out of their placement, like Harry getting the firebolt at the very end of the movie. Too much of the book is missing and it feels like Alfonso Cuaron and the Prisoner of Azkaban would have been a much better title. With three Harry Potter movies left to go, this worst movie of the series so far can only hope one of them will take it's place (and will find out on the 11th if that will be fairly soon).

Goblet of Fire. Columbus steps down even as producer and has no apparent involvement with this one, and one wonders if it's because he had other projects he was more involved in or because he was disgusted with what happened to the third movie. Thankfully Cuaron also steps down and Mike Newell steps in as the new director. Not so thankfully, Newell is convinced by Cuaron to cut enough of the subplots to do a single movie instead of two movies released within a few months of each other as the studio wanted. Oh what we might have gotten if not for Cuaron's interference. At least Newell followed the course of the book, even though he wiped out about three quarters or more of it, and didn't switch the order of the Tri-Wizard cup. Too bad he did alter some characterizations. (Did anyone else find Myrtle to have become a serious pervert in the fourth movie? If she'd been flesh and blood instead of a ghost, she'd probably have tried something with Harry.) Over all, it ended up as the third best of the movie, I just wish Newell had done two movies so that we could have gotten more of the book in there.

Yes, I've posted this answer before. Posted it in the "Who else hated the 4th Harry Potter movie" question.