In which Harry Potter film do you feel they follow the book the most and why?

Question

I feel they followed Prisoner of Azkaban the best because it was such an important plot and you need to know a lot of some things for future movies. They also did a pretty good job on Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets as well. I love all and I love the books, too, but they don't always follow the book as I want them to. : )

Please don't say, "none", "i hate hary potter", "stick to the books", or anything else related to that, because I'm not a Harry Potter basher, and nor do I want to listen to any.

Answer 1

I think I agree with you entirely. They followed the text fairly well in all 3 of the thin books, but PoA was the most crucial of these, and where they followed best.
GoF was a bad joke in terms of following the books, not in that they made things up, but in that they left out almost everything that happened.
OotP was very different from the book. I thought it was a nice interpretation for film, but it deviates massively from the text.

Answer 2

I saw the first three movies before I read any of the books, and it was Prisoner that made me go back and start reading the series because I didn't think it was believable that all of a sudden Harry is trusting this guy (Sirius) who supposedly wants to kill him. I left the movie not sure whether Harry was being taken in by a maniacal killer or his long-lost-Godfather. So reading the books cleared that up for me. But then I was disappointed that the movie did not mention the Marauders at all - I mean, Harry knew these were his father's friends but the story of them all becoming unregistered animagi for Lupin tells Harry just how important these people were to James and gives Harry a connection to him.

All this being said, Prisoner is my favorite of the movies too! I think Stone stayed truest to the book based on the simple fact that it was the shortest book and therefore the easiest to translate into a movie. Goblet has been my favorite book...but I haven't decided yet about Prince or Hallows - I have to do some rereads first - now that I know the ultimate ending!

Answer 3

They followed Soceror's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban (even though I hated that they had the Firebolt part at the end, and showing an umbrella flying out of the stadium at the Quidditch part.)
These books were the shortest, and that's why they were able to fit more in.

The other ones are longer and so they have to cut things out, but I would like to sit through a four hour movie if that's what it took to get everything in. Even 2 two hour movies for one book would be good, but they don't do that.

I hated the Goblet of Fire movie because nothing was explained (the points), and Viktor and Fleur got smaller parts, then was portrayed in the book. Also they made it so obvious that Barty was the one who cast the Darkmark, and what was up with the tongue thing? The 4th movie was so bad.

Answer 4

I think that Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets followed the books the closest. HP and theSorcerer's stone was my favorite too (Harry was so cute and innocent!)! I thought that the third didn't follow so close, but that is just my opinion. I feel they left out a lot of the marauders map and the secret passages and when sirius, lupin, and wormtail were in the shrieking shack. But I really liked that movie a lot. I thought the fourth and fifth were disappointing. But then again the movies are harder to create because as they progress, the series becomes more complex and difficult.

Answer 5

I agree with you 100%... the Prisoner of Azkaban would be easiest to understand for a person who hasn't read the book. They do leave out a few details, but it's still all good. I think it is because at the time it was made, special effects were easier to do, and the book is small enough to fit in enough details to make a 2 1/2 hour movie. Love the part with the time turner and when Harry makes a Patronus.

Both the Prisoner of Azkaban book and movie are my favorite!

Answer 6

I believe that the Sorcerer's Stone followed the book the best. Chamber of Secrets was also not bad. Now Prisoner of Azkaban well it jumbled up the events of the book soo bad. Harry Potter getting the firebolt was supposed to happen in the middle not the end, and conversations happened that never happened in the book. Harry used magic in his room to light his wand, when we know thats against the rules. So much was wrong with Azkaban.

Answer 7

I think they followed the book most in the first and second films, they had the less complicated plots, so they wouldn't have had to cut as much out to make it into a film. The third one wasn't that bad either actually. But the fourth one didn't follow the book that much lol, but it was a good film in it's own right, like if you aren't a proper die hard harry potter fan! And if u don't read the books! The fifth one was amazing, it had little things that didn't follow the book, like some of the decrees and that Cho betrayed the da and stuff like that, but nothing more really! Because as complicated as the book was, they did a really good job making it into a film!

Answer 8

I think that Prisoner of Azkaban didn't follow the book well at all. It left out so much Marauder backstory and so many good scenes and plotlines were cut. Hermione was turned into a total girly-girl, which made her Yule Ball transformation of GoF less amazing.

Sorcerer's Stone definitely kept to the book the most. The one thing they changed was taking out Peeves, but he was never a very important plot element, so that's okay.

GoF and OotP left out a lot, but for the shortness of the movies compared to the lengths of the books, I think they they did better than PoA too.

Answer 9

I agree that the first 3 movies stuck to the books the most, except for certain times when, in the book, Ron said something, and in the movie, Hermoine said it or vice versa. Other than that, the first three were great in line with the books. I was mildly disappointed with movie 4 and vastly disappointed with movie 5. I mean, they left out SO much that I can't see in movies 6 & 7 how they will get the story line back.

Answer 10

The first because it was the shortest story in the series and the easiest to include nearly everything that happened. The script stuck pretty close to the actually dialoge of the characters. Though the first movie was the most true to the book (in my opinion) I thought the OoP was the best movie of the series thus far. I can't wait for half blood prince though!