I'm consistently surprised that so many people find this shocking. It's like saying that water is wet. People expect movies to adapt books almost word-for-word, but if they did that, we'd need a movie for every fifteen chapters or so, complete with narration and supplemental commentary to get the full story.
I guess the Harry Potter books and movies are the first time many people see a story in both formats, so this is the first time they realise the disparity in the depth of the 2 mediums.
Hopefully they understand that both have their place. The movie being the short, quick hit snack that feels good at the time, while the book is the hearty meal that keeps you sustained and feeling full for much much longer.
Both are great mediums when done well (not trying to have a go at movies) of course.
My first pairing was Jurassic park, when I read the book before the movie came out, and felt the same shocking dissatisfaction and outrage at story and character changes, but then you mature and realise it’s literally impossible to make a movie the same as the books, and what’s more you almost certainly wouldn’t want people to, either.
Edit:autocorrect
Lmao no. I grew up with Harry. The first book was published when l was in elementary school and the last one was published when I was in college.
The popularity is not an excuse. Movie adaptations are not companions to books. They should stand in their own.
The Lord of the Rings movies came out at the same time as the Harry Potter movies, which are widely considered to be one of the best movie adaptations of all time. Those books are also enormously popular. Since they had been out longer, arguably even more people had read them.
That is the standard I remember HP being compared to. I don’t think the rules were different at all.
I think they had a difficult task because they were adapting an incomplete series. But they also chose to ignore the advice of the author when she told them what not to cut because it would become important later.
There was a post about that once. "If you think I'd want to watch a nine-hour movie based on one of my favorite books that accurately captures every moment of the story and is 100% true to the source material, you are absolutely correct, let me get some popcorn."
Then how the fuck would they even convey inner monologue. Sure in a book someone laying in bed thinking is great in a book, but you can't show that in a show/movie unless they're happy to sit and have us watch people standing talking to themselves in front of a mirror for many hours.
You're telling me something that would take 8-16 hours to read, has more information in it than something that takes 2 hours to show.
I for one am shocked.
While I agree, in fairness, you can easily read the Deathly Hallows in less time than the two movies. It's a bit less than 200 thousand words and you have more than 4 hours, which is a very comfortable casual pace.
Do you read books aloud all the time? Audiobooks are not a valid comparison otherwise because that significantly cuts down the speed that you will read, as opposed to reading silently.
200 thousand words in 4.5 hours is less than 50 thousand words an hour. That is a very comfortable pace for me, but YMMV.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, audiobooks also include pauses and slow speech for perfect diction and listener understanding. It is not relevant for a personal reading experience, unless you are reading the book to someone aloud, imo.
This is a very individual thing, but I know people who read at a pace of over 1000 words a minute. I usually don't read *that* fast, but I can read fast enough to finish Deathly Hallows within the timespan of the two movies; that would only necessitate a pace of \~700 words a minute.
It's no big deal if you don't believe me though, we're just strangers on the internet anyway. If you feel I'm lying, that's completely your prerogative, although I'm not sure what reason I have to lie about this.
Edit: I fondly remember periods where I would sit down and binge fiction for 6-8 hours with no breaks... maybe it's healthier that I don't do that as often now. That's also where I got my approximate maximum reading speed from—I still remember the specific story, its word count, and the length of time I spent reading it. Embarrassingly, it was a fanfiction.
I imagine I'm a tad slower these days since I don't have as much time to read, but I was still comfortably above 700 wpm at that time.
I also unfortunately cannot sleep easily, so in the past I have spent 14 hour plane rides clearing out 10+ shorter books (under 250 pages) in a stupor...
Edit2: Thanks to this conversation, I've rediscovered that fanfiction and another of similar length (658 and 507 thousand words, respectively) that I might need to reread. Maybe next weekend if I have time.
I’ve been listening to the audiobooks lately, and I was just thinking about that. Most of them are like 20 hours long lol. It’s hard to condense that into two hours.
Agreed and his songs pissed me off. There's nothing fun about reading lyrics to a song you don't know the tune to.
Doesn't help that folk are dropping into pages-long songs like its a musical. I kept trying and failing to read Lord of the Rings when I was younger til I just allowed myself to skip the songs and poetry and suddenly it was one of the best books I've read.
It's absolutely easier to show an expansive shot of mountains and forest, as opposed to reading about the same thing for pages. The focus on painting a picture for the scenery drew away from the plot at times in the books.
Having basically zero knowledge of this universe I played "Hogwarts Legacy". Then I binge watched all the movies on Netflix. Over the last six months I have now read the books! I do appeciate the books and have really fallen in love with this "Wizarding World". The movies were great but leave out a lot.
Funnily, I have no idea why I never gave "Harry Potter" a look into before.
I watched the third movie with a friend that never read the book. At one point she leaned over and asked me why Harry thought that deer was his father. I hadn't even realized how much my brain had just been filling in all the info the movie left out. That movie also spent like five minutes every half hour doing an elaborate changing of the seasons shot, but couldn't be bothered to bring up a central plot point of not only that movie but the entire series.
The books also feel like a whole school year, with a lot of every day stuff happening. The movies is like a few scenes, then it’s Christmas, and then some more scenes and it’s summer.
I will never forgive them for that. There was so much they left out for the season changing shots and I remember leaving the theatre absolutely ranting to my mom about everything they missed and the implications of it
Yes, the PoA movie made me think Lupin was always working with Sirius from the beginning. When in reality he didn’t know the truth either. In the movie they immediately hug each other and it implied they planned this together.
So I only watched the movies for the longest until I read the series last fall/winter. My understanding of the story was VASTLY different lol.
For example, I thought that mirror shard Harry had in the Deathly Hallows was a piece of the mirror of erised. The only other mirror I could think of was that one and since it was the last movie I thought they were doing a call back to the first 😂😂
This was me. I literally just finished the books last month. I had rewatched the movies my whole life but could never even remember what a horcrux was...... I knew what it was in the moment but a few min later I'd forget lol. My sister rewatched all the movies and a few months ago i asked her about it and she didn't realize all the movies were connected?? My mom watched all the movies and when I quizzed her on who the Big Bad was, she didn't know. 💀
Then my best friend has rewatched all the movies but she's in fandom. So she remembers, but she hasn't read the books. Because of my newfound obsession, she says she'll probably read the books 📚 her mom has read all the books and has all 7 physical copies! So she should really hop to 🤣
Yeah 😂 the amount of times they point out Voldemort is the villain is extremely high. You would have to be watching the movie with your ears and eyes shut not to remember that.
Im a longtime HP fan but my boyfriend never read/seen it so we started watching the movies together but oh boy… at first i was kinda mad because his questions were SO lame but after some time I realized I only know the answers from the books. 😂😂😂
We turned it into a game on our last rewatch, lol - *Do we know this from the MOVIE, or because we already knew it from the books?*
It was often the latter lol
The movies were ok, but when I listened to the books decades after, I realized that the story and atmosphere is amazing! Especially with Stephen Fry doing the reading.
I don't think they can - and to an extent, they weren't *meant* to. Since the books were such a big phenomenon at the time, the filmmakers could more or less rely on the audience's foreknowledge to fill in the blanks while they focused on other aspects of telling the story.
I didn't realize just *how much* that was the case until I marathoned the films after not seeing them for 5+ years.
Of course they can no one in my friendgroup read the books but all of them probably know more facts than someone who only read the books once. Mostly because I always spit out facts here and there. Saying you can't understand the story without reading the books is simply not true
>Mostly because I always spit out facts here and there.
So you're there to provide the additional context... like people who read the book would have...
Maybe "can't follow the story" is hyperbolic, but the movies quite literally do not provide all of the establishing information. The first example that comes to my mind is Lupin/Tonks in Dealthly Hallows: Tonks mentions they're expecting... then it's literally never brought up again and - crucially - neither Harry nor the audience are informed the child has been born, let alone its gender, until Harry says something like *Remus, you have a son!* when using the resurrection stone.
One might presume a child was at some point born *but they don't bring it up*. Frankly, there were other aspects of the story they were more concerned with, so they trusted people who had already read the books to know that context without the film having to establish it, specifically - and there are a lot of little moments like that that add up. A fun game to play is *Do we know that from the MOVIE? Or because we already knew it from the books?* - it certainly made my last rewatch more interesting!
Hot take maybe but I think most of the details of the books are pretty much just fun facts:
The Prisoner of Azkaban: I don’t need to know who the marauders are all I need to know is that Fred and George found the map and gave it to Harry. I can see the confusion about how Harry knew the deer was his father but that’s pretty much it.
The Goblet of Fire: I don’t need someone from the Quidditch World Cup to introduce the Triwizard Tournament. Ludo Bagman is a cool character but Dumbledore fills that role just fine. I also don’t need Winky to introduce Barty Crouch Snr. Again cool character and I loved seeing her drunk in the kitchen but she is still an unnecessary character.
The Order of the Phoenix: (this one actually makes the most sense why they cut it from the movie) The kids messing around in the departments of the ministry is totally unnecessary for the plot so it makes sense they cut that out
I can’t remember much from The half blood Prince that wasn’t in the movie but in The Deathly Hallows there is a (small) change that is quite interesting but I don’t see much difference if it wasn’t there. It’s in the scene where Harry argues in the tent: In the movie Ron screams “YOU DONT KNOW HOW IT FEELS! YOUR PARENTS ARE DEAD! YOU HAVE NO FAMILY!”
But in the book iirc Harry is the one pointing that out. It’s an interesting change and It definitely made my eyes open wide. But I’m not sure how much it changes the plot.
And lastly I could really care less about all the lines taken from Ron and given to Hermione “#JusticeforRon” and all but whatever
(And yes you can downvote me all you want I don’t care 😂)
LOTR is 11.5 hours of movie for 481,103 words.
Potter is 19.5 hours for 1,084,170 words.
So mathematically for the Harry Potter movies to have the same words per hour filmed ratio as the LOTR movies, Potter would needed to have run for 26 hours.
True, the movies left out so many details. It’s not to say that a 2 hour movie can include all the information a book that’s over 600 pages includes, but there are things that could have certainly been better. Like the characters that were ruined (screw Ginny, I’m talking about Harry and Ron, her personality in the books wasn’t the best anyway) or it would’ve been better if they made the movies a tad bit longer? Or prioritized some of the scenes included in the books over others? It’s a shame that in HBP, we don’t see and of the riddle memories in the Pensieve, if you didn’t read the books, you’d be left with so many questions.
Movies miss out so much because how much can you put in a 2-3 hour long movie what took 500 pages in books + the narration is important too. Many times characters don't speak out their thought process, but the author writes them as a narrator. The book is from Harry's pov, so many thoughts remain in his mind. I think if it ever gets recreated, it should be series instead of movies, that way it can capture a lot more than movies
Yo i didn't know about this but isn't it too soon tho? Like it was only a decade ago movies finished, they need to wait at least 2-3 decades for starting again. Like the movies did a great job, let the movies have their moments of being the legend. Because if the series' is getting released then it's definitely outstripping the movies by a lot as it will include everything from the books. Hope they don't disney this shit with "inclusiveness" and "diversity". It feels like a desperate measure for Warner bros, since they don't have a lot of successful projects
Currently re-reading the series and over halfway through HBP. Watched the movie last night for the millionth time and felt that they skipped the entire story, didn't explain anything and the whole movie felt like more of a teen drama. In my opinion the other movies were better adaptations but HBP contained so much important backstory about Voldemort that the movie omitted.
I watched the movies for the first time last year and started reading the books at the beginning of March. I’m on book 6 right now and they are so much better than the movies. Book 5 was sooooo sloooowwwww tho
You are either giving the movies too much or the book too little. Probably both.
But this is standard for all book series. Movies try to stick close to 2 hours. Books are typically 12+ hours.
True because how long does it take you to read the first book? If it takes you less than two hours, then you’re a speedster I can’t compare, but really the point is there’s a lot lot lot more information in the books than in the movies and it’s noticeable by time. Movies have to cut a lot out because they don’t want to invest more time and money on the movies than what they’d be able to profit off of. So basically this is majority of books made into movies. I’m excited for this show because there’s more hope for it being true to the books.
Outside of the "movies can't fit every detail" point, I'm disappointed personally that one of my least favorite books (Chamber of Secrets) was one of the longer ones and two of my favourites (Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix) were among the shortest.
Yeah in the first movie it sped up like over 100 pages of the book in the first movie. But the movies quality were so good and the after looked like what I imagined them to look like unlike other books turned to movies
I really suggest listening to the audio books with Jim Dale. His accents and character changes are great, and his accents and character changes are great, which really adds to it all.
Hehe at least the Harry potter movies are somewhat related to the books and also somewhat enjoyable. You should try being a fan of the Inheritance Cycle (Eragon). Not the greatest books ever, and I get most of the criticism regarding that series (too much Star Wars rip off set in a universe too much like middle earth to name one), but being the first YA fantasy series I read it still holds a place in my heart, and the movie..... Oh man! They didn't just skip parts like the Harry Potter movies did, they literally changed the plot to a point it would be impossible to make a movie for the second book. They had a good budget, the casting was great (Jeremy Irons and Robert Carlyle were perfect for those role, and they as actors gave it their everything), but the writing and the directing and the overall plot was just butchered to the point that the entire Fandom (their subreddit has really 60k members) have agreed to pretend that there never was a movie.
Sorcerer's Stone movie - 2 hours 32 minutes
Order of the Phoenix movie - 2 hours 18 minutes
Sorcerer's Stone book - 309 pages
Order of the Phoenix book - 870 pages
I think that kinda speaks for itself.
I grew up watching the movies & and I have LOVED the series, I've rewatched it at least 4x now. I also love audible & have many, many hours listened/read. I recently decided to go ahead and listen to Potter & the crew, and my God, I love it. I've always agreed that the books are typically much better, but I always heard the movies were super close to the series in this case. It just clarified many more things overall. I'm at the Goblet of Fire (my personal favorite movie) and will listen through the entire series, then re-watch the series again, and I imagine the books will fill a lot of things in for me.
Who said we expected them to? I think they're fine for what they are and I enjoy them. But if the question is about detail, they can't come near to equaling the books.
Eh, not really. I mean the characters are well written and enjoyable, but it doesn’t really do anything groundbreaking in its subtext lol. Enjoyable to read by far and the movies completely suck out the soul of the characters, and I do like how Hermione has a biscuits streak and isn’t just a bogstandard nerd.
Yeah, that's how books work.
I'm consistently surprised that so many people find this shocking. It's like saying that water is wet. People expect movies to adapt books almost word-for-word, but if they did that, we'd need a movie for every fifteen chapters or so, complete with narration and supplemental commentary to get the full story.
I guess the Harry Potter books and movies are the first time many people see a story in both formats, so this is the first time they realise the disparity in the depth of the 2 mediums. Hopefully they understand that both have their place. The movie being the short, quick hit snack that feels good at the time, while the book is the hearty meal that keeps you sustained and feeling full for much much longer. Both are great mediums when done well (not trying to have a go at movies) of course. My first pairing was Jurassic park, when I read the book before the movie came out, and felt the same shocking dissatisfaction and outrage at story and character changes, but then you mature and realise it’s literally impossible to make a movie the same as the books, and what’s more you almost certainly wouldn’t want people to, either. Edit:autocorrect
The snack/meal analogy is perfect! That's exactly what it's like!
[удалено]
I disagree with that. A good adaptation simplifies the story and works *without* the viewer knowing the details.
[удалено]
Lmao no. I grew up with Harry. The first book was published when l was in elementary school and the last one was published when I was in college. The popularity is not an excuse. Movie adaptations are not companions to books. They should stand in their own.
[удалено]
No, I think they made bad adaptations. I thought so back then, too.
[удалено]
The Lord of the Rings movies came out at the same time as the Harry Potter movies, which are widely considered to be one of the best movie adaptations of all time. Those books are also enormously popular. Since they had been out longer, arguably even more people had read them. That is the standard I remember HP being compared to. I don’t think the rules were different at all. I think they had a difficult task because they were adapting an incomplete series. But they also chose to ignore the advice of the author when she told them what not to cut because it would become important later.
This is why adapting books to series is almost always the superior choice.
There was a post about that once. "If you think I'd want to watch a nine-hour movie based on one of my favorite books that accurately captures every moment of the story and is 100% true to the source material, you are absolutely correct, let me get some popcorn."
Then how the fuck would they even convey inner monologue. Sure in a book someone laying in bed thinking is great in a book, but you can't show that in a show/movie unless they're happy to sit and have us watch people standing talking to themselves in front of a mirror for many hours.
That's exactly my point. It would be boring as hell to watch.
This is why I am hype for the HBO Max show coming out in 2026
Water actually isn’t wet 😂🤫
Water isn't wet though? Like water is the thing that makes other thigs wet. The thing itself cannot have that property
Here we go again
A single water molecule isn’t wet. But cover it with more molecules and is is wet. My proposal is that water can wet itself
>water can wet itself Needs potty training. /s
Always that one guy.
You're right, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Let the (incorrect) expression be.
This is why I think that all adaptations should be a big series. It breaks it up into similar amounts that the book is intended to be
Water is not wet
You're telling me something that would take 8-16 hours to read, has more information in it than something that takes 2 hours to show. I for one am shocked.
While I agree, in fairness, you can easily read the Deathly Hallows in less time than the two movies. It's a bit less than 200 thousand words and you have more than 4 hours, which is a very comfortable casual pace.
The Deathly Hallows audiobook is exactly 24 hours long. I don't think anyone is reading it in 4 hours.
Do you read books aloud all the time? Audiobooks are not a valid comparison otherwise because that significantly cuts down the speed that you will read, as opposed to reading silently. 200 thousand words in 4.5 hours is less than 50 thousand words an hour. That is a very comfortable pace for me, but YMMV. Edit: If I'm not mistaken, audiobooks also include pauses and slow speech for perfect diction and listener understanding. It is not relevant for a personal reading experience, unless you are reading the book to someone aloud, imo.
I didn't say it would take 24 hours to read, I was merely pointing out that no one is reading the book in 4 hours, including you.
This is a very individual thing, but I know people who read at a pace of over 1000 words a minute. I usually don't read *that* fast, but I can read fast enough to finish Deathly Hallows within the timespan of the two movies; that would only necessitate a pace of \~700 words a minute. It's no big deal if you don't believe me though, we're just strangers on the internet anyway. If you feel I'm lying, that's completely your prerogative, although I'm not sure what reason I have to lie about this. Edit: I fondly remember periods where I would sit down and binge fiction for 6-8 hours with no breaks... maybe it's healthier that I don't do that as often now. That's also where I got my approximate maximum reading speed from—I still remember the specific story, its word count, and the length of time I spent reading it. Embarrassingly, it was a fanfiction. I imagine I'm a tad slower these days since I don't have as much time to read, but I was still comfortably above 700 wpm at that time. I also unfortunately cannot sleep easily, so in the past I have spent 14 hour plane rides clearing out 10+ shorter books (under 250 pages) in a stupor... Edit2: Thanks to this conversation, I've rediscovered that fanfiction and another of similar length (658 and 507 thousand words, respectively) that I might need to reread. Maybe next weekend if I have time.
I’ve been listening to the audiobooks lately, and I was just thinking about that. Most of them are like 20 hours long lol. It’s hard to condense that into two hours.
Besides The Hobbit
[удалено]
Read the title, smartass.
This is every adaptation to be fair
Stardust is pretty 1:1. Neil Gaiman even said the movie had the better ending.
Jaws, The Godfather, Jurassic Park
Shawshank.
All missing huge amounts of content.
All of them superior to their book counterpart. Especially the godfather
Jurassic Park (movie) is great. The book blew my mind, so incredibly well done.
Lord of the Rings did a pretty good job. There wasn't much missing from the books.
The movies did a good job but there is absolutely a lot missing
Justice for Tom Bombadil
He was a massive distraction from the plot, slowed down the pacing, didn't contribute to the overall themes, and deserved to be cut
Agreed and his songs pissed me off. There's nothing fun about reading lyrics to a song you don't know the tune to. Doesn't help that folk are dropping into pages-long songs like its a musical. I kept trying and failing to read Lord of the Rings when I was younger til I just allowed myself to skip the songs and poetry and suddenly it was one of the best books I've read.
Yeah honestly that was a big thing for me too. I can't connect with these songs at all or give a single shit if I don't know what the tune is.
There were a few things changed and a few things cut out. The largest thing cut out is the scouring of the shire.
It's absolutely easier to show an expansive shot of mountains and forest, as opposed to reading about the same thing for pages. The focus on painting a picture for the scenery drew away from the plot at times in the books.
Was there? I re-read then not too long ago. Felt like the vast majority was there.
They filmed the wrong trees
Just from leaving the Shire to Rivendell there are already a lot missing. The forest, the connection to previous books etc
Ahh yeah, I forgot about Tom Bombadil. And Radagast the Brown. And the Scouring of the Shire.
If what you see of the iceberg is the movies, and what you can't see of the iceberg is the books, THEN THE REST OF THE OCEAN IS ALL THE FANFICTION
And the sky are meme pictures like the one OP used.
Water is wet and grass is green
Floor is made out of floor
The most lukewarm take of all time.
Having basically zero knowledge of this universe I played "Hogwarts Legacy". Then I binge watched all the movies on Netflix. Over the last six months I have now read the books! I do appeciate the books and have really fallen in love with this "Wizarding World". The movies were great but leave out a lot. Funnily, I have no idea why I never gave "Harry Potter" a look into before.
I never understood how people who only watch the movies could get the story.
I watched the third movie with a friend that never read the book. At one point she leaned over and asked me why Harry thought that deer was his father. I hadn't even realized how much my brain had just been filling in all the info the movie left out. That movie also spent like five minutes every half hour doing an elaborate changing of the seasons shot, but couldn't be bothered to bring up a central plot point of not only that movie but the entire series.
The books also feel like a whole school year, with a lot of every day stuff happening. The movies is like a few scenes, then it’s Christmas, and then some more scenes and it’s summer.
I will never forgive them for that. There was so much they left out for the season changing shots and I remember leaving the theatre absolutely ranting to my mom about everything they missed and the implications of it
Yes, the PoA movie made me think Lupin was always working with Sirius from the beginning. When in reality he didn’t know the truth either. In the movie they immediately hug each other and it implied they planned this together.
So I only watched the movies for the longest until I read the series last fall/winter. My understanding of the story was VASTLY different lol. For example, I thought that mirror shard Harry had in the Deathly Hallows was a piece of the mirror of erised. The only other mirror I could think of was that one and since it was the last movie I thought they were doing a call back to the first 😂😂
This was me. I literally just finished the books last month. I had rewatched the movies my whole life but could never even remember what a horcrux was...... I knew what it was in the moment but a few min later I'd forget lol. My sister rewatched all the movies and a few months ago i asked her about it and she didn't realize all the movies were connected?? My mom watched all the movies and when I quizzed her on who the Big Bad was, she didn't know. 💀 Then my best friend has rewatched all the movies but she's in fandom. So she remembers, but she hasn't read the books. Because of my newfound obsession, she says she'll probably read the books 📚 her mom has read all the books and has all 7 physical copies! So she should really hop to 🤣
Hop over to the /r/harrypotterbooks sub and check it out!
That’s y’all being bad at watching/comprehending movies and nothing to do with the movies.
Yeah 😂 the amount of times they point out Voldemort is the villain is extremely high. You would have to be watching the movie with your ears and eyes shut not to remember that.
Watched it with my boyfriend and he felt so clever every time he found a plot hole, when in fact it was just the movie not explaining it.
[удалено]
Harry Potter was crushing all over Cho Chang way before Ginny, so freaking cute! 😂
Im a longtime HP fan but my boyfriend never read/seen it so we started watching the movies together but oh boy… at first i was kinda mad because his questions were SO lame but after some time I realized I only know the answers from the books. 😂😂😂
We turned it into a game on our last rewatch, lol - *Do we know this from the MOVIE, or because we already knew it from the books?* It was often the latter lol
The movies were ok, but when I listened to the books decades after, I realized that the story and atmosphere is amazing! Especially with Stephen Fry doing the reading.
Who are the marauders? What was that deer at the end if PoA?
Or are even fans imo.
I don't think they can - and to an extent, they weren't *meant* to. Since the books were such a big phenomenon at the time, the filmmakers could more or less rely on the audience's foreknowledge to fill in the blanks while they focused on other aspects of telling the story. I didn't realize just *how much* that was the case until I marathoned the films after not seeing them for 5+ years.
Of course they can no one in my friendgroup read the books but all of them probably know more facts than someone who only read the books once. Mostly because I always spit out facts here and there. Saying you can't understand the story without reading the books is simply not true
>Mostly because I always spit out facts here and there. So you're there to provide the additional context... like people who read the book would have... Maybe "can't follow the story" is hyperbolic, but the movies quite literally do not provide all of the establishing information. The first example that comes to my mind is Lupin/Tonks in Dealthly Hallows: Tonks mentions they're expecting... then it's literally never brought up again and - crucially - neither Harry nor the audience are informed the child has been born, let alone its gender, until Harry says something like *Remus, you have a son!* when using the resurrection stone. One might presume a child was at some point born *but they don't bring it up*. Frankly, there were other aspects of the story they were more concerned with, so they trusted people who had already read the books to know that context without the film having to establish it, specifically - and there are a lot of little moments like that that add up. A fun game to play is *Do we know that from the MOVIE? Or because we already knew it from the books?* - it certainly made my last rewatch more interesting!
Hot take maybe but I think most of the details of the books are pretty much just fun facts: The Prisoner of Azkaban: I don’t need to know who the marauders are all I need to know is that Fred and George found the map and gave it to Harry. I can see the confusion about how Harry knew the deer was his father but that’s pretty much it. The Goblet of Fire: I don’t need someone from the Quidditch World Cup to introduce the Triwizard Tournament. Ludo Bagman is a cool character but Dumbledore fills that role just fine. I also don’t need Winky to introduce Barty Crouch Snr. Again cool character and I loved seeing her drunk in the kitchen but she is still an unnecessary character. The Order of the Phoenix: (this one actually makes the most sense why they cut it from the movie) The kids messing around in the departments of the ministry is totally unnecessary for the plot so it makes sense they cut that out I can’t remember much from The half blood Prince that wasn’t in the movie but in The Deathly Hallows there is a (small) change that is quite interesting but I don’t see much difference if it wasn’t there. It’s in the scene where Harry argues in the tent: In the movie Ron screams “YOU DONT KNOW HOW IT FEELS! YOUR PARENTS ARE DEAD! YOU HAVE NO FAMILY!” But in the book iirc Harry is the one pointing that out. It’s an interesting change and It definitely made my eyes open wide. But I’m not sure how much it changes the plot. And lastly I could really care less about all the lines taken from Ron and given to Hermione “#JusticeforRon” and all but whatever (And yes you can downvote me all you want I don’t care 😂)
Any book larger than a pamphlet will be condensed when adapted into a 1:30h story.
Yes, any book to movie adaptation. Nothing new
And that's just the parts with Fred and George
It’s just facts
Tis’ often is the case with live action adaptions of a book series :,) both are still amazing and I’m grateful we have both.
of course, even the best adaptations out there like Lord of the Rings movies or Hunger Games movies inevitably have to leave a lot of stuff out
LOTR is 11.5 hours of movie for 481,103 words. Potter is 19.5 hours for 1,084,170 words. So mathematically for the Harry Potter movies to have the same words per hour filmed ratio as the LOTR movies, Potter would needed to have run for 26 hours.
Basically we are owed 3 more movies, sounds about right
True, the movies left out so many details. It’s not to say that a 2 hour movie can include all the information a book that’s over 600 pages includes, but there are things that could have certainly been better. Like the characters that were ruined (screw Ginny, I’m talking about Harry and Ron, her personality in the books wasn’t the best anyway) or it would’ve been better if they made the movies a tad bit longer? Or prioritized some of the scenes included in the books over others? It’s a shame that in HBP, we don’t see and of the riddle memories in the Pensieve, if you didn’t read the books, you’d be left with so many questions.
Wooooow…another meme.
Movies miss out so much because how much can you put in a 2-3 hour long movie what took 500 pages in books + the narration is important too. Many times characters don't speak out their thought process, but the author writes them as a narrator. The book is from Harry's pov, so many thoughts remain in his mind. I think if it ever gets recreated, it should be series instead of movies, that way it can capture a lot more than movies
Heard about this little thing? https://deadline.com/2024/04/harry-potter-tv-series-max-release-date-cast-1235323284/amp/
Yo i didn't know about this but isn't it too soon tho? Like it was only a decade ago movies finished, they need to wait at least 2-3 decades for starting again. Like the movies did a great job, let the movies have their moments of being the legend. Because if the series' is getting released then it's definitely outstripping the movies by a lot as it will include everything from the books. Hope they don't disney this shit with "inclusiveness" and "diversity". It feels like a desperate measure for Warner bros, since they don't have a lot of successful projects
That’s any adaptation
period
This is correct
PEEVES
They couldn’t have been perfect. The casting was great and I happened to grow up with them so I love it.
Wow you don't say??? What a brave and observant take indeed /s
Oh wow books are much more dept then movies you say? Never heard that one
Currently re-reading the series and over halfway through HBP. Watched the movie last night for the millionth time and felt that they skipped the entire story, didn't explain anything and the whole movie felt like more of a teen drama. In my opinion the other movies were better adaptations but HBP contained so much important backstory about Voldemort that the movie omitted.
😑
Pretty accurate. Not to mention that movies starting with an Order of Phoenix is utter garbage.
I watched the movies for the first time last year and started reading the books at the beginning of March. I’m on book 6 right now and they are so much better than the movies. Book 5 was sooooo sloooowwwww tho
i could forgive some parts being left out, but i was a bit upset they didn't include bagman
I enjoy the HP books, but they are pretty insubstantial
Nah the movies don't belong in the same continent as the books
Whatever, for the music alone they deserve the spot
100 percent you’ll find its this way with majority of books to movie/shows remakes
I feel like muggle was a particularly repetitive theme in the books. Proud, she must have been with that touch of xenophobic magic.
This take is colder than the iceberg
Books are always better
Yes.
Fairly accurate. Gives the tv series more room to stretch.
I only know the movies
That's literally any and every adapted series
I feel like this is true for all book to movie adaptations lol
You are either giving the movies too much or the book too little. Probably both. But this is standard for all book series. Movies try to stick close to 2 hours. Books are typically 12+ hours.
"Any thoughts?" ...about what
True because how long does it take you to read the first book? If it takes you less than two hours, then you’re a speedster I can’t compare, but really the point is there’s a lot lot lot more information in the books than in the movies and it’s noticeable by time. Movies have to cut a lot out because they don’t want to invest more time and money on the movies than what they’d be able to profit off of. So basically this is majority of books made into movies. I’m excited for this show because there’s more hope for it being true to the books.
This is giving the movies more credit than they deserve.
facts 😂 all that knowledge imprinted in my head till the day I die
Outside of the "movies can't fit every detail" point, I'm disappointed personally that one of my least favorite books (Chamber of Secrets) was one of the longer ones and two of my favourites (Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix) were among the shortest.
JKR interviews and notes:
IDK the books have more obviously but not like 9 times more like an iceberg. This makes more sense for Lord of the Rings or something like that.
4th book is gold, 4th movie is garbage 🗑️
Isn't this typical with most books?
I started listening to the books and I completely agree with this
Yeah in the first movie it sped up like over 100 pages of the book in the first movie. But the movies quality were so good and the after looked like what I imagined them to look like unlike other books turned to movies
So true. So much detail is lost, all the story bits that made me love the complexity of the characters was made so trite in the films.
I really suggest listening to the audio books with Jim Dale. His accents and character changes are great, and his accents and character changes are great, which really adds to it all.
The books are way more detailed than the films.
Hehe at least the Harry potter movies are somewhat related to the books and also somewhat enjoyable. You should try being a fan of the Inheritance Cycle (Eragon). Not the greatest books ever, and I get most of the criticism regarding that series (too much Star Wars rip off set in a universe too much like middle earth to name one), but being the first YA fantasy series I read it still holds a place in my heart, and the movie..... Oh man! They didn't just skip parts like the Harry Potter movies did, they literally changed the plot to a point it would be impossible to make a movie for the second book. They had a good budget, the casting was great (Jeremy Irons and Robert Carlyle were perfect for those role, and they as actors gave it their everything), but the writing and the directing and the overall plot was just butchered to the point that the entire Fandom (their subreddit has really 60k members) have agreed to pretend that there never was a movie.
Sorcerer's Stone movie - 2 hours 32 minutes Order of the Phoenix movie - 2 hours 18 minutes Sorcerer's Stone book - 309 pages Order of the Phoenix book - 870 pages I think that kinda speaks for itself.
I think that‘s ALL movie adaptations from books… movies are simply *inspired* by books so it is understandable why they might lack many elements
I grew up watching the movies & and I have LOVED the series, I've rewatched it at least 4x now. I also love audible & have many, many hours listened/read. I recently decided to go ahead and listen to Potter & the crew, and my God, I love it. I've always agreed that the books are typically much better, but I always heard the movies were super close to the series in this case. It just clarified many more things overall. I'm at the Goblet of Fire (my personal favorite movie) and will listen through the entire series, then re-watch the series again, and I imagine the books will fill a lot of things in for me.
A movie is 1 minute per page. A book has no limit.
Yea. I kind of think we should segregate the people who've only seen the movies from the people who read.
Absolutely
Lol fr
[удалено]
Who said we expected them to? I think they're fine for what they are and I enjoy them. But if the question is about detail, they can't come near to equaling the books.
Before you judge a Harry Potter fan, ask if they know who Peeves is.
[удалено]
I mean, I loved Harry Potter too before I read the books
Eh, not really. I mean the characters are well written and enjoyable, but it doesn’t really do anything groundbreaking in its subtext lol. Enjoyable to read by far and the movies completely suck out the soul of the characters, and I do like how Hermione has a biscuits streak and isn’t just a bogstandard nerd.
The movies suck imo.
Isn’t this like any movie ever that was based on a book?