Page 2 of 6

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:42 pm
by parnassus
Books are nearly always much better than their corresponding films. Always. J.K. Rowling's magic can never be recaptured on screen - it's tiny little details that make her plots so good, miniscule clues that all add up to one breathtakingly gripping solution. No filmmaker can preserve that.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:18 am
by eDan
And the end of the day books and films are two different media providing quite different forms of entertainment. They both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:41 pm
by fuzzy
VICKY!!! I cannot belive you didnt like it that much!! IT WAS BRILL! I am regrerttablely going to have no brand you as a foul scurvy cur!!! MEH!!! :wink:

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:46 pm
by pinkparrot
I haven't seen it. Looking at this I'm not sure whether I should or not! :lol:

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:15 pm
by eDan
You should see it PP, we would like to know what you think. Most of the people I've heard of have enjoyed it.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:57 pm
by carebear15
I have not seen the movie but i would like to see the movie.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:55 pm
by chocolatefudgecake
If you haven't seen the movie, you should (unless you can't go to see it.), The Films are good/brilliant, but I also agree with Vicky.

parnassus wrote:Books are nearly always much better than their corresponding films.


The books are better than the films - you can't limet the Length of a book, but a film can become too long.

parnassus wrote:Always. J.K. Rowling's magic can never be recaptured on screen


That is true.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:42 pm
by mattie
I generally agree that books are better than films. You can never recreate the wit and excitement of a book.

The only exception IMO is Lord Of the Rings - I liked the books but thought the films were a lot better.


mattie.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:41 am
by Thirteen-thirty-seven
I think the LOTR books needed anything. I don't object to books being beyopnd a certain length, but a good writer should make sure every single word is there for a reason. Some bits of LOTR just weren't interesting and didn't contribute to the narrative or character development in a meaningful way.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:22 pm
by mattie
Some bits of LOTR just weren't interesting and didn't contribute to the narrative or character development in a meaningful way.


I agree. Whilst they are very good books, I think that they were in desperate need of some editing in parts.

I also think that the message that J R R Tolkien was trying to convey was a bit mixed up. He goes on about issues such as greed and the destruction of the environment - which is fair enough - but then presented pre-industrial society as some kind of Utopia. In reality, it wasn't.


Mattie.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:52 pm
by chocolatefudgecake
mattie wrote:
Some bits of LOTR just weren't interesting and didn't contribute to the narrative or character development in a meaningful way.


I agree.


I tried reading the books I found the first one boring and gave up, But the films were good.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:59 pm
by pinkparrot
Films move faster than books (most of the time). There can be exceptions!

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:13 pm
by medrich11
I think that the third movie should be taken into a desert and buried nevcer to be found again. It is one of mankinds biggest mess ups ever made in my opinion. There were problems right from the start, hiring a director who hadn't read the books and really made it into a film about weird people who float and make things freeze and have 150 year old's mouths.
The "people" I am talking about are the dementors. They got dumbledore wrong and they cut bits out that you needed to klnow and added in bits that were completely uselesss, e.g. the slow motion bit of the night bus. The lake seen was messed up and so was the hogsmeade. They missed out christmas and IN the book you never saw the dementors mouths, the dementors didn't flap around and in the patronus lessons harry took three months to master the charm, not three minutes.

It is a disgrace to the good name of harry potter.
The fourth is cut much better and is overall a better film, althiugh I miss the skrewts and dumbledore still isn't right.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:59 pm
by C
I think it's great, by far the best Harry Potter film so far (although the third book was my favourite book)

I thought it was really funny in places and I liked all the romance. It was very dark and I wouldn't take a child under eight to see it (I know it's a 12a but that means nothing because a baby could see it so long as they were with an adult!) It was also quite rude in places.

The bad points were it cut a lot of the book out. It was the same length as the other films and their books are a lot shorter. It cut not only the entire Dursley family but Molly Weasley as well. I can understand cutting the Dursley's because they weren't really relevant, so long as they appear in the seventh film, but cutting Molly? Why couldn't she have been at the Quidditch World Cup with the rest of them? Or appeared at the end to comfort Harry? I kept expectnig to see her!

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:30 am
by Thirteen-thirty-seven
It is irritating that they cut dso much out. That is why the books are better than the films.