I don't know about the rest of you, but I imagine the characters in the books completely different from how they are portrayed. Not just by appearance, but in the way they act.

Were the movies like the books for you?

I think the problem with PS and CoS was that they were too faithful to the books to the point where they sacrificed the spirit, the feel, the atmosphere of the story. Dont get me wrong, the sets, the costumes, alot of the casting, was fantastic - PS was my favourite where as CoS seemed to have all the right ingredients again - it just lacked something.

I liked PS better than CoS - it had more character and spirit to it - CoS just felt like a carbon copy of the book.

PoA looks like it's stuck to the best motto possible, when making books into films - Keep to the spirit of the books, not the letters of them.

I tend to distance myself by remembering that the films, no matter how much they want to be, aren't the real thing. The real thing, the real story, is in the book.

Hermione, for me, changed and became out of character in CoS and I dont particularly remember her being all for girl-power in PoA. I also dont like the punch, Hermione would not have done that. It should've remained as a slap.

Other things like Ron, All the Weasleys in fact, are identical to what I imagined. Snape, McGonagall, Trelawney and Hagrid are the best casting jobs ever. Period.

One thing that does bug me is Kloves and the way he likes to make Ron out to be an idiot, in the films. He only ever says funny things and we never really get to see any other side of him - which is a total shame.

He also gives Hermione lines about things she couldn't possibly know. It takes away Ron's knowledge that makes Ron seem a little in-the-know about things around him - knowledge of things that only someone who'd grown up in the wizarding world would know.

I agree that some of ron's lines which were changed should not have been. For instance, the mudblood description- Hermione's not supposed to know what a mudblood is either. I didn't read the books for a long time before the movies, and I couldnt remember howI had imagined the characters- I must say, however, that some of the hair makes me angry. Like hermione in the second movie, I thought her hair was supposed to be bushy? and Harry's hair just lie's flat, it doesn't stick up in random places like it's supposed to. I think Dudley was cast wrong, what happened to the pink, blonde-haired, pig-like boy? This boys just a little bit on the chubby side.

Yeah exactly. Like some people said dont read the book before the movie because there will be some difference but it will still have what the book has-the spirir, like you pointed out Em

Couldnt agree with you more

As far as my opinion goes I think that in some aspects the first two movies werent as good as they could have been but with the third literally around the corner I think that it is going to be nearly as good as the book. I think the best thing that happened to the movies was the change in director.

I also agree with Emma. Movies that are based on books are rarely carbon copies, and they shouldn't be. Things that work in a book can be impractical in a film. Also, you have to take into account the fact that the film will be marketed to, not only fans of the book but, people who have never picked up one of the books before. I think people would enjoy "based on the book" films more if they watched the movie as if they had never read the book.

I'll also have to agree that most of the time it is completely unnecessary (and even detrimental) to give the lines of one character over to another. However, I must admit, when I watched CoS the first couple of times (before having read the books), it seemed perfectly natural to me that Hermione would know about the mudblood thing, seeing as how I had already known her to be a know-it-all. It wasn't until after I read the books that I realized how strange it was that she would know those things.

I really love the films, I think the trio have been casted really well, but Professor McGonnagall played by Maggie Smith is amazing, she really is how I imagined her.

However I did imagine Ron to be more goofy looking, whereas Rupert is such a sweetiepie!

But I totally agree with Emma re Ron's lines, Ron is not as silly in the books as the movies make out.

But for me the films still get a thumbs up, maybe because I really like the whole idea around it and it was really nice to see a game of Quidditch being played, it actually helped me understand it alot easier.

Ya, I hate how Hermione gets Ron's lines in the movie. Like the mudblood thing, and in a trailor for PoA Hermione says "If you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too." That is totally Ron's line. Also, in the second movie Hermione says "Hearing voices isn't normal, even in the wizarding world" (or something like that). Totally Ron's line, once again!! The hearing voices thing and the mudblood thing are only something that Ron could know since he lives in the wizarding world. and I don't really think Hermione read something like that in a book.
And I don't like the guy that plays Dudley. Not fat enough.
The first two movies stunk. When I was younger they were okay, and the first time I saw them I liked them, but then they got pretty boring.
The third movie looks awesome though! Even though some details aren't like the book, it still looks great!

I felt that the first two movies lacked emotion....... it was mainly, I think, because of the trio not being used to the camera. But I think the casting directors coud have searched a bit harder and found children who could act - rather than basing it mainly on looks.

There are a few child actors who really have got talent - like Elijah Wood, who started acting at 9. I have a feeling the trio will fizzle out after the films are over - and not really act again. Not just because they'll be labelled as Potter kids, but because they won't have the talent to go that far. It's like that with most child actors and actresses.

Hello everyone, i wasn just wondering if anyone thought that the 4th and 5th movies are going to be either extrordinarily long, or extremely cut.

I mean just by the size of the books, how are u going to pack all the events of book 4 into a 3 hour movie!

And if they are going to cut it, how are what re they going to cut out.

I dont know if im going to enjoy the 4th and 5th movie for these reasons.

Just was wondering if anyone else thought the same thing.

Also, has anyone thought about the ratings for the movies, with all the battles and violence in the 4th and 5th books, i am wondering if they are going to cut it, or if they are going to have to go to a PG-13 rating.

Just a few things to think about :).

Peace out everyone, and remember...

I think that's because, as Kloves said "Everyone assumes she read it in a book" which is acceptable but not really. I think that's more the sort of thing that you learn from the experience of living in the wizarding world; as it's a term not heard in civilised conversation I can hardly imagine someone would write a book on it.

It just irks me that Ron naturally has all this knowledge about the wizarding world and yet is denied the right to use it. It's not as if Hermione isn't clever enough anyways she doesn't need more lines she has if anything, too much to say in the films.

That was great for me because I dont really read the quidditch scenes, I skim over them because it's like trying to read a football match; it's just plain hard and boring and I dont have the ability to visualise it in my head.

Alot of people use the "young" excuse but you're right - there are young actors out there who can act. I always thought Rupert was perfect, even though his character is completely teared up in the films. I can see what Heyman meant about the "older spirit" thing with Dan however in PS I didn't think he was that bad and neither was Hermione. If anything, the characters of Ron and Hermione have gotten worse. Ron because of the script, Hermione because of the script and the fact that they've added "girl power" to her. She isn't one of the spcie girls for goodness sakes.

The films will never be longer than 2 and 1/2 hours, period. Because if it's any longer than that you risk the chance of dragging the film out too much and losing your audience. Books can never have every chapter in the film version and in GoF and OoP there are plenty of losable scenes that aren't that relative to the plot.

Exactly, I want the films to be similar enough to the book so it feels like Harry Potter and keeps the atmosphere alive, but doesn't have to follow every single scene in the book. I mean I would find it hard to read the books in a whole without stopping at all, so why would you want to see the whole book portrayed on screen. It would draw it out and people would lose interest.

From what I have seen of PoA, Alfonso has really captured the atmosphere of Harry potter and all the things I love about the third book. We know he has left out some things but I think that the movie will have such a good feel that people won't even notice they are missing.

The first two films didn't capture the magic that I love about Harry Potter but I think this third one will. Granted, Columbus did a great job taking on the first film where he had to do so many things, casting basically ALL the characters, the set, the costumes, the castle etc. I think it was a much harder job to get the atmosphere right as well, and he wanted to stay close to the books because they didn't know how the films would be received and they couldn't exactly be a bit more adventerous on the first one.

Alfonso had a great position, he had the third book which is widely believed as one of the best books out of the series, it's my favourite, and he had the chance to go out a bit more on a limb and take a chance. It has worked for him and it helps that the kids have more experience, there is a lot of support for him, and he has a great story to fall back on.

I think that the films will continue to get better and better and as long as they keep the spirit of Potter alive, I will be happy. I don't want a film version of the book because I can read the book and have more fun imagining it. I want something beyond my imagination and a film that will surprise and really get into the atmosphere. So you don't want them to be too accurate.

Yeah well I have to admit I liked those bits of the movies, they always seem to make me want to cry. I think it is the music lol.

but after reading all of this reviews I really think that Alfonso has hit the knob. He seems to know what he is doing when it comes to transferring a book onscreen in a way that people who have or havent read the books would understand and love. I have only seen one negative review and that was because the person thought the kids were ageing too fast, sorry but what kind of an excuse is that?

But with POA I think that it is going to be as close to the book as it probably can be. I also like the fact that the movie is a little bit shorter because it probably means, like what everyone has been saying, that the movie is a lot faster paced rather than being dragged out like the first two.

I liked them too but after thinking about it the endings doo seem a little cliche - PoA sounds dreadful, the ending apparently lets the whole thing down.

I think it depends on the person who watches it. If they like those kind of endings then it should be good.

^ The endings of PS and CoS were touching... but a bit sappy too. I think they should have kept the endings close to the books...

*SPOILER*


Ok, Well, I've just watched the First showing of PoA in my Cinema and the story has been changed a bit, but It is very good like that! (Then again, that is only my personal opinion)

I think the movies are great interpretations of the books. I love them.

I think that the films are great and that they do relate quite closely to the book. I haven't seen the third one yet, but the first two films were pretty much how I imagined them to be :sorcerer:

I like the movies. They are an accurate adaption of the book. Things need to be cut out sadly but if theyy didn't cut things out it would be like 5 hours long.

^ Yeah thats like the only reason things get cut out because of the time

hat being true - it doesn't explain why it's necessary to give Ron's lines to Hermione - fixing that wouldn't make the film any longer. Possinly shorter because Watson spends ages saying her lines and kinda hogs the camera to the point where it's "Hermione and the Prisoner of Azkaban" at some parts.

Yeah I cant say anything to that yet b ecause I havent seen POA yet

Yeah, I dont really see the books the same way i do the movies. And that really disappoints me. Because it gets my hopes up, and well..there dashed.