Amen to that! Dan's gotten better since SS and CoS, and Emma (Watson, that is, lol) is as charming as ever, but she's just not the Hermione I wanted. JK's Hermione was (in my imagination, at least) a bit on the plain side for looks and a lot more bookish and uptight about schoolwork. The movie Hermione dresses like a total prep and seems more comfortable with rule-breaking and adventures. OH OH wait....her hair made me really mad!! It was perfectly bushy in SS, but in CoS, it was obviously crimped (you could see the uniform waves, ugh), and in PoA, it was curled to disgusting perfection. So not the Hermione JK wrote!

True, which is probably why they've all been prepped-up. Oh well.

Aw, I'm sorry...it's truly wonderful to be able to imagine what the characters will look and act like for yourself, but then, I guess you've been spared from the pain of discovering that the movies totally contradict your imaginings.

When I first saw Richard Harris in SS, I was a bit upset by the lack of the charm that JK's Dumbledore had. Harris got the old and wise part down correctly, but didn't have that special something that would have filled out the character. Gambon, in PoA, had that childlike bounciness, but lacked the wiseness (if that's even a word) that Harris got right. I would've liked a mixture of the two.

Why not? They're great actors, and had absolutely wonderful chemistry on and off set.

Personally I thought that they both brought the different sides to Dumbledore that are portrayed in the books. I thought that Richard Harris brought the more wise and humble side to the first two movies but then Michael Gambon brought the more out there Dumbledore, the more quirky one, like when he asked Harry and Hermione if they had save Sirius and Buckbeak and then he pretended that he had no idea what they were talking about. I thought that was really good. So they were both good but in different ways.

Well I can't really remember how I imagined Harry and the whole bach to be. Now I just imagine them like they are betrahyed

Yeah it is just a bit strange at first to get used to a different actor playing a character, which is why I think a lot of people didnt really like the new Dumbledore, but give him a chance I think he is alrite.

In parts of the movies yes they are accurate but other parts they aren't and they skip what the actors have to say and all which is annoying.

I personaly find all the movies very acurate!

Exactly!!!

It's a yes and a no. The producers cannot follow the book as it is. They really have to omit certain scenes. I think that's a protocol if the movie your making is originally derived from a book. It's a little disappointing for those who expected too much, but all in all, as far as I'm concern, the movies were superb!

Emma Watson makes and okay, Hermione Granger, though it could have been better. At first yeah she did. Her bushy hair, always reading, and she did sort of follow the rules. Now in the third movie I'm saying she looks like a prep also. Rupert Grint plays Ron Weasley well. He has the whole part covered pretty much. Daniel Radcliffe is a good Harry Potter. Sirius and Remus were played awesome excpet I may have imagined him different, but they were great! The old Dumbledore, Harris, was better I think than Gambon.

I wish though they got into more detail. I don't care if I have to sit at the movie theater forever to see it all! The movie has a different feel to it than the book I think.

I think the movies aren't a thing like the book, but yet they are....
Emma Watson needs to stick to the part of know-it-all Hermione....
The directors need to actually use lines from the books....
All in all, the movies are great. But it bugs me when they don't follow the book, especially when I'm one of those people who've read each and every book so many times i can quote it. And movies get rather boring when you've seen them 30million times.(not really)

I think the movies are wouderfully close to the books for hollywood ! The fact that they only use british people in them is great ! I think that the movies are very good and can be sometimes better at getting the point across instead of a book. The books are like the fine detail in a water painting and the movies are gaint over structure of the story! to be honest i think you can not read the books alone any more with out seeing the movie because each art form adds sometihng to the whole harry potter world!

I think Socerer's Stone was closest to the book. Hmmm actually the first two were very close to the book. Certain scenes that weren't needed weren't there...and you could still follow and feel like you didn't miss anything. Like with the first one you saw just how bad harry was treated by the Dursley's...and u didn't need the scene about when they dropped him off laughin...I think Hagrid leaving him there was perfectly fine. It was just an all out good movie. The third one........well I have it and I watch it, but I see it nowhere near keeping to the book.

I don't know about the book, but I like the movie a lot.

NO

Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets were the closest ones to the books. Then, with Prisoner of Azkaban something went totally wrong. I liked everything about it except that they changed so much! I liked to darkness and everything, just not how they changed it!
I think that JKR should really say 'no' to the screenwriter once in a while..

CoS was more inaccurate than PoA. Hermione stole more of Ron's/Dumbledore's lines in that film.

The Hogwarts Castle in PoA was correct. PS/CoS had wrongfully put it in England which was Alfonso saw the change as necessary. Scotland, where Hogwarts is, is very much different to England. He needed to correct Columbus' mistakes, in that respect.

But I agree the PoA script was undesirable, if nothing else.

i love the books and the movies

An excellent question.

Well, it is a strange thing, because I never imagined the characters to look how they did, but now ive seen them, that is how i imagine them to only look. When i read the books now, i see dan and emma and rupert.
It is marvellous, but there are a lot of things in the movie that are missed out changed.
These dont bother me too much, because things in a book often work differently to those on a film. but what did annoy me was the fact that in POA, when scabbers was running down the corridor, and harry had the marauders map and it said peter pettigrew. I thought it was way to obvious. less obvious in the book.
Also, in the book, when lupin sees the boggart, it describes his fear as a luminous globe, a white ball.
On the film it actually shows a moon with clouds, and everybody guesses that if hes frightened of the moon, hes a werewolf.
it was too obvious.

I think it would've been the moon in the book, but JK couldn't have called it a moon otherwise it'd be obvious therefore she described a globe instead.

No way, I was very dissappoined when the books and the movies are way off because I was really looking forward to seeing the last quidditch match where Gryffindor won the Cup!

they are good conversions, but the movies have less in them, due to time constraints, if they were 100% accurate, SS and CoS would be like 4 hours minimum, the others would be even longer!

No they aren't. The books are a lot different than the Movies. Granted they have to change things for the movie to be made but i think they have changed them just a bit too much.

I liked the CoS and PS cause they were a lot like the books. Now they are really changing the movies so much it doesn't even seem like the same book.
I read a script online for the dragon task. They give Dumbledore bagman's lines and parts. Rita seems to be more obessed with Hermonie and Harry a couple then causing trouble. They even have Krum talking back to Rita Skeeter. Some of the characters in the movies look better then the books. Snape is one of them(When I saw his picture in ootp) I'm like that looks more like Igor Karakoff then Snape.

I agree. Sadly the films seem to be moving further from the books, but perhaps that's just because the books are too long then the 1st 2 so more changes have to be made so audiences (fans and not) can get the main storylines under a certain amount of time. I'm not too bothered by the fact that the characters are 'nicer-looking' than described in the books, I think they chose good similarities.

Sigh, I know that it's impossible to keep everything in but couldn't they have tried to have people saying their own lines at least? *cough*Shrieking Shack scene*cough*