In Defense of the Harry Potter Film Franchise

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

In Defense of the [I]Harry Potter[/i] Film Franchise

Those films do much more than just make scads of money.

Read Full Article

Finally, someone on the Escapist who doesn't rage and hate Harry Potter for no good reason.
Thank you, Elizabeth.

Wait, who hates Harry Potter? I'm not a fanboy but the movies were enjoyable. In fact most people I know IRL like them as well.

Great books, great movies...I usually watch the movies instead of rereading the books. Plenty of cable airings.

It is 4,000+ pages, as you said. Daunting enough to read once, yet alone multiples times.

Alon Shechter:
Finally, someone on the Escapist who doesn't rage and hate Harry Potter for no good reason.
Thank you, Elizabeth.

Who hates Harry Potter? It's not my favorite but its a pretty good series.

LifeCharacter:

Alon Shechter:
Finally, someone on the Escapist who doesn't rage and hate Harry Potter for no good reason.
Thank you, Elizabeth.

Who hates Harry Potter? It's not my favorite but its a pretty good series.

I've seen plenty of haters.
But...
I guess Haters gonna Hate.

The Harry Potter series were never intended for children; she wrote them for no audience in particular. It just happens to be popular among children.

I...don't know anyone who hates the Harry Potter franchise. Seriously, all of my friends are Pottheads who have probably all seen the new movie twice by now. I'm probably the most "negative" one of the lot just because I can't enjoy the movies without needing to rely on the books. Oh, and I like overthinking magical mechanics instead of just taking things on the word of the books, so I get into arguments with other folks about wand cores and magical creature rights from time to time.

Having said that...uh...nice article, I guess? It seems anachronistic in a day where the Harry Potter franchise isn't really under attack the same way it was when the first three books were still new. But it's the thought that counts, so kudos on an otherwise well-crafted defense piece.

I'm not against turning books into films, the movie Going Postal was fantastic. It wasn't as good as the book, but what is?

The reason I outirght refuse to watch all but the Prisoner of Askaban is that they stray so far from the actual story it's insulting to those who actually read the books and know the story. They've basically made their own story with the same names and vaguely accurate locations. I admittedly haven't seen 6, since 5, the Order of the Pheonix, was the point for me where I decided to stop lining JK's pockets with even more money, but I've been told what happens and the main points and they're all wrong, missing massive chunks of story while what little story there is has been portrayed totally wrong. From what I'm told of 6, Harry is no longer living with the Dursleys and Dumbledore finds him in a cantina, apparently trying to chat up the waitress but that was probably jive :p. This is well and truly wrong. The whole point of him going to the Dursleys was to attain and uphold the magical protection while he was outside school, and this is a fairly massive thing, as it stems from her mother's love and blood, while the whole overarching love aspect has links across the whole series.

A piece that was in the book, but done horribly wrong, for instance, was when Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Thingy and Neville (Oh yeah, Ginny) enter the area under the Ministry of Magic that I can't remember the name of. That whole section is sort of accurate as far as I remember up untill the Order fly in on beams of light, which never happened in the book. They used a doorway on the side, surprised the Death Eaters and they all instantly started fighting. Sirius never had time for that god awful one liner and a chat with the others. They even screwed up the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort, which was why I watched the film in the first place. It was short, boring and they just went out on effects that, if they hadn't aimed for, wouldn't have ruined that scene.

As for the people who refuse to read, they quite clearly need an education. Don't get me wrong, my step brother doesn't read, but purely because it doesn't entertain him, not because of some rediculous argument on moral grounds.

However, I find that just classifying most of the people who don't read as just "kids" in general is wrong, since I've read for nearly all my life, I've been 18 for a couple of months now, and know plenty of people who do read and have read for a long time.

Also, I found that Alan Rickman did suit Snape, cos he does the grumpy, slightly villainous character well. I accept that the imagination thing isn't as accurate as people might believe, although personally the people casted aren't a million miles off the appearances I envisioned, but I argue against the "Hollywood have please both book fans and screen fans" line, since I despise the films and the whole thing was about defending the Harry Potter films from the hatred of the readers

Hosker:
The Harry Potter series were never intended for children; she wrote them for no audience in particular. It just happens to be popular among children.

You're absolutely right; Rowling didn't intend to write specific children's books, but from the very start, her publishers marketed the books heavily to children. Writing them, she knew that children would be reading them.

Elizabeth Grunewald:
Think of this as yourself, as an adult, for a moment. Imagine you've just seen a movie that you really enjoyed. It resonated with you, sparked your imagination, left you wanting more. If I tell you that the film you enjoyed was based upon an incredibly popular series of novels, and that those novels hold even more imaginative detailed goodness than the film you loved, would you not hightail it to the bookstore/internet and get yourself a copy, or ask if I had one you could borrow?

Me? Of course. But I honestly have never, ever met someone who watched the movies without reading and decided to then go read the books. Most kids nowadays don't want to read, especially if the book is also a movie. Its highly upsetting. But that is not the reason I hate the movies. Not at all.

The reason that I hate the movies is because of the way they are adapted. The fourth movie left Winky, and important character, out all-together. The first movie completely left out Peeves. I understand that they were able to push the story along without these characters, but they brought the world to life more. They made sense being there. Especially Winky.

I know that I am of a small minority, but I would rather see a scene by scene adaptation from book to film that watch the director cut some things and make some other shit up so that the story still makes sense. I am willing to sit through a seven hour movie for each and every book.

That is why I hate the movies. They're rubbish compared to the books. Terrible adaptations, in my mind.

Me, my brother and my sister watched Half-Blood Prince recently. I was a little mad because they changed so many details, but I still enjoyed it. On the scene with the Inferi, me and my brother discussed the Horcrux idea; if Rowling had thought of previous items before to be horcruxes, or if she decided they fit the idea. Then He commented that he didn't know any writer to make such a kind a world that was both fantastic and frightening.

I remember when I was a "Hater." I outright refused to read the series, saying that it wasn't enjoyable (although this mostly came because I was forced to read the first book.) I went to the Harry Potter amusement park in Universal Studios, and after that I told my family I'd give it another try. I love it, and am excited for the last movies. I've also done some Harry Potter anime-style art.

I don't know any reason someone would hate this series. It has so many genres: fantasy, supernatural, romance, horror, tragedy, action, adventure, school life, mystery, and a bit of slice of life. It doesn't exactly fall into Sci-fi, but some things are a bit similar. I scorn myself for ever thinking this was a bad series. In fact, I should hit myself for it right now.

*THUMP*

That's better. Now, I think I have a good argument for anyone that doesn't want to read the series. Basically what that article said, along with the fact that it falls under so many genres. Pretty much anyone can find something about Harry Potter that they'll like, whether it's Harry's tragic past, or the romance building between characters, or the action and adventure with the things the trio get into.

...Snape, Snape. Severus Snape(DUMBLEDORE!)

Elizabeth Grunewald:
Kids are dumb, but only because there are things they haven't learned yet. Kids are not innately stupid, though, and understand more than we give them credit for grasping. Tell them that there's more Harry Potter to be had, and they'll pick up the book. Don't assume things for them. It's not Anna Karenina, it's Harry Potter: it was written with children in mind.

No kidding. I just finished reading a (barely) six year old the hobbit, She was badgering me to read her "one of your books". I figured the hobbit was a safe bet; she'd either take away some small detail from it or get bored sharpish.

Well I was wrong, She was absorbed from bedtime one and even pulled herself together a box of props and made a map so she could join in.
By the time she's twelve I don't think a Harry Potter book is going to faze her at all.

So long as people are interested in books then your right an adaptation will make them seek out the superior source material. The problem is that not everyone is introduced to books in a way that engages them for their whole life so they just end up being happy with the mangled film versions of things.

And Gxas, the worst thing you can do when remaking something is to leave it intact. What sort of director would not wan to leave their own flair and touch on something? One that's not engaged with the project, that's who. Book narrative simply doesn't translate to film and the level of detail is impossible to keep without having a really long film. Maybe you want a high quality straight TV series of harry potter (and that would be great) but there's always going to be differences. The films aren't bad at all, sure they could be better but they get the style, tone and story across well.

Eh, I've been into Harry Potter since I was first introduced. I've read all the books through multiple times, and I enjoy the movies. Sure, 5 was kind of meh until the end, and 4 wasn't my favorite (and is probably the one I've rewatched least, but I didn't like the book either), but come on, it's a huge fantasy blockbuster.

I've also met way too many people who "omg love harry pottar lolOQ!' and then go, "Harry Potter's a book too?"

I'm just not a fan of the movies. I loved the books and I actually thought the first three adaptations were pretty good, but I just don't like turning an 800 page novel into a 2-some hour movie. I know why people love the movies and all that, I just don't fall in that category.

I am quite glad they decided to turn the seventh into two movies, even if it was more for the extra cash than it was to actually make them good.

The Article:
J.K. Rowling is a terrific storyteller.

And this is where you lose credibility, because for the first four books her writing was absolutely atrocious. Compare it to some legitimately good books like Speaker for the Dead or the Pendragon series, and you'll see my point. Obviously there are some writers significantly worse than her *coughpatrickcarmancough* but she's not nearly as good as people say she is.

Kuroneko97:
It has so many genres: fantasy, supernatural, romance, horror, tragedy, action, adventure, school life, mystery, and a bit of slice of life.

But no thriller... wait, mystery? Since when?

I agree that saying that Harry Potter movies should never have been made is silly. However, my position, which hasn't been swayed by your article, is that they shouldn't have been made until the book saga was complete.

In fact, the moment I heard a Harry Potter movie was coming out, and there were still books on the horizon, was the moment I decided I'd never bother with the book. That is because allowing the movies to be made, at that stage, to me meant Rowling hadn't written books. She'd written potential screenplays.

I love books, I love reading and writing, and I think the best writers are those that embrace their media fully. Pratchett and Adams books always end up as a tough nut to adapt because they are two actors that use the medium to its maximum. Many of the jokes and story development in those books really only works if you are reading paragraphs. That is, to me, the sign of a true artist. I chose two 'pop' writers so people know what I'm talking about, but I could very well have said this of Borges, Nabokov or Calvino.

Allowing the Harry Potter movies to be released before the saga was completed, to me, sent a clear message: the fact that these stories are on a book is mere happenstance. They are books because books are easier to write. If Rowling could draw they'd be comic books. If she knew how to program they'd be games. Now it's completely defensable to say that she just wanted to tell a story, and that's true; but to me, one should always weave the story around the media you're working with. If your story is easily adaptable, then I'll just read the Wikipedia article on it. It's just another adaption.

Plus, I felt it sent a clear message. Don't want to read? That's OK - we'll deliver it to the cinemas in a few year! Then you won't have to bother with that hard reading and paying attention thing. Yeah, I know that books released after the movies still sold like hot cakes, but that was a chance lost to get people who would never have otherwise read to start to instead of going 'eh, I'll wait for the movie'.

It's a pretty strong opinion for someone who never read the books or watched the movies, but I'll hold to it anyway.

Gxas:

I know that I am of a small minority, but I would rather see a scene by scene adaptation from book to film that watch the director cut some things and make some other shit up so that the story still makes sense. I am willing to sit through a seven hour movie for each and every book.

That is why I hate the movies. They're rubbish compared to the books. Terrible adaptations, in my mind.

I have to disagree with you on this. If we remove the outrageous cost that a 7 hour+ movie would be, the pacing of such a movie would be atrocious. Imagine a Lord of the Rings movie where the screen was focused on a tree for 5 minutes, because Tolken spent several pages describing it.

Target audiences would be drastically segued. For example, my niece will turn 6 soon and she enjoys going to the movies. Two hours is still stretching her limit of sitting still a bit, but most of the time she makes it. Imagine instead, a parent attempting to make a child sit for 7 hours! Hell even I'm not thinking of doing that with any sort of fondness. All movies would have to be geared only at adults.

Also the show times! One movie at noon and the next at 7pm, and if you go to the late one you'd get out at ...2am.

The fact is that books and cinema are drastically different. What works for one, may not work for the other. Plus, frankly if you don't want your work spliced into pieces then a novel is the way to go. Anyone who has experienced writing a script, knows that the first draft is written by the author and all the other drafts basically by committee.

I liked the movies up until goblet of Fire. After that the movies overtook the books somewhat and some major plot points were FUBAR'ed and even some little things got changed just for shits and giggles. Now, I'm a reasonable guy... I'm not asking you to make a scene-for-scene transition from book to movie, but don't tinker with shit that doesn't need to be tinkered with.
And the greatest offense (and where the movies lost me completely) was in Half-Blood Prince when they completely omitted the battle in Hogwarts. I mean, even in the book it's only showed for 2 seconds as Harry runs THROUGH it! They could have had an awesome moment, true to the book to boot, and it would have taken up the same amount of time and had the same ending as the scene they have! That just shows that they decided to just throw all pretenses of staying true to the books out the window. I have more examples and other qualms but i don't want to ramble.

TL/DR: I would like the movies more if the followed the bloody books closer.

PoisonUnagi:

The Article:
J.K. Rowling is a terrific storyteller.

And this is where you lose credibility, because for the first four books her writing was absolutely atrocious. Compare it to some legitimately good books like Speaker for the Dead or the Pendragon series, and you'll see my point. Obviously there are some writers significantly worse than her *coughpatrickcarmancough* but she's not nearly as good as people say she is.

That, my friend, would be your opinion; having read a variety of books from an array of different authors, I can safely and honestly say that Harry Potter was immensely enjoyable. Which would make her storytelling not "absolutely atrocious".

Nor I will quote the names of books that I would consider to be intellectually superior in order to advertise my perceived higher-quality taste in reading material, in what would seem to be a vain attempt to boost my deluded ego.

One thing that I pretty much HAVE to mention before I say anything else: Rowling has been involved in the movies since the beginning, and she's a producer now. This last movie was amazingly close, to the point there were maybe half a dozen things that were different, and some of them were obviously changed for good reason. (Not having the trio drink Polyjuice potions when they did in the books so that they actually had the stars on the screen is my best example.) Throughout the series, there were a few things that I missed or didn't like (World Cup...), but overall they have been remarkable faithful - unlike almost any other adaptation. Shucks, look at Lord of the Rings! There are significant differences in between the books and the movies, but the movies are still INCREDIBLE, retain much of the spirit of the original (depending on who you ask), and that is possibly THE best series of the past century.

TL;DR version: It's closer to the books than pretty much any other adaptation is.

... BTW, I read the first 4 books in 5 school days in like 5th grade, and I've watched and read all of them pretty much as soon as I could. They are all pretty darn good, though the books have the edge.

Gxas:

I know that I am of a small minority, but I would rather see a scene by scene adaptation from book to film that watch the director cut some things and make some other shit up so that the story still makes sense. I am willing to sit through a seven hour movie for each and every book.

That is why I hate the movies. They're rubbish compared to the books. Terrible adaptations, in my mind.

If you're willing to sit through that, then you must have great volumes of patience, an attention span that could cover the grand canyon, a fanatic devotion to sitting still constantly (coupled with the ability to avoid the side-effects of such a lack of movement for so many hours), and an astronomical level of free time.

And let's not forget, what works as a book does not work as a film. This is why they are called "adaptations" rather than "the books, but in moving colourful pictures". If you're going to make a film based on it, then you may as well cut a few corners and change a few things in order to give it the right impact or a progression more suited to the tone the film has to set. There are astronomical differences between the two mediums, and doing all the same things would not achieve the same effect. A film has to make changes in order for it to be a decent film in it's own right, rather than a collection of images and scenes from the book. Not only that, but assuming that they could not only show everything from the books, but manage it in just a few extra hours is, to be diplomatic, asking a lot.

PoisonUnagi:

The Article:
J.K. Rowling is a terrific storyteller.

And this is where you lose credibility, because for the first four books her writing was absolutely atrocious. Compare it to some legitimately good books like Speaker for the Dead or the Pendragon series, and you'll see my point. Obviously there are some writers significantly worse than her *coughpatrickcarmancough* but she's not nearly as good as people say she is.

Now hold on there, dear fellow - Are you referring to her ability to convey the story, or her plots? I'm not so sure I could reach any reasonable conclusion about her method of conveying it any time soon, but her plotlines...

...dear god the plotlines...

I read the whole series - by the time I was at a point where I would have lost interest, I felt i was already over the hump so may as well finish what I started. She must have been doing something right, because I found them engaging. But christ, I remember skimming the first one again after I was done and suddenly it struck me: The plot leads up to a climactic moment... and then it all means nothing at all because Harry was "protected by his mother's love". Something that was never foreshadowed or hinted at strongly enough to make the reader go "aaaah, right" so much as "BWUH?!". Every threat, the buildup to the confrontation: meaningless. BAM, Deus Ex Machina, everything fine again. She tends to make fairly efficient use of the ancient art of asspull, does Rowling. I appreciate that magic is entirely plausible in her fictional universe, but every book does, at one point (if I recall correctly) use the surprise magic spell of plot driving to resolve a difficult situation and move swiftly on.

That wouldn't have been so bad, if the last book in the series hadn't pulled the mother of all contrived bullshit at the ending. Seriously, what the fuck was that about?

A little part of me wonders what Ralph Fiennes thinks about all this. Not because I expect him to say anything surprising or controversial or anything, or because I'm a big fan of his. It's just that for some reason, he makes me wonder what he's thinking. Sort of like Liam Neeson does.

image

There aren't so many haters on Harry Potter movies, so far I can remember or see. People love it, the day the 7th movie got released, people went to the theates en masse to see it. So will I at one point.

Still, great defense.

PoisonUnagi:

The Article:
J.K. Rowling is a terrific storyteller.

And this is where you lose credibility, because for the first four books her writing was absolutely atrocious. Compare it to some legitimately good books like Speaker for the Dead or the Pendragon series, and you'll see my point. Obviously there are some writers significantly worse than her *coughpatrickcarmancough* but she's not nearly as good as people say she is.

Kuroneko97:
It has so many genres: fantasy, supernatural, romance, horror, tragedy, action, adventure, school life, mystery, and a bit of slice of life.

But no thriller... wait, mystery? Since when?

Maybe he's referring to the second book? Possibly the last one where they were trying to figure out the Hallows but whatever.

OT: I really did enjoy the books and the films are doing a good job but there are many better authors out there than J.K. Rowling. Orson Scott Card is fantastic (as Poison points out) and there have been other books about wizards. Rowling is the most popular right now.

I'm quite a big fan of the books, though I must say the last book kinda dropped in quality.

For some reason I can't really enjoy the movies after the third one. Something about them just strikes me as off. I may watch Deathly Hallows eventually though. The Battle of Hogwarts could be one hell of a scene if pulled off right, though if they do it like they did Dumbledore vs Voldy-snakeface... I'll rip someone's head off.

I do not hate Harry Potter. I've read the first three books, and half of the fourth. I have all of the books in my room. I have not seen movies 4-6 because I am waiting until I've read the books first.

Of course in some Fanboy's eyes, ambivalence is the exact same as hatred, so there you go.

Haters? I have only met one person in my life who actually hates Harry Potter and she doesn't have a reason for it.

Watching the movies always makes me want to reread the books. I read The Deathly Hallows again before the movie came out and will probably read it again when the second part comes out. I'm not daunted by the 4000+ pages. I've read the books an average of 30 times each. They are just as amazing as the first time I read them.

If you don't wanna know what'll happen don't read the next part.

I really hope they make the battle of Hogwarts right. It could make or break the movie and I also can't wait to see how they do the break out from Gringotts cuz I pictured a lot of mess.

I enjoy the movies having small details change or omitted as long as it doesn't distract from the main story. It gives people a reason to read the books and find out what originally happened. Except the third movie. It strayed so far from the book.

Xisin:
I have to disagree with you on this. If we remove the outrageous cost that a 7 hour+ movie would be, the pacing of such a movie would be atrocious. Imagine a Lord of the Rings movie where the screen was focused on a tree for 5 minutes, because Tolken spent several pages describing it.

Yes. I would be fine with this. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have suggested it. And screw the children, this is my fantasy, dammit. Also, the theaters would make tons on food because of intermissions.

Its thought through, and could work. The only flaw is the attention span of humans now.

I'm one of few people who is tired of hearing of Harry Potter. Granted, I only read the first four books and everyone says they get better after that, but by then I was rolling my eyes and realizing that the simplistic writing just wasn't for me. I've described myself as a "hater" of the series before, but I think that has more to do with hating the obsession of some fans more than the writing. JK Rowling isn't a horrible writer in my eyes, merely an average one.

I won't bother with this article's defenses; the points seem fair enough to me. I just wonder if the movies really need a "defense" when everyone is blathering on about how excited they are for the midnight showing and how tragic the last book was.

I was highly disappointed when a teacher was going on about how excited she was about the film, saw my friend reading The Gunslinger(happily ignoring her, I might add[1]) and then had the audacity to go on about how awful a writer Stephen King is.

I'll stick with Seven Pillars of Wisdom in the meantime. It has a nice film to go along with it, too.

[1] This was before class, before you get the wrong idea

I'm a fairly big fan of the books, re-re-read the entire series and to me, JKR's style of writing is just about light enough not to feel like saying "Get to the point please!". They started as children's books, but eventually became just normal books for any audience. Compare the last book with the first one and you'll see what I mean. This works very well because the heroes grow up with each book/school-year and the menace and danger grows with it.

What I always found to be the decisive hook in the books was that nothing is ever clear until the very end. Throughout the plot you'd have hints and little mysteries, each making the reader pose questions and boosting the desire to have them answered - thus leading to the reader not being able to put down the book until the very end. What also is great are the characters of course and the over all world the story takes place in. It's incredibly detailed and cohesive, following it's own logic and social rules. JRK is therefore to me a quite comparable writer to Tolkien.

I don't particularly like the movies, because IMO they approach the subject matter from a stupid angle. I've watched all of the movies up until (excluding) the newest one. There is a heavy focus on making the wizard world come to life with CGI and etc, which is fine by me. It actually is one of the strong points of the movies IMO, partially because I imagine the wizard world in a similar way. What the movies totally and absolutely FAIL to capture is that decisive hook each book has - the big mysteries each book has (who took the sorcerer's stone from Gringotts? Who put Harry's name into the Goblet?) that kept me reading. In the movies, because of that short format, entire subplots (which were essential to the total surprise one gets at the end of a HP book) needed to be cut, therefore flattening the experience to a sequence of fascinating special effects with some drama/action/comedy.

In short, the movies lack the breadth and depth of the books. If the books are a 3 dimensional experience, the movies are only a 2 dimensional one.

I don't think this was inevitable though. I love the LotR series of books, and also love the movies. Why? Because Peter Jackson actually tried to do the books justice. This is of course partially because the LotR books are a cultural phenomenon and had been around for decades at the point Jackson was going to make movies out of them. There was a lot of expectation to live up to for him. Another reason was that Jackson was a big (no pun intended) fan himself, and an insightful one who knew what he was doing. He knew enough about the essence of the books to be able to determine what aspects from them were absolutely important to capture a LotR experience, and had enough cinematographic insight and skill to find a way to realize that experience on screen. A result of that is that each book was made into a 3hour long movie (and more if you count out the cut scenes), where every scene is effectively driving things forward. They have the right pacing, the right acting, the right scenery. EVERYTHING. He knew what was okay to cut out of the movie plot.

The HP movies on the other hand were handed around from director to director, each not being able to build much on what the previous director had done, and therefore taking a lot of liberty with the movie. Another thing is that the HP books were widely regarded as simplistic children's novels and that those kids wouldn't mind if large portions of the stories would be cut out, just as long as the spectacle on screen was of high production value. Kids, the target audience would also not be able to sit through anything longer than 2 hours and so we have the dilemma. They were too sure that a series of HP movies, what with the mainstream hype already there because of the books would automatically generate tons of cash. They were right. Making an ACTUAL movie adaptation for the books, capturing JKR's magic on screen? Not needed to make more money.

Which is why I'm fairly disappointed. I only like the movies in that they feature some good actors and yes, the spectacle is indeed enjoyable enough to warrant going to the cinema for me. I wish that at some point in the future a director like Peter Jackson with a real respect for the books who knows his/her art comes along to give it a good shot.

I dont hate Harry Potter.
Never read one of the books, never seen one of the movies..

Im not a hater, more like a I-Dont-Give-A-Fuck'er...

But i do tend to hate the insane fanboys, but only as much as any other obsessed fanboy that lives and breathes their fictional fantasy world...

GWarface:
I dont hate Harry Potter.
Never read one of the books, never seen one of the movies..

Im not a hater, more like a I-Dont-Give-A-Fuck'er...

But i do tend to hate the insane fanboys, but only as much as any other obsessed fanboy that lives and breathes their fictional fantasy world...

I'm the same way, except i have actually given both the books and the films a chance and i wasn't impressed. I won't begrudge anyones enjoyment of the series though, i just wish people would stop telling me i'm missing out.

Good article. The hating on the movies stems from either a fan's distress at the downgrade in story quality or a general annoyance at the whole franchise's popularity and hype. As a fan, I can identify with the desire to preserve the story in pure, unruined literary form, but you have to admit--the content was just too epic, the wizarding world just too imaginative and intriguing, that one couldn't NOT make a film out of it. It was bound to happen, and I'm glad the films turned out the way they did--fairly well, when they could've been much worse...

Well, I liked the books up until the 5th one. The rest... not so much, but that's just me. I have seen the first 5 movies, and thought the fifth one sucked. So that's why I don't like Harry Potter all that much.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here