Close, but the books are just so much more. I watched the movies first (1 through 6), thought they were OK, then read the books. After each book I re-watched the film, and basically bitched the whole time about how things were changed, or left out. The Deathly Hollows films are the closest to the books. Azkaban, from what I remember, is a really good film, but it does change / leave out of lot from the book.

Yea between them, the Deathly Hallows films are probably most faithful to the books of the whole series, however, there's some details that frankly I don't understand why Yates bothered to set them up in Part 1, when he then didn't pay them off at all in Part 2 (& the way they're portrayed, they're not crucial plot elements).

Spoiler: show

Like the moment when Harry and Hagrid have made it almost all the way to the Burrow after the 7 Potter sequence, when Voldemort shows up, they bother showing how Harry's wand acts completely by itself in battling Voldemort (since Harry's kind of out of it in that moment) but they don't explain why that was in the second movie.

Also, to non-book readers, the scene in the forest where Harry says to Lupin's ghost "and you, Remus, you'll never know your son", the fact that Lupin's got a kid probably comes completely out of nowhere for viewers. There's the scene early in Part 1 where Tonks is just about to share the news with everyone that she's pregnant with their child, but Mad Eye barrels in and cuts her off. That's the last that's said of it.

And the biggest thing probably is the concept of the taboo on Voldemort's name being spoken aloud by anyone. That's how HR&H get found at that diner by deatheaters out of nowhere, and they totally abandon that whole plot thread all the rest of the way. which, if you didn't read the book, the deatheaters had a "taboo" linked to Voldemort's name, so that literally anyone who spoke it out loud, the DE'rs would automatically be able to apperate to where that person was. The logic being, typically only members of the Order would only ever have the guts to speak the name.

Some of them are. I liked Goblet Of Fire and the two Deathly Hallows.

The two Deathly Hallows are, but honestly, Pat, by not reading the books, you're missing so much that I wonder if the movies are worth it. The final two are literally the only ones where I wasn't like "Fuck, they left so much out," and as Samwise pointed out, they still omitted major elements. It's a really tightly woven narrative in the books--the movies, though sometimes fantastic, are sometimes just weirdo action sequences and inexplicable character development.

Guys, Mickey is right.

From the looks of it, I am right up there with Samwise in the HP nerd/knowledge arena, yet after having seen all 8 movies I could live without ever seeing any of them again. They are like a novelty, where it is nice to see some of the scenes I have imagined while reading play out on the big screen, but I don't know how anyone could make sense out of just watching the films.

Unrelated,

Spoiler: show

It was creepy enough in the DH book when Snape died and it was just implied that he was thinking of his love for Lily as he stared into Harry's 17 year old boy eyes, but almost pervy when the film beats the audience over the head with this information....

I've said it before, but when I watched the films the first time, I was absolutely lost. Especially with 'Azkaban', 'Goblet', 'Order', and 'Half Blood'. The first two I enjoyed and was able to follow along no prob, but from 3 through 6, I was lost. The books really cleared things up for me, and helped me understand what was going on with everything.

He's right, but he's significantly overstating it as well. The movies are very well done and are still "worth it." Its pretty incredible that outside of some very minor missteps that Hollywood has managed to put together an 8 (EIGHT!) movie series that has well represented a book series without petering out. Hell, most 3 movie series manage to have a blatant stinker. They've managed to do it in a pretty rushed manner (what, 11 years?), 4 (i think) different directors, Death of a principle cast member, all while keeping people interested without much hope of a "twist" or a surprise ending. So while the books obviously add more depth and some additional storylines... what they have managed to accomplish is pretty remarkable and definitely "worth it."

I'd say the movies are definitely worth it, because they made me want to pick up the books and read what the hell was going on. And yeah, as much as I bitched about what was left out after I re-watched them, it's still much better than a lot of other books to movies I've seen.

Spoiler: show

Interesting, I think you're the very first person I've ever ran into that thought even in the book, that moment was "creepy". I thought it was relatively sweet, everyone always said how his eyes were exactly like Lilly's, so Snape wanted literally the very last thing he ever saw was "her eyes".

I freely admit, at this point I'm so close to the books, when watching the movies I don't always immediately pick up on the smaller details left out because of course I have that information in my head already and just sort of unknowingly insert it in there, and I forget someone who's only seen the movie will get confused. But there's been a number of times where I've realized something on a repeat viewing. Like even in DH Part 1, when HR&H first get into the woods after their escape from the Ministry, hermione's trying to tend to Ron's injuries, she quickly tells Harry in the escape that Ron was "splinched", and it took me multiple viewings to realize a non-book reader would have no friggin clue what the hell she was talking about. And that's because in the HBP movie, none of the elements of learning how to apperate were set up like they were in the book, only then you'd know that "splinching" is what happens if you don't apperate correctly, and you literally leave part of your body behind at the last place you left.


oh and I remember someone joking about a remake earlier. I've said this to someone else recently, I wouldn't be the least surprised to see this entire series remade, but I'd say at the absolute minimum, in 25 years. It's just way too big to honestly have happen anytime before that long of a gap. I've also wondered how many fans would be in favor of if they remade the whole series and were much more faithful all the way thru, but the films were entirely animated (though they still used the voices of the original actors in as many cases as possible). Not that that would be done of course, just a 'what if'.

i'm going to beat the shit out of all of you after school behind the baseball diamond.

Yeah she got hot.

I finally watched DH2 and stand behind this statement. Well done movie.

Spoiler: show

I had to google why Potter was able to come back to life the way he did.

Okay but, actually I explained that in a post a couple months ago, and I even thought I remembered you being one of the people who was also posting around that at the time. That that detail was something that was thoroughly set up in the books back in the end of Goblet Of Fire, but since they wound up cutting about 85% of that Kings Cross scene from the book of what ended up in the film, the explanation for that was among the many points left out.

Im sure you explained it. But i didn't click the spoiler because I wanted to see the movie first. So I didn't see you explain it.

just watched all of the movies over the past month with some friends. I never touched the books and there was a lot that I was lost on and probably would have been had I not known someone that read the books. I totally bought the entire world of magic, but did not buy Harry having a choice in coming back to life or dying until I was explained that Voldemort's soul is what protected Harry from death.

I also had a big problem with two of my favorite characters having off-screen deaths in Alistair Moody and RJ Lupin. It was bad enough that Sirius Black's death was so anti-climactic.