Originally posted by Thorn07
[B]I disagree I think when a movie is mad eof a book, every effort should be taken to make it as simular as possible, Peter Jackson did a wonderfull example with LOTR the movie only cut out the things that were just simply irrelevant.
You need someone who can condense the essence of a book into 1.5 hours.
I disagree. The main fault of the first Harry Potter movie was exactly that...they followed the books too close. Still a fairly good movie though. You can't just take a novel and make a movie. This is why most screen writers don't write novels and visa versa.
About Peter Jackson and LOTR...Those were some of the best movies ever made but I still believe that the adaptation from the book was one of the weak points. It's not so much the parts they left out (that was inevitable) but it's some of the additions that were off base.
I have read LOTR many, many times. I have also read quite a bit of the background stuff that was published posthumously. I have a fairly clear opinion of how LOTR should be portrayed. I think that Peter, Philipa and Fran (the screen writers) did a very good job with the difficult task of bringing this to the screen. They didn't just follow the books but took the theme and story and gave their own version.
Back to H.P. I haven't seen the new movie yet. I have read the books a few times. It would be impossible to make the later books into movies with the same style as the first two. Just look at the length of the first two books...they made three hour movies. Harry Potter may have a special circumstance because it can be assumed that most of the viewing audience has read the book. This is a dangerous way to make a movie because you may loose the viewers. I have to wait until I see the new one to really find out if they did that.
There are always mistakes in movies...you just hope that there are not too many of them.