Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Contributor
feenix
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-05-2007
0 Kudos

Book to Movie Comparison

I thought it may be interesting as we go through for us to compare differences between the books and the movies. We all know that books are always a lot better than the movies, however I think that having movie versions serves a purpose.

If anyone else thinks this could be fun and interesting lets go.

We could start with SS since we just finished it. Anyone who has watched the movies recently let us know your thoughts on the comparison.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Nadine
Posts: 2,456
Registered: ‎10-30-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison


feenix wrote:
I thought it may be interesting as we go through for us to compare differences between the books and the movies. We all know that books are always a lot better than the movies, however I think that having movie versions serves a purpose.

If anyone else thinks this could be fun and interesting lets go.

We could start with SS since we just finished it. Anyone who has watched the movies recently let us know your thoughts on the comparison.




Yes, I think this is a good idea. The only thing we have talked about concerning the movies is whether we like them or not and, in general terms, how they are not like the books. I think it is worthwhile talking about how and why they are different than the books and what they add. They are two different art forms. The movies requires totally different talents (and a lot more of them) and must take a familiar book and turn it into much shorter film that is suited for the type of audience they are trying to reach. The cutting and changes that are made are quite significant to the media. In some ways they are telling a different story.

One general thing that I have noted is that they always require a "chase" or action scene. Like the return to Hogwarts in CoS in the Ford Angela. In the book this is a pretty uneventful scene until they run into the Whomping Willow, while in the movie it has humorous and thrilling action scenes where they just miss getting hit by the train, Harry falls out of the car, and Ron has to pull him back. None of this is in the book but the movie requires something like this and the audience does expect some good special effects.

I'll rewatch SS tonight and put in my comments tomorrow. Recent reading of the books and watching the movies will make both fresh in my mind. I have noticed that it is very easy to mix the movie with the book and think something transpired in the book that only occured in the movie.

Nadine
Frequent Contributor
jftapia88
Posts: 474
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

the one thing that i was a lil diapointed with in the CoS movie was the diary scene. in the book harry notices that after his bag rips n his ink spills all over his things (books n papers) the diary is the only thing not drenched in scarlet ink. this is what prompts him to examine the diary more closely and when he figures out how it works. in the movie it just shows him about to write in it i guess and a drop of ink hits the page and is absorbbed so he gets excited and starts writing to tom then it shows the capture of hagrid, and it shows baby aragog who is alot smaller than the book says. in the book he is well on his way to being the full size he is when harry and ron meet him, but in the movie he looks like hes only about a fifth of the size he is supposed to be.

oh and the rouge bludger, where did the trench come from??

like in SS neville doesnt go on a ride during the flying lesson he goes up about ten feet i think and then plops onto the ground. i was pleased with SS, of course because it is the most faithful to the book.

in PoA when harry rides buckbeak he doesnt take a ride all over the grounds, he flys around the padock and then lands. also they have buckbeaks attack on malfoy completely different than the book.

but most of all what i dont like about PoA is the fact that instead of focusing on major parts of the story the director has about 10 scenes of various things icing over when a dementor goes by, and for some reason the castle is now on a mountainand the whomping willow is on a cliff, there is a bridege to hagrids, he compltely mesed up the location of the school. oh yea why was the soundtrack of this one alot of swing music??and the boggart scene was supposed to take place in the staff room, and the slytherins werent there.

GoF, is better than i thot it would be after the hack job of PoA, although it wasnt perfect. moodys attitude is different and he looks nothing like he is described which i understand he probably coudlnt be made to look as evrybody in the world who has read the book imagines him looking but no where in the book does it mention a belt holding his magical eye in place. also i dont know what happened, if the cast got used to over acting in PoA but why is hermione almost crying whenever moody asks the class about the unforgivable curses? in the book she acts like she normally does eager to answer every question, and willingly answers what that the 3rd is avada kedavra. the paart where harry and ron arent getting along is forced in the movie, harry seems piised and ron loks like his feelings are hurt, when in the book ron is jealous and harry is dumbfounded as to why ron is pissed at him which makes him mad too.

i also would like to know why the hogsmead trips were cut out of GoF, especially when that is where HRH get most of their informatin regarding who could be trying to kill harry.

oh and y didnt they put in that hagrid is halg giant?? because it comes up in the 5th one.

i can hardly wait to see what they leave out of OoP. if they even make it, because i saw that DR is doing a play or something right now.
Julie
Distinguished Correspondent
DebsScott
Posts: 245
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison



feenix wrote:
I thought it may be interesting as we go through for us to compare differences between the books and the movies. We all know that books are always a lot better than the movies, however I think that having movie versions serves a purpose.

If anyone else thinks this could be fun and interesting lets go.

We could start with SS since we just finished it. Anyone who has watched the movies recently let us know your thoughts on the comparison.




I have to say out of all the movies, I find Sorcerer's Stone to be the most true to the book. It's not quite as action packed as the others and concentrated more on Harry and how he got to Hogwarts and what it's all about and like for a young boy to discover he's a wizard. They did leave out a few bits though...but that can't be helped. I love all the movies, but I would have to say SS is my favorite for being most like the book.
~Debs~
"And now Harry, let us go out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure."
~Professor Albus Dumbledore
Distinguished Bibliophile
Nadine
Posts: 2,456
Registered: ‎10-30-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison - SS


DebsScott wrote:


feenix wrote:
I thought it may be interesting as we go through for us to compare differences between the books and the movies. We all know that books are always a lot better than the movies, however I think that having movie versions serves a purpose.

If anyone else thinks this could be fun and interesting lets go.

We could start with SS since we just finished it. Anyone who has watched the movies recently let us know your thoughts on the comparison.




I have to say out of all the movies, I find Sorcerer's Stone to be the most true to the book. It's not quite as action packed as the others and concentrated more on Harry and how he got to Hogwarts and what it's all about and like for a young boy to discover he's a wizard. They did leave out a few bits though...but that can't be helped. I love all the movies, but I would have to say SS is my favorite for being most like the book.




I have rewatched the first part of the movie SS up to the train departure. Of course they had to shorten things a bit. What I noticed is that they put a lot more humor into the movie. Not better than the book but different and I enjoyed the movie part very much. For instance, the zoo scene. In the movie Duddley falls through the glass and into the water and then gets trapped behind the glass. This is different than the book and quite funny. The scene of all the letters being delivered and Privet Drive being full of owls is kind of reminiscent of the movie The Birds and I found those scenes effective--something that could not be portrayed by the book. When Hagrid arrives at the cabin and first enters, he mistaken Duddley for Harry and remarks on his weight. This is also amusing. The whole first part with the Durselys is played for laughs with the Dursleys themselves just charactures and I found it enjoyable. I also think they did a good job of tighten up the section by eliminating characters, some events and scenes, and character references.

I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the wonder of Diagon Alley. In the wand buying scene, Harry buys his wand alone while Hagrid goes to buy his owl. I think this was well done. Not only did they combine two events from the book to shorten it but I thought having Harry alone buying his wand worked quite well dramatically. Somewhat differently than the book, Hagrid tells him about Voldemort. Very necessary information, and I thnk they worked it in well even though out of sequence.

The one major deviation was in the Leaky Cauldren where Quierrill is already wearing his turban and afraid to touch Harry. This is extremely misleading from the important clues provided by the book, but for a stand-alone movie it works. We already have a foreshadowing of Quierrill being strange and the turbanless Quierrill would not have meant much in the movie version. In the book he actually does not discover that he can't touch Harry until the final scene. Hagrid also take Harry directly to the train station instead of him returning to the Dursely's. I think this tightening up and worked well for the movie as well.

I really thought they did a good job on this portion of the movie. It stands very well on its own. Of course it is taking out all the clues and details of the book but it isn't meant to be the same thing. The added humor and tightening up of the dramatic elements I think worked very well in turning out an acceptable movie. I enjoyd it as a different take.

Nadine
Frequent Contributor
dcsbelle
Posts: 1,041
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I too thought the first movie was the most accurate but the third was the most disappointing. Some heavy handed humor there-- multiple bluebird whompings, DD slapping Ron's injured leg in the infirmary for example. Also, I found the whole shrieking shack scene overacted. In the fourth movie V. refers to Lily as "your muggle mother." Lily was certainly not a muggle; she was muggle born.

feenix wrote:
I thought it may be interesting as we go through for us to compare differences between the books and the movies. We all know that books are always a lot better than the movies, however I think that having movie versions serves a purpose.

If anyone else thinks this could be fun and interesting lets go.

We could start with SS since we just finished it. Anyone who has watched teracted.onfusing and ovhe movies recently let us know your thoughts on the comparison.


Debbie

Hedwig is not really dead; it was all just a big misunderstanding
Contributor
feenix
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-05-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

Well I guess since I started I ought to at least put my thoughts on SS.

I think that the first two movies are the closest replication of the books, especially with things like locations of things and visuals inside the castle and things.

I think the characters do pretty good of matching descriptions of style and actions in the movie as well. As the movies go along it seems to me that they change their style inside and outside of school a lot more, and it seems that they are trying to match modern trends, which is acceptable I guess.

I really like Robbie Coltrain as Hagrid. I never would have thought from the only other movie or two I'd seen him in, but he's great. And of course the original Dumbledore was the best.

I guess I don't have too many gripes about the first two movies.

I do understand cutting things short to fit it all in. Like combining his trip to Diagon Alley and the train all into one.

There are sometimes things I feel should have made it into the movie, but I'm sure they have a hard time deciding things like that.

I wonder how much of an influence JKR has over movie content and things?

All from me for now.
Contributor
Roxie16
Posts: 12
Registered: ‎02-08-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I see a big difference between the 1st 2 movies and movies 3 & 4. The first two I consider to be "Disneyized". The scenes of the castle are bright and warm, with lots of fires crackling in the hearths and candles; the outside has green grass and blue skies. The students wear uniforms and black cloaks, even pointy hats. the scenes are colorful. the lawn is bright green.
not that there aren't scary scenes, but the atmosphere is different than the later movies.

The director of the 3rd movie shot the outside scenes in Scotland, I think, with the lochs and mountains. The movie has a whole different feel. look at the shots of the castle and the lake and mountains. It has a colder, bleaker atmosphere. The students don't wear their uniforms or cloaks or hats much in movies 3 & 4. they wear regular clothes a lot. the quidditch game is shot in cold rainy weather. Hagrid's hut looks different, and it's farther from the castle. everything seems spread out more.
Frequent Contributor
dcsbelle
Posts: 1,041
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison



Roxie16 wrote:
I see a big difference between the 1st 2 movies and movies 3 & 4. The first two I consider to be "Disneyized". The scenes of the castle are bright and warm, with lots of fires crackling in the hearths and candles; the outside has green grass and blue skies. The students wear uniforms and black cloaks, even pointy hats. the scenes are colorful. the lawn is bright green.
not that there aren't scary scenes, but the atmosphere is different than the later movies.

The director of the 3rd movie shot the outside scenes in Scotland, I think, with the lochs and mountains. The movie has a whole different feel. look at the shots of the castle and the lake and mountains. It has a colder, bleaker atmosphere. The students don't wear their uniforms or cloaks or hats much in movies 3 & 4. they wear regular clothes a lot. the quidditch game is shot in cold rainy weather. Hagrid's hut looks different, and it's farther from the castle. everything seems spread out more.


You're absolutely right, Roxie, and many people have commented on which type they prefer. I believe JKR said somewhere that the POA movie was more like what she thought Hogwarts looks like.

Debbie
Debbie

Hedwig is not really dead; it was all just a big misunderstanding
Contributor
feenix
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-05-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

So your saying JKR meant for the castle to look like a giant clock, and for Hagrids hut to be off in the middle of nowhere? Because she never says anything about giant gears in the castle and she always seems to say that Hagrids hit is just out front, off to the side a little bit. They can see it from their dorm room window.

That was my biggest complaint with the third book, is that it seemed, to me, the most inconsistent with physical locations of things compared with descriptions in the book.
Frequent Contributor
bnmc2007
Posts: 345
Registered: ‎02-07-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

About Snape in this movie,

For the most part, Alan Rickman is brilliant and true to character but he softens Snape up a bit- or maybe the director did.

It's been said that JKR gave him pointers on the character herself, but did AR know that Snape could read minds when he made this first film? That seems to be exactly what he's doing from the moment he steps on screen- every time he looks at the kids or Harry he uses his eyes like weapons. But we don't find out until later in the book's series how good Snape really is at reading minds! Rickman plays this skill to a T!

I was really really sad they cut down Snape's Potions class lecture. From the deleted scenes on the DVD I simply can't understand why they cut it!!!

It showed Snape asking Harry questions about Draught of the Living Death, Wolfsbane, etc. These things turn out to be clues in the later books and Rickman's face at the end of that scene is so very very Snape-dead on. He's looking back at Harry and deducting points it seems more for what Harry was thinking about Snape rather than what Harry actually said.
Frequent Contributor
bnmc2007
Posts: 345
Registered: ‎02-07-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

oops, I should mention that I am speaking about Sorcer's Stone, of course.
Frequent Contributor
jftapia88
Posts: 474
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I agree Alan Rickman is the perfect Snape!!!! I've seen him in other movies n I love him in those too. Even though I'm not too fond of the character Snape he plays him well no disappointments.

I also think that Richard Harris is and will always be the best Dumbldore ever!!! I was so sad when he died. I understand that Micheal Gambon is not supposed to be playing Richard Harris playing Dumbledore, but i think he should try, because his version that he is doing right now is really weird, he seems mean and crazy and not like Dumbledore is in the books.

McGonagall is perfect too, although when I first read the books I imagined her younger I later realized that she was older than i originally thought.

Couldnt ask for a better Hagrid either.

other than them the rest of the characters either dont live up to how they are described or, do not act like they should. including HRH. in the last two movies i was very disappointed with their performance, they lost whatever it was that made them bring the trio to life in the first two and i miss it, i am really considering not even going to see the 5th movie, but my little brother loves the movies, so i will probably have to take him to see them by default.
Julie
Frequent Contributor
halfscripts
Posts: 37
Registered: ‎06-30-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I can't believe no one has brought up the topic of Harry's eyes! I think that's the one thing that has irritated me most about the book vs. movie debate: in the books, such a big deal is made about Harry's eyes being exactly like Lily's- GREEN. Yet in the movie, Harry's eyes are clearly blue. This doesn't seem like a very big deal right now, but I suspect that the significance of Harry's eye color will be revealed in the seventh book.

You'd think with the amount of computer animation/CGI work done in the films, they'd be able to color Daniel Radcliff's eyes...

Oh, how wrong we were to think that immortality meant never dying.
Proud B&N Musicseller since 2005!
myspace.com/railroadsounds
Inspired Bibliophile
Nelsmom
Posts: 2,628
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I have to say that I liked all of the movies as well as the books. I thing you need to realise is that there is a lot of descriptive narrative in the books that is not needed in the movies so they need to add things to fill in those gaps, I feel that they did a pretty good job. I especially liked the scenes where Hermoine and Harry are saving Sirus and Buckbeak in Prizoner Of Azakban. I thought they did a very good job with the Dementers. I guess that I don't expect a movie to be exactly like the book.

Toni
Toni L. Chapman
Everyone needs some Tender Loving Care
Author
ConnieAnnKirk
Posts: 5,472
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

Great thread! And perfect for this board--thank you!

What I think is particularly interesting about the movies following the books _before_ the whole series is out is that we've heard that the author has had some input in the movies so that they don't go way astray from the storylines presented in future books. That means--for the detective fans picking apart the books looking for clues as to how the series will end--that the films inform that future reading. So, the man to watch, in my opinion, in the movies is Mr. Snape-ster. I've always thought Alan Rickman gives subtle clues to what's going on inside Snape's head. His performances are worth watching very carefully, in my opinion!

~ConnieK, (8 more days 'til the release of movie 5!)
~ConnieAnnKirk




[CAK's books , website.]
Distinguished Bibliophile
Nadine
Posts: 2,456
Registered: ‎10-30-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison



halfscripts wrote:
I can't believe no one has brought up the topic of Harry's eyes! I think that's the one thing that has irritated me most about the book vs. movie debate: in the books, such a big deal is made about Harry's eyes being exactly like Lily's- GREEN. Yet in the movie, Harry's eyes are clearly blue. This doesn't seem like a very big deal right now, but I suspect that the significance of Harry's eye color will be revealed in the seventh book.

You'd think with the amount of computer animation/CGI work done in the films, they'd be able to color Daniel Radcliff's eyes...




I think I read somewhere that they tried to give him green eyes by having him wear green contacts but he had a reaction to them and couldn't wear them. So they decided to side-step the green eye problem.

So far, it doesn't bother me but at this point no one knows how the story is going to be resolved and how important the "green" color of his eyes might be to that resolution. Unfortunately, every director has that problem with each movie--they don't know the ending yet. I think when the final book comes out, we will find many things left out of or modified by the movies that turned out to be very important but that is the way it had to go.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Nadine
Posts: 2,456
Registered: ‎10-30-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison



ConnieK wrote:
Great thread! And perfect for this board--thank you!

What I think is particularly interesting about the movies following the books _before_ the whole series is out is that we've heard that the author has had some input in the movies so that they don't go way astray from the storylines presented in future books. That means--for the detective fans picking apart the books looking for clues as to how the series will end--that the films inform that future reading. So, the man to watch, in my opinion, in the movies is Mr. Snape-ster. I've always thought Alan Rickman gives subtle clues to what's going on inside Snape's head. His performances are worth watching very carefully, in my opinion!

~ConnieK, (8 more days 'til the release of movie 5!)




That is very interesting about Rickman. In PoA Snape is very protective of the kids when Lupin becomes a werewolf and protects them with his own body. That struck me as very un-Snapish. I don't recall that being in the book. I will have to watch them again and see what other interesting things Snape does.
Reader-Moderator
agnijay
Posts: 1,987
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison

I too noticed the eyes, and when I first tried contacts I had a reaction, but that was due to solution allergies...? Anyway, I thought the 4th movie was disappointing,they didn't show any of the Weasly brothers (Bill, Charlie, Percy) and they left out Winky! Also, they didn't put in when Barty Crouch went mad. Those I thought were the biggest parts that were missing. And also, the book says Parvati and Padma are the two "prettiest girls in school." If that is true, then these characters did not live up to expectations. For me, the fourth movie was most disappointing.
☼☺♥ Jaya ♥☺☼

If we crawl/ Till we can walk again/ Then we'll run/ Until we're strong enough to jump/ Then we'll fly/ Until there is no end.
Frequent Contributor
Luthien
Posts: 160
Registered: ‎06-30-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Book to Movie Comparison



Nadine wrote:


ConnieK wrote:
Great thread! And perfect for this board--thank you!

What I think is particularly interesting about the movies following the books _before_ the whole series is out is that we've heard that the author has had some input in the movies so that they don't go way astray from the storylines presented in future books. That means--for the detective fans picking apart the books looking for clues as to how the series will end--that the films inform that future reading. So, the man to watch, in my opinion, in the movies is Mr. Snape-ster. I've always thought Alan Rickman gives subtle clues to what's going on inside Snape's head. His performances are worth watching very carefully, in my opinion!

~ConnieK, (8 more days 'til the release of movie 5!)




That is very interesting about Rickman. In PoA Snape is very protective of the kids when Lupin becomes a werewolf and protects them with his own body. That struck me as very un-Snapish. I don't recall that being in the book. I will have to watch them again and see what other interesting things Snape does.




Another "un-Snapish" as you put it, thing that the movie Snape does is in Goblet of Fire. When Harry reappears with Cedric's dead body, and Dumbledore is standing over them, Snape is there too, and it appears to me that he pats Dumbledore on the back. That shows compassion that the book Snape doesn't seem to have.
Users Online
Currently online: 63 members 728 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: