Books vs Movies #3: Harry Potter
This one will be short and sweet, just because I think this one is a no-brainer, but maybe you guys can offer me a different opinion. I should also say that I'm only talking about the first seven books and the first eight movies...I haven't seen or read any since (I'm a bit afraid of stirring up another old obsession, which is why I haven't bought any of the new series).
There will NEVER been an ensemble cast like there was in these movies...honestly, it was the best of the best of British actors. Even the ones with tiny roles (like David Tennant or Robert Pattinson...nudge nudge) managed to explode on the screen, and hold their own even with the amazing genius that will forever be Alan Rickman. I think the movies would be too hard for me to watch now because of Alan's loss and I kind of hate that.
But...and, here it comes, even as fabulous as the movies are, they can't even come close to comparing to the books. There is just too information left out of the movies from the books and I feel like I'm probably more attached to the actors in the movies more than I am to the characters in the books. They are almost like two separate worlds to me.
I always felt like the first books reads like a "first novel" in that it's a bit too simple and I'm not a fan of Chamber of Secrets in either form (but it's needed to progress the story, so I deal with it), but the complexity she hits by The Deathly Hallows, her writing has matured so much that you no longer feel like you're reading youth fiction. It's like you grow with the novels like she (and her characters) did and I admire that. I can't say I've ever been so completely lost in a book series before or since in my entire life (and no, I can't compare it to Twilight because that's more of an obsessive thing than an actual "enjoyment" kind of thing...two different beasts, but yes, I'm still neck-deep in that mess too, damn it).
The Potters are truly amazing books and I tend to gasp audibly when people tell me they've seen the movies but never read the books because they are missing so much of the story. Then again, I also find that people who watch movies like this (serials) aren't often readers anyway and, a lot of the time, it's the same way the opposite...if they read the books, they often never see the movies. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm more of the "give it to me in any form you can" kind of person...books, movies, soundtracks, toys (or rather, collectibles I guess I should say), documentaries, podcasts, etc (just not fan fiction, ha!). Maybe that's because of the OCD though. Sometimes I'm unsure what is "normal" behavior and what is just me being "me".
What do you guys think? Books or movies or both or even neither?
There will NEVER been an ensemble cast like there was in these movies...honestly, it was the best of the best of British actors. Even the ones with tiny roles (like David Tennant or Robert Pattinson...nudge nudge) managed to explode on the screen, and hold their own even with the amazing genius that will forever be Alan Rickman. I think the movies would be too hard for me to watch now because of Alan's loss and I kind of hate that.
But...and, here it comes, even as fabulous as the movies are, they can't even come close to comparing to the books. There is just too information left out of the movies from the books and I feel like I'm probably more attached to the actors in the movies more than I am to the characters in the books. They are almost like two separate worlds to me.
I always felt like the first books reads like a "first novel" in that it's a bit too simple and I'm not a fan of Chamber of Secrets in either form (but it's needed to progress the story, so I deal with it), but the complexity she hits by The Deathly Hallows, her writing has matured so much that you no longer feel like you're reading youth fiction. It's like you grow with the novels like she (and her characters) did and I admire that. I can't say I've ever been so completely lost in a book series before or since in my entire life (and no, I can't compare it to Twilight because that's more of an obsessive thing than an actual "enjoyment" kind of thing...two different beasts, but yes, I'm still neck-deep in that mess too, damn it).
The Potters are truly amazing books and I tend to gasp audibly when people tell me they've seen the movies but never read the books because they are missing so much of the story. Then again, I also find that people who watch movies like this (serials) aren't often readers anyway and, a lot of the time, it's the same way the opposite...if they read the books, they often never see the movies. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm more of the "give it to me in any form you can" kind of person...books, movies, soundtracks, toys (or rather, collectibles I guess I should say), documentaries, podcasts, etc (just not fan fiction, ha!). Maybe that's because of the OCD though. Sometimes I'm unsure what is "normal" behavior and what is just me being "me".
What do you guys think? Books or movies or both or even neither?
Comments
Linda
Have you seen the new hardbacks with the house colours? They are bringing out each one on the birthday of the original book! I am quite tempted by the Ravenclaw. Obviously I'm Ravenclaw, as a bookseller what else would I be?
Now I haven't read The Cursed Child. I have no desire to read anything Harry Potter that is only in screen play form. No thanks. But, I did see Fantastic Beasts and it was sooooo awesome. You should check it out!