New survey for Harry Potter books on Pottermore Insider

[Shopaholic]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There was a lot left out of the movies though, that I thought did effect the tone. Nick's Deathday, SPEW, St Mungo's, Percy betraying his family, etc.

Those were book 4, 5 & 6.

Did you watch the discussion between JKR & Dan Radcliffe on the Deathly Hallows 2 DVD? It addresses these issues. The movies would be way too long to include everything in the books and no matter what they do people will be unhappy.

They joked about the movie being 6 hours long and still someone, somewhere would complain that such & such was left out of the book so the movie sucked. LOL

Now, you know that'd be true!! People would say that. While I agree that lots was left out I also agree that you couldn't get everything in there from the books.

[ProfCrash]

I agree they had to leave stuff out but what they did cut out the soul of the books, at least for me.

The only movie that I really liked and I thought did a good job of sticking to the overall feel of the book was the first half of Deathly Hallows. Then they went and screwed up the final battle scenes in the second movie and made me cringe.

[rdjack21]

But that is why books are so much better than movies to begin with!

[carpetmojo]

Shopa , very true, and succinctly put !

From experience, it is always nigh impossible to transpose a written text into theatrical version (film or stage) without having to leave something out - the written word can be so much more "leisurely " in it's treatment.
As you rightly say, if everything had been left in, very comfy chairs, with sleep breaks, would have been needed.
And so many things need to be established "in the flesh" rather than leaving it to the imagination to soar off on it's own.

And with reference to those cookies - everyone surely knows they should be the ....... interesting ..... "Dr. Bogies Snotdoodles".

An acquired taste, admittedly...............

[SeaKing]

I am finding a lot of people in denial. I don't know if they have stuck their heads under their "reading" pillow or not.

Let me explain.

I gave a list of prices for paper books (new and used).
The new set of 7, I gave has a price of slightly over $6 on average for each book, and that is delivered without tax from Amazon.
Most used books were about $4 and those that were higher will get lower. That is the way the used market works. Of course if you frequent book fairs, and close outs like I used to do a lot, and on occasion still do, you will one day some years from now find them for $1.00.

I am not sure how many people argued that my statement 'that the above prices were cheaper than any ebook of Harry Potter that would come out' was patently(my word) incorrect because, simply put, there weren't any official ebooks yet. I consider that a very weak argument.

One perceptive gentleman said that the ebooks would go for no less than $7.99, and I say even if we knock a dollar off for a special $6.99 price, they are projected by those that watch ebooks and paper books, used or new, to be higher than the paper books. History shows that.

Now someone might say that Amazon gives free ebooks away. Many people own a Kindle for no other reason. I grant that. Still I doubt whether that will occur for Harry Potter any time in the next 10 or 15 years, after the ebooks come out.

Now I grant that there are people here and we have heard from some of them, that only will read their hard copy once and then put it with other cherished keepsakes, Beanie Babies, and other collectibles on a glassed in lighted shelf, (perhaps humidity controlled) somewhere, and will have a paper back to reread from time to time, and then will eagerly purchase an ebook as well for ease in transporting and having all the HP books plus books about the HP books together, but that is the collector, the fan, the true believer. I know they exist. I too have some collectibles. Two of them require a hanger.

BUT I read fiction books usually once. I admit I used to pack them away on shelves, sometimes just planks on brick columns, back in the day when the Navy moved me for free. But I have been culling ever since my commander called me in one day, and said "enough is enough, the service can't afford to haul your bricks one more time, so get rid of the bricks."

Wake up folks. Wake up. Pay whatever you want for that special edition, that autographed copy, but don't be in denial about the way the pricing works.

[Halo]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There was a lot left out of the movies though, that I thought did effect the tone. Nick's Deathday, SPEW, St Mungo's, Percy betraying his family, etc.

You'd need a Harry Potter TV series to capture all the detail of the books. Movies are just too short to cover it all.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Shopaholic

Those were book 4, 5 & 6.

Did you watch the discussion between JKR & Dan Radcliffe on the Deathly Hallows 2 DVD? It addresses these issues. The movies would be way too long to include everything in the books and no matter what they do people will be unhappy.

They joked about the movie being 6 hours long and still someone, somewhere would complain that such & such was left out of the book so the movie sucked. LOL

Now, you know that'd be true!! People would say that. While I agree that lots was left out I also agree that you couldn't get everything in there from the books.

That stuff was just off the top of my head, because those were the most recent movies I've seen.

How Deathly Hallows was handled, I think was done very well. Harry Potter just has too much going on to really do it justice while trying to stick to just two hours.

[astra]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I agree they had to leave stuff out but what they did cut out the soul of the books, at least for me

[ApK]

Originally Posted by astra

Nah. The movies have their own soul. They are different creatures.

Same stuff was said about Lord of the Rings.

These movies are based on the books, they are not an attempt to faithfully format shift them, like epub to mobi.

The books tell another storyteller's version of the story. This is always the case, and if you ever expect a movie to faithfully duplicate the images you see in your head while reading the book, you are sure to be disappointed. Unless you make the movies yourself, of course.

Personally, for me, in the case of HP and LotR both, I preferred the movies. I never got through all of either book series.

ApK

[SeaKing]

The Lord of the Rings was special! I read all the books when a lot here weren't born. I still have ((Paper Bound) those in some Rubbermaid bins in storage. The movies were great too.

In recent years, I have mostly read fiction books. I get a few used from Amazon. I pick up a lot at the dollar stores and the occasional close out, book fair, church rummage sale. Most will end up at Good Will. They actually have an online business.

Now days, I think of a book as a kind of chocolate candy bar. You get it. You eat(read) it, and then after a few days it is gone.

[Sweetpea]

For me, movies from a book are always just a recap. If you really want to "film" a book, make at least a mini-series.

This summer, I read Price and Prejudice, then I listened to the audiobook, then I watched the movie and then I watched the mini series. While the movie was excellently done, if you know the book, you'll miss some undercurrents. The mini series was awesome, it really captured the book, like a movie simply can't due to time restraint.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

The Lord of the Rings was special! I read all the books when a lot here weren't born. I still have ((Paper Bound) those in some Rubbermaid bins in storage. The movies were great too.

In recent years, I have mostly read fiction books. I get a few used from Amazon. I pick up a lot at the dollar stores and the occasional close out, book fair, church rummage sale. Most will end up at Good Will. They actually have an online business.

Now days, I think of a book as a kind of chocolate candy bar. You get it. You eat(read) it, and then after a few days it is gone.

And for many kids and teenagers today, Harry Potter is their Lord of the Rings. They are different series but both are really quite good. You have not read the Harry Potter books so you have not had a chance to see what happened in them. Try not knocking something you only know through a few of the early movies (when the kids were learning how to act).

[afa]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

How Deathly Hallows was handled, I think was done very well. Harry Potter just has too much going on to really do it justice while trying to stick to just two hours.

I agree. I watched and disliked each of the first 6 movies. In the case of the first two, it was purely because the movies sucked (I hadn't read the books at that point). The rest, I thought, lost a lot of the magic of the books.

The only ones I thought were any good were Deathly Hallows Part 1 & 2, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that splitting it into two movies allowed them to keep a lot of the content from the books. They were the only movies that didn't seem really rushed.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And for many kids and teenagers today, Harry Potter is their Lord of the Rings. They are different series but both are really quite good. You have not read the Harry Potter books so you have not had a chance to see what happened in them. Try not knocking something you only know through a few of the early movies (when the kids were learning how to act).

You are totally right and I don't really mean to criticize other people's choices while I am emphasizing my own opinions.

On the other hand, for me it is just like when I go to the library, or the news stand or a book store, and read the blurbs on the front and back and inside covers of the book. If that interests me, I read a few pages at the beginning, and even might glance at a few pages in the middle of the book. (Never at the end.) I then form an opinion as to whether I am interested in the book or not. I have done that with Harry Potter, plus of course the incessant advertising and publicity, and all the articles have impacted me also.

I decided that I didn't want to read the Harry Potter books, but like I said, I did watch two of the movies on video because a friend was interested in them. That only solidified my thoughts. Harry Potter is not for me. The word cutesy really springs us in my mind when I think of what I have seen.

I think my primary argument, besides speaking of my personal taste, was that the books are cheaper now either new in a set, or individually on the used tab in Amazon than they will be in ebook form. That is what I have been almost evangelical in my zeal to get across.

If that zeal gave the impression that I was criticizing others for their choice of books I apologize.

"Different bites for Different likes."

And by the way, my friend watched the video movie "The Help" last night. I didn't though as I passed by occasionally, I saw a few scenes and asked "who wrote the book?" The answer as I might have expected was very complicated.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by afa

I agree. I watched and disliked each of the first 6 movies. In the case of the first two, it was purely because the movies sucked (I hadn't read the books at that point). The rest, I thought, lost a lot of the magic of the books.

The only ones I thought were any good were Deathly Hallows Part 1 & 2, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that splitting it into two movies allowed them to keep a lot of the content from the books. They were the only movies that didn't seem really rushed.

That and the book fit more with the movie format. Deathly Hallows only visits Hogwarts when Harry, Herminone (sp), and Ron go there. For the most part, the book follows the three of them on their adventures. Given that the movies focused on Harry, Ron, and Herminone (sp) adventure it was a more natural fit.

I think that is why I prefered the 7th movie and was fine with the 8th until the final battle. The movie did not drop detail only because they split it in two but because the book did not have the same backdrop in Hogwarts and vacations that all the other books did. There was less of the important, all be it background, material to remove.

There was no need to change the duel between Voldemort and Harry. There was no reason to drop the entire discussion of asking for forgivness and redemption. Instead they wanted a more massive battle between Harry and Voldemort. It wasn't needed and it really altered the overall ending message of the books.

In the end, Harry wins, not because of superior magic, but because he is willing to sacrifice himself to protect the people that he loves, essentially his friends and classmates. Voldemort cannot grasp the concept and has destroyed his soul because he fears death. The only way for Voldemort's soul to be saved is for him to realize that he has hurt others and ask for forgivness, seek redemption. By not doing so, Voldemort has guarnteed that he will spend eternity living as that pitiful scrap of flesh that you see in Harry's talk with Dumbledore. Voldemort dies when his wand, which he could not believe did not answer to him, turns on him and bounces his killing curse at him. In the movie, all discussion of redemption is lost drowning the good vs evil discussion under the guise of a more souped up and unnecessary duel.

bleeech