Harry Potter: Movie vs. Book

Honestly, whenever I see Daniel Radcliffe in this movie, I just feel like throwing up. How on earth did they manage to cast such a terrible actor?
Such a bad movie👎
The special effects are the only good part

Henry Perez4 said:Honestly, whenever I see this Harry Potter in the movie, I feel like throwing up. I have no idea how they managed to cast such a terrible actor.
really bad movie👎
only the special effects are any good

The movie isn't even that bad—the first one was a bit childish, sure, but it wasn't bad. As for what you imagined Harry looking like—well, that's entirely your own business. 😛
In any case, the book is better. 👍

Bradley Stewart71 said:The movie itself isn't actually bad; I'll grant you that. Granted, the first installment leaned a bit too heavily into that saccharine, overly juvenile territory, but it holds its own. Now, as for how you personally envisioned Harry appearing—well, that’s an entirely different conversation altogether. Expectations are a fickle thing, aren't they? 😛
In any given scenario, one must concede that the book remains the superior medium. 👍

It isn’t merely a question of how much he resembles Harry Potter; in my own estimation, he actually captures the essence of the character exactly as I had envisioned him in my mind's eye. However, one cannot ignore the rather sobering reality that Daniel Radcliffe is, quite frankly, a mediocre actor.

driftingmason7 said:Look, it isn't even about how much he resembles Harry—for me personally, he captures exactly what I imagined Harry would be like—but the cold, hard reality is that Daniel Radcliffe is a pretty subpar actor.

Fine, I'll give you that, but you can't honestly claim the movie is bad just because of him.

So, when are we finally getting the fifth movie?

I honestly think the first and fourth movies are the absolute best of the bunch,
the first one has that wonderful sense of childhood wonder, whereas by the fourth you can really see them maturing and pushing themselves as actors to handle much more complex roles,

The books are incredible too, and I’ve always had a soft spot for the fifth installment...
but I just can't seem to make up my mind whether the books or the movies win out for me.🙂

Ashley Gomez70 said:When is the fifth movie coming out?

According to some reports in Hollywood, it looks like they might be "opening" on July 13, 2007. I mean, they’ll probably push the date back again, but there are already a few images floating around online.

hiddentiger24 said:Hollywood is reporting a July 13, 2007 "opening" date (though I wouldn't hold my breath, they love to push things back), and there are even a few photos posted.

Only then? 😲 I was fully expecting it by January at the latest. Why on earth aren't they filming one movie a year?!? This process is dragging on forever... 😢

Movies? They all suck. Books? They're actually good.
The book is always superior. 👍

I found the fourth installment pretty disappointing. The maze felt kind of empty to me. It lacked the scares—no spiders, no Sphinx, none of that part where the sky feels like it's falling away from Harry. The producers seem to leave out so much from the books. Like, Harry can just talk underwater and use magic without much trouble. I also thought Accio was pronounced "asio," but in the movie, they say it more like "akio." You can spot Barty Jr. right away, too. And Sirius isn't even really shown (if you don't count that bit in the flames). Dumbledore comes across as very harsh and sharp in this one. Plus, the actor playing Flitwick isn't the same one we saw in the earlier movies.

So what? Why wouldn't Dumbledore be the second one? That guy died... or something like that, if I recall reading correctly.

So, when are we actually getting a new book? Honestly, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Dumbledore is dead... and let's be real, the books are almost always way better than the movies...

Facts. Almost always.
I’m convinced Snape was actually still on their side all along. It feels like the whole thing was just part of a pre-arranged deal. I mean, at the end of the day, Harry has to be the one to take down Voldemort because nobody else can... so the prophecy says. 😁

Hey there, fellow Warner Bros. fans!

Look, the movie itself—the first one, anyway—isn't actually terrible, but let’s be real: you can't even put it in the same league as the books.

The books are the gold standard, period. I’m actually sitting here re-reading them for the millionth time. Back when they first came out, I actually read the first two in English because I couldn't wait around forever for the American translations to hit the shelves.
I have to say though, the American versions are top-tier 👍 and stay incredibly true to the source material—even those weird, newly coined terms they use for certain characters or spells are spot on.

Honestly, I’ll say it: the books almost always blow the movies out of the water!
🙂

Books are pretty much always superior to their movie adaptations, but I can't help feeling a bit anxious about whether the seventh Harry Potter book might end up feeling too stretched out.

No, absolutely not. It’ll be fine. 👍

There’s nothing quite as hilarious to me as seeing guys in their 40s or 50s chilling on the beach, totally locked in while reading Harry Potter !!!!!
Honestly, the books blow those movies out of the water any day of the week...

I guess books usually come out on top compared to the movies, mostly because the character development feels a bit more fleshed out, though I suppose the films aren't exactly terrible either.

Books are hands down better, no contest. Movies always end up cutting out all the good stuff or just straight-up changing things for no reason. Honestly, book five was my absolute favorite, but man, that sixth one? Such a massive letdown.

Book five is definitely the way to go... plus all that drama at the Department of Magic. You can't just cram everything into a movie... how long would that even be?! Five hours? That's a massive budget sink right there.