Cinematical

I read the first book. I liked it.

I saw the first movie when it came out. I thought it was adequate.

I started the second book, and lost interest before I finished the second chapter. I have picked up the others, but cannot banish the feeling that there are other books I really should be reading. If there was a pill I could take that would give me the experience of having read the books without actually having to lug the things around and turn the pages, I'd take it.

I saw the second film on DVD. Didn't like it.

I saw the third film in the theatre, and liked it a lot. Any movie with Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, and Timothy Spall onscreen at the same time, turning into animals yet, is my kind of movie.

I saw the fourth movie in the theatre, and was bored silly. I will not bother with any of the next ones, without overwhelming evidence of their quality.

So, I was unaware of what Isaacs was talking about, but come on. Isaacs talking about being in a blue screen battle isn't exactly giving a lot away. It's like him talking about wearing a long blonde wig. Well duh, kind of comes with the territory.

Reply

I am a film only person. I do agree with Tom in the feeling that when i attempt to read it (i tried reading the goblet of fire) that I could not get involved with the story as well as the feeling that there IS something better I could be reading.

I think more so with films than literature, there is a greater leniency as to the quality of what you watch rather than what you read. Not to say that Harry Potter is the equivalent to a trashy novel and that you should only read Shakespeare, but in my personal opinion/belief, there is a difference to the approach of what you read then what you watch and the Harry Potter books are not my cup of tea. However, I do find the films to be entertaining, yet i do not really get emotionally entangled in the characters.

Reply

The fourth was not as entertaining as the previous ones. They cut way too much from the book. I blame that on studio stupidity rather than the director as what made it to the screen was entertaining enough. Considering the success of the books they should not be cutting so much from the stories.

And people who only see the films rather than read the books as well are lazy.

Reply

I guess you'd have to call me lazy, then, because I've enjoyed the Potter films, but have no interest in reading the books. However, I'd prefer to consider myself being "laid back".

Reply

I have never read any Harry Potter books, but I've seen all the films and will continue to do so. The movies, although sufficiently entertaining, have not convinced me that the books are worth my time.

Reply

I am with the first two commenters. I am a film-fan only. All my friends, however, are completely obsessed with all things Potter. For instance, my guy friend buys both the american and british prints of the novels, his reasoning "the covers are different". Anyway, I have no idea what Isaacs is talking about, except it may be the fight my friends were bragging/crying about...I don't know.

Reply

you know what i think. i think its pathetic how many people in the world are to lazy to pick up a book. if i hear one more person say "who reads anymore?" or "only losers read" i swear im gonna beat them. i personally think that making the books into movies on one of the best things they could have done and one of the worst. now you havea croud of ignorant preps that can comment on an amzing series that has ispired many kids and adults to turn off the tv and read. imagination is dead today. its been dead for a long time. you can all say but uve seen the movies youy watch tv you play vid games. yes but those few ppl that after the movies over, the games been beat, or the show stops, those ideviduals that walk away thinking about what they could have added or making up a sequal no matter how stupid are ppl worth knowing. i for one refuse to see a movie based on a book before ive read the book.

Reply

The films are never as good as the books. NEVER! If I hadn't read the books, I would have had difficulty following the films. When I'm reading the books, I laugh at least once every fifteen minutes; when I watch the movies, I laugh once maybe the entire film. Yeah, they may make things more real, but they aren't nearly as good as the books; the editors cut WAY too much out of them.

Reply