Harry Potter Books vs Films

d4rek1ng1 · 07-19-2010, 03:32 AM

which do you prefer? films or books of harry potter

Slenderman - Doctor · 07-19-2010, 05:12 AM

I'm a media geek so I wanna say films. Because of how they're made, how they look. But I have to vote books because you can't beat the originals and, without the books, you got no films.

taste the rainbow · 07-19-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor

I'm a media geek so I wanna say films. Because of how they're made, how they look. But I have to vote books because you can't beat the originals and, without the books, you got no films.

I agree! I like the films, mostly because of the effects, but they cut some things out of the films. The books are better, in my opinion!

Embers · 07-19-2010, 07:36 AM

The films are pretty good, but the books are a million times better, so much more in them and so much fun to read!

Who · 07-19-2010, 08:10 AM

The books are over rated, and the movies...alone they're decent, but based off the books, crap.

Flamingo · 07-19-2010, 08:44 AM

I'd say movies, at least compared to the books I read. But they were translated books, I hear the original English books are much better, with clever choice of words and names.

BettyBoop · 07-19-2010, 11:56 AM

I most of the times prefer the books to the movies, there's so much you can't put in the movie that you can in the book but I still love the movies because there's a lot you can put in there that can't go in the books, visually.

Anyways, this is in the wrong section, please read the Truth guidelines.

Moved.

XBOX360 · 07-19-2010, 02:56 PM

No question. Definitely the books.

Stellz · 07-19-2010, 06:16 PM

My vote is for the books all the way. I know the movies look pretty. But I just can't stand them. I know that you can't get everything from the book into the movie, but it just makes me sad when I miss parts. I was really disappointed with the third one, and I absolutely hated the last one. Maybe I'm just a bit to much of a snob when it comes to my Harry Potter. I wish the movies could have been done a bit more like Lord of The Rings. I feel like they did an amazing job with those films. I know they left things out, but I didn't feel the same as I did with the Potter movies.

cara.loverin1989 · 07-19-2010, 06:29 PM

Books. I like the movies, but I have to go with the books. You just cant get everything into the movies and that is disapointing sometimes. I read all of the time, I rarely read a book twice. I have read the Harry Potter books at least 4 times each. Love them.

davgrant · 07-19-2010, 08:14 PM

For me no movie can beat the book. The simple reason being that when your reading the book you are free to imagine the world, the events and the characters as you wish. Whereas in the movie you are looking at another person's viewpoint. They might not share the same lines which you might enjoy in the book. Here as well I would prefer the books any day but I loved the movie as well. I am a film maker myself and I know how hard it is to bring all the points from the book into the movie.

I can't recall any movie which has got the better of the book. Lord of the Rings and Godfather came the closest for me.

Norse Fire · 07-19-2010, 08:50 PM

Books, definitely. Not only are the movies generally choppy and inaccurate to a certain extent, but, unlike the books, they don't provide a window into the mind of the villain. In the Harry Potter books, the author went to great lengths to make sure we understood Voldemort's mindset and past. She even devoted entire chapters to his life, which allowed us to see how he went from a poor, neglected orphan who just wanted to be loved (yet another similarity to Harry) to one of the most infamous wizards of all time. I mean, where in the movie does it show that side of Voldemort? Where is the explanation for how a virtual psychological clone of Harry warped itself into J.K. Rowling's version of Hitler? In the 6th book, she provided a glimpse into his childhood and life as a student/young adult while the movie spends (at most) two minutes on the subject. The books allow the reader a more thorough insight into the minds of the characters as opposed to the movies that just show the character's actions and words. It is this unique trait of the books that allows them to convey the theme of the story.

Due the risk of sounding like a huge nerd if I were to continue, I think I'll stop talking now.

Demon Thief · 07-19-2010, 10:21 PM

The books are way better than the movies. And Norse Fire, I agree with what you've said.

User12465 · 07-20-2010, 02:53 AM

The books are better but I still love the films

Amelie · 07-20-2010, 07:07 PM

The films were a disgusting slaughter of the books.

07-19-2010, 03:32 AM	#1
d4rek1ng1 getDare Sweetheart Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 377	Harry Potter Books vs Films which do you prefer? films or books of harry potter __________________ Live by the Creed likes- cum play, cum on food,piss, insertions anal and cock (in objects like melons ect). wet clothing (bath, shower, sink, puddle etc) messy. sexual. tease. crossdressing. humiliation. dice dares. card game dares. little bondage, blindfold hates-poo. illegal. public. pernement scaring. dangerous

07-19-2010, 07:36 AM	#4
Embers Account Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Here there and everywhere Posts: 534	The films are pretty good, but the books are a million times better, so much more in them and so much fun to read! __________________ 20 year old bisexual female living at uni in the uk! Check the TORD Online section where I probably have a thread you can dare me in I guess you need my limits n stuff so here's what I can think of right now Limits; Poo, piss, messy, pain, anal Likes; Public, outdoor, spanking, embarrassing, bondage (a little), sex I will NOT do cam or play tord with people but I do want to be dared I also am NOT interested in being a slave or having a slave

07-19-2010, 08:44 AM	#6
Flamingo Junior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Brussels Posts: 21	I'd say movies, at least compared to the books I read. But they were translated books, I hear the original English books are much better, with clever choice of words and names. __________________ -°-°-°-°- Likes: nudity, naughtyness Limits: pain, poo, public, anything that lasts longer or leaves marks longer than a day

07-19-2010, 11:56 AM	#7
BettyBoop Angel of Dare Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: England. Posts: 8,249 Blog Entries: 105	I most of the times prefer the books to the movies, there's so much you can't put in the movie that you can in the book but I still love the movies because there's a lot you can put in there that can't go in the books, visually. Anyways, this is in the wrong section, please read the Truth guidelines. Moved. __________________ ★Boop Boop de Boop.★ female, engurrland. Ask me anything, click. My tumblr. 18+ ▼

07-19-2010, 06:16 PM	#9
Stellz Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: A boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Posts: 606 Blog Entries: 50	My vote is for the books all the way. I know the movies look pretty. But I just can't stand them. I know that you can't get everything from the book into the movie, but it just makes me sad when I miss parts. I was really disappointed with the third one, and I absolutely hated the last one. Maybe I'm just a bit to much of a snob when it comes to my Harry Potter. I wish the movies could have been done a bit more like Lord of The Rings. I feel like they did an amazing job with those films. I know they left things out, but I didn't feel the same as I did with the Potter movies. __________________ ✪ 29 ✪ She/Her ✪ Married & Monogamous✪ ****************** Owner of my pup and husband Ask me about our adventures <3 ✪

07-19-2010, 05:12 AM	#2
Slenderman - Doctor Truth or Dare Zealot Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 6,760	I'm a media geek so I wanna say films. Because of how they're made, how they look. But I have to vote books because you can't beat the originals and, without the books, you got no films.

07-19-2010, 08:10 AM	#5
Who Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Who wants to know. Posts: 78	The books are over rated, and the movies...alone they're decent, but based off the books, crap.

07-19-2010, 02:56 PM	#8
XBOX360 Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 69	No question. Definitely the books.

07-19-2010, 06:29 PM	#10
cara.loverin1989 Account Banned Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The United States Posts: 265 Blog Entries: 13	Books. I like the movies, but I have to go with the books. You just cant get everything into the movies and that is disapointing sometimes. I read all of the time, I rarely read a book twice. I have read the Harry Potter books at least 4 times each. Love them. __________________ Hello! I love to chat with people but if you are a guy looking for a slave or a master, STOP now.Thanks! “You can never cross the ocean unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” - Christopher Columbus “Half of the troubles of this life can be traced to saying yes too quickly and not saying no soon enough.” - Josh Billings

07-19-2010, 08:14 PM	#11
davgrant Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 500	For me no movie can beat the book. The simple reason being that when your reading the book you are free to imagine the world, the events and the characters as you wish. Whereas in the movie you are looking at another person's viewpoint. They might not share the same lines which you might enjoy in the book. Here as well I would prefer the books any day but I loved the movie as well. I am a film maker myself and I know how hard it is to bring all the points from the book into the movie. I can't recall any movie which has got the better of the book. Lord of the Rings and Godfather came the closest for me.

07-19-2010, 08:50 PM	#12
Norse Fire Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: USA Posts: 214	Books, definitely. Not only are the movies generally choppy and inaccurate to a certain extent, but, unlike the books, they don't provide a window into the mind of the villain. In the Harry Potter books, the author went to great lengths to make sure we understood Voldemort's mindset and past. She even devoted entire chapters to his life, which allowed us to see how he went from a poor, neglected orphan who just wanted to be loved (yet another similarity to Harry) to one of the most infamous wizards of all time. I mean, where in the movie does it show that side of Voldemort? Where is the explanation for how a virtual psychological clone of Harry warped itself into J.K. Rowling's version of Hitler? In the 6th book, she provided a glimpse into his childhood and life as a student/young adult while the movie spends (at most) two minutes on the subject. The books allow the reader a more thorough insight into the minds of the characters as opposed to the movies that just show the character's actions and words. It is this unique trait of the books that allows them to convey the theme of the story. Due the risk of sounding like a huge nerd if I were to continue, I think I'll stop talking now.

07-19-2010, 10:21 PM	#13
Demon Thief getDare Devil Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: In the US Posts: 1,013	The books are way better than the movies. And Norse Fire, I agree with what you've said. __________________ "How many seconds in eternity?" And the shepherd's boy says, "this is a mountain of pure diamond. It takes an hour to climb it and an hour to go around it. Every hundred years a little bird comes and sharpens its beak on the diamond mountain. And when the entire mountain is chiseled away then the first second of eternity will have passed." You must think that's a hell of a long time. Personally, I think that's a hell of a bird. 14 years on GetDare!

07-20-2010, 02:53 AM	#14
User12465 Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: UK Posts: 37	The books are better but I still love the films

07-20-2010, 07:07 PM	#15
Amelie getDare Sweetheart Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 333	The films were a disgusting slaughter of the books. __________________ Formally 'Amelie'