Movies vs. Book (was In Support of my Prince Harry Theory)

[Teri Gardner]

steve wrote earlier:
> > > As a professional writer this might sound a bit
> > strange, I have not 
> > read any of the Novels I prefer the movies which from my
> > perspective are far more entertaining.

> > Magpie asked reasonably:
> > But how would you know the movies are far more entertaining
> > if you haven't read the books?

I post here rarely, but this conversation has been intriguing me.  I'm one of those people who love the books and love the movies too.  I actually don't like adaptations that stick to close to its source material to the nth degree because I like to see how the writer/director/producer envisions that source material.  How they interpret it.  If I want the book, or whatever, exactly, then I'll read the book.  Of course, some interpretations are better than others (for example, the first film based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is painful for me to watch, but I really, really enjoyed the adaptation starring Johnny Depp).  

For me, as long as the spirit of the book is preserved, and I feel it is very much so in the Harry Potter films, I'm happy.  Yeah, sure there were things that bothered me about the movies, but overall I was very happy with them and I'm looking forward to the other films. :D

Teri

P.S. I also apologise for how I'm trimming posts.  My email program does weird things with the digest posts and I sort of have to do my best with cutting and pasting into new emails and editing them down.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]