Rank the books, rank the films

Books

1. Order of the Phoenix
2. Goblet of Fire
3. Half-blood Prince
4. Sorcerer's Stone
5. Deathly Hallows
6. Prisoner of Azkaban
Seven. Chamber of Secrets

Movies

1. Goblet of Fire
2. Order of the Phoenix (with one MASSIVE fail)
3. Prisoner of Azkaban
4. Half-blood Prince
5. Sorcerer's Stone
6. Chamber of Secrets

On the whole, I'm not impressed, mainly because the special effects
overshadow the plot. There are also many minor characters and sub-plots
missing, but this is inevitable with a filmed version of any book.

Of those that I've seen I'd rate them:

1. The Philosopher's Stone (we have the same title as the UK - it's a
great introduction to the series - but why did they change the
colouring of the Dursleys? - they were firmly fixed in my mind)
2. Prisoner of Azkaban (would be top if not for some poor editing)
3. Chamber of Secrets (most silly story, but well done)
4. Goblet of Fire (too much plot lost)

The books are another matter - my ratings are:

1. Half-Blood Prince
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Philosopher's Stone
5. Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Deathly Hallows
7. Chamber of Secrets

The first three I think are hard to separate, because they're all well-
written and they're part of the "adult" group of stories. I read
Deathly Hallows avidly, but in the end I was disappointed - I thought it
got bogged down with all the travelling around, lost track of too many
of our favourite characters, was far too rushed at the end by cramming
too much in too short a space, and as for the Epilogue - I prefer to
ignore it.

I guess, if pushed, I would say that Prisoner of Azkaban is probably my favorite of the movies. I would also say that Richard Harris made a better Dumbledore than Gambon.

My least favorite movie was Order of the Phoenix; I was bothered by Voldemort's attempted "take over" of Harry at the Ministry of Magic; it didn't fit with my interpretation of that scene.

So, movies? Here ya go, from best to worst:

1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. The rest are tied for 2nd place
3. Order of the Phoenix



As far as the books go...they are all part of a story that is unfolding; all are essential, so I can't rank them.

Okay, the early books and films were for children, but not the later ones. And we grownups want more Snape!

Even reading the books, I see Alan Rickman's face and hear his voice in my head, and I'm content.

thank you kindly for that!

Books:

1. Goblet of Fire (it actually scared me)
2. Sorcerer's Stone
3. Prisoner of Azkaban
4. Half-Blood Prince
5. Order of the Phoenix
6. Deathly Hallows
7. Chamber of Secrets

Movies:

1. Prisoner of Azkaban (breath-taking!)
2. Goblet of Fire
3. Sorcerer's Stone
4. Chamber of Secrets
5. Order of the Phoenix

(I haven't seen The Half-Blood Prince yet)

Now that I've seen them all (so far, of course,) I can give it a try:

1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. HBP: could have been the best, if so many KEY scenes had not been cut.
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Order of the Phoenix: after rewatching, I appreciated everything except for the one part already mentioned in this thread; the superb job casting and portraying Luna pushes pulls this one up from the bottom.
5. Sorcerer's Stone
6. Chamber of Secrets

The main ones are:

No battle scene - how could they not include that??

No Dumbledore funeral - that could have been a beautiful weepy scene

Too much emphasis on teenage love scenes - they were only a minor part of the book, and didn't advance the story
at all

Also hearing that people who haven't read the books can't make sense of the film - that's bad; a film should stand
on its own merits and not require prior knowledge

I've felt so far that the films are geared too much to children but hoped that this film, being much darker, would
be more for a slightly older audience, but it seems that it followed the same path as the others. I'm not at all
sure that I want to see it.

No battle - can't believe it.

Snape was yummy, as always, and even though the UV scene was too short :P I thought they did justice to it.

And on edit: they didn't even TRY to pull off the scene at the party, which I am thankful for. :D

A lot of humor, as well as the darker aspects.

I felt like they gave less time to the teenage romance aspect than the book did. Lavender and Ron were just FUNNY, though.

The three key scenes that I feel SHOULD have been included, but weren't:

1. Dumbledore picking Harry up from the Dursley's; where his excessive politeness makes their idiocy shine.

2. The battle, of course. Not that we see much of the battle in the book, anyway, since readers are on the tower with Harry watching Dumbledore die. Still, some acknowledgment that a battle took place would have been good.

3. Dumbledore's funeral. The movie ended way too abruptly. The funeral allows readers, as well as the characters themselves, to fully absorb the scope of the loss.

Since I've heard that the final book will be split into two movies, I'm thinking that perhaps they'll start the next one with the funeral.

I don't think the rest of the movies are going to be for an older audience. The series began with pre-pubescent kids. I first heard of Harry Potter from a 2nd grade student of mine, who was eager for me to read it too so that we could talk about it together. That was actually before the big mania hit the U.S., when the first book was just out over here. While the original audience has grown up with the characters, the next generations haven't, and they aren't going to read the first few books and then wait until they are more mature for the rest; same with the movies. They'll be geared for all ages.

Particularly with Ron's character - he has a lot of funny lines in the book, but they're cut from the films, so his
character comes out rather bland, because it's underwritten. He becomes just a hanger-on for a lot of the time,
and that's not how he is in the books. He provides a much-needed balance for the earnestness of Hermione.

I think the gearing of the films towards children shows mostly in the special effects. Instead of arising naturally
from the story, as they do in the books, the magical effects are over-emphasised and tend to swamp the story too
much. I'm sure younger children love it, but I'd prefer to see the magic being more incidental, as it would be in
the magical world, so it's an adjunct but lets the story keep flowing. It's a bit too much "now for some magic,
folks ...."

I’m of two minds about “Half-Blood Prince” the movie. The first wants nothing more than to string up Yates & Knowles and light firecrackers between their toes for their piteous adaptation of what I feel is Rowling’s best book. The second is trying desperately to vanquish this grduge and cherish the few bright moments of this film. Both minds are thinking Tim Burton at the helm wouldn’t have been so bad.

HarryPotterWTF: Narcissa’s two-tone ‘do. The .2 seconds they allowed Greyback per scene, and Tupin. Harry, giggly and non-angst. The M.I.A. status Bill & Fleur. Snape: “Fyi, I’m the HBP.” The pathetic collapse that is the movie’s ending.

HarryPotterFTW: Orgasmic Quidditch. Ron, just because. Draco, again, just because. Death Eater couture. The exorcism of Katie Bell. Mclaggan, making it clear he’d rather have SOMEONE for dessert versus what was in his bowl. Bellatrix, sexy beast. Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes should be turned into a theme park.

I think it would be cool if both movies started with an establishing shot of Malfoy Manor.

I've also thought about the split of Deathly Hallows. While I read the book avidly, afterwards I felt a bit
disappointed. There was a lot of time wasted with the kids just camping out, moving around, and achieving very
little, with most of the action packed into the last third of the book.

I don't think you can have a cliffhanger with a film as you can with a television series - each film has to stand
alone, so you have to end on a point of resolution. The most logical place I can think of would be the death
and burial of Dobby, when Harry is newly resolved to take the fight to Voldemort.

One sequence I'd love not to see would be the escape from Gringotts - I found it a bit too unbelievable and also
rather distressing (animal cruelty). That it's acceptable even in the Wizarding World to treat an animal the way
the dragon was treated sends a bad message to children, IMO. I'd be very happy if that whole part was rewritten.

I'd also love not to see the Epilogue - I haven't read that part of DH since the first reading. I don't think the
pairing of Ron and Hermione is ultimately viable, and I think Severus would probably throw up if he knew that one
of Harry Potter's children was named after him.

I have my own thoughts about them, but I am eager to hear yours first.

And while Ron is funny and capable of being brave and loyal when he has
to be, there's no way he could be a match for Hermione.

The picture Rowling has painted of Hermione is of a witch who'd want to
use her brains, go out to work and debate the issues of the day with her
peers. I just can't see Ron being her intellectual soul-mate.

And I can't see Hermione doing a Molly Weasley and finding fulfilment in
staying at home to look after her children. I always thought she'd be
a teacher, and one day become headmistress of Hogwarts, or perhaps even
the first female Minister of Magic.

I belong in the EWE camp - Epilogue? What Epilogue?

n/t

It's something that none of the reviewers seem to mention, but to me, it stands out like a sore thumb:

DANIEL RADCLIFFE CANNOT ACT!

I cut him some slack in the first couple of films because he was so young, but he hasn't got any better. He looks
absolutely perfect, but - IMHO - he has no talent whatsoever. I'm glad he's already made a lot of money, because
I can't see him surving very long. He's not a hunky leading-man type, nor is he strong enough to play character
roles. I think he may slowly slip from our sight over the next few years.

Commnents?

:hide:

I think she acts with more conviction than Daniel Radcliffe, but she
does way too much face-acting. She needs to learn stillness - surprising
that directors haven't got on to her about that. Perhaps they don't
really care, because the films are going to make heaps of money anyway.

And it's not that Daniel Radcliffe isn't likeable - he's a bit like an
over-friendly puppy in interviews. Full of enthusiasm and very natural.
And his politics are right - he's an "old Labour" supporter, which is
nice to know.

and it was the fact that the students seldom wear robes, never wear hats (except for the Sorting), and are always
seen about Hogwarts in Muggle clothes. They arrive at the station in Muggle clothing, even though it's expressly
stated in the books that the students change into their robes on the Hogwarts Express.

I wonder why somebody thinks this is a good idea? Is it to make the children appear more accessible to Muggles?
Don't the producers realise that the big attraction is that they're NOT like us at all? Hogwarts is run like a
British private school, and that means uniforms - in this case, robes.

Another example of the films just not being true to the books.

I have noticed this, and been annoyed by it.

Okay, so the kids wear muggle clothes when going to Hogsmeade, whatever, but going to Snape's class? Not in a million years.

Books:

Order of the Phoenix

Deathly Hollows

Goblet of Fire

Prisoner of Azkaban

Half Blood Prince

Chamber of Secrets

Sorcerers Stone

Movies:
Prisoner of Azkaban

Goblet of Fire

Order of the Phoenix

Chamber of Secrets

Sorcerers Stone

Half Blood Prince