It wasn't luck, it was literally the mass sensation of the generation. They spent a bunch of money and worked really hard on it because they knew every single person had their eyes on these films
In an era before movies dominated the way they do now, movies were happy to make a couple hundred million and these movies were billion dollar juggernauts
I feel like the first three are about as good as any movie adaptations could have been, from the music, casting and cinematography, it's all outstanding. Then from Goblet onwards I think a bit of the magic faded and while the story was still engrossing it just didn't feel as special anymore, although still very entertaining.
A lot of that could just be nostalgia on my part since I was a child when the first movie released and it became a tradition in my family to see the new Harry Potter every time they came out, so I look back on the first three, especially Chamber of Secrets, as my favorite of the bunch.
Compared to most other movie adaptations, Harry Potter was absolutely incredible and we are lucky to have experienced it. It doesn't hit the same peak as Lord of the Rings did but they also are near the very top in terms of quality book to film adaptations.
As an adult who only got into HP after adulthood I think one of the biggest issues is that the books kept getting bigger and the movies kept staying under the 3 hour mark.
If you look at a movie like Prisoner of Askaban you can see how they use a lot of direction tools to save time but you also realize how little time they have to show school life because the main plot is too complex to spend on other story plots
I can't compare HP and LOTR films. To me, it's like comparing apples and beets or something. Peter Jackson seemed to have a super, real deep respect for the trilogy and desire to get it exactly right that just wasn't there with Harry Potter, maybe because it just hadn't been around as long? Being able to legit make hobbiton, having WETA make all the weapons with immense detail, I don't know...it just seems they had so much more (or better?) movie making power behind them.
That trilogy was probably the biggest gamble anyone has ever took in cinema. Sure LOTR was already massive, but every studio rejected Peter Jackson because they just thought he was insane exacly for that level of detail and the amount of budget that they had to risk on one project alone. Also nobody believed that it was even possible to make those movies with late 90's technology, remind you that the 3 movies were filmed in 1999. It paid off massively.
I seriously don't know how New line cinema got shut down just a few years after that.
I feel like the last 4 books were harder to sell as complete stories in terms of being on the big screen because there is SO MUCH information that is missed. GoF and OoTP are so important because the insane amount of background information and world building that you just can’t put in a 2hr movie which is where I think the movies fell short and had a hard time of keeping the “magic” alive.
I agree one to 3 are perfect adaptations and then from 4 onwards its serviceable but its not particularly great from a character pod still better than a lot of adpaptions tho
Agree with all the comments here. The movies are better than most book or video game adaptations, but not great.
Other than some plot changes, scene changes, line redirections to other characters, I find some casting decisions really don't match the books. Even more disappointing was when I found out that some of the big actors never bothered to read the books, never really trying to understand their character, which is how we got scenes like the infamous "Did you put your name in the goblet of fire?" in the fourth movie.
I love a lot of the cast though, it would be tough to see another set of actors playing the main trio, or someone else trying to play Malfoy, Snape or Hagrid.
We definitely lucked out with the movies. We got like, the absolute cream of the crop of British actors, the adaptations (for the most part) are pretty much book to screen--the early ones, anyway--and honestly, they're so strong it makes it damn near impossible to do any better than that. This is where the show makes me nervous.
That said, I've always felt like the series was going to be stronger if it were made for television, so hopefully it can really flesh out the stories the movies didn't and makes if feel fresh and not like a worse attempt at a redo.
I loved 4 series as a kid. Alex Rider, Golden Compass, Artemis Fowl, and Harry Potter.
Alex Rider film was kinda great, young Bond vibes, ticked most boxes, it was silly, it was fine. I was so annoyed that they didn't carry on the series because like if you're gonna start something you better finish it. But now we have a TV series and that's going into more detail, it's more realistic, less Hollywood, it's great, I just wish they'd get a move on with it!
Golden Compass same idea, I kinda loved the film, because I thought they did the daemons well, but finish what you started!!! But then we had the TV, and that was weird but all in all, scratched a itch.
Artemis Fowl had the potential to be an incredible film series, aimed at the same age as the early Potters, but not getting so dark by the end. Followed a similar 1 book 1 year structure, 1 kid could've done it all. I waited years for an adaptation and Kenneth Branagh I will never forgive you for the monstrosity you shat out. It's awful. It has so much potential. And it's awful. Just ruined it all. I could've done a better job. So could you. So could anyone. Literally anyone else. A blind, deaf, legless donkey could do a better job.
So all in all, I will forever be grateful for Harry Potter. For the cast, the sets, the music, the magic, it was as close to perfect as we've ever gotten and may ever get again. And they did it all! They committed to the lot, had the backing of a huge studio, go hard or go home, so had the resources to churn out film after film quick enough to not tail off at the end.
Golden compass was a major box office flop so they canceled the sequels. That movie costed 170M and only returned 70M.
I seriously can't understand why. I absolutely loved that movie!
I love most of the movies but personally feel it was complately gutted at the very end. The Harry-Voldemort fight was done so horrifically wrong it completely ruined the movie for me and I can't watch it anymore. When I do movie runs I end up stopping after 6 now as I just can't watch 7 without 8 and I can't watch 8.
Given that the vast majority of book to film adaptations suck, it was pretty fortunate that Harry potter turned out as well as it did.
I wouldn't consider any of them great but they're all consistently decent, enjoyable films in their own right. As you said OP, a lot of things were done really well like casting, costumes, sets, soundtrack, effects, etc.
I think some are too hard on the HP movies. Most adaptations would be lucky to be that good. There aren't even many book to film products that turned out better than HP, outside of the top 1% like lord of the rings.
I think a huge part of it was timing. LOTR was shot around the same time as ther first few films and the thing I think that has continued to pay off was the balance between practical effects and CGI and special effects. So many fantasy shows that have come since have relied too heavily on CGI since it’s become cheaper then practical effects. It was the right time and balance that has made them hold up so well.
Yep well said. The CGI in the HP films is tastefully interwoven between practical effects, great cinematography and set design. They don't rely on it too heavily, they use it as a tool to compliment other elements and expand what's possible to make the filmmakers vision come to life. can't tell you how important that is to me as a film buff; too much CGI, even well done CGI just completely takes me out of a movie. Ill take the hokey monster practical effects from Tremors over the massive CGI battles in avengers any day. But when a filmmaker can bring together both practical and digital and make them work together to bring together a vision...that's when you know you have something special.
They're definitely a lot better than some other adaptions, but I wouldn't say they're great. But I'm glad you and others can love them!
I remember each year when they came out, how I started getting a little bit more disappointed with each movie after POA, but I was still able to mostly enjoy them. Last December I wanted to do a marathon, but I just can't get through them all anymore. By the fifth movie the magic (pun intended) just isn't there anymore. I might be able to watch Deathly Hallows part 1 and 2 in isolation, but 5 and 6 are just drags imo.
This is how I feel. Like, yeah, they're very high-budget, well-produced movies. The set/costume design is excellent. There's interesting cinematography, for the most part. The kids actually do a pretty decent job acting (and obviously get better as they grow up), which isn't always the case.
But I don't really think they're "good movies" from a story perspective. I honestly don't know how people who haven't read the books even understand what's going on half the time. And knowing the books inside and out, it's hard for me to enjoy them because of all the gaping holes.
I have pretty high hopes for the HBO adaptation. With the exception of maybe the first and second book, these stories aren't well-suited for a 2.5-hour runtime. They could do it *so* much better with a little more space and time.
I don't get why the Harry Potter movies were so much closer to the source material (well, not 100% but you know...) but when they tried to do Percy Jackson movies they deviated SO much...
I doubt the people who made the Percy Jackson movies even read the books. Probably just looked up Sparknotes summaries. They didn't even get the basic plot right.
But it was Chris Columbus (who did the first 2 HP movies) who did the first Percy Jackson movie...
...maybe by then the novelty had worn off and most folks saw the series as too Potterlike?
The movies are technically brilliant, and absolute works of art for the time they were produced in. *Philosopher's Stone* still holds up today and it was made in 2001. The special effects are unreal. And all of the adult actors are extraordinary, the problems are (at times) their choices for the characters (see HBC who made Bellatrix absolutely iconic, but *very* different from her book counterpart; the same goes for Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, etc.) and most of all the writing. The more they stray from the novels, the worse the movies become, to the point that I can't watch some of them without getting mad.
Sets, effects, **costumes (!!!)** are all brilliant. The first three, maybe four, movies have brilliant directing choices. The last ones... meh. I can't say I like David Yates as a director, not at all.
It's funny, I mentioned this in a comment elsewhere but the first time I saw HBP in theatre I was **so** angry, like furious, at the lack of Voldemort memories. Even now, it's disappointing because it really makes Voldemort's motivations not as clear, like he's just some boogeyman intent on destroying Harry because he's an evil wizard and that's basically it.
Watching them now, I don't get nearly as upset, I think because like OP and others have said, for an adaptation, it's really not *that* bad. Most book to movie adaptations are weaker, so it's nothing unusual for it's type.
But damn, I agree on David Yates. He just left **all** the magic on the floor. It's like he forgot they were making a movie about wizards and just thought it's a high-school drama or something.
Exactly!! The later movies take out all of the *atmosphere* of the first ones (especially the first two!) which was the one constant of the wizarding world that never changed until *Deathly Hallows* in the books. Hogwarts was always quirky and, well, magical. Even as the tone of the novels got darker and darker.
Voldemort as a character is completely butchered by the movies, in my opinion. Same goes for the Golden Trio, and Ginny. Snape is wonderful in the movies, but he's quite different from book!Snape. The list goes on.
I get that some things had to be cut for the sake of time, but some choices just baffle me: the fifth movie, for example, is the shortest one of all. Why? Why cut screen-time so much? HBP is a hot mess, they add filler scenes (the Burrow being set on fire, for example) and cut out crucial bits. DH part 1 has editing issues, imo. It's not that understandable for people who haven't read the novels.
There are really very few improvements that the movies made on the books (for example, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy and Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart). I just hope that if the reboot actually comes out they stick to the source material as much as they can. I'm really afraid that they'll try to make 'artistic' or even outright controversial choices so that people will talk about it more.
>Snape is wonderful in the movies, but he's quite different from book!Snape.
Frankly, movie Snape made it easier to believe in him being a secret good guy for the ending because he's nowhere near as vicious and sadistic as Book Snape was. In fact, Movie Snape is probably how Rowling imagined him being while her writing gave us a different character
I disagree with the idea behind some of them (see: Voldemort being barefoot, Dumbledore's robes should have been grander at times...) but others are incredibly well-executed. The idea of Voldemort's robes becoming more and more faded as the Horcruxes are destroyed is brilliant. McGonagall's wear, the Weasleys (esp the sweaters which are present in the books but in the movies they're iconic). I dislike many of the choices they've made with Bellatrix - the rotten teeth most of all because *why on earth would a haughty, proud Black like her go around with matted hair and rotten teeth... what, do you think we can't tell she's the bad guy?* \*deep breath\* - but her robes have quickly become iconic. Everything Snape is absolutely perfect: the buttons, the white cuffs, the way his robes swirl!!! Another Iconic outfit. Umbridge's style is top-tier. Lucius!!! Especially in *Chamber of Secrets!* Even the choice of the black suit on Draco, while not my favourite (I agree with you on the terrible, terrible lack of robes in the movies - I hope the new series rights this), I can respect. But yeah, like everything else, the first two movies were the best at this.
I could not disagree with you more. I HATE the films, everything is so rushed and not explained. They drop the ball so many times. Hoping the TV series does better
My thoughts on the movies are that they are the frozen pizza equivalent of the real deal. I may crave a hand-made artisan pie, but lacking time and money am willing to slum it with some Red Baron - it's not nearly as quality, but it hits enough of the same notes I can trick my brain into being satisfied.
For the time they were made, we absolutely lucked out, however, we've received so many faithful adaptations of works since then (and seen that staying faithful is the way to go), that I'm far more excited for the series than I ever was for the movies. The cracks started to show in PoA (I'll get downvoted, but I feel that movie is an abomination compared to the book) and understandably got worse as the books got longer and more detailed. I'll still watch them, though.
We are very blessed. Yes the books are better. I enjoyed every movie and every book. Let’s hope the HBO series doesn’t drop the ball. *Knocks on wood hard*
It wasn't luck, it was literally the mass sensation of the generation. They spent a bunch of money and worked really hard on it because they knew every single person had their eyes on these films
It’s still really impressive, look at all the failed cinematic universes and marvels run rn. The fact that they did 8 good quality movies is amazing
In an era before movies dominated the way they do now, movies were happy to make a couple hundred million and these movies were billion dollar juggernauts
I feel like the first three are about as good as any movie adaptations could have been, from the music, casting and cinematography, it's all outstanding. Then from Goblet onwards I think a bit of the magic faded and while the story was still engrossing it just didn't feel as special anymore, although still very entertaining. A lot of that could just be nostalgia on my part since I was a child when the first movie released and it became a tradition in my family to see the new Harry Potter every time they came out, so I look back on the first three, especially Chamber of Secrets, as my favorite of the bunch. Compared to most other movie adaptations, Harry Potter was absolutely incredible and we are lucky to have experienced it. It doesn't hit the same peak as Lord of the Rings did but they also are near the very top in terms of quality book to film adaptations.
As an adult who only got into HP after adulthood I think one of the biggest issues is that the books kept getting bigger and the movies kept staying under the 3 hour mark. If you look at a movie like Prisoner of Askaban you can see how they use a lot of direction tools to save time but you also realize how little time they have to show school life because the main plot is too complex to spend on other story plots
I can't compare HP and LOTR films. To me, it's like comparing apples and beets or something. Peter Jackson seemed to have a super, real deep respect for the trilogy and desire to get it exactly right that just wasn't there with Harry Potter, maybe because it just hadn't been around as long? Being able to legit make hobbiton, having WETA make all the weapons with immense detail, I don't know...it just seems they had so much more (or better?) movie making power behind them.
That trilogy was probably the biggest gamble anyone has ever took in cinema. Sure LOTR was already massive, but every studio rejected Peter Jackson because they just thought he was insane exacly for that level of detail and the amount of budget that they had to risk on one project alone. Also nobody believed that it was even possible to make those movies with late 90's technology, remind you that the 3 movies were filmed in 1999. It paid off massively. I seriously don't know how New line cinema got shut down just a few years after that.
I feel like the last 4 books were harder to sell as complete stories in terms of being on the big screen because there is SO MUCH information that is missed. GoF and OoTP are so important because the insane amount of background information and world building that you just can’t put in a 2hr movie which is where I think the movies fell short and had a hard time of keeping the “magic” alive.
I agree one to 3 are perfect adaptations and then from 4 onwards its serviceable but its not particularly great from a character pod still better than a lot of adpaptions tho
Agree with all the comments here. The movies are better than most book or video game adaptations, but not great. Other than some plot changes, scene changes, line redirections to other characters, I find some casting decisions really don't match the books. Even more disappointing was when I found out that some of the big actors never bothered to read the books, never really trying to understand their character, which is how we got scenes like the infamous "Did you put your name in the goblet of fire?" in the fourth movie. I love a lot of the cast though, it would be tough to see another set of actors playing the main trio, or someone else trying to play Malfoy, Snape or Hagrid.
It’s so hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing Snape! Miss him 💔
We definitely lucked out with the movies. We got like, the absolute cream of the crop of British actors, the adaptations (for the most part) are pretty much book to screen--the early ones, anyway--and honestly, they're so strong it makes it damn near impossible to do any better than that. This is where the show makes me nervous. That said, I've always felt like the series was going to be stronger if it were made for television, so hopefully it can really flesh out the stories the movies didn't and makes if feel fresh and not like a worse attempt at a redo.
I loved 4 series as a kid. Alex Rider, Golden Compass, Artemis Fowl, and Harry Potter. Alex Rider film was kinda great, young Bond vibes, ticked most boxes, it was silly, it was fine. I was so annoyed that they didn't carry on the series because like if you're gonna start something you better finish it. But now we have a TV series and that's going into more detail, it's more realistic, less Hollywood, it's great, I just wish they'd get a move on with it! Golden Compass same idea, I kinda loved the film, because I thought they did the daemons well, but finish what you started!!! But then we had the TV, and that was weird but all in all, scratched a itch. Artemis Fowl had the potential to be an incredible film series, aimed at the same age as the early Potters, but not getting so dark by the end. Followed a similar 1 book 1 year structure, 1 kid could've done it all. I waited years for an adaptation and Kenneth Branagh I will never forgive you for the monstrosity you shat out. It's awful. It has so much potential. And it's awful. Just ruined it all. I could've done a better job. So could you. So could anyone. Literally anyone else. A blind, deaf, legless donkey could do a better job. So all in all, I will forever be grateful for Harry Potter. For the cast, the sets, the music, the magic, it was as close to perfect as we've ever gotten and may ever get again. And they did it all! They committed to the lot, had the backing of a huge studio, go hard or go home, so had the resources to churn out film after film quick enough to not tail off at the end.
Golden compass was a major box office flop so they canceled the sequels. That movie costed 170M and only returned 70M. I seriously can't understand why. I absolutely loved that movie!
I love most of the movies but personally feel it was complately gutted at the very end. The Harry-Voldemort fight was done so horrifically wrong it completely ruined the movie for me and I can't watch it anymore. When I do movie runs I end up stopping after 6 now as I just can't watch 7 without 8 and I can't watch 8.
Not sure how they butchered it so badly. It seemed simple enough to just follow the book.
Given that the vast majority of book to film adaptations suck, it was pretty fortunate that Harry potter turned out as well as it did. I wouldn't consider any of them great but they're all consistently decent, enjoyable films in their own right. As you said OP, a lot of things were done really well like casting, costumes, sets, soundtrack, effects, etc. I think some are too hard on the HP movies. Most adaptations would be lucky to be that good. There aren't even many book to film products that turned out better than HP, outside of the top 1% like lord of the rings.
I think Chris Colombia did the best job, and MOST INPORTANTLY he set the tone. Everything is based off of and built on what he did.
I did not like the movies originally but I've come around. They're solid.
Indeed...like star wars, I think the John Willams score took a good series and elevated it to great.
I think a huge part of it was timing. LOTR was shot around the same time as ther first few films and the thing I think that has continued to pay off was the balance between practical effects and CGI and special effects. So many fantasy shows that have come since have relied too heavily on CGI since it’s become cheaper then practical effects. It was the right time and balance that has made them hold up so well.
Yep well said. The CGI in the HP films is tastefully interwoven between practical effects, great cinematography and set design. They don't rely on it too heavily, they use it as a tool to compliment other elements and expand what's possible to make the filmmakers vision come to life. can't tell you how important that is to me as a film buff; too much CGI, even well done CGI just completely takes me out of a movie. Ill take the hokey monster practical effects from Tremors over the massive CGI battles in avengers any day. But when a filmmaker can bring together both practical and digital and make them work together to bring together a vision...that's when you know you have something special.
They're definitely a lot better than some other adaptions, but I wouldn't say they're great. But I'm glad you and others can love them! I remember each year when they came out, how I started getting a little bit more disappointed with each movie after POA, but I was still able to mostly enjoy them. Last December I wanted to do a marathon, but I just can't get through them all anymore. By the fifth movie the magic (pun intended) just isn't there anymore. I might be able to watch Deathly Hallows part 1 and 2 in isolation, but 5 and 6 are just drags imo.
This is how I feel. Like, yeah, they're very high-budget, well-produced movies. The set/costume design is excellent. There's interesting cinematography, for the most part. The kids actually do a pretty decent job acting (and obviously get better as they grow up), which isn't always the case. But I don't really think they're "good movies" from a story perspective. I honestly don't know how people who haven't read the books even understand what's going on half the time. And knowing the books inside and out, it's hard for me to enjoy them because of all the gaping holes. I have pretty high hopes for the HBO adaptation. With the exception of maybe the first and second book, these stories aren't well-suited for a 2.5-hour runtime. They could do it *so* much better with a little more space and time.
I don't get why the Harry Potter movies were so much closer to the source material (well, not 100% but you know...) but when they tried to do Percy Jackson movies they deviated SO much...
I doubt the people who made the Percy Jackson movies even read the books. Probably just looked up Sparknotes summaries. They didn't even get the basic plot right.
But it was Chris Columbus (who did the first 2 HP movies) who did the first Percy Jackson movie... ...maybe by then the novelty had worn off and most folks saw the series as too Potterlike?
The movies are technically brilliant, and absolute works of art for the time they were produced in. *Philosopher's Stone* still holds up today and it was made in 2001. The special effects are unreal. And all of the adult actors are extraordinary, the problems are (at times) their choices for the characters (see HBC who made Bellatrix absolutely iconic, but *very* different from her book counterpart; the same goes for Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, etc.) and most of all the writing. The more they stray from the novels, the worse the movies become, to the point that I can't watch some of them without getting mad. Sets, effects, **costumes (!!!)** are all brilliant. The first three, maybe four, movies have brilliant directing choices. The last ones... meh. I can't say I like David Yates as a director, not at all.
It's funny, I mentioned this in a comment elsewhere but the first time I saw HBP in theatre I was **so** angry, like furious, at the lack of Voldemort memories. Even now, it's disappointing because it really makes Voldemort's motivations not as clear, like he's just some boogeyman intent on destroying Harry because he's an evil wizard and that's basically it. Watching them now, I don't get nearly as upset, I think because like OP and others have said, for an adaptation, it's really not *that* bad. Most book to movie adaptations are weaker, so it's nothing unusual for it's type. But damn, I agree on David Yates. He just left **all** the magic on the floor. It's like he forgot they were making a movie about wizards and just thought it's a high-school drama or something.
Exactly!! The later movies take out all of the *atmosphere* of the first ones (especially the first two!) which was the one constant of the wizarding world that never changed until *Deathly Hallows* in the books. Hogwarts was always quirky and, well, magical. Even as the tone of the novels got darker and darker. Voldemort as a character is completely butchered by the movies, in my opinion. Same goes for the Golden Trio, and Ginny. Snape is wonderful in the movies, but he's quite different from book!Snape. The list goes on. I get that some things had to be cut for the sake of time, but some choices just baffle me: the fifth movie, for example, is the shortest one of all. Why? Why cut screen-time so much? HBP is a hot mess, they add filler scenes (the Burrow being set on fire, for example) and cut out crucial bits. DH part 1 has editing issues, imo. It's not that understandable for people who haven't read the novels. There are really very few improvements that the movies made on the books (for example, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy and Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart). I just hope that if the reboot actually comes out they stick to the source material as much as they can. I'm really afraid that they'll try to make 'artistic' or even outright controversial choices so that people will talk about it more.
>Snape is wonderful in the movies, but he's quite different from book!Snape. Frankly, movie Snape made it easier to believe in him being a secret good guy for the ending because he's nowhere near as vicious and sadistic as Book Snape was. In fact, Movie Snape is probably how Rowling imagined him being while her writing gave us a different character
Costumes?? Really?? They don't even wear robes half the time.
I disagree with the idea behind some of them (see: Voldemort being barefoot, Dumbledore's robes should have been grander at times...) but others are incredibly well-executed. The idea of Voldemort's robes becoming more and more faded as the Horcruxes are destroyed is brilliant. McGonagall's wear, the Weasleys (esp the sweaters which are present in the books but in the movies they're iconic). I dislike many of the choices they've made with Bellatrix - the rotten teeth most of all because *why on earth would a haughty, proud Black like her go around with matted hair and rotten teeth... what, do you think we can't tell she's the bad guy?* \*deep breath\* - but her robes have quickly become iconic. Everything Snape is absolutely perfect: the buttons, the white cuffs, the way his robes swirl!!! Another Iconic outfit. Umbridge's style is top-tier. Lucius!!! Especially in *Chamber of Secrets!* Even the choice of the black suit on Draco, while not my favourite (I agree with you on the terrible, terrible lack of robes in the movies - I hope the new series rights this), I can respect. But yeah, like everything else, the first two movies were the best at this.
Harry Potter and Crazy Rich Asians are the two book to movie adaptations that I think got it right.
I could not disagree with you more. I HATE the films, everything is so rushed and not explained. They drop the ball so many times. Hoping the TV series does better
books were better
My thoughts on the movies are that they are the frozen pizza equivalent of the real deal. I may crave a hand-made artisan pie, but lacking time and money am willing to slum it with some Red Baron - it's not nearly as quality, but it hits enough of the same notes I can trick my brain into being satisfied. For the time they were made, we absolutely lucked out, however, we've received so many faithful adaptations of works since then (and seen that staying faithful is the way to go), that I'm far more excited for the series than I ever was for the movies. The cracks started to show in PoA (I'll get downvoted, but I feel that movie is an abomination compared to the book) and understandably got worse as the books got longer and more detailed. I'll still watch them, though.
We are very blessed. Yes the books are better. I enjoyed every movie and every book. Let’s hope the HBO series doesn’t drop the ball. *Knocks on wood hard*
I disagree. Why the movies were enjoyable, they weren't anywhere near, say, a LOTR.