Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Book vs. Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1)

I haven't done a Book vs. Movie post in sooo long, but it's probably because I haven't seen that many movies that have been based on books that I've read. But I did see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on Saturday.

Review: (no spoilers)

Let me just say it: the movie was awesome!!!! Usually, I have to separate the books and movies, because the movies are never as good as the books and always leave a ton of stuff out, but this movie was just like reading the book. It helped that I had just finished reading the first half of Deathly Hallows right before I saw the movie, so it was like watching the book on a screen, which is the whole point of the movie franchise. Everything was taken right from the book, even the dialogue, and when they did gloss over parts, it was understandable and all the feelings and themes were still conveyed effectively. I think splitting it into two movies just allowed for so much more detail to be put into it. Now I am so excited to see Part 2 and cannot wait for July!


Kjetil said...

im sure you have to have viewed that film blindfolded cause there where several things that the film just totaly messes up and instead of making the book appear on the screen they made their own story rather then staying true to rowlings masterpiece

Simply_Megan said...

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

And saying that I still believe the movie stayed extremely close to the book. I don't know how even the most critical purists can deny that.

Kjetil said...

I'll just point out a few points that makes the movie differ from the book and im sure there are tons more.

1. When did the Stupify spell send ppl flying across rooms?

2. When in the boook did Harry let hedwig out of her cage when he was supposed to move to the burrow?

3. In the movie there was no birthday for harry though in the book the birthday is at the same day as the minister of magic appears at the burrow.

4. The polyjuce doesnt break inside the ministery in the book.

5. The person harry is impersonating in the minestery is supposed to be one that everyone is scared of. I didnt even see one scared person.

6. Why didnt the silver hand Peter Pettigrew has strangle him?

7. Why wasnt there even mantioned the use of the Imperius Curse or the Cruciatus Curse?

8. The door to the dungedon in the malfloys house should have been a solid door. Cause even a stupid idiot Peter Pettigrew would have noticed the light from the iluminator(and yes it is solid in the book).

9. How come the childrens story in the movie is taken as fact at once. Nobody even questions if it is autentic or not.

10. And what happened to the scene where they got captured. That was nothing like in the book. In the book the deatheters have taged the word Voldemort so they can see whare it has been said and thats how they get caught. but in the movie there just happens to been a groupe on snatchers happens to be there just by conicedence.

11. And why would Hermine stay downstairs when they were at Lomilda Bangs house. In the book she tries numerous times to join em up Bang/Nagini stops her. I the film she just happens to choose to stay downstairs alone.

12. And where did all the planning go for entering the minestry of magic. In the film it seasms like they just do the day after they run from the wedding.

13. Why didnt Harry transform into a distant relative of the Weaslys during the wedding?

Thats just what poped into my head this instance but If i gave it more thought I guess id come up with more.

Im just saying it. They should have stayed true to the story rather then making a new one of their own

Simply_Megan said...

Yes I see your point. There are things that were changed. But, I still think that they producers did a much better job with this film as opposed to the previous movies. And I'm sure with limited time you can understand that things must be changed or simplified or else the movie would be 10 hours long (specifically taking out the preparation for the ministry break-in saved a lot of time).

Thanks for the debate!

Ambee K said...

@kjetil I hope you have a FACEBOOK page because i WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with you! And oh yeah There is much, much more that was added for who know what reason and taken out!

MARISSAK said...

*@simply_Meagan I honestly don't know what movie u saw. Because of u are saying that the producers only GLOSSED over parts uR sadly mistaken. But u said URSELF u didn't read the whole book when the movie came out and the books been out for 3years so u couldn't have understand the book. EVERY SINGLE PART (FROM THE THIRTY MINUTES I COULD STOMACH) WRONG!! But you wouldn't know that because U didn't read the book.


Simply_Megan said...

Wow you guys are really funny. Because I have read the entire book, as well as the whole series, several times. What I meant was that I only re-read the first half because the movie was only one half. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment and that was the most efficient way to get things accomplished.

Look, I'm sorry that I enjoyed the movie and I think the producers did a good job with it and followed the book more than they have in the past. No, it wasn't perfect, it wasn't a masterpiece, and it won't win an Oscar. But what everyone is forgetting is that the movie cannot be word for word from the book. There is no way that that is practical and once people realize that they might be able to enjoy the movie a little.

Sorry for my rant. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I even like it, but I want everyone to remain civil and actually understand my point of view without going crazy on me just because I liked the movie.

Ambee K said...

Nothing is wrong with liking the movie and thinking It's awesome. But there is something wrong with saying that they did a better job with this book than the others, because they didnt. And they weren't on a time limit because they are managing to make a two part series out of one of the shortest books, but couldn't do the same with the 5th and 4th one. If they stuck to the book so well then why is it that Harry is JUST now meeting Bill weasley and harry has known Ron for 7 years? C'mon that movie is crap and Idk what you watched but you should lend it to me.

Marissa K said...

** No movie ever made from a book will be word for word. That is impossible. But it is a difference when there are HUGE SCENES missing AND VERY IMPORTANT ONES AT THAT. All I'm implying is that if u actually read the series and books several times as I have, right off the back you would be able to see the lameness of the movie. This is the last movie and since the producers screwed up every other movie they are trying to put all the prices together in ONE movie. And honestly I was confused right when it started. Like usual re beginning made NO SENSE.

Simply_Megan said...

I don't think you should count the Harry and Bill thing - that was a mistake of the sixth movie, which is when Harry is supposed to meet him first. But I still think that they did a better job with Deathly Hallows as compared with some of the other movies (the first and second are pretty spot-on, but the fifth definitely was bad). And I want to know what huge scenes are missing? I know there's some things that are wrong - like no preparation for the Ministry break-in and Harry not using polyjuice at the wedding - but I don't consider those to be huge changes that take away from the film and in turn, the book. I'm sad that you didn't like it that much, but it is a hazard of a book becoming a movie - the movie is never as good as the book.

Ambee K said...

Megan did u really read the books!? Because Harry first met Bill in the FOURTH BOOK! WTH!!!

Simply_Megan said...

Oops. Well my point is the same - you can't blame the seventh movie since the fourth movie didn't do its job (and the sixth because Harry was supposed to see Bill again but that was also cut). In my defense, I last read the fourth book about three years ago.

Marissa K said...


Marissa K said...


Uther said...

What about the absence of the invisibility cloak? Seemed like the conversation about the deathly hallows was the first time it was brought up, where in the book they were using it constantly. I also thought that Hermine & Harry's dance was totally confusing & a waste of needed time.

Rad said...

I know this is an old post but I just had to say soemthing. I've read Deathly Hallows 4 times and have read the different books within the series several times (just felt like I had to say that since that seems to be a qualification to voice an opinion an this topic). I LOVE THE MOVIE! I completely agree with the author that although certain things were left out/glossed over, the whole of the movie was 100X better than the previous attempts to illustrate Rowlings brilliant storytelling on the Big Screen.

Yes, certain things were left out, but it was nothing like the atrocity that was allowed for The Half Blood Prince movie. We will never get a word for word adaptation of the books, which is what we really want as fans, it just won't happen. We go into movies expecting for things to be left out and we look for what's missing instead of appreciating what's actually happening on the screen.

I thought it was a brilliant movie and I am beyond excited for Part 2.

Simply_Megan said...

Thank you Rad! I'm glad you enjoyed the film.

sarahtheterror said...

For all the people who say "It's impossible to translate a book into a movie perfectly", well this is very true. So true. It's very hard to cover everything a book has in a movie. So hard.

But let me take you back to SS. Aunt Petunia is blond. However, film makers just let her be a brunette for the movies. How terribly difficult is it to slap a blond wig on someone? In PoA, the Marauder's Map is BARELY even mentioned, and it is never quite explained who the hell Moony, Padfoot and Prongs are. Which is, you know, kinda the entire point of the book.

I will not sit here and point out all the wrong things in the movies, because there are a million of them. However, I will say this.

The moment I saw Half Blood Prince, and I saw Ginny cover Harry's eyes while she hid the Potion's book, I knew I would never watch another Harry Potter movie ever again.

This was a slap in the face, almost gut wrenching for someone to so blatantly IGNORE the fact that if Ginny covers Harry's eyes, how in GOD's name will he see the diadem and then later destroy the last horocrux before Nagini?

These movies are crap, readers.

Jon said...

in response to Kjetil
(all page #'s are from the hardcover American version)

1. Harry uses 3 wands to cast Stupefy at Greyback
"The werewolf was lifted off his feet by the triple spell, flew up to the ceiling, and then smashed to the ground"
p 474

2. Hedwig dies in her cage in the book, and has a meaningless death compared to the one in the film where she dies trying to protect Harry.

10. although there is no mention of "voldemort" being taboo, it's alluded to when the death eaters enter shortly after Hermione says his name

All in all, while changes were made to the story, most of the changes are only slight and in most cases improve on the original.

Anonymous said...


You may feel that the movies took too much license in making changes, but keep in mind that J.K. Rowling was involved in making these movies, and in many cases approved changes to the story.

Anonymous said...

People need to get a grip for Pete sake.Some of you remind me of Trekkers hyperventelating over the slightest deviation from the series Bible. It's a movie, not a book and yes changes were made in order to cram in as much as they could. Overall I thought it was far better than Half Blood Prince.They tried to maintain the feel of the book while parsing it down and in some instances rethinking the plotline. Let's be honest here, Deathly Hallows as a book tried to cram too much into a single work. Tying up loose ends at time made for a tedious read, so while I miss some portions of the book, I'm not crying about it.