Books.
I agree with you guys. Just like Dreamcatcher, in the movie, Duddits is an alien, which in the book he is not. I don't think they even mentioned what S.S.D.D. means.
Also, in the book, Duddits died of sickness and he used his last powers to transport Henry (I think) to Jonesy's mind warehouse. In the movie, it was because he did a kamikaze on the evil alien.
i agree with the books bein better than the films, but the books are so detailed, its very very hard to convey everythin in the films... even so, the films are still great too! and i know we're all nit-pickin at the pics we've seen from PoA, but once we've seen the film, i can guarentee all the harry potter fans will love it.... well... probably.... 馃槙 馃槕 馃槙
I doubt it. All the children under 10 might love it just like the other two. The Harry Potter books are amazing and although not perfect like the Lord of the Rings books they are thoroughly enjoyable. The Harry Potter movies where absolute rubbish, although Chamber of Secrets was a lot better than Philosopher's Stone.
馃拑
hang on
Yes the books maybe a little better but not a whole lot. In the movies you get to see what they were talking about in the book,yes it may leave out some parts but most of them aren't really important if it didn't make it in the movie. Even if they did make it in the movie the movie would be like a day long film, now would you want to be in a movie thearter for a day long? Maybe but maybe some people don't.Well that was just what I think but the books and movies I think are about the same. 馃槃 馃槺 馃槃 馃槺 馃槃 馃槺
Well, it鈥檚 difficult to bring a book to the screen. Look at all the stuff they cut out from Lord of the Rings, even in the extended versions.
In the HP books there鈥檚 a lot about how Harry feels, what he thinks, contemplates and wonders about. It鈥檚 a little hard to do that in a movie.
I like both, to be frank. The movies are very true to the spirit and imagination of the books. And the casting is excellent. Daniels eyes ARE blusih-green, depends on the light.