Flickerflame Is this for the entire series of a specific film? Because they left loads out!

bendaimmortal I think those so-called "film buffs" must be very ignorant about existing book-to-film adapted movies. I mean, no one would otherwise vote any of the HP movies as best such adaptations of [b]all time[/b]. There are numerous much better adapted out there. That is, those that don't leave tons of essential stuff out and replace them with pointless made-up scenes but still manage to be dynamic and correctly atmospheric movies. In my opinion the only thing the HP movie series has going for it are good actors and the HP universe atmosphare. The storyline's adaptation kind of sucks and some characters ended up butchered unnecessarely. To mention a couple of much better book-to-films: - Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. (Especially The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of The King.) - Finger.smith. (Even if it's technically released as a TV mini series, it's total runtime is that of a long movie.) I've seen tens of films adapted from books but most I haven't been interested enough to read the book or haven't yet read them. So I can't form an opinion on them as adaptations. But I'm sure many of them must be better made than the Potter films. Not only because the Potter films simply are poorlty made in the mentioned areas, but because many of the others are hugely praised by people without the original book being as enormous world-wide megahit as the HP books are. Okay, to be fair, the Philosopher's Stone & the Chamber of Secrets actually are quite well adapted. And perhaps Deathly Hallows Part 1 is passable. But otherwise, they didn't seem to care enough.