Cowbell Alert: Comparing Book-to-Films to the Book

I saw the new Harry Potter movie last night, and I really liked it. It was refreshing right after suffering through Transformers and hating myself for not heeding the numerous IMDB comments condemning it, only paying attention to the user rating. Yeah, I got my 2-for-1 on at the movies. You ain't doin' nothin' 'bout it. Don't judge me.

Anyway, I get home and do my post-movie routine and look at reaction on IMDB. The new Harry Potter got the best grade of the series, but, as usual, most people were caviling (saw this word in a crossword puzzle the other day. I know you don't know what it means. Don't be lazy, look it up) that it left too much out from the book. I have this to say in return:

I haven't read one word from any Harry Potter book. And because of that I probably have no right to write a critique of the critics. But I have seen all the movies and Order of the Phoenix is easily the best FILM of the HP series and generally a good movie. Keep that non-profane four-letter f-word in mind. FILM.

YOU CANNOT COMPARE A BOOK TO A FILM. Stop passing judgment based on what the film omitted/changed from the book. I understand that many of you are hardcore book-readers who want to see as much of the book as possible in the cinematic representation. However, movies are an entirely different entertainment medium from books.

Remember that filmmakers have to consider infinitely more aspects of presenting a story than an author.

What does an author need to write a good book? A good story, a laptop maybe, and a publisher. Any constraints? None on length, sometimes on composition time, marketability is a concern, little money is needed for production (no budget), and generally authors get paid AFTER the book is done (unless the publisher expects a best-seller, which is uncommon).

What does a filmmaker(director) need to make a good movie? A good story, millions of dollars from a studio which will limit your creative freedom, good actors (who are hard to find and/or cost a fortune), an able cinematographer, a score composer/good soundtrack, the space to shoot the movie, a cgi team (very expensive, especially for fantasy films), and countless other pieces in a film puzzle. Any constraints? money, money, money, production schedules, actor schedules, the right time of day for certain scenes, marketability is many times more important for a film compared to a book, the fact that there's a budget necessitates much omission, 1 1/2 to 3 hours in length, and money.

I think I have a good analogy for this issue: someone is asked to depict the ups and downs of an entire 16-game season of a football team as one 60-minute game. Wouldn't there be ample omission? the creator would have to make tough decisions about what's most important/interesting and leave out the rest. One game is nowhere near as detailed and varied as a season, but no one wants to watch 16 games in one sitting. Same goes for book-to-film adaptations.

So to argue that films and books aren't at all comparable, I had to make a comparison. The director(forgot his name) had 3 hours max to adapt an 870-page book. And given the expected young, impatient audience, the studio must have implored him to keep the length down. Give him a break. The movie was great.

I've also seen suggestions to split this movie into multiple parts. That makes no sense. HP is already going to be 7 different films! how would splitting any of them for the sake of the books work? Critics, please leave the book out of your HP movie opinions. For real. Stop it.