I have a theory that movies can never do what books can, and vice versa.
Each medium has its ups and downs, but I prefer novels, because novels have a certain depth that movies can’t have. In my opinion, movies can’t convey thought processes the way books do.
On top of this, books are essentially infinite. The aren’t limited by page numbers, number of books in a series—so long as readers are still interested in the story. Movies, however, are limited. They are two, maybe three hours max, and it’s ridiculous to have multipart movies unless its the finale. Therefore, characters get cut, scenes get taken out, plot points get ignored.
I mean, what is Harry Potter without:
- Winky the House Elf?
- Sirius’ visits at Hogsmeade?
- Professor Binns?
- Degnoming a garden?
- Weasley is our King?
- St. Mungo’s Hospital?
- Apparition tests?
- Voldemort’s mother’s story?
- Pigwidgeon and Arnold the Pigmy Puff?
- The House Quidditch Cup?
- Teddy Lupin?
- Luna narrating Quidditch?
- The Marauders?
- The freaking Half Blood Prince?
- Harry’s snark?
- Ginny’s personality?
- Dumbledore asking “Did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire” calmly?
It’s the movies. And to be fair, the Harry Potter movies are one of the best book to movie adaptations I have ever watched.
But the books will always be better, because there’s just more there. More world, more detail, more of what makes Harry Potter, Harry Potter.