Movie Adaptions

I haven't read a lot of books that have been adapted into movies, but the ones I have read have blatant differences from the movies. While some of these changes are necessary to make the movie more interesting for viewers, there are others that directors make that stray away from the book almost entirely.


A classic example would be the Harry Potter series. In my opinion, the movies were very good and followed the books very closely. But some of the changes that they made were just inexcusable. The most obvious one was in The Goblet of Fire:

There was no need to have such a drastic change in Dumbledore's character from the book to the movie; it just painted a beloved character in a terrible light.


In other film adaptions, whenever you talk about how they compare to the book, almost everyone emphatically says, "the book was WAY better". The main reason they say this is because the movie leaves out a lot of important details or events that were in the book. It's understandable that every single small detail from the book can't be in the movie due to time and budget constraints,  but when huge events  or characters are left out, you can't help but feel like you were robbed a little bit; you feel sorry for people that haven't read the book because they're missing out on such a great part of the story.


But I also think that films do a good job of expanding on things that may have only been a page or half a page in the book. They help us get a unique visual of the book and understand certain aspects of the plot that we couldn't quite see just by reading. Getting to see the story you love on screen helps you feel even closer to it (unless you hate the adaption; then you just cry).