WITD - Which was better? (Make-up Post)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was the first time I remember seeing a film adaptation that wasn't as good as the original. I remember it vividly. I had just read ALL the books in one school year, and everything was fresh in my mind. I saw Goblet of Fire in theaters, and walked out extremely disappointed. Years later, I don't remember the specific scenes, but there were so many moments that I knew at that time did not make it in the movie.

But being a filmmaker now, I completely understand. Books are a long-form medium that has the potential to take place entirely within a character's train of thought. This doesn't translate well to film. Sometimes, a great director can take the source and exemplify the main themes of the text through film's strengths, but it rarely happens. Instead, we get other aspects of the story inflated and in some cases a different kind of story entirely.

Also, books can take someone as long to read as they like. For instance, I usually take a week or two to tackle a novel. My grandma, on the other hand, can knock one out in an afternoon. The personal, go at your own pace part of a novel is totally lost in film, where people expect a two hour-ish story without much wiggle room. Fitting all the content of a novel into something like that is impossible, which usually results in the cuts and changes so many adaptations get flack for.