View Full Version : Harry Potter: Half Blood Prince (don't read if u haven't read book or seen movie)


creek
08-22-2009, 03:09 PM
I just saw the movie and wasn't very impressed. The book is MUCH better and less confusing IMO.

Things in the book that weren't in the movie:



Apparition lessons.
The final battle.
After Harry gets kicked by Malfoy, Tonks finds Harry instead of Luna.
Snape was present at the Hogwarts gates (in the movie, the choir dude was there instead.)
Harry's several attempts at getting into the Room of Requirement.
Crabbe and Goyal in disguise.
In the book, Harry is first seen at the Dursley's house.
Harry gets paralyzed prior to Snape killing Dumbledore.
The many scenes with Harry using his invisibility cloak.
Moaning Myrtle.
In the book, Hermione's birds actually attack Ron.
Ginny never went into the Room of Requirement with Harry.
The movie skips some of Voldemort's memories.
Hermione repairs Harry's nose.
Dumbledore's funeral.
All the scenes with Tonks (except for at the Weasley's house.)
Fleur, whom is planned to marry Bill Weasley.
Where's the new minister of magic?
Percy Weasley.
The movie shows Dumbledore and Harry going straight from Hogwarts to the cave. In the book, they go to Hogsmeade first, then to the cave.
Dumbledore was suppose to be VERY weak after he and Harry got back from the cave. The movie shows him standing up, as if nothing had happened.
Harry getting his head smashed in Quidditch.
Harry inheriting Sirius's house and house elf.
The parts with the two house elves (Dobby and Sirius's (forgot the name.))
Harry breaking-up with Ginny.

Things that were in the movie that weren't in the book:



The scene where the Weasleys' house is set on fire.
Everything that came before Harry and Dumbledore going to visit Slughorn.

Overall, the movie itself wasn't that bad. The acting was good, and the visuals were very well done. I'd give it 3/5 stars. However, IMO, the book is MUCH better.

3ni_2nr
08-22-2009, 07:38 PM
the book is always perceived to be better because your mind makes it that way. the movie is simply someone else's interpretation and expression of the book. somehow, it always seem better in your mind.

RevanFan
08-22-2009, 08:45 PM
I liked the movie a lot, but they cut or change way too much.

Mach_5
08-22-2009, 11:04 PM
The book is always better than the movie

RevanFan
08-23-2009, 01:03 AM
The book is always better than the movie

I was gonna say that. You beat me to it.

GTR
08-23-2009, 02:33 AM
The book is always better than the movie

The thing is, I rather watch the whole thing in two hours and not try to imagine so many things that I have never seen in my life.

creek
08-23-2009, 01:22 PM
It's a matter of preference. If you want more detail, it's usually best to read the book. If you would rather want to actually see what happens and not spend lots of time reading the book, then the movie is usually the better way to go.

Now, as for HP: HBP, I wouldn't have minded if the movie had at least followed the book somewhat decently, but the scene with the Weasleys' house on fire (which wasn't even in the book) shows that the director wasn't following the book very well.

2-Edge
08-27-2009, 02:20 PM
Book is quite good but I didn't like the movie a bit.
Genre was more like teen drama than magic fantasy...