Question
Which are better, the Harry Potter books or movies? Why?
Answer
In terms of literary quality, without a doubt it's the movies (ironic, huh?)
In terms of just creating a maze-world for serious fans to get lost in, the books. These are the people who live on fanfiction sites and are waiting to flood into the http://www.pottermore.com/ site.
The books are brilliant, viewed as media property anchors that keep on giving (I think the market for Potter-stuff can be indefinitely milked), but viewed purely as books, they are bloated, have too much exposition, poor character development and all sorts of other problems. They are fun, and I enjoyed reading them enough, but except for some parts of Azkaban, I was never even close to literary awe. They are what is called "time-pass" stuff in India.
What they DO do well is create a very thoroughly and laboriously fleshed out landscape. The whole thing is like a giant, intricate puzzle engineered so that all the pieces fit neatly together. But the result lacks the elegant compactness that makes books soulful. Rowling builds her world in very direct ways. There isn't much subtlety, allusion or indirection. If a connection or association can be made, Rowling makes it explicitly. For example, making Harry an unintended extra, human Horcrux is a rather clumsy and explicit way of handling the philosophical idea of evil twins. Contrast that with the Joker-Batman evil twin angle in the Christopher Nolan movies.
In a way, the books almost aren't books. If Rowling meant to produce movie/videogame/online activity fuel, she succeeded brilliantly.
The worst movies are the ones that hew slavishly to the books (1 and 2). The rest surpass the books in proportion (surprisingly) to the literary quality of the volumes. So Azkaban is both the best book AND the best movie, with the movie being better.
In terms of just creating a maze-world for serious fans to get lost in, the books. These are the people who live on fanfiction sites and are waiting to flood into the http://www.pottermore.com/ site.
The books are brilliant, viewed as media property anchors that keep on giving (I think the market for Potter-stuff can be indefinitely milked), but viewed purely as books, they are bloated, have too much exposition, poor character development and all sorts of other problems. They are fun, and I enjoyed reading them enough, but except for some parts of Azkaban, I was never even close to literary awe. They are what is called "time-pass" stuff in India.
What they DO do well is create a very thoroughly and laboriously fleshed out landscape. The whole thing is like a giant, intricate puzzle engineered so that all the pieces fit neatly together. But the result lacks the elegant compactness that makes books soulful. Rowling builds her world in very direct ways. There isn't much subtlety, allusion or indirection. If a connection or association can be made, Rowling makes it explicitly. For example, making Harry an unintended extra, human Horcrux is a rather clumsy and explicit way of handling the philosophical idea of evil twins. Contrast that with the Joker-Batman evil twin angle in the Christopher Nolan movies.
In a way, the books almost aren't books. If Rowling meant to produce movie/videogame/online activity fuel, she succeeded brilliantly.
The worst movies are the ones that hew slavishly to the books (1 and 2). The rest surpass the books in proportion (surprisingly) to the literary quality of the volumes. So Azkaban is both the best book AND the best movie, with the movie being better.