I always thought fincher's adaption of Chuck Palahniuk's fight club was one of the best translations I've seen. I always find that I can appreciate a film more if I read the book it is based on after the fact. In the end, however, they are different mediums and should really be treated as such. Books are food for the mind, a cerebral journey into our imagination. Films are a visual feast, a vision brought to life by a single individual, which we as the audience will either bask in, or keel over in disgust with.

Ah…I was wondering when we would touch on this topic. Let me start by saying this is a marvelous site you have here Brad, as I've been following since 2004 and this is actually my first comment I've ever made. I feel compelled to because I just held a two discussion with a friend on this topic…but lets dispense with the ass kissing and get down to business.

I feel Harry Potter is a wonderful series to start this discussion as I'm 21 now and the films have been coming out since I was 13, so it shows my evolution not only as a moviegoer, but also as a reader. Let's start out with Years One and Two. Chris Columbus and Steve Kloves kept remarkably close to the source material. And as a young lad of 13 I loved the hell out of them, not because they were good adaptations, but because I'm seeing my favorite books come to life on screen. While you couldn't possibly pack everything into the movie, the scenes in the first two movies seemed as if they were drawn straight from the book. As a 21 year old who's been around the block a couple times film-wise, I admire the faithfulness, but I am killed by the child actors (who have definitely grown into their roles), and the completely static mood the films portray, and I can no longer stand the first two movies.

At the ripe age of 16, we see Alfonso Cuarón's take on the Harry Potter universe in PoA. This film pretty much set the standard for the following Potter films. With the exception of waiting until the end for Harry to receive his Firebolt, the film remained just about as faithful to the book as the first two. But we see three things that we haven't seen yet that made the movie ten times more enjoyable now than the first two…A change in pace, a change in the mood/tone, and character development. Not much else to say about this film…just throwing in some theatrical elements changed the series for the better. Year four pretty much followed the same outline (and so help me if some fanboy comments on the color of Hermione's dress I'll merc them). And given the content of that story it ultimately made for a very fun, yet very foreboding movie.

And then along comes OotP. My now favorite of all the Potter movies. While this one is definitely the least faithful to the book, it is the most rewarding as a reader. At first I thought the pace of the movie was way too fast, but it had to be given that this book is the largest, and you can't fit everything into a film of 2.5 hours. But as I watched it more and more, I appreciated it more due to the fact that there are little gimmicks in the film that can only be appreciated by readers…almost as if David Yates was rewarding the readers for their faithfulness. And while I have to watch HBP again, it feels is the same in that sense. These two films are definitely rough for non-readers, as their is an apparent lack of explanation for some things. In the theater at midnight I had a non-reader friend asking me a question every 10 minutes.

All in all the films have stayed relatively faithful to the source material, unless you're very nitpicky (i.e. the color of Hermione's dress). I think the biggest downfall to these films (and I'm about to be flamed straight to hell) is Quidditch. While I enjoy watching every second of it, with the exception of the scene in Year One when Quirrell hexes Harry's broom, it is entirely unnecessary…gimmicky even. It adds nothing to the whole Harry needs to stop Voldemort plot, which is the central story.

So In conclusion, I think Years One and Two prove that a near page-for-page adaptation doesn't work for movies. Year Three and Four proved that it works a lot better if you choose the right scenes to portray in the movie, and add in some theatrical elements. And Years Five and Six prove that mixing things up is hit or miss, because I love them, but as Brad has posted up top, purists do exist, and if *spoiler warning* Harry isn't petrified when Dumbledore is killed *end spoiler warning*, then they will hate the movie 100%.

Good Day.

It is all so subjective that a minor tweak for one is a major one for someone else. But one thing for sure, there will always be changes in movies of book adaptions.

@Cory Austin: I guess we all have our different views, but I'm glad Brad at least understands where I'm coming from. And you misunderstood me when you say I've read Half-Blood Prince six times; I've read it at least three times and Deathly Hallows six times. I can also say that I've heard all of the audiobooks of the series by Jim Gray twice…so you see my level of obsession.

I believe that the best two movies are the first two because they stayed faithful to the books, but my main gripe with the rest of the movies is that they are almost virtually un-understandable to a general viewer who has not read the books. Movies 4-6 rip apart the source material and form entirely different depictions of the novels which not only infuriate the obsessed fandom, but also throws off everybody's comprehension off.

I agree that some movies are better than their novel counterparts, such as Lord of the Rings, a novel which I have also read. LoTR was awesome and I gave that series 9/10. But what HP4-6 has done to the series is butcher it to the point of creating a different story. You're right Brad, cry as I might, that this is extremely disagreeable to me, but hey, that's what Hollywood does with movies: They twist, butcher, and reshape movies to be absorbed by average people who can barely pass the SATs…

A question for you, Brad: Have you read the HP books, in particular the sixth? Because if you had, I bet you would feel a little of the indignation I so righteously feel.

hmmm, its a difficult subject adaptation from any source material, this year i did a course at university called Adaptation in Screenwriting and it culminated in the students writing the first act of the screenplay and i have to say, its more difficult than i thought it would be and i thought it would be difficult in the first place. I did the Garth Ennis'/Darick Robertson's comic The Boys. Trying to write a screenplay on something that's comic run hasn't finished and that you learn new things as more comics released makes the film harder to do.

I see the problems in sticking close to the source material especially if the source material is very good and novels as you say, linger in the mind. Its hard to watch a film over a couple of days whereas you can stop and come back to a book if you want. A film needs to be seen in one sitting in my opinion and its very problematic in transferring all details as you risk overhwelming the viewer with visuals, sound and characters, its a delicate balancing act but it's called adaptation for a reason, you have to make it fit with the parameters of a film.

I first read Watchmen when i was 14, didn't understand all of it because i wasn't born in the era the comic came out but i liked it because of its characters, the alternative history. I thought that Watchmen the film was good but suffered from other problems in that it followed the source closely but in some areas decided to change it. The action for one i have a problem with, the source is not something those who haven't read it would flock to the theaters to see and so the action is made almost as an insurance to guarantee people would come in and see it. The action seemed slightly unnecessary because it detracted from the characters, they were portrayed as normal people and suddenly they were kicking people who flew into trashcans. It seemed to be too "super" for who the characters were, at least to me. They weren't superheroes per se, they were people trying to be one. Maybe i've just read into it wrong or nitpicking but it shows how hard it can be in pleasing an audience.

I feel people shouldn't expect everything from adaptations from any source, Harry Potter was optimised for the medium of books. Not everyone has read the books even though they've been a huge success, its difficult trying to keep the fans on your side and not alienating those who haven't read the source, i think you've just got to just make it as entertaining as you can without losing the spirit of the source, that's all i can ask for.

I Highly Enjoy Both, The Potter Books And Films. I Would Enjoy The Movies More Though If They Were More Acurate, But It's Certainly Not The End Of The World When There Is Something Left Out Or Changed. Sometimes Doing So Can Actually Make the Films Better Than The Books In My Opinion. But That's It, It Is All Just A Matter Of Opinion. And My Two Favorite Adaptations, Though I'm Sure I'll Catch Flack For It, Are Sin City And Watchmen. I Love The Graphic Novels And I Completely Adore Both Movies And How Acurate They Are. And Though The Ending Of Watchmen Is Different From The Book, I For One Like It Better Than The Source Material.

glad you started this topic… i saw the half blood prince and am yet to make up my mind if i loved or hated the movie… i am OK with the book being reinterpreted as long as it is maintains some semblance of resemblance to the original source material… while in the book the funeral of dumbledore worked because of the minute details of how teh marble was carved and the emotion of every character in the movie the simple expression of the teachers and students while grieving for their beloved master yet lightening their wands up to make the dark mark disappear works for the film… but one thing that was absolutely sacrilegious was way the climax came to be… in the book dumbledore stuns harry so he sees all but cant do anything and then he sees snape kill his master and then the spell is lifted because dumbledore is dead… in the movie snape "sushes" harry as he moves upstairs to kill dumbledore- that is RIDICULOUS… i still need to see it once more to completely make up my mind… but one this is for sure the first half could have worked better with some judicious editing out of the snogging scenes and adding some more breathing room for the second half … my two cents as a potter super fan

Film can rarely be completely faithfull as a book.
A book can describe details that you just cannot focus on to much in a film and it triggers you're imagination.
So unless a book is written like a movie (which is what i thought about The Da Vinci Code) or if your imagination with the book was exactly the same as the movie turns out to be there will always be differences.

They're also very different media, what works for one might not work for the other.
Thoughts and subtle details that can come across perfectly in a book are very difficult to put on to a screen and for instance Mr. Bay's explosions might feel a bit tame when putten into words.

I very much enjoyed The Colour of Magic (2008). They put as much as they could of the book in that tv-movie.

I've been reading Potter since I was 15 BEFORE the films started. So I had all the characters perfectly imagined in my minds. So when the movies came out. I was a bit disappointed that the Weasley twins weren't short and stout like they're described in the books. I obviously got over it. So my book characters still look the same way as I imagined them umpteen years ago. WhenI read the books I don't imagine Emma Watson as Hermione, the book Hermione is a bit different. I actually thought the most faithful adaptations the first two were the worst.So I don't mind the changes ( although I am a bit disappointed when some of my favorite scenes from the books aren't included), as long as the film tells the basic stortyline, I don't care. I really enjoyed The Half Blood-Prince film and I actually like the romance between Ginny and Harry a lot better than the book, which seems to spring Ginny on us as Harry's love interest at the last minute ( as far as Harry's interest).

Anyway, when you present something in a different medium, you have to realize that it's going to be a bit well, different.

I think I remember Peter Jackson saying something to the degree of we want to recreate the spirit of the books. I think that is where Watchmen ultimately failed. It was extremely faithful visually and plot-wise, but it didn't recreate the feel of the comic. I think a good adaptation needs to recreate the themes, attitude, feel of the source material, rather than being overly concerned with jamming each page into film form.

well, it's and adaptation, i get it, but too many things have been changed, and it doesnt make sense at all, i can understand that it's not gonna be just like the book, and the the things they have to cut, but…why to change things if it wont make any difference? For example, dumbledore's death scene, harry was under a spell so he cant move, but in the movie, dumbledore tell him to not do anything whatever…it doesnt make any sense, why to change that?, or the harry/ginny kiss scene, that never happened, and then, out of nowhere, at the end "ron is ok about…you know…you and ginny" c'mon! they focus too mucho in lavender/ron, im sorry, they have to focus in telling the story,
some part we're really good, i loved the performances in the cave, and Helena Bonham Carter as always, i hope that spliting the last book in two parts will make the difference

I can't stand it when fans complain about movie adaptations "not being faithful"… and I'm a diehard Potter fan myself. The one thing they fail to realize is this: film and the written word are VERY DIFFERENT mediums! Things NEED to be changed! I don't care if I love the book like life itself: if the film changes absolutely nothing, I almost wouldn't want to see it. The essence is what needs to be captured; to do this, events must be changed around to fit the time constraints and (much more importantly) the pacing and flow.

I am an avid writer and movie watcher. I have been doing chaptered works since I was little; full-length novels since I was 13 (but, being only 19, I have yet to publish, though I hope to remedy that very soon). And I finish them. More recently, I've tried my hand at screenplays. At an adapted screenplay, more specifically. Now, adapting a screenplay is an absolute blast (I took one of my childhood favorites and had fun with it). But stuff needs to be changed, and I changed it. Stuff needs to be cut, and I cut it. When I write, I can afford to have long tracks of dialogue and inner philosophy. In a screenplay, you cannot see someone think. You can only see them act and say, and even then they can't speak too long without the scene dragging out. I love both mediums intensely, which is why I realize their differences and the fact that a filmmaker must make a FILM, and not a book put on screen.

The first two Harry Potter films, though enjoyable and still basically good, were books put onscreen. The rest of the films were films (though their quality as films varied). As a film–and an adaptation, for that matter–HP3 was the best. It understood most clearly the mischief and magic of Rowling's world. HP6 was the second-best, but it had weaknesses in the story–though, I must qualify this and say it was weaknesses inherent in the book. Frankly, I think the best Harry Potter book was the 5th. HBP and DH could have been good, except the problem is that Rowling is God herself at character development, plot structure, and mystery, but she's sort of shit at writing about war. And in books 6 and 7 the Wizarding World is at war… and it doesn't feel like it. The Death Eaters don't really seem to have a war plan or an aggressive attack scheme. And the 7th book spends half the time with the trio wandering around the forest while all the interesting stuff happening at Hogwarts is relegated to a page of exposition 2/3 of the way through the book. The 5th book made the last Wizarding War sound so hard and horrible, but the 6th and 7th books were like: "Oh. So this is the terrible regime of Voldemort? Not so terrible, really. It just seems like ordinary baddies doing generic bad things." The strengths in the 6th and 7th books came ALL in the characters: in the Tom Riddle flashbacks and the creation of his Horcruxes, in the romantic entanglements that permeated book 6, in the cave sequences in the lake, in the jaw-dropping twisted when you-know-which-person killed you-know-which-other-person (just in case there are a few souls who still don't know what happened). In the 7th book, the strengths came in the story of the Deathly Hallows and in Dumbledore's past errors and Rowling's views on death. The King's Cross chapter with Dumbledore talking to Harry may just be the best in the entire series; it does, in fact, seem to be the entire point around which the whole 7-volume behemoth pivots. Sadly, though, since Rowling can't write a convincing war, books 6 and 7 always have that nagging feeling that these intensely real characters are acting on a sadly-contrived backdrop. It's a very mixed feeling to have, especially in book 7.

The 6th movie did the right thing, in that case, in highlighting the mystery, the romance, and the characters. It tried to remedy the war vacuum in the novel by adding that scene with the burrow; sadly, the scene didn't really have much of a point. And, for all its strengths, there STILL was that nagging feeling in the film that this wasn't really war. Had the 6th book been better in that area, I feel that the 6th movie may actually have had a chance of surpassing the Prisoner of Azkaban as my favorite Harry Potter film. But such was not the case.

Since the 7th film is in two parts, I have this amazing pipe dream that they'll dramatize what's going on at Hogwarts with Ginny and the others suffering under Snape's regime. Meanwhile, they could pare down the inordinate amount of time that the trio spends wandering around in the forest. That would be awesome. It would require being not-as-faithful, but that's sometimes what's required to make an awesome film. If they were to do that, then the 7th film just might have a chance at being the first Potter film to surpass the book. Though maybe not, because I don't think the film could hit as hard with the King's Cross chapter or the big Snape reveal at the end. The films never seem to hit the huge revelations as hard as the books do.

Okay, diatribe over. Comment.

My favorite book adaptation is well, Adaptation. Charlie Kauffmann turned a novel about a reporter doing a story on a man who finds and steals rare orchids in Florida and turned it into a hilarious diatribe on the very real frustrations of writing. It is the only time I can think where someone took the mood and characters of a novel and completely changed them to the point where they are unrecognizable and I loved every minute of it. That being said I believe that it is important to be faithful to the mood and themes of the novel, but not the actual scenes. Another great adaptation is Misery which streamlines the novel, even changes scenes (the hobbling in the movie was more disturbing that the foot getting chopped off in the novel), but never loses what the novel was in terms of horror. It's a horse that is nearly beaten to death when I say that books and movies are different mediums. I've stopped saying the book was better, because that's not a fair assessment of the movie. The book is not a movie. It's like comparing steak and chocolate ice cream. Both are awesome, but I can't say I like one better than the other. And you can't have chocolate steak or meat ice cream. Not a great analogy, but it's close to what we are trying to say. For the fans of the book, try going to see Harry Potter, and instead of comparing the movie to the novel, try comparing the movie to another movie. You may enjoy the film more. I don't think adaptations should be 100% faithful to the novels. Or else you end up with meat ice cream.

It's funny that people have mentioned Watchmen because I know alot of fans who complained that the film wasn't faithful enough to the book. I personally can't see a page by page recreation of the book mainly because it would be too time consuming. That kind of adaptation would be better suited for a mini-series. What would've made it more faithful? copying every piece of analytical dialouge that Manhattan ever uttered in the novel.

Most of Wathcmens problems were that it didn't have a clear narrative and it was paced too slow for a two and half hour movie. I felt also that some of the slow-motion, look me use this really cool technology as you watch guys punch each other just got to be too self-indulgent for some.

One failed film adapation, a noble one in my opinion, that I always keep coming back to was David Lynch's attempt to make Dune over twenty-five years ago. Lynch tried with great effort to make an insanley faithful adaptation of Herberts novel (he even kept the inner vioce over thoughts that the book had) yet it never really worked and most of what he filmes was left cut and audiences wound up with a version that was a confusing mess and was no where near the book.

The bottom line, a movie and a book are two totally different mediums and not everything can be translated smoothly.

Well, I´m always looking at adaptations… Maybe for books, or maybe for videogames, the viewers should know that is imposible to show every thing exactly the same as it is shown on the source material… And why? First at all, because the film would become too long, and second, and for me, the most important one, is the surprise factor. As a reader, I understand that the movie I´m going to see in the theater is the director´s vision, and not mine. Should I be upset about that? Of course not! I can´t hope everyone to think like I do!!! The most important is to maintain the spirit of the source!!! For example, I really like videogames, but almost always the adaptations are really bad…. However, I absolutely loved Silent Hill, because it takes the elements of the videogames and mix them with new ideas…

I said before in another post, that my favorite Harry Potter film was Chamber of Secrets, and the reason was because I thought it was very loyal…. However, I already saw Half-Blood Prince and it became MY FAVORITE HARRY POTTER FILM!!!! Because it has a perfect balance between the old and the new… And it really have the spirit of the saga… I think the Potter movies have grow up… the same has the viewers… I have read all the books, and I started at 8 years old… And saw the first movie a year after… Now I´m 17, and Harry Potter is and will be, a legend for next generation… But maybe not in so a strong way, because I think the magic of the books was to wait year per year the publication of the next one… And the same happened with the movies.

Even though there are some adaptations that are fantastic (Fight Club), most movies fail to capture the essence of a book. I believe this is completely normal because a book will get into so much more detail than a movie can allow. I am not a fan of the Harry Potter franchise however I believe it's one of the series where I have heard the least amount of complaints from readers. The fact that the final book will be separated in 2 movies allows for maximum detail (and studio profit haha) to do the final book in a beloved series some justice.

I don't think the question should be how faithful should a movie be to source material, but more how understanding should the fans be. When it comes to adaptations, it seems like studios are trying to please an audience that can never be happy. Obviously a movie won't be exactly like the book you read, but don't get upset on how it isn't 100% the same, rationalize on why it can't be.

I mean, Batman Begins was a brand new re-imagining of the franchise and was an excellent movie, however it was completely off from the stories readers know from the comics. Same with the X-Men movies or Iron Man. All have certain links to the comics, but it would be unfair to demand a movie be true to a series that has had decades to build characters and stories in comics.

I started my Harry Potter fandom with the films. The first two. I then picked up the third book and read on from there. Since then, I've become a writer myself. Working in Hollywood and on screenplays has created an outlook that perhaps most fans may or may not agree with. Mind you, I started with the films and moved on to the books. So, dont get me wrong… Im still a Harry Potter nut.
Anyways, what I had wanted to say is that I agree an adapted film is not going to be exactly as the book. They are two different mediums. How could they be? I think that "Half-Blood Prince" is a very strong film, but as a film I think it is missing key elements that scenes from the book (if they had been included) could have helped. The whole movie is about emotion, as the book was (what my obsessed potter fan/best friend guessed) "the calm before the storm". Its about these kids and their love lives, about dumbledore and harry's relationship, and about voldemort's backstory. Its not necessarily exciting. But mysterious, an element that seems to have been forgotten for a good portion of the movie.
I really enjoyed the film until just after the cave scene. From that point on, it felt rushed. And when it needed emotion the most, it failed. Sure its sad. But thats because of what happened in the plot, not so much in the movie. It wasnt very surprising nor very thrilling. And it certainly wasnt as iconic as the moment should have been.
The end of the book is what made it so memorable. If you ask a reader what happens in the 6th book they will tell you…. well… (without saying it for those who havent seen the movie yet)…. what happens on the tower at the end. And for me, the ending is what was this films biggest failure. It skips over the scene as though it wasnt even all that important. And it all happens so fast, you hardly have time to think about what happened before the credits roll.
As viewers, we go to summer blockbuster movies for spectacle just as much as story. And I believe that even though this film was stunning, it missed out on a grand finale. The book had it, why didnt the movie? It was what the audience would have loved to see. Potter fan or not.
The producer argued that the reason it was removed was because it was too similar to the finale of the 7th book. That, is a silly argument. Because, we are an audience that quickly forgets, and we have at least two years and one film in between before the big fight at the end happens. It is lacking a serious and tense ending. One we did not get.
Anyways, I'll stop.

A Clockwork Orange is one of the greatest adaptations ever, visually and literally. And I'm glad the ending of the novel in england was not in the film, it's not a good ending.

@Zack Solomon: I agree with you completely, I've read the novel at least 5 times and i've lost count how many times i've seen the movie but i believe that the fact Kubrick had adapted the film from the US version, the ending was left open for the viewer to decide. I have to disagree with you that the ending of the english version of the novel wasn't that good i believe that it just wouldn't have worked on screen but in the book it works.

Why would people go into a movie expecting it to be exactly like the book? I myself don't read the Harry Potter books but I highly enjoy the movies. If a movie is based on a 700 plus page book , right off the back I would find it impossible to fit everything and every little detail in. Well during my first viewing of Order of the Phoenix I really didn't like it and that movie did feal like a lot was cut from the book. When I revisited it I understood more of it and grown to like it a lot more then in the theatre. Watchmen I actually did read the book and when I saw it I loved it. I forgot most of it and seeing it on the big screen was a great movie experience.

I honestly think it depends on the source material itself.
Some books won't do as well when transitioned to the big screen, no matter how it's adapted. An example would be Watchmen, a graphic novel with so many little tidbits that try to put them all in when there obviously isn't enough time to throw in the important aspects of the main storyline. These little parts get to the point that no one can explain why they're there in the first place, making them meaningless. Bubastis is one of those tidbits, ask anyone that's read the GN and they know why she's in the story, but ask someone who hasn't read the GN and they have no idea. The reason being that the ending had to be changed and without the original ending there's no need for Bubastis, but Snyder included her anyways.

Then there're the movies that have more than enough fat that can be trimmed to make a great movie. The Lord of the Rings is an example. If Peter Jackson wanted to make a completely faithful adaptation, then he'd probably need another 12 hours to film on top of the extended editions he released. Instead he and Fran Walsh recognised the pertinent information and the stuff they felt could be removed. Some of that excess story was then shot for the extended cuts, but what wasn't added back in was reworked so that any loose ends would still be covered.

Finally there are the books that work well on the big screen as long as the overall themes are kept intact. I look at The Prestige as a prime example since the book and the movie have little to nothing in common with each other. The movie takes the imporant themes such as use of flashbacks, revenge, and greed between the two main characters, but all of the events taking place in the book didn't carry over to the movie. Do you know who's complaining? No one. Those who liked the book enjoyed the movie, even Christopher Priest said he like the adaptation.

So where do the Potter movies fit into? Personally, I think they are a prime example of books that could easily be made into great movies, but the adapting process has been gone about in the wrong way. There is so much fat in the books that could very easily be taken out to make room for the more important story elements, instead I feel like the writers have kept in a whole lot of the fat and removed important aspects to not just the individual book, but to the overall story. The whole S.P.E.W. storyline Hermione has in the book was a great thing to remove because it does nothing for the story when you get right down to it. On the other hand the exclusion of characters such as Bill and Charlie Weasley hurt in the long run, instead being introduced at the last minute with quick rewrites after the writers realize how wrong they were for not including them in the first place.

American Psycho is a good movie but a bad adaptation even if Patrick Bateman is great in the movie!

I'm reading "Let The Right One In" at the moment and I'm amazed at the job John Ajvide Lindqvist did with his book – he's the one who wrote the script, also. He completely understands what works with written words, and what works in a movie. It's that case where I just can't say, "Which is better, the movie or the book?". He did what the best adaptations do: he knows what fits into a movie, and what's better in the book.

Dunno if it's my favourite adaptation, but I always think of "Atonement" – mainly because, when I read the book, I thought: "This is brilliant and completely unfilmable". Joe Wright (and Christopher Hampton) did their best job with one of the best books I've ever read. People who complained, for example, about the changes in the end of the movie just don't understand – the end of the book wouldn't have worked as a movie. The TV interview (in the movie) was an ingenious way of revealing what's the story about.

First off, I just want to say for what they were trying to do, I consider HBP to be one of the better adaptations. I have read all of the books (except Deathly Hallows (4)) over ten times apiece (when there are no other books to read, I would read those through). But anyway, they trimmed a lot of fat that was not needed and the point of adding certain scenes and taking away others: IT'S A MOVIE!!!

If you stay too close to the source material, on most occasions (except masterpieces like Fight Club) it will lose everyone except those who are die hard fans of it and if you stray to far from the source material, all the fans hate it and can be enjoyed by regular movie goers. Look at Lord of the Rings: it added, changed and subtracted things to make a damn good movie but also kept very closely to the source material to give little nods and winks at the fans.

With HBP, a thing I can appreciate was that there wasn't too much violence in it because they don't want to make the 7th movies repetitive. There is a reason they are making it into 2 films. In the HBP movie, they kept in the bulk of what was important and took out things that weren't necessary to the flow of the plot.

That's why I still HBP the 3rd best of the Potter films (right behind Goblet and Azkaban).

The 7th one is being made into two movies so that it can be accurate to the book.
So…that is all. And if you think that HBP was a bad adaptation, apparently some of you have not seen Eragon, which was the biggest joke ever. I could have written a better script then that (and I actually am)