Book or Film? Na przykładzie książki i filmu o Harrym Potterze.

I think that film adaptations about Harry Potter are worse than books. Some people are used to going to the cinema before they read a book. Time is very important for us, sometimes we haven't got too much of it, so we prefer going to the cinema or watching a film on TV. Although almost everyone has a TV - set, books are not dead. Despite fantastic special effects, a director isn't able to recreate a book. For me, films deform books. Although I think that books are always better, actors in the films about Harry Potter are fantastic. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry is like a boy, who I imagined. All actors were playing very well, all places looked magic. The plot is entertining. There are many unexpected twists of action, which makes the reader interested.

If I go to the cinema, I have to read a book earlier. I go there to compare the film with the book and persuade myself that vision the director had. I think that reading a book stimulates our imagination - we have to imagine for example, the characters, the looks and some adventurous. In the film the director imposes his vision of characters on us and the screenwriter must choose important threads from the book to get the time frames of the film. So, for example in the Harry Potter and Goblet Of Fire lacks some threads, characters and scenes. I didn't see magic animals as Zgredek or characters as Syriusz. And If you aren't a big fan of Harry, you won't notice some of differences.

In my opinion, books are always better than films.