"Rebel with a curse"

Sometimes I think book-fanatics who want to go see the film adaptation of their well-loved story should even think twice in the first place. The nosiest insufferable know-it-alls that they normally are, they should be banned from entering the theatre and public viewings or premieres and instead make a specialized screening where they can forever gloat in perpetuating their expertise which quite a select people give a damn anyway. This goes for the Harry Potter franchise, most especially, whose majority of the fan base feel that the film versions unjustly treated the material. Believe me, I wouldn’t want to go see an entire visual replica of a book because aside from being unbearably long, what’s the point?

I also want to contend that while some may opine that watching film adaptations the likes of Harry Potter without having to read the book first is an agonizing tedium, I believe that readers have a tougher job sitting through the entire running time. First, I believe that a film stands out as a film, one you can conveniently extricate from its material, and second, readers have the difficult job of having to distance the original material while seeing the film version in real time, and I believe few came out successful of this tedious and tricky exercise, which again explains the irritably nosy attitude.

I haven't read the final book in the series yet so I don't have the burden to decide which of the book stands out from the rest. It may even be impossible as the stories are closely-knit with each other. I liked Potter 5, both the movie and the book, if not for the important transition for Harry, the political subtexts (which were more manifest in the book) invites a more mature discourse apart from the usual magic and spectacle that the series is known for.