Quote Originally Posted by Old Manus View Post
Who gives a toss whether the film follows the books to the letter? During the whole Grimmauld Place segment (a large chunk of the book) of OotP hardly anything happens, and huge parts of book 7 (I'm looking at you, camping chapters) are particularly yawn-worthy. The films are good films in their own right.
It's not about following the book perfectly, but about what's recognizing important and what's filler--something they consistently fail to do effectively. The locket? Never mentioned. Kreacher? Almost completely ignored after Rowling told them to put him in. Dobby? Nowhere to be seen since the second movie despite his role a frequently returning character. These all have negative consequences which will be difficult to explain away, but because they're all related to central plot events, it's something they will have to address in some manner.

I don't mind them adding in extra scenes. Focusing on the action is perfectly fine, and, I agree, necessary to making an entertaining movie. The fact is, however, that they haven't done it very well. I'm not quite sure why they're resistant to making these movies longer. Movies exceeding two hours in length aren't as uncommon as they once were, and it's been proven that as long as the material is there to keep it going, they still do well. Given that we've already established that important things have been cut from the movies, I think it's clear that there'd be enough of interest left to put into the movie.

I just have to question someone who decides that the longest book she's written (and granted, tOotP is absolutely riddled with unnecessary content) should be the shortest movie, especially when they ended up cutting some things that really, really shouldn't have. It's just poor screenwriting.