Which is better: Harry Potter movies or Harry Potter books?

[Gooch]

you would love the books, btw, Brisngir This Fall!

[Nana1Popo2]

ive heard they're going to remake the first 3 harry potter movies cuz apparently they sucked.......i think they were all right, i mean what do u want for that time?

[Gooch]

Personally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.

[Nana1Popo2]

ya, they should just leave em

[PseudoMario16]

Personally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.

actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think...  im not sure, its just what i heard

[SuperFireKirby]

(btw, i dont remember the names of the places) but they also didn't put in the place with the extremely harsh winds that like ripped Saphira's wings. Its all just totally off.

I'm almost positive that was after they bought the horses and went out the forest to te plains. But I could be wrong.

[Gooch]

Personally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.

actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think...  im not sure, its just what i heard

I wasn't talking about Daniel Radcliff, i was talking about Harry Potter being 12 in the first movie/book, otherwise it would be illegal for Danny-Boy to be doin the stuff hes doin *cough* naked pictures *cough*

[SuperFireKirby]

*cough* nude plays*cough*

[Brawler4Ever]

Personally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.

actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think...  im not sure, its just what i heard

*coughcough*lotsofmake-up*coughcough*

They're budget's gotta be dangerously low now. 

[SuperFireKirby]

100 million dollars spent on Radcliff's make- up. 1 quarter on the quality of the actual film.

[Brawler4Ever]

It'd work out somehow. 

[SuperFireKirby]

I hear J.K. Rowling making a new book called Harry Potter and The Giant Mountain of Money.

[PseudoMario16]

are they seriously remaking the first 3 movies cuz they sucked??? thats gotta be a slap in the face for the people who worked on those movies...
anyway

100 million dollars spent on Radcliff's make- up. 1 quarter on the quality of the actual film.

thats insane....

[Brawler4Ever]

15 votes for the books. 0 for the movies(as of now, anyway).

I find that funny.

[PseudoMario16]

15 votes for the books. 0 for the movies(as of now, anyway).

I find that funny.

lol yeah. it makes sense though