The article Lost in Translation? Harry Potter, from Page to Screen by Philip Nel goes into detail about the difficulties of taking a popular book series and turning it into a film series that not only pleases the fans of the book series but is also a successful film franchise. As many readers often criticize, book to film movies often leave out information that is in the book and it is often seen as appalling to the lovers of the books. I understand that not every aspect from a book can make it into a movie, especially when a book has a lot of inner mind dialogue or explanation on how a character is feeling, however, I hate when actual characters are left out or are combined. Directors try their best to stay true to a book’s fanbase, however, they do also try to make it their own thing.

The director of the first two Harry Potter movies was born in my hometown and so I always felt super connected to the first two films, even though I had never met the man as he and his immediate family hadn’t lived in town since he was young, I always still felt that it was a cool connection. Nel uses a quote from Colombus, who claimed that he would be crucified if he hadn’t stayed true to the novels, which is somewhat true. Nel then goes on to say: “However, the attempt to be completely faithful hampers those first two films; recognition of the impossibility of being completely faithful liberates the third, fourth, and fifth films” (pg 276). It is impossible to please every single person, especially when it’s loved by so many people. The recognition that no matter what they do or how they do it the film will just not be perfect for every single person which is what saved the rest of the films, though I would fight that the sixth film could have been much better than what the directors had given us.

I understand that it is difficult to put everything in from the novels, as I mentioned above. However, when half of the plot is gone and one of the main characters for that book is pushed back to a supporting character in the background, I find it annoying. In Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince shows more than just Harry’s life and what goes on from his perspective. The novel shows how Draco Malfoy is struggling to do what he was told to do by Lord Voldemort and his inner realization that maybe he was wrong in thinking that his father’s ideas were the right ideas. It comes down to Draco having to try and force himself to do the act of killing Dumbledore because Lord Voldemort had threatened Draco and his mother’s life if he did not carry out the mission. Even though Severus Snape is the one to kill Dumbeldore, the novel offered a lot of insight to Draco’s inner turmoil that we were not allowed to see in the film adaptation because he was once again, hardly in the film other than to be seen lurking around corners and on occasion fixing the disappearing cabinet until the very end when he meets Harry and Dumbledore atop the astronomy tower.

Though this article was written before the last three films were released, I still believe that the article did a good job on both pointing out some of the differences from book to film that were added simply for dramatic effect and explaining why it was either necessary or why it was a bit of a reach. I felt that most of the film adaptations, for the most part, did as best a job they could in showcasing J.K. Rowling’s magical world. Nel’s major final argument is: “Finally, one might consider both what can and cannot be translated into film, as well as the net gains and losses that arise in any translation” (pg 288). We can never get a perfect novel to film adaptation, it is simply impossible.