I saw the most recent Potter film over the weekend and thought it was fine. There's a lot of younguns out there crying that, OMG they changed things from the book!I absolutely love this response. Yeah, film is a different medium -- they can do with it what they want. Consider Isaac Asmiov's I, Robot. And then look at the Will Smith movie. Similar? In name only. And I didn't hear anyone complaining about that. All I heard was that Will Smith looks good. Can't argue with that, but I'd hardly call it literary criticism. Heck, Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a novel (a five part trilogy), has been multiple radio programs (which you can get in audio book at iTunes -- man, I want that) and is also a movie. Here's the thing about the movie, though, which is also the case with many of the Harry Potter movies (particularly the first and the sixth): even though they're different, there are certain details removed that people who have read the novel fill in for themselves. For example, in the cave, Harry dips the shell-thingy in the water filled with Inferi. Did anyone explain to only-movie-goers what those things were? Nope! But if you read the book, then you knew why they were there and why they acted the way they did. Chew on that for a minute before you criticize filmmakers too much.
Get used to it, kids. It's a completely different medium and things gotta change. I can't remember who it was they were interviewing, but many years ago someone asked an author his thoughts on how the movies had ruined his books. He pointed to them up there on his shelf and said, "No they haven't. They're right there."
Think about this too: when studios make movies out of books, the sales for that particular book often increase. This is becuause some people want to read the book before they go see the movie. I have been guilty of such things.
And as the author insinutated -- that beloved book will still be intact on the shelf (or under the bed) when you get home from the theatre.