Movies Are Movies

And are therefore not books. As to not insult any one person specifically but more of a general idea, I wont be linking to any particular place but I'm sure evidence of the following is abundant. If I read one more review of a movie that also has a book version, and the review reads something like, "OMG, every inch of the book wasn't covered! This movie is teh suxxorz for not having Harry's ultra pissed off section properly depicted!! The book pwns! - Fanboy" I'll go ape shit. If you haven't noticed, movies and books are two different forms of media. Whats really awesome in a book, might very well suck ass in a movie. Just think how uncool a Live Free or Die Hard book would be. In a similar way, I'm glad every ounce of Harry's life as a wizard isn't covered in the movie. Although Harry Potter fans tend to be a little different in this regard, it takes most people multiple sittings to read a book. If a movie isn't over in about 3hrs tops, people will get pissed. Meaning all of the "good parts" from a 1000 page romp need to be contained in usually a 120 min time frame. So hearing every detail of Ron's breakfast cereal will likely be omitted while the cool ass wizard fight might be expanded.