Are the 'Harry Potter' films better than the books? A passionate and magical debate

LONDON — In a desperate attempt to make the final hours before the release of the eighth Harry Potter story go a little bit quicker, we've decided to re-ignite an age-old debate: Are the Harry Potter films actually any good? And is it possible that they might actually be better than the books?

SEE ALSO: Before 'Cursed Child,' all muggles need this glorious 'Harry Potter' refresher

In one corner we have Mashable UK's Lifestyle Reporter, Rachel — a big fan of the films who will be arguing why she thinks they're better than the seven books; in the other corner we have Mashable UK's Culture Reporter Sam, who loves the books but really isn't a fan of the films.

Wands at the ready, people...

Opening arguments.

Sam: I can’t get enough of Harry Potter. I grew up with the books and devoured each new one as soon as it came out, I re-read my old copies to fill the void between installments, and I’m currently counting down the hours until I can read the Cursed Child script (I've got tickets to see the play in October). 

I also dragged myself to the cinema whenever a new film came out. This, unfortunately, is where my relationship with the franchise (and my self-proclaimed super fan status) breaks down a bit. In short, I really don’t like the films. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate them — if they were a stand-alone series based on original screenplays I'd probably have enjoyed them — but when you place them alongside the books they just don't stack up.

They don't have the same level of imagination as the books, they're not as fast-paced, and — ultimately — I don't think the franchise would be any worse off without them.

Rachel: Don’t get me wrong, I bloody love the Harry Potter books. Truly, I do. But, I really, really, really love the films. The reason for my enjoyment is because watching the films is like reliving the scenes played out in my imagination when I first read the books as a child. My profound affection for the films stems from seeing the story that first captured my imagination illustrated in three-dimensional form on screen. Watching the films will always transport me back to my childhood and adolescence when I would count down the days until the film opened. But that's not all. The films also showcase some of Britain’s finest acting talent, making it a veritable British hall of fame. If you were to ask me to sit down and watch any one of the Harry Potter films with you right this very second, I would say unto you: “Hell yes.” And we’d have an absolute blast.

The films are timeless classics that will never, ever age.

Rachel: When the first film came out, I was 13 years old and in the throes of teen angst. But, watching Harry Potter films after school restored my faith in the universe. I lived vicariously through the students of Hogwarts, and secretly wished that I could switch schools and hang out with Harry, Hermione and Ron. But, 15 years later, even though I’m done with school and a 28-year-old grown up (supposedly), the films still ring true for me. Emma Watson’s Hermione is still my spirit guide in life and love, my movie crush on Dracoy Malfoy endureth (don’t ask me to explain it), and Rickman’s performance as secret-good-guy Snape will haunt me for the rest of my days. 

I continue to relate to the films because — as adults — we are cast adrift in a world that isn’t always good to us, and we fight to keep the good alive. That sounded a little more trite than I’d hoped, but you get my meaning. 

That rush of excitement when the opening credits roll and Hedwig’s Theme plays will never go away for me. I reckon I’ll still be watching the films when I’m 85. (And fabulous).

Sam: I agree that the Harry Potter saga is a timeless classic, but I think the films will be largely forgotten in the not-too-distant future. They're just an average adaptation; the books will be the thing that lives on, because they're the real deal.

I grew up with Harry Potter too, but it was the books rather than the films that gave me that sweet escapism; it was the books that first made me wish for a Hogwarts letter and the books that gave me hours of entertainment as I raced to finish them before the other kids in my class.

I'll never, ever forget the buzz of a Harry Potter book being released; I won't forget how gripped I was when Harry and Dumbledore went on their quest to destroy the Horcrux, or how sad I was when Dumbledore died; I won't forget how ridiculously hooked I was while reading that chapter in The Deathly Hallows that delves into Snape's tragic memories.

I'm more than happy to forget the films, though, because they barely came close to inducing any of the same emotions I experienced when reading Rowling's stories. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they get remade in the next 30 years or so; then their memory really will be obliviated.

The books are so much more detailed.

Sam: J.K. Rowling's books are stuffed full of brilliant characters, beautiful descriptions and exactly the right amount of detail and magical history needed to create such an ambitious fantasy world. 

The films, on the other hand, feel rushed. Each story is crammed into its two or three-hour running time, with the scenes and characters whizzing along at Hogwarts Express-speed towards a conclusion that usually suffers from a lack of tension in the build up. 

Splitting the last film into two parts was understandable, but it doesn't make much sense after The Goblet of Fire, The Order of the Phoenix and The Half Blood Prince (all similarly lengthy books) only had one film each to squeeze their stories into.

Basically, the pacing of the whole franchise felt off.

Rachel: Look Sam, people just aren’t going to sit in a cinema for 12 hours to live through J.K. Rowling’s intricate description of the taste of butterbeer — or whatever. Glorious as her descriptive abilities are (I really do have a lot of time for them), I’m not about to sit down and endure a never-ending film just because you want more detail. It’s inevitable that some details are sacrificed in order to make the films succinct, engaging and watchable. That is a shame, but it would also be an even bigger shame if the film was rendered dull as ditchwater because it was bogged down with non-essential details. I think the films have just the right amount of detail for a story about a magical parallel universe in which a protracted battle against good and evil also happens to be taking place while people are still trying to go to school and make friends and fall in love. So yeah, you're completely wrong.

There's something everyone can enjoy in the films.

Rachel: The Harry Potter films aren’t just for kids, okay? My Dad has been known to kick back with an HP film on occasion and he’s a businessman in his 50s. Gary says that the calibre of the actors provides “a high level of professionalism from a young age until the end.” The films feature some of the UK’s best-loved actors, but actors that appeal to all generations.

If you love action and adventure films, you’re destined to love the films because both of those things abound. There’s romance too — albeit awkward teenage romance — and heartwarming friendship. What's not to like? There’s the odd spot of horror — remember Aragog the creepy spider? What about Professor Quirrell’s double-sided head? Gross.

Sam: Everything you mention above is in the books too, and it's done so much better. Terror? I felt way more tense reading about the Forbidden Forest than I did watching it on screen. Action and adventure? The books are much, much more exciting and fast-paced than the awkwardly plotted films. You mention Professor Quirrell's double-sided head (which was creepy), but I can barely remember how that scene even looked in the films — everything in the books has stayed with me, but the films were forgettable in comparison.

Sorry, Gary, but next time you want to kick back after work you should pick up one of Rowling's novels instead.

The films spoil our memories of Rowling's universe.

Sam: Although I don't remember many specific details from the films, I still have a bunch of confused images rattling around in my head now whenever I think of the Harry Potter stories; there's the way I initially imagined the characters when reading the books, and then there's the way I saw those characters portrayed in the films.

It's annoying. 

Fantasy worlds are so subjective that no matter how good a book's description may be, we all still form our own different images and ideas when reading. Although there were quite a few characters in the films that were almost exactly how I imagined them (Alan Rickman as Professor Snape and Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, for instance), there were many others that weren't.

Now the picture in my head has been muddled, and whenever I re-read one of the books I can't help but think of Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson (neither of who were bad; they just didn't quite match up with how I first imagined their characters).

Rachel: I’m sorry if you are having trouble with your imagination, Sam, but there’s no need to take it out on the films. I actually believe that the films enrich our experience of Rowling’s universe. If I were to re-read the books tomorrow, I would hear Alan Rickman’s mellifluous voice speaking any time Severus Snape spoke. Emma Watson’s portrayal of Hermione lives on in my imagination because she was so convincing. 

Have you ever thought, Sam, that the reason you’re confused could be because the actors’ performances were just ~that~ convincing? Yeah.

It's unclear whether this debate will ever get settled. But it is clear that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child will be released on Sunday, July 31.