Harry Potter...

Morni, that's just youthful maximalism talking. If you judge a film adaptation based on how well it copies the characters, then no film can be called good. They primarily choose actors based on their acting skills and conduct auditions. Of course, the director's personal likes and dislikes also play a role. In my opinion, "Game of Thrones" is an example of a successful book adaptation. Adapting a written work into a film is an incredibly difficult task. The Strugatsky brothers rewrote the screenplay for "Roadside Picnic" several times, and what was the result? Brrr... Nothing remained of Redrick Schuhart. And how distorted was "Night Watch" on film? And how are the faces of real historical figures changed...? Alexander the Great was a cruel conqueror with a harsh, unattractive face, but on screen, he's just a pretty boy. Is this the man who conquered the entire world? Don't make me laugh. When I started reading "Game of Thrones," I was even surprised that the plotline almost didn't suffer during the adaptation. Although the sixth film is already just a shoddy piece of work. And it's not about the makeup. The acting is gone. It's as if there was only enough film for one take. They read the lines and left. 2. Vegtam, in the book, I'm interested in its content. Of course, it's entertaining reading and is published for profit.