<div class="quote"><i>TarrlokUltimateWaterbender wrote:
<div class="quote"> </i></div>
<p>Again, in the "Harry Potter" movies, they, indeed, cut certain scenes, but the characters fit their roles spot on. The movies are technically their own canon, as well. However, they still fit the description.
</p><p>
</p>
</div>
<p>Though I agree with all the other arguments put forward in your post, I have to reject this idea that the Warner Bros Harry Potter movies were true to the book series by J.K. Rowling.
</p><p>Micheal Gambon is still hated by many Potterheads because of his completely inaccurate portrayal of Dumbledore. Dumbledore was, in the books, a calm and huggable old man, kind of like Santa Claus. Richard Harris fit that role perfectly. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, however, was strict and serious and he tended to yell at harry a lot:
http://youtu.be/yHJeqnU_rtE
</p><p>We could say the same thing about Iroh being lean and more serious of nature in TLA.
</p><p>The reason TLA failed where Harry Potter succeeded was because of a much too anxious Nickelodeon, an excessively greedy Paramount, and a director who overestimated his own powers. Casting is a completely different situation, I bet that if the actors just acted the way the Gaang did in the cartoon, the film would have been much more enjoyable.
</p>