For every success story that is Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind, Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones’ Diary or J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, there is an equal number of missteps like Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, the first movie version of Frank Herbert’s Dune, and the not-so-extraordinary adaptation of Alan Moore’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

The reasons for the successes — or failures — of these productions range from how closely they’ve stuck to the source material, or how they’ve managed to be faithful to the book’s spirit, despite having a couple of variations along the way.

Purists may have been up in arms about how the chronology of events in The Lord of the Rings was botched up in the movie, but that didn’t stop it from winning 11 Academy awards. And there’s a general consensus among Jane Austen fans and movie critics that Amy Heckerling’s Clueless was one of the best adaptations of Austen’s Emma.

Whatever the reasons, it’s still a risky affair to be putting up such a project, although that certainly hasn’t stopped Hollywood from coming up with even more adaptations.

Coming to the Philippines sometime in December is Ang Lee’s adaptation of Annie Proulx’ Brokeback Mountain, the love story of two gay Wyoming cowboys. In January, we will be seeing C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia begin with the movie version of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

And of course, there is that one book-to-movie adaptation that everybody probably knows about by now: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

How does this fourth movie take on J.K. Rowling’s phenomenal series rate against the material it was based on? How much of the book has made it into the movie? And more importantly, will it impress purists and new fans alike?

For those not in the know — and, surprisingly, there are still quite a number of them — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire has the boy wizard competing in the Triwizard Tournament against champions from other wizarding schools outside of England. From France come the "lovely ladies" of Beauxbatons, from Bulgaria come the boys of Durmstrang.

What complicates matters is that Harry isn’t even old enough to compete in the tournament, and he has to figure out who put him in such a position and why.

Mike Newell, famous for Four Weddings and a Funeral and who now directs this installment, has said that he sees the novel as a suspense thriller, and that the best way to adapt the 734-page novel would be to "shed everything that doesn’t involve that."

And indeed, quite a lot of shedding has been made.

The movie still retains the first chapter of the book, where Harry dreams of the Riddle house and the conversation that happens between Lord Voldemort and Wormtail, although this has one distinct difference: One character that is only introduced midway onto the novel is already glimpsed here, and even though it eases things along for new viewers, it is something that will definitely rankle the chains of Harry Potter purists.

From there Newell proceeds to excise quite a large chunk from the novel. Gone now are the Weasley twins’ experimentation with entrepeneurship with Weasley’s Wizarding Wheezes, and the Dursley’s do not even make an appearance. What we immediately get is Harry and the Weasley family heading towrd the Portkey to the Quidditch World Cup, along with Amos and Cedric Diggory.

The Quidditch World Cup, as big an event as it is in the Wizarding World, is also glossed over along with the characters of Ludo Bagman and the introduction of the veela. The Cup is now only a set piece to introduce the character of Victor Krum and as a set-up to the frightening entrance of the Death Eaters.

The champions are not that remarkble as characters on the big screen as they were in the novel. They only exist as peripheral attachments to Harry, only there to move the plot along and because one of them has to die in the end.

Even Sirius Black, who everyone knows plays an important role in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, puts in nothing more than a cameo.

Little charming subplots are discarded as well, such as Rita Skeeter’s journalistic forays and Hermione’s crusade to liberate the house elves of Hogwarts. In fact, not one house elf makes an appearance in this movie at all.

However, fans should take heart that the parts that Newell retains he puts to good use.

When Newell gets down to the small, intimate set pieces to illustrate what it’s like to be in an English boarding school one feels heartened because they make you feel that there is a plausible aspect in this movie that audiences can relate to.

Despite the absence of Weasley’s Wizarding Wheezes, the Weasley twins still manage to shine in this ensemble as they play the roles of comedic relief/lovable pranksters/charming jokesters. Neville gets his moment as Ron and Harry watch him practice for the Yule Ball without his knowledge.

Hermione shines in the Yule Ball sequence, where there’s one particular part where she tells off Ron and Harry. She sits down on the stairs and takes off her shoe to massage her foot, crying at the stupidity of boys in general and Ron in particular. To any teenage girl who’s been to a high school dance, that scene must have felt incredibly real.

Despite her limited screen time Rita Skeeter still manages to end up being so delightfully wicked that you end up liking her anyway, regardless of whether you’ve read the book or not.

And the resurrection of Voldemort is definitely one of the movie’s highlights. It is in this one instance that the movie takes something directly from the book and improves upon it. Voldemort is a slinky, suave, almost effeminate being, very much like Satan in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. When he tells Harry to mind his manners before they duel to the death, in much the same way as he did so in the book, one can feel more than a little terror t the sight.

So in the end, with almost half of the book missing from the movie, has Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire succeded? There is no doubt that it is going to make money, but will the series of films as a whole stand up to the books? That is definitely still a matter of debate.

Although the last two Potter films have been exceptional adaptations and more than make up for the fiasco of the first two, the series falters when you put all four films side by side.

The first film’s slavish copying of the book hurt them tremendously—what audiences got from that experience was a bland retelling of a vibrant book. Although Alfonso Cuaron began remedying it in Prisoner of Azkaban and Newell achieves a perfect balance between spectacle and intimacy in Goblet of Fire, the damage has already been done.

Whether the fans are willing to forego this is something that still remains to be seen .