When discussing the writing of screenplays, regardless of genre, they can be broken into two different categories: original and adaptations. With screenplays that are adaptations, their faithfulness to their literary source is divided into three degrees: loose, faithful, and literal. Audience members that are fans of the original literary source often dislike loose adaptation, because directors stray so far from the original piece.Furthermore, fans of original novels often think they want a literal film adaptation of the piece, until they actually get one. Take me for instance, I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise and always was always pleased with the way they portray the series on screen. I would argue that all the films within the series follow a faithful adaptation by always including the main events and leaving out the tedious details, resulting in a worthwhile film. There is one exception to this; David Yates’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One. I believe this film, unlike all the others, followed an extreme literal adaptation. The movie dragged on and on and it really just seemed like a two-hour long trailer for Part Two. At the same time, it was a good movie, but I feel like it would have been better, had they added some extra action-packed events. On the contrary, Yates did do what the fans of the franchise had been requesting for almost ten years; he followed J.K. Rowling’s novel to a perfect tee, by literally making you feel like you were watching these characters backpack through the woods for nine months as they did the novel.