When making a book into a film, the text is
never sacred - and the HP films are significantly closer to the books than most adaptations. You may not like it, but that's how these things work and always have done. A direct translation of a 600+ page book to a 2-3 hour film is simply not possible. And it would be crushingly dull if it was attempted. The two genres live and breath in parity - distinctly different tellings of the same story. If you're a 'purist' with a book, it's always a bad idea to see a film. They're not 'dumbed down', they slimmed down to a visual (rather than literary) art form with a distinct time limit and specfic pacing requirement. The only people slating these films (it seems to me) are the 'hardcore' book purists. The same happened with
Lord of the Rings. The same happened with
Interview with the Vampire. It's the nature of things, and if you're one of those people who thinks the details in the books are untouchable, you should probably avoid such re-tellings.
If you're going to use that argument, there's a reason the films have done so well.

Really? I'm pretty sure on some podcast I listened to a couple of years ago (sorry I can't be more specific

) she said that whilst she wasn't involved in the process, she had a contractual veto on such issues. The conversation was in the context of them wanting to remove the character of Kreacher from OOTP, and her stopping them doing so.
I'm ready to be corrected, of course.