The question is if they coulde make a good serie, a movie often have a better qualati. But series can be exact wathe the story about. I thinke a movie is the best chouse but if it become a series i woulde prefer an animation series because there they can paint the figthing scens a lot better then actors can in a normal series.

I just thought of an example of a book mad into a movie, that totally ruined the story:

Eragon.

That film was nicely done, had some newcomers in it, had nice special effects and could have been a nice movie, had there not been the book in the first place. Anyone who read the book and loved it, was disappointed by this film. Most of the facts were changed (Eragon was supposed to be 15, yet in the film he was 17; Brom should have had a long white beard, in the film he had short grey hair and someof that also around his chin; Saphira should have taken time to grow, in the film she just jumped into the sky and grew up; Arya should have had black, curly, long hair and pointed ears, in the film she had relatively short blonde hair and round ears;…). Also the flow of the action was different to the book.

Just an example of how a book should not be made into a movie. Always have to have the fans and readers in mind in order to bring the images, one sees while reading to live.

  I agree with most of what "Flying
Phoenix" although Eragon was a bad movie, the reason people
point out the flaws is just because they are trying to pinpoint why
they didn't like it. Also every movie can't be like LOTR and
shouldn't be. The LOTR movies are long and way to epic and grandiose
to pool of the bleakness I would like to feel while watching The
Warded Man on screen.

  No matter how the movie is made some fans of the book are going to
be disappointed; But as long as the story isn't full of holes and the
world it's self is the true main character it should be great to
watch. It would be great if presented like Jurassic Park only
slightly more scary and dark without going past pg13. I know a lot of
us fans probably think it should just be rated R but I feel that
there are plenty of areas within the story that get dark enough that
there is no need to lend the action towards that direction. If its
rated R let it be because the story dictates it not the action.

  The warded man lends its self to a movie quite well but I worry if
it does too well in the box office. Cause; I honestly don't see how
The Desert Spear could be made into an accommodating sequel. Well,
maybe if the screen play left out over half of the story and only
followed one of the main characters. Although then they may need to
change the title to 'The Desert' or 'The Spear'. lol maybe not.

I disagree totally. Books and movies are just too different. A second
in a book serious is suppose to advance the story and although I would
assume it is encouraged for the format to be similar to the first book,
few series are meant to run on and on. Most book series have a target
number. And movies tend to be made one at a time with windows tied in
for glimpse of the potential for a sequel. The Desert Spear just doesn't tie in with The Painted Man as written for  a sequel . Its more like two movies intertwined. 

Also; Sequels are a different
beast altogether then stand alone movies are. Studios like to see more
of the same only better. If a movie does well enough to make a studio
want a sequel chances are it doesn't want its potential investments
being played with. If the studio isn't happy it doesn't matter how good
the script/acting/directing is; it will have a lower budget at best. And
if it has a lower budget it will be a B movie. What would make The Painted Man(less emphases on plot more on Main Character action/special effects/startling fear) a good movie would not work as well for The Desert Spear(More depth of plot, character development between multiple characters) in my opinion.

I've seen
some really good B movies and seen some really bad Major Films. The
Major Films always have bigger budgets and net gains. The only way they
don't make more money is when the studios just dump too much money into
them gambling on huge returns that only turn out to be average. But then again I don't know anything about making movies so I could be plain wrong.