# Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire



## Lisa (Nov 20, 2005)

Saw it tonight.

Very intense movie.  Loved it!  Thought the effects were great.  Definitely a must see in my eyes!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2005)

I really like how they portrayed Voldemort.  The actor that they picked was excellent.  I can't wait to see more of him.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 20, 2005)

My sister and I are taking my dad to it at Christmas, so I am waiting a few weeks to see HP 4, but am definetelly looking forward to it!!!!


----------



## Lisa (Nov 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I really like how they portrayed Voldemort. The actor that they picked was excellent. I can't wait to see more of him.



So very true!  He looked exactly as I thought he would.  The Dragons were excellent too!  I really don't have one bad thing to say about the movie.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Nov 20, 2005)

Terrible, terrible, terrible. My only hope is someone who wants to make the movies RIGHT comes along one day and remakes them. I'm always stuck in watching the behind-the-scenes of LOTR, and I hear an actor say something along the lines of "Make sure you look at him when you say that, the fans will be expecting it" I saw none of that in this movie. It's not for us fans, the true fans, who looked forward to it, hoping that it would bring to life the book we love. It's for people who don't know any better about what a FAN based movie should be. A terrible dissapointment and a waste of my money. Two things:

1. I have no desire to see it again
2. I dont' really care about the next one.

Shouldn'tve read the book first I guess


----------



## Lisa (Nov 20, 2005)

Hollywood1340 said:
			
		

> Terrible, terrible, terrible. My only hope is someone who wants to make the movies RIGHT comes along one day and remakes them. I'm always stuck in watching the behind-the-scenes of LOTR, and I hear an actor say something along the lines of "Make sure you look at him when you say that, the fans will be expecting it" I saw none of that in this movie. It's not for us fans, the true fans, who looked forward to it, hoping that it would bring to life the book we love. It's for people who don't know any better about what a FAN based movie should be. A terrible dissapointment and a waste of my money. Two things:
> 
> 1. I have no desire to see it again
> 2. I dont' really care about the next one.
> ...



Interesting Hollywood.  Thank you for sharing.  I have to ask, how would you have liked it portrayed?  What would you have liked to see done differently?  Did the first three movies disappoint you as well and if they did, why did you see the fourth?

Lisa


----------



## BrandiJo (Nov 20, 2005)

i thought it was a good movie, saw it friday and would see it again on vidio


----------



## Navarre (Nov 20, 2005)

I haven't seen the movie yet so have no valid opinion. However, the only complaints I've seen on the entire internet have been from those who were disappointed in how the book was adapted to film.

I have read every book and loved them. I have seen every movie and loved it no less.

I think we simply have to accept that every single item in a book cannot be realistically included in the film. Goblet of Fire is one of the longest books in the series.  It is full of character, intriguing moments, and subtle plot development.

Despite all of that, it is simply not reasonable to place all of that into a film unless you expect it to be 7 hours long. Many Tolkein fans were disappointed with The Lord of the Ring movies but I don't see how anyone could consider those films bad either.

I have read The X-Men for 30 years. I love (love) the title. The movies have glaring inaccuracies and oversights: Rogue isn't involved with Bobby Drake and they are screwing around with every bit of The Phoenix Saga, the pivotal plot of movies 2 and 3.

However, I also realize they can't take 30 years of character history and make it work in 2 hour films. So, I have to examine the movies on their own merit. In that regard, they stand up excellently.  Same with Spider-Man.

So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 20, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.


 

I think that is how movies are supposed to be enjoyed and that is the thing many die hard fans forget.  I have to admit it has been a few years since I have read Potter and one of the reasons I didn't read them recently is to avoid the constant book to movie comparisons....


----------



## Lisa (Nov 20, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.



My girlfriend, whom I went to the movie with last night (our kids are friends) asked if it bothered me seeing the movie and knowing the differences (she hasn't read the books).  I told her that this book was so full of intricate details that I knew it was impossible to fit it all in.  I enjoyed the movie because it did exactly what I wanted it to.  It let me escape into a world of make believe and entertained me from begining to end.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 20, 2005)

Conjuring up a franchise-best $101.4 million from Friday through Sunday, _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ ended Hollywood's long-running slump and recorded the fourth-best opening of all time, according to the ticket counters at Exhibitor Relations. 

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/weekendboxofficea.html;_ylt=Ar0jpYRILWdrPy5.sZz_5Q5fVXcA


----------



## Eternal Beginner (Nov 20, 2005)

I am someone who is usually critical of book to movie adaptations.  I have to say that this is one of the better ones. 

I find that the spirit and intent of the book was kept intact and really, that is the best that can be hoped for.  You can't possibly include all the subplots, innuendo, shadings and subtleties of a lengthy novel in a short, visual medium.  It is unrealistic to expect a duplication of a book...it is a totally different medium.

Two thumbs up from me...and I don't usually have a lot of patience for movies in general.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

I thought it was very good--well done, moving, exciting. I was impressed. I don't usually like a 2.5 hour movie, but this kept me involved.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 21, 2005)

I never expect for any movie that came from a book to be like it's inspiration.  It's too disappointing to do this.

I haven't yet seen the movie, but I know book four and book five are the best thus far out of the series.  I can't wait until Wednesday.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Nov 21, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Interesting Hollywood. Thank you for sharing. I have to ask, how would you have liked it portrayed? What would you have liked to see done differently? Did the first three movies disappoint you as well and if they did, why did you see the fourth?
> 
> Lisa



Lack of continuty within the series. Plot points hinted at in one, dropped completly in the next. Take Harrys wand, the scene with Mr. Ollivander in TSS tells us something is special about that wand. But although the effect is shown in GOF it is never fully explained. The connection between Harry and Voldy is right there for the taking from the first movie. It's a "Now remember we mentioned in in Sorcerers Stone so be sure to explain that! The fans will be looking for it!"  It's as if each director wants to get their own bit of the pie and heck with the rest of the films. "Don't worry, we'll top the box office even if we cut this out. They'll never know the difference. Oh yeah, axe the house elves too, we need more oomph for the PG-13 rating. Get me wardrobe!"  It's like watching your favorite television show that goes from series to single episodes mid season. The first movie was what I saw in my head when I read the book. It was amazing. Now all the little bits I want to see, or the funny parts that would translate so well to film are missing. And if not that, major plot points in general. Imagine the first and second movie if edited like this one comapared to the book. The series would never have gotten off the ground. "But the book is longer!" Then make a longer movie. Why was LOTR succesfull? Because the fans loved the movie because of the book, not the other way around. 
I'm going to finish with a link to someone who says it MUCH better then I would. But here are my major rants.

-The World Cup. Where'd it go? The Wonskey Feint? The reason we CARE about Victor? 
-Harry, Winky, Wand. Enough said.
-It's because she's part Veela you prat, not her prat!
-Dumbledore, read the books as acting reference!
-Hermione, WHY DID'NT YOU SAY THE LAST UNFORGIVABLE CURSE!!!
-Why? why? why? why!!!! The one answer missing from this movie. 
-Skeeter is an animagus. No, she really is. See in the next book she'll be blackmailed and...oh never mind. 
-Fleur was wearing her robes on the second task, not an S&M get up.
-Where is the Sphynx? And the spider?

I could go on. But this sums it up:
http://www.filmjerk.com/new/article1518.html


----------



## Navarre (Nov 21, 2005)

Sorry you didn't like it, Hollywood. It's regrettable that you don't enjoy the movie adaptations of a book you obviously love.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

I too felt that the prior spell effect needed more of an explanation in the film. (I knew about it from the book.) But I found this a minor quibble.

I think that dropping the attempt to liberate the house elves was wise too. There was so much going on already.


----------



## Navarre (Nov 21, 2005)

Thinking in advance about a movie I haven't seen, I had already thought it would be a smart idea to drop the house elf liberation. It isn't critical to the plot.

Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag. 

They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map. 

This would only have taken less than a minute to explain and would have added a lot to the film. But then again, I'm not the director and I don't have to deal with the rigors of film making.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 21, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Thinking in advance about a movie I haven't seen, I had already thought it would be a smart idea to drop the house elf liberation. It isn't critical to the plot.


I think the whole S.P.E.W. thing in the books was to create a certain tension between Ron and Hermione, laying the groundwork for what we already know will happen - but the movie directors have created other opportunities to do that.


			
				Navarre said:
			
		

> Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag.
> 
> They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map.
> 
> This would only have taken less than a minute to explain and would have added a lot to the film. But then again, I'm not the director and I don't have to deal with the rigors of film making.


I agree.  It's like in the movie "The World According to Garp" where Poo shoots Garp - nobody knew why she killed Garp, some didn't even know who she was.  It wouldn't have taken long to explain it and it is an important part of the storyline.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag.
> 
> They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map.


 
Both of those omissions bothered me too--and yes, they would have been so easy to take care of! I didn't udnerstand why they didn't make those points clear.

As to Garp...I agree!


----------



## Swordlady (Nov 21, 2005)

I saw GoF last Friday, and enjoyed it immensely.  However, I do have some gripes:

They should've shown some of the World Cup Quidditch match.  That would've helped with Krum's character development, which was pretty lacking in the movie.  Then again, all of the champions - except Harry, of course - were underdeveloped.
They should've also shown the veela at the World Cup, and Fleur's veela bloodline.  Again, we learn little about Fleur in the movie - and she reappears in HBP.
Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang should've been introduced in PoA; that would've made the emotional impact of Cedric's death deeper.
Rita Skeeter's character was wasted.  She and Hermione developed an acrimonious relationship in the book - which Hermione used to her advantage in the next book.  How are they going to tie her into the OotP movie (which I understand will be in production soon)?
Dumbledore didn't explain how Harry and Voldemort's wands connected in the end.
I felt like the movie had an expectation that the viewer has read the book, and could "fill in the blanks".  But some of these missing details are going to become more problematic if Books 5-7 hit the big screen.


----------



## Navarre (Nov 21, 2005)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I felt like the movie had an expectation that the viewer has read the book, and could "fill in the blanks". But some of these missing details are going to become more problematic if Books 5-7 hit the big screen.


 
I think that's one of the biggest considerations. Regardless of the books, the movies have to lay a foundation that the sequels can build upon. From what you've mentioned, they might indeed have some issues there.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2005)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> However, I do have some gripes:
> 
> They should've shown some of the World Cup Quidditch match. That would've helped with Krum's character development, which was pretty lacking in the movie. Then again, all of the champions - except Harry, of course - were underdeveloped.
> They should've also shown the veela at the World Cup, and Fleur's veela bloodline. Again, we learn little about Fleur in the movie - and she reappears in HBP.
> ...


I definitely agree that the Fleur Delacour character was woefully underdeveloped in the movie. She came across as a wimp who couldn't finish task #2 and was easily taken out by Victor Krum--himself dumbed down to an overly simple "dumb jock" stereotype--in task #3. I also agree on your points 3, 4, and 5. Cho Chang's reaction to Cedric Diggory's death also matters when she and HP start to develop a relationship.

I also thought they made it too easy to see that a certain character was not what he or she appeared to be...whereas in the book the hints were more spread out and buried in other details. But if you hadn't read the book and seen the other movies, and didn't know what that certain potion did, you might not pick up on the significance of the hints as easily, I suppose.

As to showing more of the Quidditch World Cup...here I have mixed feelings. I would've liked to have seen more, yet throughout the movie I felt that the director and editor had made wise choices about showing just enough of many events to get some action in, but not so much that it became overkill. So, I thought that this was a judicious application of leave-them-wanting-more rather than the usual blast-them-with-effects that's so common these days. I actually was impressed by their restraint and felt it contributed to the movie's success.

Surely books 5-7 will be filmed...but I've started to hear people wonder aloud if they'll use the same characters for the kids. I think they'll try very, very hard to do so. Yet, Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) is already 18 years old...who knows?

My son and I talked about whether these movies are now just for those who have read the books. I'd like to hear from someone who has not read the book but has seen the movie--how did you find it as entertainment?


----------



## Swordlady (Nov 21, 2005)

They didn't have to show the _entire_ match at the World Cup.  Even five minutes would've sufficed; just enough to showcase Krum's skills a little, and why he was such a big deal.

I'm also beginning to fear that the HP movies are becoming "fanboy" flicks (i.e., only appealing to those who read the books).  Though on the other hand, they may encourage more people to read the books.  And getting children to read _anything_ nowadays is quite a feat!


----------

