MERGED-->Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I want to see it, but want to try and see it when it's not completely packed. May have to wait a week or two.
 
UnforgettableLemon said:
class 'til 2
Walk the Line @ 4
Harry Potter @ 7

:combust:

Rat Bastard! I am going to try to see Walk the Line on Sunday. Otherwise I may have to wait a couple weeks. :mad:
 
corianderstem said:
I want to see it, but want to try and see it when it's not completely packed. May have to wait a week or two.

I just want to give a valid reason why I think you should see it when it is completely packed. When you see it opening day, there are a lot of die-hards there who shut the fuck up once the movie starts because it is the greatest thing to them. If you see it after a couple weeks, the non-fans start coming in and that seems to be when I get the older couple that talks too loudly the whole time or snot-nosed tweens who don't really care about the movie.

Plus, there is an excitement in the air opening day that you can feel. :yes:
 
I saw it this afternoon. It's really cool :up:

but I think it's a shame it had to be edited down to film-length, as a hell a lot of story has been lost. I think people who haven't read the book will be missing a lot of stuff.

But it's a good film :yes: . Not as good as Askabhan or however you spell it, but it's good.

:clap:
 
bsp77 said:


I just want to give a valid reason why I think you should see it when it is completely packed. When you see it opening day, there are a lot of die-hards there who shut the fuck up once the movie starts because it is the greatest thing to them. If you see it after a couple weeks, the non-fans start coming in and that seems to be when I get the older couple that talks too loudly the whole time or snot-nosed tweens who don't really care about the movie.

Plus, there is an excitement in the air opening day that you can feel. :yes:

I love being a part of a die-hard audience for something I'm really into. I'm not all that into Harry Potter, although I enjoy the books and have so far enjoyed the movies.

I want to go when it's less crowded because I don't like crowds these days ... unless there's a U2 concert involved. :wink:
 
GOF is my favorite of the Potter books (from 1- 4, have yet to read 5 and 6) - I'm expecting it to vary from the novel. I have a very open mind when it comes to these things. My friends, who also read the books, take it far too literally and get all bent out of shape when a scene from the book is not in the movie or blah blah. I take it for what it is and enjoy it. Is that so wrong? :eyebrow:
 
I think that to include any more story from the book would have meant that the film was far too long. What they've had to do is show snapshots of each story element in order to keep the important bits that progress the story along. It works well, but it's a pity it had to happen.

eg the whole barty crouch storyline is really bare bones, with certain aspects completely changed, and the quidditch world cup is totally skated over, with no actual quidditch shown
 
I remember when there was talk of making GOF a 2-parter. I don't think the general public would have accepted that. It's best to keep each installment, whenever possible, as one and ONLY one movie.

The things mentioned as being omitted in GOF don't concern me - as long as the essence of the story and characters are there, then I'm sure I'll like it.
 
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I just got back from seeing the movie and I am very disappointed. Now, I realize that the book was always going to be tough to make into a movie, but they absolutely shredded the book. I don't care about the change in the story line or the subtle switches of roles, but Mike Newall missed the ENTIRE point of the the book.

The movie is too fast and too dark.

The simple beauty of the 4th Potter book is in how methodical and loving Rowling is in letting us into the magical world. She dwells on small details of the Burrow; she takes us on a tour through the Quiddich World Cup; she patiently builds the characters of minor characters like the Weasley twins and Neville - all to the great affect of letting us the audience begin to love their world. The movie does not do that. Of course, it doesn't have time to linger on all of the small details as a book can, but it can linger ... a bit. The set of the movie is FANTASTIC, but shot after shot is fast paced and blurring. It leaves the movie feeling cold. In the book, the rift between Harry and Ron is painful because we see the effects of darkness on a friendship we care about; in the movie its a trite side story. In the book, the dark mark at the Quiddich World Cup is a dramatic and terrible switch from the carnival of wonder and excitement that directly proceeds it; in the movie you are rushed through the fun and wonder and are made to dwell longer on the dark magic.

That is the second point that disappoints me about the movie. The Goblet of Fire is first and foremost about the great tragedy of lost innocence. By spending so much time building and inviting us into a world that we love, Rowling masterfully describes what it is like when darkness is polutes. The book is not about the return of Voldermort, it is about the shame that evil exists and the saddness that brings to us all. The movie is dark through-out. Their is a palpable fear (strangely and incongruously from Dumbledore himself) that evil is present and good will not be able to stand up to it; in the book the reality that evil has returned is more of a burden that puts a ceiling on joy; the movie quashes that joy in all but a few moments of levity (the Eule Ball).

What the hell am I talking about? Sorry for the rant.

I love the book because it is one of the best stories I have read describing the pain of lost innocence and the real effect of evil. The movie simply did not portray that. The movie was about the action (yes!) and the growing darkness, but it missed out on everything that we love about that nonmuggle world.

Ok - I'm going to the bar.
 
Re: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Dalton said:
The simple beauty of the 4th Potter book is in how methodical and loving Rowling is in letting us into the magical world. She dwells on small details of the Burrow; she takes us on a tour through the Quiddich World Cup; she patiently builds the characters of minor characters like the Weasley twins and Neville - all to the great affect of letting us the audience begin to love their world. The movie does not do that. Of course, it doesn't have time to linger on all of the small details as a book can, but it can linger ... a bit. The set of the movie is FANTASTIC, but shot after shot is fast paced and blurring. It leaves the movie feeling cold. In the book, the rift between Harry and Ron is painful because we see the effects of darkness on a friendship we care about; in the movie its a trite side story. In the book, the dark mark at the Quiddich World Cup is a dramatic and terrible switch from the carnival of wonder and excitement that directly proceeds it; in the movie you are rushed through the fun and wonder and are made to dwell longer on the dark magic.

That is the second point that disappoints me about the movie. The Goblet of Fire is first and foremost about the great tragedy of lost innocence. By spending so much time building and inviting us into a world that we love, Rowling masterfully describes what it is like when darkness is polutes. The book is not about the return of Voldermort, it is about the shame that evil exists and the saddness that brings to us all. The movie is dark through-out. Their is a palpable fear (strangely and incongruously from Dumbledore himself) that evil is present and good will not be able to stand up to it; in the book the reality that evil has returned is more of a burden that puts a ceiling on joy; the movie quashes that joy in all but a few moments of levity (the Eule Ball).

I think both things were handled as well as could be, actually. The slow growth into the richness of hte magical world was the first two movies. My idea is that at this point, the viewer should have seen the three previous installments, and this is tragic from the outset to the end in increasing degrees. Not to mention, Alfoson Cuaron already started the darkness with his version of Azkaban. Had he lightened things up, it would have seemd somewhat incongruous within the context of the franchise.
 
i went to the midnight showing of it last night and i loved it. it was definitely darker than the other films. but overall, i'd have to agree with bammo. the storyline was too chopped. i was left wondering about the people who haven't read the book.

the scene with the dragon was great. the yule ball, beautiful. the scene with voldemort was very dark, but very good. the underwater scene was fantastic. the last task could have been much, much better. it felt too rushed, as if the director was in such a hurry to get to the graveyard that he couldn't really be bothered with it. that was really disappointing.
 
I was sitting there watching it going "That's gotta be Ralph Fiennes"




MONEYBALL


I was right :happy:
 
I really disagree with Dalton's post. The movie would have to be four hours long to accomplish what you wanted. I no longer expect the book in movie form, I just want a great movie. In terms of setting up the magic and the innocnece and all the small details, we have the other movies for that. Just like in Return of the King, they didn't have to re-show us a half an hour of the The Shire for us to feel homesick with them, we remember it from Fellowship of the Ring.

I think they did about as great a job as they could. All the tasks came across well and the Yule Ball and them to trying to get dates was so unbelievably funny and actually realistic. My two complaints would be:

1. First fifteen minutes were rushed.
2. Seems more like a great collection of scenes than one continuous movie. However, the book is also like that to a certain extent, it just works better in a book.

Not sure if a liked this or POA better.

:up:
 
I'm kinda not on the bandwagon yet, but...... I'm seriously thinking about renting the first 3 movies this week, and seeing the 4rth one in a bit, after the lines died down.


sound like a good idea?
 
For Honor said:
I'm kinda not on the bandwagon yet, but...... I'm seriously thinking about renting the first 3 movies this week, and seeing the 4rth one in a bit, after the lines died down.


sound like a good idea?

That does sound like a good idea

have you read any of the books?
 
bsp77 said:
I really disagree with Dalton's post. The movie would have to be four hours long to accomplish what you wanted. I no longer expect the book in movie form, I just want a great movie. In terms of setting up the magic and the innocnece and all the small details, we have the other movies for that. Just like in Return of the King, they didn't have to re-show us a half an hour of the The Shire for us to feel homesick with them, we remember it from Fellowship of the Ring.


I disagree. I don't think they would have to change that much of the movie to capture the essence of the book. They just needed to slow down. And I agree with you. Slowing down the first 15 minutes of the movie would have done a lot of that.

Like I said, so much of the movie was brilliant (the set!!!!!), but it moves so fast that you miss out on a lot of it. I agree that you could never do the book full justice in one movie (not without an intermission), but the could have done better. They told the story well, they just missed the point.
 
The premiere is on the 24th here, I'll wait a few weeks till the biggest fanatics see it.

Definitely looking forward as the 4th book is my favourite (that said I have yet to read Half blood prince which is to be translated and published here in February), mostly of all I want to see the Quidditch championship scenes, the Tournament, Harry-Ron feud, the Yule Ball and of course, the embodiment of Voldemort.

For Honor: yes, I did the same - when I rented the third one on DVD I also re-watched the Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets. So far Prisoner of Askaban is my favourite movie.
 
Last edited:
Dalton said:



I disagree. I don't think they would have to change that much of the movie to capture the essence of the book. They just needed to slow down. And I agree with you. Slowing down the first 15 minutes of the movie would have done a lot of that.

Like I said, so much of the movie was brilliant (the set!!!!!), but it moves so fast that you miss out on a lot of it. I agree that you could never do the book full justice in one movie (not without an intermission), but the could have done better. They told the story well, they just missed the point.

I do understand what your saying, I just don't think they missed the point of the book. Basically, I think we have different views of the book, which then affects how we expect the movie should be made. So we really disagree about the book.

So let's just both agree that the sets were great and the first 15 minutes were rushed. :wink:

Now it's time for Narnia and King Kong. :yes:
 
All I feel is that it needed alot more Lucius Malfoy in it.

lucius.jpg



:love:
 
beau2ifulday said:
All I feel is that it needed alot more Lucius Malfoy in it.


haha, I hate the Malfoys! when they appeared on screen I did an offensive signal with my finger... my mom laughed then scolded me

I liked it, my favorite still is POA... I completely understand why they chopped so many parts, this book is almost the double of pages than the predecessors
 
Back
Top Bottom