Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

[Mithrandir]

Being a Harry Potter fan (whatever your opinion may be on HP), I had to see this movie.

And I must tell you that I was really deceived by the script and the way they cut the movie. Yes, the main story is there but so many important details were left aside and changed.

The director seems to have asked too much acting from the actors. Mainly from Hermione and Dumbledore which are unrecognisable because of the way they act. Dumbledore being mad?! Thats not the Dumbledore I know. Hermione always complaining? That's not in the book.


As for now, as a fan, let me complain.


SPOILERS AHEAD.



1. No mention of Barty Crouch plot that got Barty Crouch Jr out from Azkaban.
2. Barty Crouch sr does not die that way. Nor is he discovered that way by Harry Potter.
3. Hermione and Ron's relationship is important in the story as they'Re always fighting. In the movie, they kind of show Hermione being mad at Ron but it's rather confusing for new spectators who know nothing of the books.
4. I would have like to see more of the Quidditch cup match.
5. No mention of WInky the Crouch's house elf which plays a major role in the story.
6. No Hogsmeade visit?
7. No mention of Cho's relationship with Cedric...which leads her to go to Harry. We don't see her crying or whatever.
8. No mention of the twins bet which leads to Weasley's Wizard Wheezes and their store.
9. No mention of Percy, Bill and the other Weasley brother. No mention of Percy and his future work at the Ministry which plays a major part in the fifht book.

[Raven]

Despite having left out several things I was thoroughly entertained and hey its already 2 hours and 30 min. Think you forgot to add the sphinx and the spider riddle.

[Blank]

Talk about your favourite or least favourite movies...

Gah. I can't believe that you guys paid money to watch that filth. What happened to high quality entertainment like Spirited Away, LOTR, Titan A.E., and Throw Momma Off the Train?

[Geosgaeno]

i like Harry Potter, is pretty OK, havnt seen the Goblet Of Fire...yet, im gonna wait until someone on the estate gets a pirate copy and ill watch it for free, im not goin cinema paying extortionate prices.

[Mithrandir]

Well, I am fan. So I had no real choice and give my impressions to people who haven't seen it yet. And , I didn't like LOTR. Jackson changed too much things. I'm particularly thinking of Dentehor and the burning scene.

[Locke]

Gah. I can't believe that you guys paid money to watch that filth. What happened to high quality entertainment like Spirited Away, LOTR, Titan A.E., and Throw Momma Off the Train?
Spirited Away, excellant movie, Never saw throw your momma off the train, never saw it, LOTR, as a avid reader and fan, absolutely terrible past the first one, titan AE... I'm not even gonna get into it.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.... Watched it last night and spend the movie saying what was about to happen and laughing at how far off it was from the book, but as a movie it wasn't that bad. Kinda long, as it had to be, but it wasn't bad.

:spoiler:

Also was Hagrid falling in love with the giantess that is supposed to be his mother. That was kinda disturbing. But it is something that was different from the book I noticed.

[Geosgaeno]

And , I didn't like LOTR. Jackson changed too much things.
i know Jackson did change alot of things on LOTR (i really didnt like the fact of no Bombadil), but man its still BRILL, i take it you got the name Mithrandir from the book rather than the film ehh,

and also, i think im might go and watch Potter before new year, i just wanna see it now.

[kai]

Ok I plan on seeing the new Harry Potter moive, unlike most I am reading the books after I see the movie based on the book. So far I have enjoyed the series though when I watch a movie based on a book I look at them as two individual items.

Kind of like when you see a movie based on a true story you know it isn't going to follow the details exactly and they will throw in different things to better suite the new format of the story. To look at a movie and compare it to its book as a exact duplicate (to me) is pretty ignorant (this is just my opinion no offense is intended), as the books are more of a guideline rather than a script.

[Locke]

To look at a movie and compare it to its book as a exact duplicate (to me) is pretty ignorant (this is just my opinion no offense is intended), as the books are more of a guideline rather than a script.
I understand the point you're making, however ignorant is by far the wrong word to use. In fact, I know you typed you meant no offence, but still.... movie's made from books are meant to allow people who don't read to enjoy the book, not people who know how to read to enjoy a book/movie thing. They never end up the same anyways, so it's kinda a moot point.

[JavaSamurai]

i was dissapointed by how much they cut out it was a shame but Mithrandir has soem very good points whats gunan happen when they try to explain that *spoilers*..im sure Harry just forgot he gave the winnings to the twins *end spoiler*

[Blank]

Yeah.. A movie based off a book is how that particular director saw the book, not how you necessarily picture it. Getting mad because they didn't turn a book word for word into a movie is pretty stupid...

Yes, there was some stuff in the LOTR books that was not present in the movie. Movies are made to make money, right? So they trimmed out some boring parts (YES! I just called parts of Tolkein's books boring!!) and adapted the series for an entirely different medium. What is the crime in that?

[Mithrandir]

Well, It's not like I want to be the movie exactly like the book, but if you read the book you'll see that some details are missing and they are important details. Let's wait to see how the next director will do to stay coherent knowing some details weren't revelaed in this chapter.

[Locke]

Yeah.. A movie based off a book is how that particular director saw the book, not how you necessarily picture it. Getting mad because they didn't turn a book word for word into a movie is pretty stupid...

Yes, there was some stuff in the LOTR books that was not present in the movie. Movies are made to make money, right? So they trimmed out some boring parts (YES! I just called parts of Tolkein's books boring!!) and adapted the series for an entirely different medium. What is the crime in that?
There were part's of Tolkeins books that were boring, such as pretty much the entire book 5 (imho, anyways) There's nothing wrong with having the movie different from the book, but as Mith pointed out, when they leave out key parts of the plot it kinda ruins aspects of the movie enjoyment if you know some of what should have happened, or reasoning on why things happen as opposed to them coming into the movie out of left field. That's what was meant by not true to the book. Nobody (realistically, anyways) would be expecting the movie to be word for word with the book.

[Blank]

Hmm... Maybe my memory of the LOTR series is fading, then. I can't recall any major parts that were left out. I remember that the whole forest bit with the Hobbits is gone, as was the scourging of the Shire. Were those parts critical to the story..?

[Galthol]

... I remember that the whole forest bit with the Hobbits is gone, as was the scourging of the Shire. Were those parts critical to the story..?
*quietly mutters to himself*
"Do not yell, do not freak out, just stay calm and everything will be alright"
*Out loud to everybody*
"Well it seems to me the scourging of the shire was very important because it conveyed the message of birgining the war home with you, wars not something you just go off and fight, it has consequences on the homefront as well, weather it be a fatherless family, or the London air raids, Yes Blank, I would say they were critical.

[Locke]

Hmm... Maybe my memory of the LOTR series is fading, then. I can't recall any major parts that were left out. I remember that the whole forest bit with the Hobbits is gone, as was the scourging of the Shire. Were those parts critical to the story..?Well, I won't go off on the tangent I'm sure Galthol would like too, as I don't really care that much about it, but yeah, they were important to the message behind what was happening, not so much key parts of the plot towards the end goal. There was the scene with the barrow wights as well, which is where the hobbit's were supposed to get their weapons, not from Aragorn. I won't bother getting into how badly the second and third one's went away from the books though, that'd just get me angry. Meh, don't matter, really.

[Geosgaeno]

watched the film yesterday,

not bad, but i thought it could have been a little more.....better?

loved the fact that other schools of wizardry were involved, loved the second challenge, and loved the return of lord Voldermort and the way he made Harry bow to him, that was cool.

7/10

[Locke]

It definently had it's moments where it was pretty cool. As a stand alone movie (ie not factoring in the books) I would give it a 8/10. Following the books as the background, I'd only give it a 5/10 for missing so many key factors. Meh, not bad all around though.

[kai]

Geosgaeno in the furture could you please include some sort of :spoiler: notice next time you are going to include plot details. I for one missed the movie :bawl: and have not read the books, however Voldermort returning seems like a key point in the movie and I would have preferred not to knowing until I had seen it. All well no worries, tis just a movie, just next time please include a spoiler alert.

[Geosgaeno]

http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/blush.gifhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/blush.gifhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/blush.gifhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/cry.gifhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/cry.gifhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/cry.gif i sorta like forgot, never mind, i havn really "spoiled" that much, enjoy the movie Kai

[kai]

Tis ok, hopefully I can catch it this weekend unless they pull it out of theatres this weekend. :knockedout: