View Full Version : Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
Well I liked it. I thought it was the best in the series.
Anybody else see it?
Also: Hermione. :stud:
:stud:!
MuGen
11-19-2005, 11:06 PM
Holy moly... the best of the series... shows more of the world, and the effects are awesome.
Yeah Hermione .. lol...
"physical being" < lol
GameMaster
11-20-2005, 01:35 AM
Haven't seen it yet but I've probably cleaned up after about the 1000 folks that did.
Customers in Harry Potter Attire = LOSER!
Midway through one of the showings, some kid got pulled out for screaming, "Snape kills Dumbledore."
Haven't seen it yet but I've probably cleaned up after about the 1000 folks that did.
Customers in Harry Potter Attire = LOSER!
Midway through one of the showings, some kid got pulled out for screaming, "Snape kills Dumbledore."
Spoiler Warning please GM!
DarrenMcLeod
11-20-2005, 03:08 AM
I saw it. Much weaker than 3, possibly weakest of the series.
Too many really awkward moments with poor acting and wooden dialogue, and many scenes that tried hard to be dramatic without actually having substance.
Still pretty good, though.
DimHalo
11-20-2005, 03:17 AM
I saw it on Friday. I really enjoyed it. I can't say that I could compare it with the first two movies... different style. But it definately outshined movie 3. I thought they did an excellent job converting the book into movie given that they had to take so much and condense it.
*SPOILERS*
My only complaint would have to be that they didn't show much of the World Cup quidditch tournament and the campgrounds were different than I imagined.
*END SPOILER*
MuGen
11-20-2005, 03:25 AM
the whole thing about bringing a book to life is that if it isn't a picture book, everyone will have difference perspectives as to how to imagine the world.
thats why we see the movie.... out of curiosity.
the whole thing about bringing a book to life is that if it isn't a picture book, everyone will have difference perspectives as to how to imagine the world.
thats why we see the movie.... out of curiosity.
Yeah, if you had started reading the books before any of the movies, then things would come as more of a shock than if you started reading because of the movies.
Vampyr
11-20-2005, 10:38 AM
This movie was better than the first two, but worse than the third one.
The storyline was just full of holes. I mean, if you hadn't read the books, you would have been completely lost.
The movie sort of had ADD. It jumped from one part of the story to the next, with very little to no transition. And they skipped the World Cup. That's just stupid.
Special Effects were incredible though.
ZebraRampage
11-20-2005, 12:24 PM
This movie was better than the first two, but worse than the third one.
The storyline was just full of holes. I mean, if you hadn't read the books, you would have been completely lost.
The movie sort of had ADD. It jumped from one part of the story to the next, with very little to no transition. And they skipped the World Cup. That's just stupid.
Special Effects were incredible though.
I agree with you Vampyr. It was pretty good, but there were a lot of story holes. I wish they would have made it longer. The one part that was amazing though was the scence with the dragon.
jeepnut
11-20-2005, 12:59 PM
I thought it was pretty good. Way better than the third movie, but not as good as the first two.
*Possible Spoilers although minimal*
I hate the change that was made to the way Hogwarts looks from the second to the third movie and they kept it here. You notice the difference when you watch the first two movies and then watch the third. The biggest evidence of this is where the womping willow is located in the second and then where it is moved to in the third. I don't like the way Hagwarts looks as it is in the third, but at least give us some continuity between movies and stop moving things around.
The owlery. From the books, it is without a doubt clear that it is connected to the rest of Hogwarts and in the fourth movie, it's not. What's up with that? Never in the books has a student had to go outside to go to the owlery. Why in the world would you change it for the movie?
Also, the dress robes were unimanginative, except Ron's and to a lesser degree, Harry's. The girls for the most part were pitiful. I could go to a department store in the mall and buy many of those off the rack right now if I wanted to. They are supposed to look like robes. That's why they are called dress robes. Let's show a little imagination here people.
*End Spoilers*
Except for those complaints, movie was great. Most of those are just visual interpretations of the universe and don't really affect the story so they are easily overlooked.
Ginkasa
11-20-2005, 01:00 PM
Yeah, what really annoyed me was how theyt just leaped from scene to scene. It almost seemed, especially at the beginning, they just had a list of stuff that they had to show and got them out of the way. I could just hear some guy checking off a list and muttering, "Okay, the portkey is established, now for Krum's introduction. After that, prepare for the Death Eater attack!"
/me shrugs and walks away
DarrenMcLeod
11-20-2005, 02:49 PM
Yeah, exactly. There was no pacing whatsoever,and there was no character development.
SPOILER
if you're going to kill off a character, and want a big reaction, maybe let us get to know him first. There was a lot more emphasis on him in the book.
END SPOILER
So, yeah. While a lot was good, a lot would've been done better by a better director... Cuaron, for example.
Well as a reader for none of the books, I thought it wasn't that bad. I think this thread just has a case of the "the book was better" complex. There's nothing wrong with that, though.
I think the people who liked it AND read the book had forgotten most of the book in the first place.
The pace didn't really commit any crimes. And Cedric had enough screen time - he was shown to harry as both the Cho-stealer and the competitor. The quasi-climax of Harry saving him and getting the goblet was pretty much enough to pass.
DarrenMcLeod
11-20-2005, 09:18 PM
Well I read the book a long time ago, and forgot most of it (hadn't read it since the week it came out, I think), but it still was just a bit of a disappointment as a movie, because of the weak scenes, weak acting, and weak dialogue in certain parts.
MuGen
11-20-2005, 10:13 PM
I really don't know where you get weak acting.
Too many really awkward moments with poor acting and wooden dialogue, and many scenes that tried hard to be dramatic without actually having substance.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'dramatc without actually having substance.'
The only scene I could think of that would bring up that question is
********SPOILER****************
is when Hermione is at the dance, and cries when Ron gives her the cold shoulder.
Far be it for me to understand that she is a 15 year old girl who was just told that her date is just using her and doesn't really like her by a jealous friend.
Dramatic yes, not enough substance? Maybe not for you but for a 15 year old girl, that can have as much substance as a full cup of milk.
*****************************************************
As an individual I thought the acting was good. Not the best, but good.
But I have to agree w/ Dyne. If you think this movie had poor dialogue and awkward moments, it's only because you imagined them being portrayed differently from the book, and the dialogue didn't follow the book to the tee.
This is the kind of critique movies from Comics get, and movies from games get....
The more I take the time to understand the more I come to the conclusion that people are more likely to compare the movie to the book rather then critique the movie as a movie.
DarrenMcLeod
11-21-2005, 03:45 PM
Well, I haven't read this book since the week it came out. That was what... 4 years ago, maybe more? I didn't remember anything other than Cedric dying. Prisoner changed just as much stuff, yet it is still my favorite of the movie. As far as the dramatic without having substance, I mean there were times when they'd play really dramatic music during scenes that were supposed to convey emotion, but they felt cheap and forced... just unnatural.
It was by no means a bad movie, but I just think they should've stuck with Cuaron, who would've done a better job (in my opinion).
MuGen
11-21-2005, 03:55 PM
oh ok.... thats cool then. Sorry for calling you out D.Mac :beerchug:
DarrenMcLeod
11-21-2005, 04:48 PM
oh ok.... thats cool then. Sorry for calling you out D.Mac :beerchug:
Haha no problem, buddy.
Xantar
11-25-2005, 01:48 AM
It's kind of interesting to read this thread because it's one of the few where I've seen multiple people saying they liked the third movie more than the first two (for the record, so do I). A common complaint I saw on other message boards about the third movie was that it was disjointed and lacked character development. Hmm....
Anyway, I liked the fourth movie, and I think it's probably the best adaptation that could have been made. Remember, the original book was huge. I can only wonder how they'll handle the upcoming books because they're even longer. Yeah, some scenes were disjointed, but with a book that long, what else are you going to do? They dropped bunches of side plots as it was already.
Mike Newell's strategy for dealing with this was to throw in lots of small little moments that were charming and rang true. Things like the expressions on Harry's face when Hermione yells at him to go to bed or the way Fred (or was it George?) Weasley asked a girl out to the dance or Ron's reaction when Professor McGonnagall tells him to put his hand on her waist. These kids are in the process of growing up, and like all of us, they sometimes do it clumsily. If some scenes are awkward, I think that's because they're supposed to be. And I can tell you right now that most of those moments weren't a part of the book. They're purely Mike Newell's additions.
if you're going to kill off a character, and want a big reaction, maybe let us get to know him first. There was a lot more emphasis on him in the book.
I've got to disagree with you there. I suppose I should spoiler tag this, but come on now. You really shouldn't be in this thread unless you've seen the movie.
Anyway, Cedric was even more of a non-entity in the book. Not only was he not around very much, he basically had no personality whatsoever. And I think the actor who played him managed to actually impart something to the character so that we could recognize that he was basically a good and honorable person instead of simply thinking of him as, well, just some other guy.
Teuthida
11-25-2005, 02:06 AM
As a stand alone movie I think I was quite good. Perhaps helps that I don't remember the book too well...just that Harry gets the gillyweed from Dobby and not Neville.
Was Dobby still in the movie?
And what about the House Elfs?
Teuthida
11-25-2005, 05:53 PM
Not a single House Elf to be seen...which I suppose is a good thing.
Aside from the scene leaping (which the other movies also suffered from), I thought it was a good movie. GoF is my favorite book in the series, and it's also the best HP movie in my opinion.
MuGen
11-28-2005, 12:42 PM
what are you all talking about!? The ps3 is so much better then the xbox 360...
oh... wrong topic...
LOL No, this probably was my favorite of all HP movies. In fact I agree with Xantar about Cedric's chara development. A lot of my friends who saw it with me never read the books and absolutely love the HP movie series.
Just saw this on the weekend. I liked it, I probably would have liked it more if I hadn't read the book though. Good movie though.
I have to admit that it did feel a rushed at points, but that is to be expected.
And for the Cedric thing, I think it was pulled off well, I was more effected with the movie then with the book.
Professor S
12-05-2005, 02:35 PM
I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.
Chris Columbus was far too loyal to the books, and it showed by a lack of coherency and this character development in his first 2 movies. The third movie was an improvement as you began to see a character arch developing for Potter and his mates and the themes were darker but yet suitable for children. I still didn't really like it as the movie drug on in parts and seemed to be afflicted with the same disjointed feeling of the first two.
Goblet is just a flat out good movie. I'll even say that it is the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter movies (in fact, the similarities are astounding). Harry is beginning to feel more of the weight of his destiny, seeing that his legend may be his death, while trying to handle the awkwardness that comes with adolescence regardless of magical abilities.
I thought the acting was quite good for the most part, especially Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and the actor who played Moody.
Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.
Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.
DimHalo
12-05-2005, 03:32 PM
I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.
...
Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.
Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.
In that case, I would have to say that the movie did an excellent job of accomplishing the goal. For those who read the books, we're pleased to see our favorite worlds and characters visualized. For those who don't, it is drawing you in and making you want more.
jeepnut
12-05-2005, 08:29 PM
I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.
Chris Columbus was far too loyal to the books, and it showed by a lack of coherency and this character development in his first 2 movies. The third movie was an improvement as you began to see a character arch developing for Potter and his mates and the themes were darker but yet suitable for children. I still didn't really like it as the movie drug on in parts and seemed to be afflicted with the same disjointed feeling of the first two.
Goblet is just a flat out good movie. I'll even say that it is the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter movies (in fact, the similarities are astounding). Harry is beginning to feel more of the weight of his destiny, seeing that his legend may be his death, while trying to handle the awkwardness that comes with adolescence regardless of magical abilities.
I thought the acting was quite good for the most part, especially Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and the actor who played Moody.
Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.
Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.
I have read the fifth and sixth books and I can tell you that the series continues to get darker and more mature.
Professor S
12-06-2005, 02:01 AM
This movie actually makes me want to read the books. Thats the best compliment I can give it.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.