Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire [Archive]

toilet trained

07-Dec-05, 09:35am

i liked it i must say. as all of them, its a bit of a patch work early on, and takes a while to getting to the swing, but you have to give it that as they allways just piece bits and pieces of the story together, to fit in as much as possible without completely ruining the flow

not as good as the third movie, and some of the evil guys are a bit piss weak. actually it looks like The Mummy has made a comback. The vibe is dark though.

loopi

07-Dec-05, 10:28am

I cant wait!!!! :-D

i'm currently re-reading the books, and i still love them heaps

big eddie

07-Dec-05, 10:32am

Saw it last night, quite enjoyed it... although I couldn't help but piss myself laughing when the asain girl spoke with a thick irish accent.

Davomaxi

07-Dec-05, 10:33am

I have to say I was disappointed. I think the movie just didn't gel together very well due to poor directing and script. A good movie draws you in to it's world and it didn't do that for me.

Don't get me wrong it wasn't bad, i was just expecting more as I thought this was the best book.

riot

07-Dec-05, 12:28pm

I'm looking forward to seeing it too. :-D *tingles*

the book will always be better tho, there is only so much they can shove in to movie time.

HyPo

07-Dec-05, 02:15pm

although I couldn't help but piss myself laughing when the asain girl spoke with a thick irish accent.

Same here.

DJ Tripper

07-Dec-05, 02:42pm

Saw it last night, quite enjoyed it... although I couldn't help but piss myself laughing when the asain girl spoke with a thick irish accent.
ZOMG :-O Spoiler!!!! :P

loopi

07-Dec-05, 03:32pm

Lol why's it soooo surprising that Cho Chang had the Irish accent?

*sigh* i get that all the time. people expect me to have an undecipherable asian accent, then when i say something, they're semi-shocked that i dont even have a twinge of one.

Sambuca

07-Dec-05, 05:46pm

I think it would've been better if they'd stuck with the director that did Prisoner of Azkaban. A bit of a let down compared to the previous movie, but well done in any case.

loopi

07-Dec-05, 06:04pm

I think the reason why they didn't get the Azkaban director was because he was still in post-production when Goblet of fire needed to begin filming.

pisstake

07-Dec-05, 06:16pm

This is by far my favourite book so far, so I can't wait to see this movie
One of my best friends' says the 3rd book is her favourite but this is the best movie so far, so I have to see it soon

spiKe

08-Dec-05, 12:26am

Saw it last night, quite enjoyed it... although I couldn't help but piss myself laughing when the asain girl spoke with a thick irish accent.
She's actually Scottish mate, not a typical Scottish broug(I know that's spelt incorrectly) though.

Saw the movie, didn't like it. Movies are never anything on the books that they are about

loopi

08-Dec-05, 01:32am

I saw it tonight, and thought it was great! I wished they didn't cut so much, but hey - still a damn good job imo.

The thing people have to remember is the film adaptation will hardly ever amount to the original source; in this case, the novel. Adaptation is always a touchy issue between novelists and screenwriters, but it can be done.

I think that you've got to take it for what it is.

CheapThrills

08-Dec-05, 03:20am

Saw it last night, quite enjoyed it... although I couldn't help but piss myself laughing when the asain girl spoke with a thick irish accent. okaaayyyy....

Anyways, i thought as with all disney movies i left feeling oiley from all the dripping cheese.
But the big budgets they have for effects made it watchable.

But imo no movie ever impresses me after I've read the book.

Sambuca

08-Dec-05, 03:29am

She's actually Scottish mate, not a typical Scottish broug(I know that's spelt incorrectly) though.

Saw the movie, didn't like it. Movies are never anything on the books that they are about
I thought the LOTR series on screen was excellent. I found the books to be laborious at times.

High Fidelity and Forrest Gump are also excellent examples of movies doing as well if not better than the books.

loopi

08-Dec-05, 03:30am

But Warner Bros. did the films...

And yeah, you're right. People who have read the book will always have high expectations of any film adaptation..

after studying issues of adaptation this year, i've come to appreciate/accept it more.

loopi

08-Dec-05, 03:31am

I agree with you on LOTR Sambuca. The novels became so complex and detailed at times, that it was hard to follow, which meant re-reading. (Well for me, anyway)

big eddie

08-Dec-05, 05:04am

She's actually Scottish mate, not a typical Scottish broug(I know that's spelt incorrectly) though.

Saw the movie, didn't like it. Movies are never anything on the books that they are about

Was it? ah well, it was one or the other, I couldn't quite remember, but it was still funny as.

toilet trained

08-Dec-05, 11:11am

Was it? ah well, it was one or the other, I couldn't quite remember, but it was still funny as.

it is strange how people see unexpected accents as funny. I thought it was pretty in character, i mean there doesnt seem to be much of a wizarding fraternity outside of europe (*having said that i havn't actually read the books, so there maybe chapters dedicated to the non european wizards i dont know about)

talking of accents, and not on topic at all. has anyone heard elena dokic now she has comeback from foreignland, dam that accent has pilled on thick and fast, in only a year or two.

anyway, i think that might just about do it for the potter movies. apparently they are considering turngin the fifth book into two movies, which would suck, cuase the book wasnt very good anyway by accounts. If they do that, it might be 10 years before they do them all to film, and im sure everyone will be well over harry potter by then

watsakerring

08-Dec-05, 11:55am

i saw it on monday.

i've read all the books and thought the first 3 movies did them justice.

this one just didn't cut it. they removed waaaaay too much of the book.
i remember sitting there at one stage thinking that i was so glad that i had read the books because i wouldn't be able to understand the movie.

loopi

08-Dec-05, 12:16pm

Well, my boyf who hasn't read the books and only seen the films understood it pretty easily

Davomaxi

08-Dec-05, 01:03pm

the maze part at the end could have been made a lot more of.

loopi

08-Dec-05, 01:05pm

Yeah I was expecting to see Cedric battling that thing he did in the novel

Antwan

08-Dec-05, 01:21pm

hmmm i enjoyed it alot but i wish the3y had made to films and released them back to back(the original plan) baut i guess thats asking alot of movie goers. there were soo many good bits left that i think with two movies it could have worked alot better, you could have ended the first one with the dragon battle.

SarahF

08-Dec-05, 02:46pm

I am so dying to see the movies. I have read all the books and this one was my favourite.

I agree that movies havent lived up to the novel's in my opinion but it is always fun and interesting to see how they take it from book to movie. Like to see what the alley and the school and all the sets actually look like from a film makers point of view as opposed to whatever pictures i've created in my head.

spiKe

08-Dec-05, 03:51pm

I thought the LOTR series on screen was excellent. I found the books to be laborious at times.

High Fidelity and Forrest Gump are also excellent examples of movies doing as well if not better than the books.
I haven't read high fidelity or forrest gump but I thought the lord of the rings movies were only ok compared to the books. I loved that the books WERE so detailed. However in the movies they were forced to cut a whole lot of the history out of it.

minxus

08-Dec-05, 04:32pm

i found the movie a little rushed and thought it lacked heart.. i didn't like it as much as the first two. the third one was alright...

it was entertaining though, and the dragon scene was fun!

Was it? ah well, it was one or the other, I couldn't quite remember, but it was still funny as.

why is it funny? all the kids in the harry potter movies have a range of accents. hogwarts is set, after all, in the United Kingdom. :)

Breakme

08-Dec-05, 05:01pm

I am so looking forward to this!

DJ-MUNCHKIN

09-Dec-05, 08:56am

xxnu

09-Dec-05, 07:30pm

http://www.break.com/articles/clemencepoesy.html

french chick from the movie - really not work safe at all...

JustinJ

09-Dec-05, 08:39pm

Yeah I went and saw it last night ... it was good but the first half hour moved SO QUICKLY! The Quidditch World Cup was like 2 minutes long! You didn't even get to SEE anyone play quidditch!
Also, I am a bit of a purist. Like when Harry got knocked out on the ground at the World Cup ... so didn't even happen.
Also, Ron's Mum and Dobby didn't even make an appearance in this movie! Bah - it was still really good ... I'm one of the biggest Harry Potter fans there is but yeah ... someone said that they should have made an extended version and put all the missing bits in and then peeps can choose if they want to sit there for that long or not.
Overall it was good ... but yeah ... would have been nice to have a bit more flow
:)

I couldn't agree more. I was so looking forward to seeing the Quidditch World Cup, but only to be dissappointed! :|

I felt that the movie rushed alot of the story and cut out quite few parts which I wanted to see. But that's largely due to the fact that the book was pretty thick, so perhaps it would have been better to do two movies for Goblet of Fire?

I also felt that some aspects of the movie was a bit superficial eg) the ending wth was with that? Having said that, the movie is also for kids so......

Overall, I liked it but at the sametime it just didn't cut it when compared to the last 3 movies. I just hope that the next two does follow the same path as this one.

teletubby

10-Dec-05, 01:30am

i thought this movie was great. loved that they incorporated alot more humour into the script. I also would've liked to have seen more of the quidditch world cup, but movie-wise, that would not have moved the story along. considering the movie represented only 50% of the first 3 novels, im not really surprised about how much was left out for this movie since the book is 3 times longer.
I also agree that they shoulda shown abit more of the obstacles in the maze, but once again, that wouldnt have moved the story along.
oh yeh, when the weasly twins grow beards for trying to enter the tournament, in the book they laughed at each other. in the movie, they had a punchout, i thought that was abit of a stupid change, as it doesnt blend well with their character traits.
but yeh, enjoyed the movie thoroughly! cant wait to get it on dvd :lol:

FireAndRain

10-Dec-05, 11:29am

For all those who thought there wasn't enough detail - c'mon, it's a fairly meaty tome, they had to leave some of it out. The house-elves were a clever cut, as they don't do much else than give Hermione an excuse to rave on about SPEW for a few pages. Makes sense to speed through the Quidditch World Cup - the book's mostly about the Goblet of Fire, so getting into that ASAP was a smart move. Besides, it was almost three hours long anyway, what more do you little monsters want? :)

As for the humour - yep, funniest instalment yet. Fred and George steal every scene they're in, and Ron's got a great sense of comic timing (love his reaction to the wolf-whistle in the dancing lesson).

At the same time, though, it is darker than the previous three films - not necessarily scarier, but darker. I found the M rating justified, seeing a likeable character like Cedric die, and then seeing people screaming after they realise he's dead, is not for the very young.

Oblivia

13-Dec-05, 01:06am

Hmmm, at first when i walked out of the movies i was like, yeah, it was kinda good, but now i am disappointed. Given what a great book it was it should have been so much better, and some bits were just handled badly, like hermionie and ron's argument. I understand they have to cut heaps but it seems like they didnt think through well which bits they wanted to cut.

I think the way they handled the dark mark and cutting out the house elf made sense, it was just to complex that way. I would have liked to see more quiddich and more of development in ron and hermoinie's characters, like a better insight into why ron was so angry with harry.

teletubby

13-Dec-05, 09:48pm

As for the humour - yep, funniest instalment yet. Fred and George steal every scene they're in, and Ron's got a great sense of comic timing (love his reaction to the wolf-whistle in the dancing lesson).

totally agree with you, they casted the right actors for these roles. i love the facial expressions rupert grint (?..the guy who plays ron) makes :lol:

I hope they follow up on fred in george in the next few movies cos they are hilarious in the books.

xxnu

13-Dec-05, 10:25pm

I haven't read high fidelity or forrest gump but I thought the lord of the rings movies were only ok compared to the books. I loved that the books WERE so detailed. However in the movies they were forced to cut a whole lot of the history out of it.

you serious here? you talking about the lord of the rings?

I think that Peter Jackson did an excellent job ADAPTING the books for cinema.

sure parts were cut out (Tom Bombadil for one) but in terms of story telling for cinema it worked better.

there are some parts that were elaborated extensively, the battle of helms deep for example which was only spread over a couple of pages in the book.

As for THIS Harry Potter movie, I think anyone that hadn't read the book may have felt lost in some parts, as said earlier it wasn't entirely apparent why Ron was angry at Harry.

For better pacing and cinematic experience I don't think the ENTIRE ball scene was nessescary.

It felt like they tried to pick up on some important points in the book and (as was said before) cram what should have been a 2 part movie into one movie.

Hopefully there is an extended version due for DVD release that will make up for some of the short comings of the cinematic release.

just my $0.02...