Comments on: Goblet of Fire Pensieve

By: Ms. Jan

Ms. Jan — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:44:03 +0000

In case I have offended, I have nothing against Southern California–just Hollywood’s interpretation of the world. There are people living other places throughout this plant, too, that have fascinating lives. Oh, well, that’s fodder for another and unrelated debate.

By: Ms. Jan

Ms. Jan — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:39:06 +0000

Goblet of Fire is my least favorite of the movies for many of the reasons listed above. So much that I felt was important to the characters’ developments was left out…, i.e. Hermione and S.P.E.W, Percy’s withdrawing from his family. I also have a problem with Michael Gambon as DD. He’s a wonderful actor in all I’ve seen him in, but he just hasn’t nailed Dumbledore. His reaction to Harry’s inclusion in the tournament was terribly off. He was furious and cold toward Harry; in the books he was upset, but concerned, as well. He was insistent that Harry be truthful about whether or not he put his name in the goblet, but didn’t ‘attack’ him. In each book, you sense the relationship between Harry and DD grow, as father/grandfather-son, or mentor-student, but the chemistry is not apparent in the movies. DD trusts Harry. He cares deeply for him. I hope this comes more to light in OoP, or HBP and Deathly Hallows as movies will fall short, too. This relationship is the most important for Harry at this point in his life. It’s critical to the storyline and will have to be for the movies for them to make sense. I hate Hollywood. If they had their way, Harry would be an American and living in Southern California. Arrrggh!

By: Seriously_Black

Seriously_Black — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:53:24 +0000

You know, Mr Slot, I’m hoping that Travis will be along any moment now to expunge your meaningless drivel.

Meanwhile, it’s obvious that anyone with a genuinely worthwhile product and a successful business does not want or need to stoop to such unscrupulous and anti-social forms of promotion.

By: Daryl

Daryl — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:56:10 +0000

Hmmmm…..haven’t seen GOF yet. I just get the feeling that the directors and JKR need to collaborate a little more on the aspects of the book that will be important to future films, because it seems as if they don’t realise that they cut certain parts that may seem inconsequential but will later become very important….i.e. they are more producing the movie for a one – off shot, rather than a complex series where minor happenings are related to major events later on in the film…

By: Deborah

Deborah — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:56:13 +0000

Watching Chronicles of Narnia last night, I came to the conclusion that the man who played Father Christmas would be a much better DD than Michael Gambon.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:31:04 +0000

I FINALLY just got to watch the movie…I loved L.V. in this movie. He did and excellent job!! Now D.D. is another story….he is not D.D. It seemed to me that they left out many important story lines that will come into play in OotP movie. Peter Jackman posted reasons for the changes he made to the LotR movies….does anyone know if there is a similar posting for the H.P. movies and if there is where I can find them. Mabey than I will feel better watching GoF. I can’t believe I am about to say this but while watching GoF I was almost wishing I had never read the books, just so I could enjoy a good movie. It was a good movie, just not a H.P movie.

By: jkr2

jkr2 — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:55:36 +0000

all the interviews with the producer (heyman is it?) make me really like him and see him as someone devoted to the books and process etc, so it pains me to not LOVE the films.
i adore rupert grint though and think that dan radcliffe really nails certain inner aspects of harry’s character. and they seem so earnest and into the whole thing.

i totally am in your court with gambon. i actually nearly walked out whenhe shoved harry. (and i don’t walk out of movies, even if i’m bored lol). what frustrated me was seeing him interviewed and thinking he should have just talked like that instead of ‘acting’…. *sigh* this will definately hinder my pleasure of coming movies. how are we supposed to have any sense of harry’s dissillusionment when he starts to realize he’s not all knowing/ powerful since he’s already portrayed that way?

i’ve been watching snippets of the movie on line (mainly background making of stuff) and have decided i quite like all the elements. the problem was when i saw the movie itself i was about 40/60 about it. and the 60 was against. when it was all put together it didn’t work for me. i’m looking forward to seeing it again on dvd and perhaps changing that assessment.

anyway i have come to the conclusion that i can be at peace with it all by thinking of the movies as a very expensive, somewhat sophisticated fan fiction.

cheers,
jkr2 (jo in australia)

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:40:11 +0000

Yeah, I think that’s an important distinction. I wouldn’t consider the films part of the “canon,” which is why I liked GoF – it was obviously a film adaptation, not an attempt to put the book directly on screen.

By: LMB

LMB — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:59:00 +0000

In that regard, I wonder if we should even consider the movies part of the canon…

By: Deborah

Deborah — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:05:14 +0000

Travis:

I completely agree with you on the whole Michael Gambon thing. I know he didn’t want to mirror the old actor, but in doing so he hopelessly undermines DD’s true nature and character as well. That has been, to this very day, my biggest dissapointment with the last 2 movies. As the series progresses, it will become more and more obvious too. Some how I just can’t see Michael Gambon as the DD we all know from the HBP.

Additionally, I completely concure with you about the actor who plays LV. He WAS perfect!

One more thing that I picked up on, which you may have commented on else where, but haven’t heard anyone complain about yet is that in the graveyard sceene, LV refers to Harry’s mother as a “Muggle” vs. a “Mudblood”. I’m truely suprised Rowling didn’t catch that one. She must be swamped!

All in all, most of the adaptations to the movie in order to meet the time requirement bother me, though I do sadly understand the need. I just make a point to anyone who liked the movie that they are guarenteed to like the book 20x better because of all the mini plots that are left out etc… for what good that does anymore. (It seems like most anyone who is interrested in reading them by now, would have already done so for the time being. I say that because, once it becomes apparent that Rowling is in fact writing Christian literature, many resistors will finally join the throngs of fans.)

Deborah