Comments on: Movies: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/ Haphazardly Spellchecked Since 2002 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:07:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26664 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:00:56 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26664 In other news: Go, You Chickenfat, Go <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_sc/chicken_fat_fuel" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_sc/chicken_fat_fuel</a> In other news:

Go, You Chickenfat, Go

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_sc/chicken_fat_fuel

]]> By: Carter http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26663 Carter Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:20:48 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26663 Having not been influenced by any previous Potter reading or viewing my opinion is the movie was a stinker. It was a collection of loosely coupled vignettes nearly impossible for the uninitiated to make sense of. (Don't blame the abridgment! The Lord of the Rings proves it can be done.) The special effects were "WOW!" for about 30 minutes, then the thrill waned to "oh, that's nice" and finally, "is it over yet?" Having not been influenced by any previous Potter reading or viewing my opinion is the movie was a stinker. It was a collection of loosely coupled vignettes nearly impossible for the uninitiated to make sense of. (Don’t blame the abridgment! The Lord of the Rings proves it can be done.) The special effects were “WOW!” for about 30 minutes, then the thrill waned to “oh, that’s nice” and finally, “is it over yet?”

]]> By: urs http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26662 urs Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:02:30 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26662 edalton- i agree but richard harris was WAY better than michael gambon. edalton- i agree but richard harris was WAY better than michael gambon.

]]> By: edalton http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26661 edalton Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:52:04 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26661 The old Dumbledore was any better? Ian McKellan would have made a great Dumbledore. Or maybe Tom Baker. Neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon has come close. The old Dumbledore was any better?

Ian McKellan would have made a great Dumbledore. Or maybe Tom Baker. Neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon has come close.

]]> By: urs http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26660 urs Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:11:10 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26660 GOF was the worst book but the best movie. my fiance who hasn't read any of the books (nor will he ever) did fairly well understanding the plot. being a huge potter fan i have one complaint and that is the new dumbledore. GOF was the worst book but the best movie. my fiance who hasn’t read any of the books (nor will he ever) did fairly well understanding the plot. being a huge potter fan i have one complaint and that is the new dumbledore.

]]> By: edalton http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26659 edalton Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:18:26 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26659 Funny, GOF was the only movie so far that I've actually liked better than the book. But that's probably in part because I agree with DY that the fourth book was my least favorite. I particularly loathed all the teen angst in that book -- I was glad to see a lot of that cut or minimized in the movie. The shortened coverage of the quidditch world cup was no loss, either. I took an adult friend with me when the kids (14 and 11) and I went to see it Friday. He hasn't read the book, but I've told him a fair amount about it on previous occasions, which was probably good, because I'm not sure he'd have been able to follow what passes for a plot in the movie otherwise. I had fun watching it, but I really had to wonder how much sense it would make if you weren't pretty familiar with the whole series beforehand. My kids don't watch as many violent or "scary" things as many other kids their age, so they found the second half pretty spooky, but they seemed to deal with it ok. (Each had one of my arms to cling to from the maze entry on. Good thing I don't have 3 kids!) I can't imagine taking a 5 or 6 year old to see this film. Rowling herself wouldn't let her precocious 7 year old daughter read the graveyard chapter by herself, but read it to her. I suppose parents have to make their own decisions about what their kids can handle, but the marketing machine isn't helping any in this case. (We didn't get a preview of Aeon Flux in our theatre-- just "Happy Feet", the Superman remake, and some other assorted tripe I can't recall right now. Oh, and Peter Jackson's King Kong, which didn't really seem to fit in with any of the rest of the previews or the feature.) Funny, GOF was the only movie so far that I’ve actually liked better than the book. But that’s probably in part because I agree with DY that the fourth book was my least favorite. I particularly loathed all the teen angst in that book — I was glad to see a lot of that cut or minimized in the movie. The shortened coverage of the quidditch world cup was no loss, either.

I took an adult friend with me when the kids (14 and 11) and I went to see it Friday. He hasn’t read the book, but I’ve told him a fair amount about it on previous occasions, which was probably good, because I’m not sure he’d have been able to follow what passes for a plot in the movie otherwise. I had fun watching it, but I really had to wonder how much sense it would make if you weren’t pretty familiar with the whole series beforehand.

My kids don’t watch as many violent or “scary” things as many other kids their age, so they found the second half pretty spooky, but they seemed to deal with it ok. (Each had one of my arms to cling to from the maze entry on. Good thing I don’t have 3 kids!) I can’t imagine taking a 5 or 6 year old to see this film. Rowling herself wouldn’t let her precocious 7 year old daughter read the graveyard chapter by herself, but read it to her. I suppose parents have to make their own decisions about what their kids can handle, but the marketing machine isn’t helping any in this case. (We didn’t get a preview of Aeon Flux in our theatre– just “Happy Feet”, the Superman remake, and some other assorted tripe I can’t recall right now. Oh, and Peter Jackson’s King Kong, which didn’t really seem to fit in with any of the rest of the previews or the feature.)

]]> By: Rob http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26658 Rob Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:33:16 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26658 Darren James Harkness: when you say "change the name to the Wyrd Sisters for the movie" you should think (a) you never hear their name in the moveie (b) the band's name in the book is the "Weird Sisters" (c) Shakespeare came up with THAT one almost 500 years ago (d) Terry Pratchett came up with the other as the title of book 6 in the Discworld series, so I doubt whether the Canadian band ever had priority over the name. And why is it better for people to think they named themselves after a Terry Pratchett book (which they clearly did) than a band in a J K Rowling one? PS Thought the Jarvis Cocker songs were good. Darren James Harkness: when you say “change the name to the Wyrd Sisters for the movie” you should think (a) you never hear their name in the moveie (b) the band’s name in the book is the “Weird Sisters” (c) Shakespeare came up with THAT one almost 500 years ago (d) Terry Pratchett came up with the other as the title of book 6 in the Discworld series, so I doubt whether the Canadian band ever had priority over the name. And why is it better for people to think they named themselves after a Terry Pratchett book (which they clearly did) than a band in a J K Rowling one?

PS Thought the Jarvis Cocker songs were good.

]]> By: Anonymous http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26657 Anonymous Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:32:23 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26657 Darren James Harkness: when you say "change the name to the Wyrd Sisters for the movie" you should think (a) you never hear their name in the moveie (b) the band's name in the book is the "Weird Sisters" (c) Shakespeare came up with THAT one almost 500 years ago (d) Terry Pratchett came up with the other as the title of book 6 in the Discworld series, so I doubt whether the Canadian band ever had priority over the name. And why is it better for people to think they named themselves after a Terry Pratchett book (which they clearly did) than a band in a J K Rowling one? PS Thought the Jarvis Cocker songs were good. Darren James Harkness: when you say “change the name to the Wyrd Sisters for the movie” you should think (a) you never hear their name in the moveie (b) the band’s name in the book is the “Weird Sisters” (c) Shakespeare came up with THAT one almost 500 years ago (d) Terry Pratchett came up with the other as the title of book 6 in the Discworld series, so I doubt whether the Canadian band ever had priority over the name. And why is it better for people to think they named themselves after a Terry Pratchett book (which they clearly did) than a band in a J K Rowling one?

PS Thought the Jarvis Cocker songs were good.

]]> By: Dave http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26656 Dave Sat, 26 Nov 2005 02:10:44 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26656 The main problem with GOF is that pretty much the entire book is pointless: if all it takes is a portkey to get Harry to the graveyard, why go through all that bother. Talk about a McGuffin! (Also, don't we learn later on that portkeys are triggered either when touched or at a specific time? So pretty fortunate that the touch-activated one get Harry to the graveyard at just the right time....) And WTF with the taking the kids to this one? Seriously, if you take your 5-year-old to the movies and one of the previews is Aeon Flux, leave. Way, way, way too scary for the tykes, and probably not so great for their tender little ears, too. (It's kind of an interesting problem: you have this movie where there's this huge marketing and merchandizing effort to make the series look all fun and playful, sort of like some kind of Chris Colombus-directed tripe, but now they're actually making not-terrible, darker versions.) As for the movie, decent enough, I suppose. It felt edited, not flowing, and the blocking and framing felt cramped to me. I'd say not as good as number 3, but still miles beyond the Chris Colombus-directed tripe that was 1 and 2. The main problem with GOF is that pretty much the entire book is pointless: if all it takes is a portkey to get Harry to the graveyard, why go through all that bother. Talk about a McGuffin!

(Also, don’t we learn later on that portkeys are triggered either when touched or at a specific time? So pretty fortunate that the touch-activated one get Harry to the graveyard at just the right time….)

And WTF with the taking the kids to this one? Seriously, if you take your 5-year-old to the movies and one of the previews is Aeon Flux, leave. Way, way, way too scary for the tykes, and probably not so great for their tender little ears, too. (It’s kind of an interesting problem: you have this movie where there’s this huge marketing and merchandizing effort to make the series look all fun and playful, sort of like some kind of Chris Colombus-directed tripe, but now they’re actually making not-terrible, darker versions.)

As for the movie, decent enough, I suppose. It felt edited, not flowing, and the blocking and framing felt cramped to me. I’d say not as good as number 3, but still miles beyond the Chris Colombus-directed tripe that was 1 and 2.

]]> By: colin http://defectiveyeti.com/2005/11/21/movies-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-26655 colin Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:14:19 +0000 http://defectiveyeti.com/?p=3090#comment-26655 When I saw the movie, at least half the theatre must have been 5 or 6 years old. It was insane. They talked non-stop throughout the entire film, and I'm sure many will have nightmares for a week. When I saw the movie, at least half the theatre must have been 5 or 6 years old. It was insane. They talked non-stop throughout the entire film, and I’m sure many will have nightmares for a week.

]]>