|
Post by SweatShop on Jul 9, 2007 5:46:03 GMT
I find that the problem comes if you pretty much drink anything whilst watching the film.
I'm thinking your nan hadn't sampled any fairly large cups of Fanta that day...
|
|
booers
Su Pollard
Troppo in love
Posts: 262
|
Post by booers on Jul 12, 2007 9:22:59 GMT
I watched Goblet of Fire again last night in preparation for Order of the Phoenix tomorrow. Michael Gambon really is rubbish as Dumbledore. Richard Harris was brilliant as him - all softly spoken and calm and gentle yet you knew not to mess with him as he was kick-ass. Michael Gambon is all shouty and angry which isn't what Dumbledore's about. When Harry's name came out of the goblet he was really mean to him. I'm sure in the book he remained calm in that bit. And Gambon's voice is all wrong. He sounds American sometimes - is he Irish? The way he says "Podder" instead of "Potter" is not right. I demand a new Dumbledore for Half Blood Prince (I was going to add "and Deathly Hallows" until I realised that wasn't going to happen, gulp).
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jul 12, 2007 14:51:56 GMT
Just seen this: It's great, although I don't know what sense it would make if you hadn't read the books (and it would make none at all if you hadn't seen the other films or read any of the books, but if you go see film 5 without an awareness of 1-4 then you deserve to be confused). It's just over two hours, which is impressive considering the size of the book. They have condensed it a lot and cut plenty of the crap. All the major events still happen though the order and the who does what or the how things happen changes a fair bit from the book. The ministry set is awesome though the Dursley house set looks all wrong. As with the book, a sense of one overarching plot is slight, but you can't blame the filmmakers for that! And I was very relieved when Harry put his uniform on cos he was almost tasty in normal clothes and I was worried I was becoming Becca. Harry looks about 10years older than he does in Goblet... Some things of note: A couple of the things they change make an improvement on the book. In the film Cho betrays the DA, not her random friend. Which makes more narrative sense and gives a reason for her and Harry to split which the book so skims over. Also the film makes nice use of Filch, whom JKR seems to have neglected a lot. So that's nice.
Low points were not building up Bellatrix more to be the baddy she is-and her disposal of Sirius is a real blink and miss it moment, plus the lack of Dursley plottage (only Dudley getting attacked, none of the stuff about how they need to care for Harry). Theres also no mention of Percy Weasley so lets hope he isn't too important in book 7.
As for the new characters, Tonks and the other Order people are hardly in it, which will please LongSnakeMoan but makes you wonder why they bothered with them at all. Tonks loks too young and her hair is different to in the book. But maybe that makes her less annoying. Luna is great, I thought. And used more than she is in the book, although they dispense of the whole Quibbler plot
|
|
laine
Jane Asher
Doc on a box
Posts: 235
|
Post by laine on Jul 12, 2007 19:20:02 GMT
Hows the Snapeage in the film?
xx
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Jul 12, 2007 19:28:00 GMT
Is Neville in a fat suit? Because he lost loads of weight and in the last film or so looked too thin and therefore wrong for the part, but I saw a clip the other week and it looked like he may have padding.
I hope they've padded out the thin Crab or Goyle too.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jul 12, 2007 19:34:21 GMT
Ample Snapeage-not as much as 1 (or 6 I imagine) but more than a lot of folk (eg McGonagall) get. Neville isn't fat at all and very tall-Malfoy's sidekicks seem big again but are barely in it.
|
|
|
Post by somethingbiblical on Jul 12, 2007 21:57:16 GMT
I've seen it, I've seen it! It was a bit shit really. It had no plot whatsoever. It was like "Oh here, we'll ram lots of Dumbledore's Army at you" "Ok, that's done, how about some emo Harry time" "Well, now that we've got that out the way, let's have lots of Umbridge being a nasty bitch"
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jul 12, 2007 22:03:41 GMT
But that's the book basically-no plot at all just lots of... stuff. Considering its by far the hardest one to film, they did a decent job. I was reading it the other day thinking how I'd have hated to adapt it.
|
|
|
Post by Becky on Jul 12, 2007 22:18:09 GMT
I quite enjoyed it. I think they skimmed over the lessons with Snape a bit too quickly especially since that was what the end battle with Voldy was about. They missed out the brains attacking Ron in the Ministry as well. I was looking forward to seeing that on film. I hate Dumbledore in this though, and there was lots of bits different from in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Becky on Jul 12, 2007 22:24:02 GMT
And another thing... The Ordinary Boys?!
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jul 12, 2007 22:47:15 GMT
And another thing... The Ordinary Boys?! Yeah, that was weird. I guess it was just to show the difference before and after Umbridge. Oh, and where were all the ghosts and stuff?
|
|
|
Post by somethingbiblical on Jul 12, 2007 23:34:46 GMT
Yeah, the Ordinary Boys was weird. Especially given in teh wizardin wurld they have their own music, and this one is meant to be set in 1995.
I bet Preston is feeling smug.
|
|
|
Post by somethingbiblical on Jul 13, 2007 9:34:39 GMT
Now that I'm thinking about it, Luna and Kreacher = pointless inclusions, given they did nothing all film. And it really annoyed me that when they were flying on the Thestrals, it just showed Luna and Harry all cum-faced and didn't even have Hermione etc screaming in the background - given they're flying on things they can't even see...
I think they got the political side of it quite well though, although the endless headlines got really annoying.
Tonks was shit! They didn't even explain WHY she could change her face into a pig.
And if they're gonna throw in lingering shots of Ginny gazing at Harry, they should have put in how she's a bit of a slag and how she's (supposed) to be witty, or it makes no sense for Harry to fancy her in book 6.
I know they've gotta cram a lot into a movie-time but some of the stuff they put in is just pointless and could be replaced with better stuff. I can't imagine having gone to see that had I not read the book, in the other films they try to explain things but in this one they didn't seem to bother.
There was something else I really wanted to say but I've forgotten it now. Oh, I remember. I was gonna say how, given the whole book is leading up to Dumbledore telling Harry all about the prophecy, they barely even mentioned the propechy! Pah! Oh, and they totally skimmed over the fact that it's sorta all Harry's fault Sirius got killed cause he's an over-eager fudd with a hero complex.
Rad, I thought that was Percy Weasley in Dumbledore's office when he goes on the run? His hair was non-ginger though, chuh! What's that all about, eh!
There were tonnnnnnes of sexual innuendos. Harry to Snape: "We've been at it for hours, can I just have a rest!"
|
|
|
Post by Bungle on Jul 14, 2007 17:02:19 GMT
I haven't read the book but have just got back from seeing this. Very very thin on plot I thought, and I still feel that they should have the balls to either do a bore-a-thon adaptation for the 'fans' or just make a darn good film - not this middle ground where we have subplots that run for precisely three minutes and then disappear because people who have read the books will expect them.
Entertaining enough but just a collection of middling set pieces filled in with reams and reams of exposition. Looks gorgeous however, especially the opening ten minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Jul 14, 2007 22:16:51 GMT
So I buckled under the pressure of the hefty marketing campaign and badgering friends and went to see this earlier. I enjoyed it, and shouldn't have worried about it ruining my book 7 experience because Luna and Bellatrix were fantastic. Seriously, I am a little bit in love with Luna (despite her looking like a very pretty hybrid of Gillian McKeith and DI Nixon off The Bill). In fact, I now expect to enjoy The Deathly Hallows more because Harry is entitled to shitty Ginny since Luna is out of everyone's league. Therefore Neville has to die as I won't let him touch her.
The fact that not too much of note happens in the book definitely took its toll, but I didn't get at all bored. Vera Drake was good as Umbridge, though Annette Badland was who I imagined in the role. I would have also liked the filmakers to go a bit intertextual and have Hermione go to her after lessons for a secret abortion (ron's, obviously). Speaking of Hermione - god, she was woeful. I really noticed how shoddy her acting is tonight, perhaps because the others have improved a bit. She sees lovely in real life though. I still don't like Daniel Radcliffe much. Let's have Elijah Wood in the role in the next two.
I'll stand up for Gambon's Dumbledore though! I can't remember it now, but a few weeks ago I had a really good reason why he was brilliant. It may have had something to do with Dumbledore being more active and mischievous in the later books. I'd be worried for Richard Harriss hips.
I can't remember what else I wanted to say, apart from being upset about Sirius's mad ass mum being cut.
Also, I'm not even slightly scared of Voldemort in the films. He really shits me right up in the books too.
|
|
|
Post by Bungle on Jul 15, 2007 9:53:23 GMT
Nurse Dunkley, did you notice that there seemed to be a mini version of you stood near Harry when Emma Thompson packs her bags ? Pulled me right out of the action that did.
|
|
|
Post by jode* on Jul 15, 2007 11:48:31 GMT
I have to agree with everyone else. I did enjoy it, but it was just a bit nothing.
The book is the longest and most boring, but even so there are some really great bits in the book - favourite bits that you look forward to reading. There were a lot of missed opportunities.
For example:
What would it have taken for Fred and George to mention their new shop on their departure?
The family tree scene was sooooooooo long, and yet they didn't even mention the fact that all pure-blood families are connected and Tonks and Mrs Weasley are both related to Sirius etc etc.
Kreacher was there, but could have been used for comedy value (when he speaks his thoughts under his breath etc).
Just one line from Ron, whilst they were riding the Thestrals, about not being able to see what he was riding on would have been good too (and one line saying how they are great at navigating and therefore managed to fly from Scotland to London).
I understand that they cut stuff out, but it just seemed that a couple of lines here and there could have added to it very very easily.
Oh and Luna is absolutely stunning.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Jul 15, 2007 12:28:07 GMT
I thought that about the Thestrals! There was nothing to show that the others thought they were flying on air. Nurse Dunkley, did you notice that there seemed to be a mini version of you stood near Harry when Emma Thompson packs her bags ? Pulled me right out of the action that did. Haha I didn't. I probably won't get to see it again until the dvd's out, but if Harry's stood next to Neville or such like then you'll have hell to pay. Ooh, does anybody remember this wonderful story? tinyurl.com/yu7rru
|
|
|
Post by somethingbiblical on Jul 15, 2007 18:54:23 GMT
They never mentioned the locket.. surely if that was a pivotal part of book 7, JK would've made them put it in
|
|
Tacye Marley
Su Pollard
O Hai. I iz Homofobe nao.
Posts: 404
|
Post by Tacye Marley on Jul 15, 2007 19:50:04 GMT
As in the locket that had RAB in it? Isn't that in book 6?
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Jul 15, 2007 20:16:11 GMT
It's mentioned in book 5, but the film not doing so shouldn't cause too many problems in Film 7. They were going to cut Kreacher, but JK told them they'd regret it.
|
|
|
Post by jode* on Jul 16, 2007 7:47:32 GMT
Nobody knows whether it's the same locket. It's just the only other instance in five books where a locket is mentioned.
Yes - JK made them keep Kreacher in the film, they went to all the trouble of 3d modelling him etc, and yet he was completely underused.
|
|
|
Post by longsnakemoan on Jul 16, 2007 9:27:03 GMT
I saw it on Saturday and in the spirit of honouring Rupert Grint I was quite drunk so all I remember really was that Snape's Worst Memory scene was shit.
|
|
booers
Su Pollard
Troppo in love
Posts: 262
|
Post by booers on Jul 16, 2007 9:44:27 GMT
I quite enjoyed it. I saw it at the IMAX in 3D no less (well the whole of the department of mysteries battle scene was 3D anyway). It is easily the most padded out book but I think they did well in keeping some of the sub plots. It seems like the occlumancy lessons could have been featured a bit more though as that is a major part of the book, and it was never revealed that it was Umbridge who ordered the Dementor attack in Little Whinging. I thought Luna was marvellous. She was so cute and dreamy. I wanted Harry to get it on with her in Half-Blood Prince, not Ginny. Film Ginny is a bit lame, book Ginny is quite cool though. Dumbledore was better in this one too. I may have to take back what I wrote in my earlier post. Actually, no - he was still wrong in Goblet of Fire. Any other older men lovers cream themselves at the hot daddy Ministry official (called Dawlish, I think) in Dumbledore's office when he disappeared? Nope? Just me then!
|
|
Lisa
Su Pollard
Campaigning for the ghostly return of Toby - always my favourite serial killer
Posts: 454
|
Post by Lisa on Jul 16, 2007 10:22:21 GMT
Saw it on Saturday, and spent most of the beginning trying to work out if Dudley was a new actor! Wished Helena Bonham Carter could have been in it more though as she was my favourite by far - although Luna was ace. I'm glad I'd read the book as I don't think it would have made much sense otherwise.
|
|