Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

GOF Movie Thought

GPotter420GPotter420 Posts: 22
edited February 2012 in General
Alright, so first, I just wanted to say that I'm not very big on the movies, but I'm watching the Goblet of Fire as I'm typing this. I haven't watched it in a very long time, and forgot how much was left out. I'm glad I have a good imagination, because I thought there was a lot more included in the movie than there actually is. Anyways, I noticed that they missed one of my favorite chapters in that book. I LOVE Chapter 25: The Egg and the Eye. I actually feel like it would've been a great addition to the movie. They only added up until Harry figures out the song in the egg, and then it transitions right into helping Harry how to breathe under water. I know it may have just been a filler chapter, but there's a lot of significance in it. It has a lot of foreshadowing involved in it. What do you guys think? I'm just curious to see if anyone else feels the same way. I do think they could've left some other things out to accommodate it. Of course, I do also believe they left some stuff out that would've been more important than this chapter. I still would've loved to see it be acted out though. I'm going to end up getting my ass reamed out for this, aren't I? lol

Comments

  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I really don't care what is left out of the books as long as I can follow the plot and that the characters aren't a giant change.

    So no, I really don't care at all if that's missing. They're two different mediums and what works in a book might not work in a film and vice versa.
    image
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm going to end up getting my ass reamed out for this, aren't I? lol
    No, because you're talking about Goblet of Fire, which is the one that receives the most ridicule despite it being fantastic beyond some overtly-discussed editing issues.

    Basically just steer clear of Deathly Hallows Part 2 negativity and you can almost rest assured that you won't have to deal with me, which just sucks so it's better to avoid that at all costs.
  • XDMorsmordreXDXDMorsmordreXD Posts: 6,730 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm going to end up getting my ass reamed out for this, aren't I? lol
    No, because you're talking about Goblet of Fire, which is the one that receives the most ridicule despite it being fantastic beyond some overtly-discussed editing issues.

    Basically just steer clear of Deathly Hallows Part 2 negativity and you can almost rest assured that you won't have to deal with me, which just sucks so it's better to avoid that at all costs.
    :O
    Isn't Deathly Hallows (combined) the only films I don't complain about?!
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Mysterious thing time.
  • Noted, @Bane lol : )
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you want to complain about the films weak script or acting, I'm right there with you. But the plot is very good and if anything, is one of the more loyal to the book. It's a very straightforward plot and it follows it well.
    image
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Anyway, here's how a book works: however it wants to, because an author has quite a bit of freedom especially when they write over 600 pages.

    Here's how a movie works: oh shit, we have about two and a half hours tops to somehow make this sprawling beast of a novel come to life on screen.

    So, yes, things are going to be lost, so its up to the screenwriter to figure out the main core plot of each installment and write it to the best of their abilities, and then the rest is left up to the director to actually get it up on-screen in the most cinematically logical fashion they can.

    Quite frankly, too many people don't understand filmmaking and there's this disgusting lack of respect and understanding of the filmmakers from novel purists concerning this. Purists are under the extreme delusion that everything can be fit in, but even when it finally came time to split one of the books to extend the runtime for almost another 2 hours people are still complaining about changes, omissions, things being rushed, etc.

    I'm glad Deathly Hallows exists as the definitive example that no matter how long you extend the runtime, you're still not going to get everything that your heart desires. Back in the earlier days of the movies when people were complaining about cuts, I don't know how many times I heard "of if they'd just split it or make it LORD OF THE RANGS runtime they could fit it all in!!1" Then we got the final installment not only split into two, but both parts equaling the overly long extended edition of Return of the King which had so much fluff it was ridiculous and yet-- people still bitch and don't seem to understand how this all works.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Whether you're doing an original screenplay or an adapted screenplay, the basic, fundamental rules of screenwriting apply to any script. Screenwriters don't look at a novel that they're adapting and say "okay, time to impossibly take this story and all of its subplots and intricacies that the author had the freedom to write and mash it all together in a 2, 2.5 hour long script." They say, "okay, what's the main story here, what's the central focus, what's the absolute essential elements of character development-- what is the most efficient way to take what the author has written and convey it in a visual way in a limited amount of time?"

    And really, the nature of the novels gave the screenwriters a very adequate vantage point through the fact that the books are told through the perspective of Harry Potter. The books also have a lot of details and elements surrounding Harry's story, but more often than not they're not absolutely critical to the immediate plot. With the films, they had to look at the subplots and decide which ones actually mattered in the grand scheme of things. You have some subplots that work in the books, such as S.P.E.W. that existed almost primarily as a character trait for Hermione, but this was not important enough to include in the films because Hermione isn't the main character and when a film wanders off the main course into a subplot that doesn't matter, it's highly noticeable and jarring.

    Now, if the existence of S.P.E.W. led to some worthwhile information concerning Harry or the main plot, it would be different as it would actually exist to propel the plot forward. The job of a screenwriter is to keep the story moving forward to the best of their ability because good pacing is an excellent quality of a film. This is why some people didn't like the "camping" stuff in Deathly Hallows, as well as in Deathly Hallows Part 1 because it wasn't necessarily, at all times, moving the story forward. However, many understood that it existed for essential and quality character development, so it ended up being a mixed bag of sorts. It also showed me, at least, that the filmmakers cared enough about the novel and the characters to keep it mostly intact even knowing that it would slow down the pacing and be met by criticism by some. If they didn't care, that stuff could have been easily condensed down into practically nothing with some clever editing.

    Long story short, the screenwriters had a very good vantage point because Rowling wrote the books in such a way that there is a core story that, without all the subplots and side details, still tells the same story. Thus, what the screenwriters were able to do was to simply stick to that core narrative that tells the story and keeps hard focus on the character development and emotion. This allowed for them to more efficiently write the scripts and base the entire film series on that logic, and it worked. However, some people demand that a lot more be included, pacing or worthiness to the story be damned, because mother fucker, it was in the book.

    As for me, I'm a massive fan of the books, but only because I was into Harry's story. It took me a while to get into Harry Potter because I thought it was just a bunch of fucking British kids running around yelling spells and shit, but when I saw the first few films and then read the books, I found there to be an incredibly engrossing core story there, and that's what I latched onto, and that's what I found the most impressive about the series. Sure it's detailed, well-written, and contains a lot of very fun subplots, but the actual story is what kept it interesting for me and that's why I have been a huge supporter of the films because rather than trying to stuff all they can in there to appease fans, they instead kept to what makes it all work in the first place-- Harry's story-- and bring it to life with some incredibly high-quality and impressive filmmaking that just got better as it went.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Anyway, sorry for the long posts, my girlfriend is watching The Bachelorette so I can't play Final Fantasy XIII-2 so I'm kind of bored.
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    image
    image
  • Lol, no problem .. I understand what you're saying. Obviously, the books are huge, so they have to pick out the parts that fit along with the main plot of the story, and leave the other stuff out, unfortunate as it is. :D
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2012
    By the way, I'm not forcing any opinions on anyone, nor am I telling people how to think about stuff, I'm just sharing factual information about the screenwriting/filmmaking process. I'm not calling anyone out nor am I calling anyone particularly stupid-- nothing along those lines. Nothing about your post annoyed me or anything of the sort. I'm more or less just posting thoughts that the thread made me think of, despite the actual thread being 100% humble and totally fine.

    I'm just saying that I wish Potter fans would look at these movies in a much different way that they do and consider the quality of the films that they did get, rather than slighting them at every turn for not doing something the way that they would do it. I guarantee that if the films are ever remade, the ones that we currently have are actually so good that it would be very challenging for another studio or another batch of filmmakers to outdo what David Heyman, Yates, Cuaron, Newell, Colombus, Alexandre Desplat, John Williams, Nicholas Hooper, and even Mark fucking Day of all people have brought to us.

    If they're ever remade, if other people actually attempt it, I guarantee a common statement will be something along the lines of "it's okay but nothing compared to the original series."
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Genius!
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And I'm not even saying that the movies are perfect, but I'm 29 years old and have seen thousands of films, and I could count the number of films that I think are flawless on one hand. I think the general work done on the series far outweighs some of the problems that they absolutely do have, but most of the problems they have are actual filmmaking problems, not so much story problems or how they chose to present the story and characters.
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'll have what Brandon's smoking please.
    image
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    @Bane No bashing ROTK....
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Bane No bashing ROTK....
    Oh I'm not. It's one of the greatest films I've ever seen. But the extended edition was needlessly long. Which is why it's the extended edition.
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    Yeah I love me some Return of the King but the Extended Edition is just too damn long. I like Fellowship better. :3
    imageimageimage
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Bane No bashing ROTK....
    Leave that to me. I liked Breaking Dawn 1 more than Return of the King.

    As usual Bane your posts are so flawlessly written I wonder if it's possible to equal that on a whim or if you proofread your posts? Everytime I read your writing (posts) its very straight to your point and clear without the usual turnoff words that most long posts bore me with.

    @ThreadTopic As Bane said GoF was an incredible book, one of the best mystery books ive ever read Potter or no, and they really just couldn't put that in... There wasn't much need, the film is very enjoyable as a film. If you want the best telling of the story then I would refer everyone to the book, but just for an appetizer the film buffs can just watch the movie.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    And I'm not even saying that the movies are perfect, but I'm 29 years old and have seen thousands of films, and I could count the number of films that I think are flawless on one hand. I think the general work done on the series far outweighs some of the problems that they absolutely do have, but most of the problems they have are actual filmmaking problems, not so much story problems or how they chose to present the story and characters.
    I'd agree with this largely, except in the case of HBP. I think there were some major flaws in adapting that which, for all my nitpicks and complaints about the other movies, just weren't present in the others - especially not in the later ones. It lurches from major plotpoints to a bog of inconsequence before picking up some semblance of a story towards the end. I think a much more robust adaptation was needed in the case of HBP. As it stands, you could probably cut an average of 30 seconds from each scene, and the movie would only be the better for it.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd agree with this largely, except in the case of HBP. I think there were some major flaws in adapting that which, for all my nitpicks and complaints about the other movies, just weren't present in the others - especially not in the later ones. It lurches from major plotpoints to a bog of inconsequence before picking up some semblance of a story towards the end. I think a much more robust adaptation was needed in the case of HBP. As it stands, you could probably cut an average of 30 seconds from each scene, and the movie would only be the better for it.
    Totally with you there, as I've voiced the same concerns about HBP. On one hand I think it's a gorgeous and well made film, but on the other hand I felt that they made the wrong choices about the story. Their logic was that having the Tom Riddle memory scenes wouldn't have pushed the story forward, when that was like the entire goddamn point of the fucking book. It was meant to be the Sorcerer's Stone for Voldemort, so to speak, not the Love Trials and Tribulations of Ronald Weasley that the film ended up largely being about.

    I know it wasn't all just love stuff, but it got WAY more of a focus than the actual important shit.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As usual Bane your posts are so flawlessly written I wonder if it's possible to equal that on a whim or if you proofread your posts? Everytime I read your writing (posts) its very straight to your point and clear without the usual turnoff words that most long posts bore me with.
    I don't normally proofread, no. I won't pretend to be the greatest writer ever, but I do write a lot. English was my forte in school/college and I just do a lot of writing in general. I'm terrible at math though, which I suppose is the trade-off.
  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2012
    Totally with you there, as I've voiced the same concerns about HBP. On one hand I think it's a gorgeous and well made film, but on the other hand I felt that they made the wrong choices about the story. Their logic was that having the Tom Riddle memory scenes wouldn't have pushed the story forward, when that was like the entire goddamn point of the fucking book. It was meant to be the Sorcerer's Stone for Voldemort, so to speak, not the Love Trials and Tribulations of Ronald Weasley that the film ended up largely being about.

    I know it wasn't all just love stuff, but it got WAY more of a focus than the actual important shit.
    It was a strange choice of focus, to be sure, and the romance slows down the plot much more than a strong backstory for Riddle would. You can get romance in any old movie; they should have played to the strengths of the novel, which were undeniably the memories. I don't even think it's the quantity of romantic material, it's how invasive it is. It encroaches on almost every scene, and after a few scenes of drawn out awkward dialogue about "snogging", it sickens you. Add the fact that we already had our "rom-com" Potter movie back in 2005, and it largely feels like a safe old retread.

    I'd be interested in seeing if Michael Goldenberg would have tackled the story the same way as Kloves. I know there's debate over who's better, but from OOTP, Goldenberg seems much more adept at getting to the core of the story.

    Of course, the technical achievements of the film can't be denied, but in terms of content I find it one of the most unsatisfying.
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I thought that The focus of the book was Slughorn, Malfoy, Snape and Dumbledore's death.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I thought that The focus of the book was Slughorn, Malfoy, Snape and Dumbledore's death.
    You basically have present-day focus, and backstory focus in the book. A lot of people were confused about the Horcruxes because a lot of their importance and explanation comes directly from Riddle's memories and because they chose to skip around them, they had to very quickly talk about Horcruxes. One of the most telling scenes is that really rushed scene between Dumbledore and Harry that basically goes something like this:

    "soifonedestroysthehorcruxes--onedestroysvoldemort"

    But the problem is that the film absolutely did not elaborate upon why Horcrux creation is so awful and what kind of a human being it would take to create not just one, which would have been bad enough, but seven, each one requiring a murder. Voldemort's backstory really dug into his mentality and psychology, which was the point in which I said wow, what a fantastic villain. Otherwise you just have some power-hungry maniac, which he was, but without a lot of the why.

    The biggest problem with all of this is that Deathly Hallows strives almost solely on the information presented in the backstory and the Horcruxes. Sure, I felt the film did a pretty good job with the Snape/Malfoy stuff, in fact the Malfoy stuff was phenomenal, but for me the heart of the book lied in the strength that, again, it felt like Tom Riddle's very own origin story, his own Sorcerer's Stone. It was the key installment to develop that character and show audiences why he does the things he does, and just exactly what kind of a murderous psychopath that Harry is dealing with. Focusing on the memories would not have slowed the story down, it would have pushed it forward because the final installment is all about everything in the memories and what Voldemort has did to create the Horcruxes, as well as provide some hints and clues to their whereabouts.

    Therefore, the backstory in this case was absolutely more important than the stuff that they decided to focus on in the film, which was still important aside from the romance and comedy aspects but the important stuff it did focus on did not necessarily articulate the goal of the endgame, which was hunting and destroying the Horcruxes. The film established them but did hardly anything else with them. This is probably the only case where I would say that the book is actually tremendously better than the film, and that's just because of what they decided to focus on. Had they brought Riddle's backstory into the forefront, just imagine how unique the film could have been, with a lot of period piece time settings, costumes, new characters like the Gaunt family-- even that artwork from Mary of Dumbledore and Harry snooping around that old creepy house in the woods. It would have made for a far more diverse, interesting film that could have been different from the others while at the same time extrapolating the villain, giving him the depth that Rowling did, and showing why the Horcruxes are such a big deal.

    When writing a script you're supposed to show, not tell, and Kloves did a lot of very quick telling. I don't largely blame it on him as it was an agreement between he, Yates, and Heyman, so really there are a lot of people to blame for it which I hope proves that I'm not some David Yates lapdog because I seriously despise his ignorance in this case.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think Half-Blood Prince is still a great movie, but that doesn't mean that I can't have some reservations about it, which in this case I have some relatively pressing ones to put it mildly. I was also pissed off that they didn't have Fawkes singing the lament which echoed throughout the castle, which made me cry like a fucking baby in the book.
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Fawkes sang for a few seconds in the movie.
    imageimageimage
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yates was simply not suited to direct HBP considering he found the romance more interesting than Voldemort's backstory and developing the main character. It's competently made, sure, but unfocused and not as deep as it had the potential to be with a better script.
  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2012
    I think he's well enough suited to make it. It just seems he, like many of those around him, got too carried away with the idea of making a "funny" Potter movie. He forgot his own principle of less is more, and that whole side of things just became overbearing. I'd have liked more of a focus on the Harry/Draco/Riddle dynamic, paralleling their stories much more strongly. And of course, an explanation of Horcruxes that actually makes sense. One does not "destroy Voldemort" if one destroys all the Horcruxes, one renders Voldemort mortal. Then DH comes along and completely contradicts the established explanation of Horcruxes by reverting to the book logic.

    That's why HBP, especially in hindsight, shows up as the weak link. So many things which should have been introduced and established there weren't, yet the next two movies operate on the basis that they were introduced when they should be, rendering some plot elements quite incomprehensible. Either have a movie narrative that differs from the book or follow the book. When it comes to things like the mirror shard, you can't just suddenly decide your going to follow the book after not introducing it. That's just one example.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    @Bane No bashing ROTK....
    Oh I'm not. It's one of the greatest films I've ever seen. But the extended edition was needlessly long. Which is why it's the extended edition.
    Of course. It showed more of Tolkiens beauty from the books.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Fawkes sang for a few seconds in the movie.
    No. He squawked a bit, like any other fucking bird would, as it flew away. It was hardly a song, let alone a sorrowful lament.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hm?
  • Fawkes sang for a few seconds in the movie.
    No. He squawked a bit, like any other fucking bird would, as it flew away. It was hardly a song, let alone a sorrowful lament.
    LOL!! Very true. :))
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not sure which is the most disheartening; Sir_Cadogan seemingly picking out my posts and degrading them down to an idiotic level without offering any intellectual substance or counter-argument and topping it off with "whatever makes you feel better I suppose," or someone actually liking it. Keep the good times rolling, HPF.
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    I'm not sure which is the most disheartening; Sir_Cadogan seemingly picking out my posts and degrading them down to an idiotic level without offering any intellectual substance or counter-argument and topping it off with "whatever makes you feel better I suppose," or someone actually liking it. Keep the good times rolling, HPF.
    Seeing as you weren't sticking up for the movies in this point, I don't see how he could be talking to you.
    imageimageimage
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If he wasn't talking to me then I will do nothing but offer him the most sincerest of my apologies for my misunderstanding.
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Here we go again.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here we go again.
    Nah. I thought he was talking to me because I was the one making these massive, elaborate posts about the films and seeing that it may not be the case, there's no need for conflict. :p
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If this is the kind of bullshit that I'm frequently going to be met with after trying to make intellectual contributions to the forum then it's not even worth it for me. Why even bother when just a select few are actually going to read and consider what I say? Why should anyone even post their thoughts about anything when they're going to be met with "oh ho ho y u sticking up 4 dese well made moovies i do knot understand lolz whatever makes you feel bettar!1"

    Not the kind of shit I care to be around. Later guys.
  • AratronAratron Posts: 279 ✭✭✭
    @Bane
    If this is the kind of bullshit that I'm frequently going to be met with after trying to make intellectual contributions to the forum then it's not even worth it for me. Why even bother when just a select few are actually going to read and consider what I say? Why should anyone even post their thoughts about anything when they're going to be met with "oh ho ho y u sticking up 4 dese well made moovies i do knot understand lolz whatever makes you feel bettar!1"

    Not the kind of shit I care to be around. Later guys.
    I took you seriously :(
    Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. - C. S. Lewis
    image
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ignore anyone that doesn't take you seriously. They aren't worthy of your epic posts.
    image
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,872 mod
    edited February 2012
    If this is the kind of bullshit that I'm frequently going to be met with after trying to make intellectual contributions to the forum then it's not even worth it for me. Why even bother when just a select few are actually going to read and consider what I say? Why should anyone even post their thoughts about anything when they're going to be met with "oh ho ho y u sticking up 4 dese well made moovies i do knot understand lolz whatever makes you feel bettar!1"

    Not the kind of shit I care to be around. Later guys.
    Naooooooo Stayyyyyyyyyyyyy :(

    image
    image
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    @Bane

    Man, your post are the best seriously. I enjoy tem so much even if I hardly respond to them but I can tell that you put so much thought into what you write and I would hate to see you go. Remember, ignoring the knuckleheads is gold.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Bane

    You may not be the hero we deserve, but you are the one we need right now.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2012
    @Bane

    Man, your post are the best seriously. I enjoy tem so much even if I hardly respond to them but I can tell that you put so much thought into what you write and I would hate to see you go.
    Agree.

    Even though I don't respond to your posts, but I always enjoy reading them.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    @bane On a side note, I never said I didn't read your posts. I'm sorry you got so offended with a comment that wasn't even directed towards you.
    Also, @Richard So I'm a "knucklehead" now? :|
    You arent a knucklehead to me, Im teling bane to ignore those he would consider knuckleheads.

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I will take your usual posts and regurgitate it back to you. Clearly, Bane, you are wanted here or 7 forum members wouldn't have flipped out over a simple statement you made. So if you want to believe your posts are being largely ignored then hey, to each his own, but the fact of the matter is that your posts are largely read and largely appreciated so if that's your basis for transferring then I find myself disappointed. However, if it's just a coverup for another reason then I nod in your favor of deception. What doesn't kill you makes you stranger. Don't be a stranger Hermione Granger.

    I'm watching The Departed. Do you like that movie Darthorcrux?
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.