i maybe would like to see hbp split....and ootp a little longer but not a split. I still wouldnt mind a tv/mini series show maybe cgi type thats more of the facts and minimal fluff
i maybe would like to see hbp split....and ootp a little longer but not a split. I still wouldnt mind a tv/mini series show maybe cgi type thats more of the facts and minimal fluff
I'm definitely with you here. I think a mini series would be the best way to give the series some Space and time to show all the events in the books. Of course still a few artistic freedoms here an there would be marvelous but sticking to the source material is essential in telling the story, and not just from Harry's view.
And I think both ootp and hbp with a split would be bad. A lot of what fans want from the books back in the film in those books would really just be unnecessary filler.
But each episode has to have a self contained story, which would mean a lot of rearranging.
In the best case, 2 episodes per week which means a 2 episode story.
But know that we would never have had the great soundtrack we had, no awesome visual effects and most of the shots would be steady cam which kinda sucks when there's too much.
I prefer a beautiful movie than a very faithful TV serie with steady cam only...
And I think both ootp and hbp with a split would be bad. A lot of what fans want from the books back in the film in those books would really just be unnecessary filler.
This. Fans just want to see unimportant stuff for the sake of seeing it. I don't give a damn about Quidditch in OOTP. The movie would have suffered from it, much as it suffered from Grawp. Nor do I care about the Dursleys' absense from HBP or GOF. Actually, I like it, because it's a nice deviation from formula, and any information which should have been given in OOTP, such as Sirius's will and Kreacher and the Privet Drive protection could easily have been conveyed in a line, or perhaps they could have portrayed the protection visually.
BUT if they split GOF they would HAVE to split OOTP and HBP
DH is the only one that justifies a split. GOF really only needs about fifteen minutes more, at most. The House-Elves and SPEW, the Quidditch World Cup match and the Rite Skeeter subplot and most of whatever else people think it needs is wrong, because that would just be filler nonsense. All it needs is Priori Incantatem explanation, a more coherently followed Barty Crouch story which doesn't necessarily have to include Winky, and maybe a scene with Cornerlius Fudge to set up OOTP, but the last one isn't essential. Other than that, we could maybe have had more Sirius but it isn't an absolute must.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
Hope you understand it, otherwise I'll have to use photoshop to do a montage
That on the right is just a wall with a "decorative" tower. There is the training field, where they have flying classes. And there's that big wall because through it there's a huge cliff and they don't want children hurt. This shot is geographicly correct.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
Well the main issue why WB refuses a movie to be 3hours long is because per day, you can show maximum 4 times a day a 3 hours long movie in the cinemas while you can 6 times with a 2 hours long movie.
If we add the few scenes that really didn't match with the movie (The Ron/Hermione runing down the stairs followed by Nagini), the alternate shots (Alberforth for exemple, the "directing choices" (Harry and Ginny walking), the scenes volontarely kept for deleted scenes (I can't quote any without facts but I'm sure there are some) and the Mark Day editing (Lupin/Tonks scene). I'm sure those can be more than 45 minutes shots cut.
Hope you understand it, otherwise I'll have to use photoshop to do a montage
That on the right is just a wall with a "decorative" tower. There is the training field, where they have flying classes. And there's that big wall because through it there's a huge cliff and they don't want children hurt. This shot is geographicly correct.
Well according to my miniature, the Hogwarts castle we can see and most of the wide shots in DH, we shouldn't be seeing a wall but the botanica area. So in the two cases it's wrong.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
Well the main issue why WB refuses a movie to be 3hours long is because per day, you can show maximum 4 times a day a 3 hours long movie in the cinemas while you can 6 times with a 2 hours long movie.
If we add the few scenes that really didn't match with the movie (The Ron/Hermione runing down the stairs followed by Nagini), the alternate shots (Alberforth for exemple, the "directing choices" (Harry and Ginny walking), the scenes volontarely kept for deleted scenes (I can't quote any without facts but I'm sure there are some) and the Mark Day editing (Lupin/Tonks scene). I'm sure those can be more than 45 minutes shots cut.
All for the money. What a surprise. No wonder Day was constantly having the last films be shorter than the earlier ones.
Hope you understand it, otherwise I'll have to use photoshop to do a montage
That on the right is just a wall with a "decorative" tower. There is the training field, where they have flying classes. And there's that big wall because through it there's a huge cliff and they don't want children hurt. This shot is geographicly correct.
Well according to my miniature, the Hogwarts castle we can see and most of the wide shots in DH, we shouldn't be seeing a wall but the botanica area. So in the two cases it's wrong.
Is your model the one they used for GOF? Because remember, there were changes to the castle every single movie after COS.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
I agree, but I certainly don't think they should waste time filming a lot of the filler subplots, like SPEW for example.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
Well the main issue why WB refuses a movie to be 3hours long is because per day, you can show maximum 4 times a day a 3 hours long movie in the cinemas while you can 6 times with a 2 hours long movie.
If we add the few scenes that really didn't match with the movie (The Ron/Hermione runing down the stairs followed by Nagini), the alternate shots (Alberforth for exemple, the "directing choices" (Harry and Ginny walking), the scenes volontarely kept for deleted scenes (I can't quote any without facts but I'm sure there are some) and the Mark Day editing (Lupin/Tonks scene). I'm sure those can be more than 45 minutes shots cut.
I realized I wasn't clear enough. I meant the perfectly fine 2.5-hour cuts in theaters, but a longer, 3.5-4 hour extended cut on a dvd release. :P
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
I agree, but I certainly don't think they should waste time filming a lot of the filler subplots, like SPEW for example.
Yeah, that wouldn't have worked, but perhaps an extended Quidditch world cup, more background involving the Crouches, Harry's meeting with Sirius in Hogsmeade, the full Veritaserum explanation, etc.
For OOTP, I would've liked to see St. Mungo's, an extended Ministry of Magic in the beginning, more time at Grimmauld Place, more involving Umbridge, maybe a Quidditch scene or two (at least to establish Umbridge's villainy, like Harry being banned), cut Grawp but perhaps an extended conversation with Hagrid about the giants, more battle at the Ministry, a longer aftermath with a proper prophecy explanation and more Harry mourning Sirius (the mirror as well).
For HBP, I definitely would've loved to see more Riddle memories, more Harry/Ginny establishment, and Dumbledore's funeral. God forbid I would've loved to see Apparition Lessons (just a guilty pleasure of mine) but they don't really provide anything to the plot, so I can live with the cut.
Hope you understand it, otherwise I'll have to use photoshop to do a montage
That on the right is just a wall with a "decorative" tower. There is the training field, where they have flying classes. And there's that big wall because through it there's a huge cliff and they don't want children hurt. This shot is geographicly correct.
Well according to my miniature, the Hogwarts castle we can see and most of the wide shots in DH, we shouldn't be seeing a wall but the botanica area. So in the two cases it's wrong.
Is your model the one they used for GOF? Because remember, there were changes to the castle every single movie after COS.
Well it's the OOTP one, but there were no changes from GOF to OOTP (and then to HBP). The botanica even was placed there since the second movie and maybe appeared from far in the first one.
I just looked closely at the shot again and when Harry walks up the stairs we can see the top of a few towers in the background, but then, we see the castle with the same towers in Cho's background.
I'll upload it tomorow because right now I'm on my phone and kinda tired.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
I agree, but I certainly don't think they should waste time filming a lot of the filler subplots, like SPEW for example.
Yeah, that wouldn't have worked, but perhaps an extended Quidditch world cup, more background involving the Crouches, Harry's meeting with Sirius in Hogsmeade, the full Veritaserum explanation, etc.
For OOTP, I would've liked to see St. Mungo's, an extended Ministry of Magic in the beginning, more time at Grimmauld Place, more involving Umbridge, maybe a Quidditch scene or two (at least to establish Umbridge's villainy, like Harry being banned), cut Grawp but perhaps an extended conversation with Hagrid about the giants, more battle at the Ministry, a longer aftermath with a proper prophecy explanation and more Harry mourning Sirius (the mirror as well).
For HBP, I definitely would've loved to see more Riddle memories, more Harry/Ginny establishment, and Dumbledore's funeral. God forbid I would've loved to see Apparition Lessons (just a guilty pleasure of mine) but they don't really provide anything to the plot, so I can live with the cut.
Well according to my miniature, the Hogwarts castle we can see and most of the wide shots in DH, we shouldn't be seeing a wall but the botanica area. So in the two cases it's wrong.
The miniature is not very correct, actually. They made some changes to make the castle smaller. The greenhouses are right beside the training field. So in that shot, at least, the castle is kept correct
Well according to my miniature, the Hogwarts castle we can see and most of the wide shots in DH, we shouldn't be seeing a wall but the botanica area. So in the two cases it's wrong.
The miniature is not very correct, actually. They made some changes to make the castle smaller. The greenhouses are right beside the training field. So in that shot, at least, the castle is kept correct
Well, the place where the greenhouses are, is the same since CoS. We get a beautiful shot which shows us where it is. We can also recognise it on a few shots later on and a lot in the DH2 shots of Hogwarts. So if they changed this in GoF I'm unaware of it.
I really just think they should not have been afraid to film as much as they can; once WB came around with the hacker, they should've just made each film (GOF, OOTP, and HBP) around 45 minutes longer with extra scenes. That was proven in the fact of Yates, who actually did do this, but they never bothered to clean up the extra 45 minutes of footage and odds are we'll never get it.
I think they're releasing the extra footage for all the films slowly but surely (I listen to Mugglenet Podcast), but they're always releasing it with the movies instead of by itself. So you wouldn't purchase it unless you don't have the DVD's or Blue Rays. And it's always a shit load of money too I think WB should release the extras by themselves. Otherwise, it's like, " here's the DVD ultimate edition... wait, now we have the Super Ultimate Edition... oh and now it's the Golden Edition..." to just keep people buying more.
Well... I don't HATE the Goblet of Fire (book or movie), but I don't like it... I mean, when I saw that there are another schools of Magic, I was like "Wha...?? I don't get it!! WHY MY QUEEN??"
That isn't even a reason to consider. Tolkien's Middle-earth branches out, and so does Jo's world. The key word is "world" as this isn't Twilight, staying in one place.
With my recent rewatch of the film, I feel I should update my opinion here and say that I don’t think it’s very good. It isn’t outright terrible - it’s competently made in a technical sense, at least - but the film lacks a lot in the storytelling department. For starters, it rebirths the problem from the Columbus films of simply having far too many superfluous scenes, only this time, with the more intricate plot line, that’s actually more annoying.
There’s so much useless material just brought into this film, focused on, thrown to the wayside and then totally forgotten about. It’s incredibly uneven in its focus: after the opening scene, Voldemort is completely forgotten about for another 80 + minutes. We meet characters, like Skeeter, give them substantial material and then toss them away as if they didn’t exist, not bothering to tie up the plotlines developed. The other thing, this really does vex me, is the amount of focus Newell/Kloves place on the superfluous details: Why do we spend so much time on Rita Skeeter or Creepy Myrtle? Another point is that I feel the film lacking outside of the ’big moments’. Newell might make a big extravaganza out of his set pieces, but the material between them is insubstantial: he lacks those nice, intimate character moments Yates made use of or even the quirky magic Cuaron played around with. GOF also lacks the aesthetics of the better instalments as well. A lot of Newell’s shots are unfocused and quite ugly, the compositions seem awkwardly framed (at times, especially during crowd scenes, it can be hard to find who you’re supposed to be looking at!) .
I also found it to be overwrought stylistically: there’s a distinct lack of tact or subtlety to Newell’s directing hand, especially for a storyline that requires it so. Rather than leave a trail of small, but connecting ,clues he instead drops a few anvils on our heads. I still cannot for the life of me figure out why he showed Crouch Jr in the opening and at the World Cup. It’s more than just the sloppy handling of the twist though: Newell’s banality articulates itself in a number of ways. The almost comical way he handles the most dramatic scenes, switching some of Rowling’s darkest writings for these hackneyed, melodramatic replacements: Instead of a sobbing, screaming son begging his father for forgiveness, we get a laughable B-Movie Villain smirking, and being a cartoon cliché.
I just dislike the overblown feel of the whole thing: Doyle’s score dominating the scene with mourning strings…because Cho turned Harry down. Amos screaming his son’s death to the world like the ending of a highly-theatrical tragedy. Meh. The obtuse way we’re given information (Harry telling us EVERY DETAIL to make sure we understand!).The performances suffer from this exaggerated approach as well: Crouch Sr isn’t a broken or scarred or angry man, he’s an underdeveloped caricature. Dumbledore is highly uneven as well, he ranges from being excitable to angry to disapproving to outwardly aggressive (sometimes in the same scene!). Even Moody comes across as being more pantomimic than being a battle scarred, pissed off war veteran.
And, frankly, even Newell’s strength in the ‘big scenes’ I found to be quite lacking. Out of the tasks, only the maze seemed to be the one that ramped up any kind of tense ambiance. The underwater challenge felt like a chore, especially the rather murky look of it, and the Dragon scene felt drawn out (quicker pacing and more interesting visuals might have helped). Ralph Fiennes makes the Graveyard scene and I think the wand connection is excellently done, still upon return to Hogwarts we’re treated to more hold-my-hand-and-walk-me-through-it exposition. Oh, and the very final scene has got to be one of the worst in the series: a student is killed, a great evil returns and everyone is excited for the summer holidays…what?
To put it frankly: it’s just not the film for me. I don’t like Newell’s approach, I think the script is overwrought and weak, the film feels constantly disappointing. It was an honest struggle for me to get through it.
What didn't you like about it? I thought it balanced the fun, charming, adventure like aspects of the first three books lovely with the darkness and complexity of the later novels, which made it the ultimate book for me.
I still cannot for the life of me figure out why he showed Crouch Jr in the opening and at the World Cup.
I can. Simply because it was never treated as a mystery that Crouch Jr played a part in this scheme. His character was dreadfully written, directed and acted, that is for sure, but considering Newell set out to make an extravagant Bollywood-like movie (his words) it is understandable that he and Kloves decided to reveal his identity from the get-go for clarity purposes to keep the plot straight-forward and focused on the set pieces without the need to clear up loose plot details at the end.
The devil's advocate inside me is kind of wondering why his identity ought to be a mystery in the first place. I'm not saying it necessarily isn't important if only a little, but the more relevant mystery which was preserved is what that plan is about. I very much doubt casual moviegoers caught onto the fact that Crouch Jr. pretended to be Mad-Eye Moody and planned to send Harry to a graveyard so that Voldemort could return through taking his blood. Sure, you had the exaggerated tongue clue, but remember that it was shown prior to the trial scene and made no sense to audiences at that point. Not to mention that it would be preposterous to think that casual moviegoers not only would remember polyjuice potion from the second movie, but also solve the mystery in the movie from said splendid recollection of polyjuice potion coupled with that little visual clue, which -- if they were able to place the connection immediately after the trial scene in the first place -- could be interpreted as Moody mocking Crouch Sr by imitating one of the characteristics of his son. The foreshadowing is not elegant by any means, but it's better than nothing, which seriously would be a flaw if that was the case.
I know you didn't bring up predictability concerning this plotline, but many others have in the past and most likely they are wrong, as I've argued for here. If we want to talk about predictable plotlines, it was outright spelled out twice in HBP that Dumbledore was the intended target behind the attacks, and there was no indication that anyone but Draco stood behind them.
Otherwise I agree with your objections, though I think you are a bit hard on Cedric's death. It is a tragedy to the father after all, and while it certainly was theatrical, it felt far more emotional than Dumbledore and Sirius' death scenes. The most prominent problem with the movie I think is the lack of flow and coherence in general. Characters are introduced early on only to be tossed aside for the entire movie or forgotten about for a long time and many of the transitions are hard. It's like Newell had no plan as to how to open and end the individual scenes in relation to what came before them and what followed next or even why they were important to the movie as a whole; how they connect thematically. As someone once said on another Potter forum, a more suitable title would be "Harry Potter and the 27 short movies".
My issue with Cedric's death is that I just don't like the approach. Those highly theatrical emotions can work, I think Boromir's operatic end in Fellowship is very good, but I'm not a fan of it when it's used for a barely developed tertiary character. That just feels highly manipulative to me. I have a similar problem with Haldir's big, overblown death in Two Towers. Why? We hardly knew or cared for him. To be fair, I think the scene begins well, with the band abruptly stopping and Fleur screaming. It's just Amos' reaction makes me avert my eyes to the ground. It becomes to much of a melodrama for my taste.
I actually think the Great Hall scene in Part II is more in line with how they could've handled it. The music isn't as demanding as it is during Amos' wailing, it's actually quite low key, underlining the emotion. We get a few shots of the grieving Weasleys and a reaction from Harry. To me, it feels more genuine, it isn't trying to tug the heartstrings too hard. That's really all you need when you're dealing with a small character. With Cedric I think we could have had a shot of Amos cradling his son and sobbing, but I don't think there was any need to linger on it as long as we did.
Comments
But know that we would never have had the great soundtrack we had, no awesome visual effects and most of the shots would be steady cam which kinda sucks when there's too much.
I prefer a beautiful movie than a very faithful TV serie with steady cam only...
"It all ends here... "
If we add the few scenes that really didn't match with the movie (The Ron/Hermione runing down the stairs followed by Nagini), the alternate shots (Alberforth for exemple, the "directing choices" (Harry and Ginny walking), the scenes volontarely kept for deleted scenes (I can't quote any without facts but I'm sure there are some) and the Mark Day editing (Lupin/Tonks scene).
I'm sure those can be more than 45 minutes shots cut.
"It all ends here... "
"It all ends here... "
Lord Stafford.
For OOTP, I would've liked to see St. Mungo's, an extended Ministry of Magic in the beginning, more time at Grimmauld Place, more involving Umbridge, maybe a Quidditch scene or two (at least to establish Umbridge's villainy, like Harry being banned), cut Grawp but perhaps an extended conversation with Hagrid about the giants, more battle at the Ministry, a longer aftermath with a proper prophecy explanation and more Harry mourning Sirius (the mirror as well).
For HBP, I definitely would've loved to see more Riddle memories, more Harry/Ginny establishment, and Dumbledore's funeral. God forbid I would've loved to see Apparition Lessons (just a guilty pleasure of mine) but they don't really provide anything to the plot, so I can live with the cut.
I just looked closely at the shot again and when Harry walks up the stairs we can see the top of a few towers in the background, but then, we see the castle with the same towers in Cho's background.
I'll upload it tomorow because right now I'm on my phone and kinda tired.
"It all ends here... "
So if they changed this in GoF I'm unaware of it.
"It all ends here... "
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
There’s so much useless material just brought into this film, focused on, thrown to the wayside and then totally forgotten about. It’s incredibly uneven in its focus: after the opening scene, Voldemort is completely forgotten about for another 80 + minutes. We meet characters, like Skeeter, give them substantial material and then toss them away as if they didn’t exist, not bothering to tie up the plotlines developed. The other thing, this really does vex me, is the amount of focus Newell/Kloves place on the superfluous details: Why do we spend so much time on Rita Skeeter or Creepy Myrtle? Another point is that I feel the film lacking outside of the ’big moments’. Newell might make a big extravaganza out of his set pieces, but the material between them is insubstantial: he lacks those nice, intimate character moments Yates made use of or even the quirky magic Cuaron played around with. GOF also lacks the aesthetics of the better instalments as well. A lot of Newell’s shots are unfocused and quite ugly, the compositions seem awkwardly framed (at times, especially during crowd scenes, it can be hard to find who you’re supposed to be looking at!) .
I also found it to be overwrought stylistically: there’s a distinct lack of tact or subtlety to Newell’s directing hand, especially for a storyline that requires it so. Rather than leave a trail of small, but connecting ,clues he instead drops a few anvils on our heads. I still cannot for the life of me figure out why he showed Crouch Jr in the opening and at the World Cup. It’s more than just the sloppy handling of the twist though: Newell’s banality articulates itself in a number of ways. The almost comical way he handles the most dramatic scenes, switching some of Rowling’s darkest writings for these hackneyed, melodramatic replacements: Instead of a sobbing, screaming son begging his father for forgiveness, we get a laughable B-Movie Villain smirking, and being a cartoon cliché.
I just dislike the overblown feel of the whole thing: Doyle’s score dominating the scene with mourning strings…because Cho turned Harry down. Amos screaming his son’s death to the world like the ending of a highly-theatrical tragedy. Meh. The obtuse way we’re given information (Harry telling us EVERY DETAIL to make sure we understand!).The performances suffer from this exaggerated approach as well: Crouch Sr isn’t a broken or scarred or angry man, he’s an underdeveloped caricature. Dumbledore is highly uneven as well, he ranges from being excitable to angry to disapproving to outwardly aggressive (sometimes in the same scene!). Even Moody comes across as being more pantomimic than being a battle scarred, pissed off war veteran.
And, frankly, even Newell’s strength in the ‘big scenes’ I found to be quite lacking. Out of the tasks, only the maze seemed to be the one that ramped up any kind of tense ambiance. The underwater challenge felt like a chore, especially the rather murky look of it, and the Dragon scene felt drawn out (quicker pacing and more interesting visuals might have helped). Ralph Fiennes makes the Graveyard scene and I think the wand connection is excellently done, still upon return to Hogwarts we’re treated to more hold-my-hand-and-walk-me-through-it exposition. Oh, and the very final scene has got to be one of the worst in the series: a student is killed, a great evil returns and everyone is excited for the summer holidays…what?
To put it frankly: it’s just not the film for me. I don’t like Newell’s approach, I think the script is overwrought and weak, the film feels constantly disappointing. It was an honest struggle for me to get through it.
*Pumpkinjuice correct
What didn't you like about it? I thought it balanced the fun, charming, adventure like aspects of the first three books lovely with the darkness and complexity of the later novels, which made it the ultimate book for me.
I love them all now as much as I did the first time I watched them.
The devil's advocate inside me is kind of wondering why his identity ought to be a mystery in the first place. I'm not saying it necessarily isn't important if only a little, but the more relevant mystery which was preserved is what that plan is about. I very much doubt casual moviegoers caught onto the fact that Crouch Jr. pretended to be Mad-Eye Moody and planned to send Harry to a graveyard so that Voldemort could return through taking his blood. Sure, you had the exaggerated tongue clue, but remember that it was shown prior to the trial scene and made no sense to audiences at that point. Not to mention that it would be preposterous to think that casual moviegoers not only would remember polyjuice potion from the second movie, but also solve the mystery in the movie from said splendid recollection of polyjuice potion coupled with that little visual clue, which -- if they were able to place the connection immediately after the trial scene in the first place -- could be interpreted as Moody mocking Crouch Sr by imitating one of the characteristics of his son. The foreshadowing is not elegant by any means, but it's better than nothing, which seriously would be a flaw if that was the case.
I know you didn't bring up predictability concerning this plotline, but many others have in the past and most likely they are wrong, as I've argued for here. If we want to talk about predictable plotlines, it was outright spelled out twice in HBP that Dumbledore was the intended target behind the attacks, and there was no indication that anyone but Draco stood behind them.
Otherwise I agree with your objections, though I think you are a bit hard on Cedric's death. It is a tragedy to the father after all, and while it certainly was theatrical, it felt far more emotional than Dumbledore and Sirius' death scenes. The most prominent problem with the movie I think is the lack of flow and coherence in general. Characters are introduced early on only to be tossed aside for the entire movie or forgotten about for a long time and many of the transitions are hard. It's like Newell had no plan as to how to open and end the individual scenes in relation to what came before them and what followed next or even why they were important to the movie as a whole; how they connect thematically. As someone once said on another Potter forum, a more suitable title would be "Harry Potter and the 27 short movies".
I actually think the Great Hall scene in Part II is more in line with how they could've handled it. The music isn't as demanding as it is during Amos' wailing, it's actually quite low key, underlining the emotion. We get a few shots of the grieving Weasleys and a reaction from Harry. To me, it feels more genuine, it isn't trying to tug the heartstrings too hard. That's really all you need when you're dealing with a small character. With Cedric I think we could have had a shot of Amos cradling his son and sobbing, but I don't think there was any need to linger on it as long as we did.