i just been to see the GoF at the cinima
and i think it was the worst film of all
they have really messed it up! i said it was goign to be bad from the begging but i thought i could be proved wrong! obviosuly not!
If you love the books, u will hate the Film
its just a summary of the book
if ur going to see the film and u havent read the book, then read it first.
Film is in wrong order, there are added pointless bits, and missing vitel bits: ie no house elves!
grrr
sorry just wondered if it was just me
Thanks
:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

Originally posted by Lexxy
i, and missing vitel bits: ie no house elves!

:rolleyes: Really gutted - try going to see a grown ups film they're much better.

TBH, with the size of the book, I had a feeling it was going to either feel rushed or miss out massive sections of the book.

I don;t think house elves are important really to the film (not as much as say, Cho Chang) but I really hope they haven't got it too wrong in my eyes.

If they have, I suppose there's always King Kong to look forward to.

Wilf

WHAT
are u crazy! Dobby and Winky are main characotrs in this film and the next!
they are main charactors in the books so why not the films
it is a really bad film!
they really messed it up this time

And
i love harry potter, i am a HUGE fan, so i knwo my HP and what is needed in the film etc

Originally posted by Lexxy
WHAT
are u crazy! Dobby and Winky are main characotrs in this film and the next!
they are main charactors in the books so why not the films
it is a really bad film!
they really messed it up this time

And
i love harry potter, i am a HUGE fan, so i knwo my HP and what is needed in the film etc

And your opinion is obviously so much more important than mine by you being a HUGE Harry potter fan. What make syou think I'm not a huge HP fan? All I'm saying is that Dobby and Winky in the books are used for sub plots involving Hermione mainly (except for Dobby and his help for one of the challenges). Since the films seem to be taking the route of makign this solely about Harry and his personal struglle/journey, they aren't required.

You have to accept that books and films are different mediums. A script can be wrote that can define other characters solely in visual terms rather than subplots or dialogue, that is much harder to do in a book where you rely on your audience's imagination and depth of a story, which in this case is predominantly children (not saying children are stupid, just less likely to be able to identify a subplot, when all they want to do is get onto the next big action bit).

Also becuase it is a film made for children, Hollywood falls to the lowest common denominator theory even more than books. Movie executives will have bene pushing to keep the story focussed on Harry because "too many characters confuses children". Directors and editors get round that with non verbal shots and also by keeping the narrative free of bits that don't define Harry, allowing more onscreen time devoted to others because these parts are essential to Harry and cannot be removed so easily in large chunks.

Wilf

It did feel abit like a 2.5 hour trailer, leaving me racking my brains to try and remember what happened in the book so the brief summary given in the film made sense. It was always going to be the case with a book that large though - it's not like it's a short film!

I think It's my 2nd favourite HP film - not as good as Azkaban but better than the 1st 2.

Originally posted by tslogf74
It did feel abit like a 2.5 hour trailer, leaving me racking my brains to try and remember what happened in the book so the brief summary given in the film made sense. It was always going to be the case with a book that large though - it's not like it's a short film!

I think It's my 2nd favourite HP film - not as good as Azkaban but better than the 1st 2.

As the 3rd book is my favourite and the 4th is my second I'd expect that it'll be that way with the films too. I'm seeing it on Monday with my Dad so will post my opinions then.

I thought the 3rd film was very good and they missed a couple of things out of that too as they never explained who Moony (Remus Lupin), Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew), Padfoot (Sirius Black) and Prongs (James Potter) were. I don't think it's good to compare the books to the films. There's bound to be some bits that will be left out but as long as the main story is there I wouldn't have thought it'd be a huge problem. I'm still expecting to enjoy it :thumbsup:

As a footnote I'd say that if it wasn't acceptable then J K Rowling herself would have made her views known before it went out for public viewing. It's her story after all. :)

I thought the film was brilliant - the best so far.

I loved all the books but to be honest I thought the fourth one could have done with a bit of editing. It wasn't nearly as tight a story as the previous three. I found it a bit rambly and meandering in places. But I thought the film took all the important bits of the book and managed to tell the story really well.

I suppose everyone wants something different out of films and it's easy to be disappointed if you've got certain expectations, ie. if you've reads the books first. I think the fact that I liked this book less than the others meant that I wasn't expecting so much from the film so it was a nice surprise!

Would people mind not posting spoilers for the film please as some of us haven't seen it yet.

Very valid point there Rich. Remember everyone that not all users of the forum have read the books. Some rely on just the films to tell the story.

In response to whether I liked it, I posted my full review here earlier this week (look... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71544 )

As a huge fan of Potter, I loved it. Yes, bits are missing (it is called making something CINEMATIC - like Peter Jackson did with Lord Of The Rings) and I am pleased that Dobby et al were removed. Let's be honest, the whole house elf stuff from the books is garbage, which slows down the story. It always felt like filler to me when reading it, which thankfully in books 4 and 5 she began to avoid.

The film captures the spirit of the book, and also tells the core story well. Remember Rowling has final say on the scripts of the film, and she obviously was happy to lose the House Elves. Maybe she realised they were only in the books to keep the kiddies smiling.

Lexxy - I would suggest you avoid the rest of the films as there is no way they can fit every page and word of your precious stories into the next films. They may miss out some utterly unimportant bit of fluff which will upset you terribly! Stick to the books and you will never have to be upset again.

I want to see it so much now, the film looks superb and a great watch from what I've seen of the trailers and also the behind the scenes documentaries on TV.

It was really good. Yes it all felt a bit brief but in itself, great. Dragons seen had me on edge, and CGI has vastly improved once again. I wasn't bored once, and thought the interpretation of the foreign students was excellent apart from....the Beauxbatons girls' hats looked like breasts with nipples on, and Fleur didn't speak once...and was cast poorly (radiant beauty? not really).

Loved Rita Skeeter though, and Mad Eye.

It felt different to the other films - very dark (really not suitable for kids, it has to be said) and no lessons scenes, and hardly and 'school' stuff, and comedy moments were few and far between.

I might even go and see it again!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Fleur didn't speak once...and was cast poorly (radiant beauty? not really).

I thought she looked the part. This all boils down to the age old question of what is beauty? A similar arguement was raised when Troy was released. The actress cast in the part of Helen of Troy was supposed to have "a face that launched a thousand ships", yet a lot said she was very plain.

No matter who you cast in the 'most beautiful' roles, some people are going to ask "Why?" I mean, there are actually people who find trolls like Paris Hilton attractive!! Just goes to show that beauty is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by Lexxy
they have really messed it up!

If you love the books, u will hate the Film

Did you ever see what Francis Ford Coppolla did to Bram Stokers Dracula????????? now thats unbelievable. :gag:

im not saying that they should have every page in the book etc, but there werer some thigns they missed out that were important. ie, Dobby cus he helps harry and winky cus it was suposidlt her who made the DM! so they are important!
there was NO sirius he was im portant this film
they should have made two movies of it, it would have been better and there is a d4nt dude doing the music, so that isnt good,
i dont think they should of made the films, the spoil the books.
i think, if the film was juts a film, and not made from the book, i would have liked it more, but bcoz they did a poor job of keeping up with it, i dont like it. aparently seeing it 2nd time round is better cus then its uv got over the shocl of it being so crap
the film is not just made for children its for all ages.
i think they could have made it better, 1 and 2 were great but then it all went downhill, i think CC ws the best but hey, its my opinion.

Lexy

I saw Happy Pothead yday with lexy... it was alrite.. bt i fell alseep like 6times and cudnt follow it.. it was too long since i had read the book - and nowt was explained!!! - all the characters have grown up so much - its so strange!!

ps... this isnt Clare.. its her sis ... didnt realise she was still signed in!!

I hate to disagree Lexxy but the film WERE made for children, solely because of marketable merchandise afterwards.

HP is not a book or film, it is a franchise now. Parents are more likely to spend more of their disposable income on their children than on themselves. The adjoining computer games (for children), clothing (for children) sweets (for children) and toys (suprisingly, for children!) mean that however much the books may be read by all ages (though statistically a LOT more children) this franchise is all about selling HP stuff to children.

Lemme ask you, when you went to the cinema, how many adults were ther eon their own, not taking a child with them? I bet it wasn't that many compared to adults with 2 youngsters with them.

Wilf

best bit was when dan was in the bath, when cedric died, cus i cried and i thought dragon scene was ok
i thought he 2nd task wasnt bad

lol Dan is hot! lol

well why are all the books in Adult ediotion and many adults read it! are u saying that only children are allowed to read harry potter?

Originally posted by Lexxy
well why are all the books in Adult ediotion and many adults read it! are u saying that only children are allowed to read harry potter?

Yeah, I'd really be saying that when I read them at 21.

If you'd actually read what I'd put I said that statistically a lot more children read the books compared to adults. The ratio comes to about 10 children per one adult.

Naturally when 10 out of every 11 people who read the book are children, you're going to market to them, not the other person.

Wilf

I can't comment cos I haven't seen the 4th movie or read any of the HP books

I just dont like Happy Pothead... bt yeh.. the books werent made for jus kids... the reason all the things like sweets, clothes etc are made for kids - is coz no adult in their rite mind wud b that stupid to fall for the greedy money grabbing merch!!!

post above isn't me it's my sister again, woah it's confusing, she should just get her own account!

I have no idea who I'm arguing with now.

Perhaps the adults wouldn't buy it for themselves but they do for their children. I'm not sure what that says about society though, I think it's pretty sad though.

Wilf

EXCUS ME!
dont u remember, bedding books tshirts badges etc etc! when i had no life etc and i loved HP
i really lik HP cus its good, but i think they could of made the movie better! it wasnt the best they could of done ok/q

Originally posted by Lexxy
EXCUS ME!
dont u remember, bedding books tshirts badges etc etc! when i had no life etc and i loved HP
i really lik HP cus its good, but i think they could of made the movie better! it wasnt the best they could of done ok/q

Finally, the 2 magic words 'I think'!

This is just your opinion, thats what you have to realise, it isn't law. It is all subjective.

I'll let you all know what I think on Wednesday, when I've seen it. :thumbsup:

Wilf

i aint arguing with no1 - its my opinion - and if ppl cnt stand that - its their problem - Happy Pothead - aint that bad - bt i do think its over rated

lol ok
but i think ull b dissapointed thats all!
hope u enjoy it, sum1 needs to

Happy Pothead will be enjoyed by millions.. and hated by jus as many!!

Lexxy! Stop spoiling the film! Like rich said there are people who haven't seen it yet (or read the books)

Personally, I wouldn't dream of going to see it - was forced to see the first one which was long enough - but I couldn't sit still or stay awake long enough to see this one!

I haven't read the books because I just don't have time to read a book a metre thick! I'm already reading Othello, King Lear, 1000 acres for English A2 so HP has no chance.

Personally, I don't think it's too bad but don't see what all the hype is about...

Sorry no opinion on the film as I haven't been to see it.

the books aint thatt long
can be read in a couple of hours and PS only took me about 2
fair doos, its annoying when ppl say the books are bad cus they dont like the films whent he books ro so much better than the films, and when ppl aint seen or read either lol

Saw the film today, only read some of the book :loopy: not too sure why I didn't finish it. Seemed to miss a lot of stuff out as you said. Thought it was pretty boring really, :rolleyes: after I was dragged out to see it too.

It was bound to miss out a lot of stuff, otherwise the film would be about 6 hours long. I don't really understand how they can miss Winky out though, she is a pivotal part of the madness at the World Cup in the book.

Not seen it yet, going to go when it's died down a bit.

I was disappointed that in the last film they never explained where the Marauder's Map came from, I think that's really important background information.

I was disappointed that in the last film they never explained where the Marauder's Map came from, I think that's really important background information.

Yeah, I missed that bit in the film, but that hasn't stopped them calling Pettigrew "Wormtail" throughout the new film - with no explanation, fine for the readers, but for the rest?

However, just taking POA film on it's own, it didn't feel like you were missing much out, i.e I don't think non-readers will have given the map a second thought, whereas I thought the new film felt like you weren't getting the full story.

Obviously bits need to be cut for length's sake, but it should be unnoticeable.

That bit was the only bit in POA that was omitted that I felt should have been there. They could easily have slotted it in at the end where Harry was chatting to Lupin just before he left.

On the subject of the Map creators...was it really important for the audience to know? Like was pointed out it was background information. I think it is good that these facets were left out of the films, that way people who experience the films first can then read the books and find nice little nuggets of information to be surprised with. I know of a few converts tot he books who kept saying "Wow...I didn't realise this...." everytime they got to a section that wasn't in the films.

saw it yesterday and i agree that large chunks were cut but it was still a very good film

personally i cant wait to see how they are going to handle the final battle section of order of the pheonix

dave

I've seen it twice over the weekend, and I thought they did a good job of converting the book to film.

I take the view that a film can never be as good as a book, because a book is a far more powerful medium. Films have the commercial constraints that they can't be much longer than 2 hours (3 would be an absolute maximum).

There was a lot of background plot missed out, but they had to do this. Goblet of Fire is almost twice as long as Prisoner of Azkaban, with 640 pages compared to 330, so there was no way they could fit it all into one film. The film was 2 hours 40 minutes, so they couldn't realistically make it any longer either.

They kept all the key elements of the story in, and some bits (the dragon scene) were really well done. There was also plenty of comedy in it. :)

I'm seeing the film at 8pm tonight with my Dad. I'll give my opinion of the film when I get home but going on the way I felt about the previous 3 films I'm expecting to thoroughly enjoy it. :D

I thought the film was very good actually - really enjoyed it.

Of course they were never going to get the whole book into the film and would have to leave a lot out - which is a huge shame, but it doesn't take away from it being a good film in my eyes.

You only have to look at the first 3 films and how much was left out of those compared to the books - and those books were much thinner than the 4th (and all the ones since).

My advice - read the books, enjoy them for what they are (fantastically written stories that anyone who enjoys reading and/or has an imagination should struggle to put down), then watch the films and enjoy them for what they are too (good films based on amazing books).

Roll on the next book is all I can say :clap:

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
On the subject of the Map creators...was it really important for the audience to know? Like was pointed out it was background information. I think it is good that these facets were left out of the films, that way people who experience the films first can then read the books and find nice little nuggets of information to be surprised with. I know of a few converts tot he books who kept saying "Wow...I didn't realise this...." everytime they got to a section that wasn't in the films.
As someone else said, it explains why Pettigrew is referred to as Wormtail. Although I do agree that the films are focussing more on Harry, rather than Harry's parents and his general background, which is probably a good thing, as it gives the readers something extra.

I wonder what they're going to do for the next film, I don't really think the plot in OOtP was strong enough for a film.

Well I've seen the film now and at the beginning I felt as if it was all a bit rushed like they'd tried to cram as much essential information as possible into a small amount of time in order to get the world cup out of the way etc. Once they all got back to Hogwarts it all slowed down a little and I was able to enjoy it. I felt it was quite a long film compared to the rest but I did enjoy it alot and will probably enjoy it more next time I see it. That's what happened with POA and the rest. POA is still my favourite.

All in all though I thought it was a great way to spend my evening. It'll be getting bought when the DVD comes out. :D

Got it on one of them funny DVD's this week!
Its not a bad film if your a potter fan.. it just seems very rushed in places and the ending is a bit poor for me.

Kids will be frightened though in a few bits in the film so be warned if you are taking nervous kids to see it!

I totally love the Dark Mark though!!
Loving it!!

Going with lea to see it tonight- am actually quite excited (thats sad for a 24 year old isn't it??)

I nearly went to see it today, but decided to go to Coventry instead. As you do.

Originally posted by Sidla
I nearly went to see it today, but decided to go to Coventry instead. As you do.

And WTF is in Coventry that's better than Harry Potter? :shocked: :confused:

Originally posted by Rich
And WTF is in Coventry that's better than Harry Potter? :shocked: :confused:

A bookshop with the books in? Much better than the film! :P

Wilf

Hi All new to forum,

I found this harry potter the best of all it almost reminded me of Revenge of the sith the first 3 are a bit Kiddey this one is much Darker and much better just like Starwars ep3 the first to where Kiddy then they hit you with a whammy :)

I saw the new film on Sunday and found it good. I haven't read any of the books so can't compare them, but I would suggest if people are going to get really upset by the film not following the book then simply don't go to see the films.

How can they put one of those huge Harry Potter books into a 2.5 hour film without upsetting the Harry Potter obsessives?

me and lea1979 went last night and we both thought it was really good :D :D much darker than the rest but who cares- it makes for a good movie!!!

the books are brillaint and i really liked this movie! for once Daniel Radclife actually acted! i luved the mvi! even though i read the book it was still exciting and a bit scary at times seeing it. best mvi so far and the first one done with a british director(now what does that tell you?) now as each book comes it gets bigger as there is more story so obv they cant put all of it in the movie! itd be 5hrs long if they did!

The best Potter film so far. Without doubt.

With the members of the cast growing up, they're able to act a bit better than before.

Remember when all Ron could do was let his jaw drop open?

Well, now they're into their teens, they've got a bit more grit into their routine.

There was even one shocking moment - for Potter films anyway - when Ron told Harry to '**** Off'!

I've read the books and thought the film followed the plot as closely as it could.

Some of the scenes during the tri-wizard tournament are fairly thrilling.

Keep you eyes peeled for Jarvis Cocker in the rock band at the Christmas party. He's only on for a few seconds.

It was two hours 50 minutes, but I didn't begin to doze once, which for me is an achievement sat in a warm, dark room.

I don't think anyone who watches it will be disappointed.

nope
i still dont like it
i have seen it twice now! and i have trid to reason with it, i know they cant get the whole book in but they could off added more or made two films
nope still hateing it.
apart from my gfave part heehee

I saw it on Sunday. I think they made a pretty good job, just 2 things that I thought could have been explained better.

1. Why Priori Incantatem happened. This was just brushed over by Dumbledore saying something like "did you see your parents?".

2. How Barty Jr. got out of Azkaban. This wasn't explined at all which is not essential to the casual viewer, but it is quite an important part of the plot.

I don't think the omission of the House Elves made a huge difference, the only major part they had was helping Harry with the 2nd task, and Neville filled that role quite effectively.

I also though Sirius could have been in it more, but again, that wasn't essential. I thought Mad-Eye was spot on.

i saw it on sun and yeah there are huge gaps if you compare to the book but if they put everything in there, it'd be summer again by the time the film was over!!!!!

all books are far more detailed than the films that get made from them - just the way it is. no limit to pages but there's def a limit to how long my ass can cope with sitting in a cinema seat before it goes dead!!!!

goblet of fire was the best film so far and def the most dramatic and yes, daniel radclife really DID act in it!!!! miracles do happen..........

My 10 yr old was shocked that they were using Ahem... mild language. He reckons that by the last film it'll be a wizarding version of the terminator or something :rolleyes:

We really enjoyed it though and the story was quite tight. Glad they made such a story out of Moody, he was brilliant.

:D

Right, I am now going to crucify any trace of coolness I have in me................................................ .....................

I quite liked it.

GAH! Okay I've said it! Phew! So glad I got that off my chest....anyway, what you should do is watch one of the newer ones and THEN watch the very first one. The squeakiness of his voice is shocking :D me and my stepsister were wetting ourselves from laughing so much.

I saw Harry Potter recently and must say it was ... okay ... it was more darker than the others, and alot was focused on Michael Gambon, the other teachers seem to be in the "distance", liked the maze bit and effects brill as usual. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by fox20thc
My 10 yr old was shocked that they were using Ahem... mild language. He reckons that by the last film it'll be a wizarding version of the terminator or something :rolleyes:

We really enjoyed it though and the story was quite tight. Glad they made such a story out of Moody, he was brilliant.

:D

:shocked:

No offence Fox but what you doing taking a 10 year old to a 12A rated movie?

A child of any age can see a 12A rated movie as long as they are with an adult aged 18 or over. The adult is responsible for the child in the cinema.

Just so you know Rich. ;)

Angel05 and I saw Harry Potter for the second time last night and I enjoyed it alot more second time around, as I expected to :D

Originally posted by fox20thc
My 10 yr old was shocked that they were using Ahem... mild language. He reckons that by the last film it'll be a wizarding version of the terminator or something :rolleyes:
If the 6th book is anything to go by, he's probably right. There are some very disturbing bits in that.

Took my 4 kids last night ,the youngest is 9.Great film and no he wasnt scared at all,yes there are bits missing but we all really enjoyed it.We have read the books and seen all the films and they just get better.Never known 2 hours 50 mins go so fast,the time seemed to fly

Just to let everyone know, Harry Potter 2's on ITV tomorrow tea time.. 5.15 PM, it's the one with Dobby the House Elf, and Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart.

i went to see it and didnt like it walked out about 15mins from the end because it was that bad!

Can't please everyone I guess. You're clearly in the minority though here matey. ;)

maybe i just had high hopes for it and it didnt seem to do anything for me.

no ant seen it yet, but i read the book so i know what happens

poor diggery dies, oops did i give it away? :gag:

Originally posted by Rich
:shocked:

No offence Fox but what you doing taking a 10 year old to a 12A rated movie?

He was quite entitled to see the movie, the 12A rating was due to what is described as 'fantasy' and 'mild peril'. Therefore I am standing by for the criticism for also taking along 7yr old.

:cool:

In addition I would like to also point out that having just read the half blood prince to 7yr old, he is quite happy to hear of ..

no I won't spoil it, just in case you didn't read it.

But in HP4 he was rooting for the dragons the whole way through.

I saw it last night with girlfriend and we both kind of enjoyed th film. I felt like I was blinking and missing 5 minutes of plot throughout the film as it raced along. Things left unexplained or just hinted at - If you had not read the book you might have no idea what was going on.

Later as we though more about it we realised just how much had been removed or changed from the books, too much in our opinion.

Also what happens to charcters who were removed from this film in the later films ? will they just turn up unexplained and will they now have to re-edit all other HP films so that house elves etc no longer exist.

Fleur Delacour - hardly some fairy like beauty who would drive men wild IMO

I saw it for the second time today, still pretty good movie... And I actually recognised David Tennant this time (the new Dr Who), he was playing Percy something Junior.

Nope, he was playing Barty Crouch Jnr. ;)

I thought it wasn’t too bad. I still cringed at some of Daniel Radcliffe’s scenes, although I caught the end of Chamber of Secrets on Saturday and realised he was abysmal in that and has really come on. He’ll never be Ian Mckellen though!

I love the books, but you have to leave that behind when you approach the films. They are never going to be as good, or as detailed, or as enchanting as the books are, so there’s no point in expecting them to be or comparing them against the books.

However, I thought the World Cup was rushed. No one really explained the real signifcance of, and the fear caused by the Dark Mark (that it usually meant you’d find someone murdered at the scene). Also some of the effects and CGI in the film were awful – this seems to be a recurring problem with the Potter films. The dummies under water were ridiculous, and the CGI was very limited when it came to the human characters.

i liked it, thought it was quite good