OMG - how did I miss this topic?? I'm am a huge Harry Potter fan - and I have to say I know more about the Harry Potter series than anyone else on this site (not being conceited - I just know). I'm a huge HP nerd and I'm not afraid to admit it! Anyway...
Originally posted by A Lost Soul
Dobby and Luna Lovegood didn’t make an appearance (I swear Luna was in this book…)
Luna Lovegood doesn't appear until the 5th book "The Order of the Phoenix."
Originally posted by Ex Nine
[What's all this business about Dumbledore saying "there's no spell that can raise the dead." Did they not just raise Voldemort from the dead? Or do they get around that by saying he was never dead and that he returned from a horcrux? I don't remember.
Yes, you're correct about the horcruxes keeping Voldemort alive. He will only be able to be mortally killed when all the horcruxes are destroyed. If you read the 6th book "The Half-Blood Prince", you will remember that there are 7 horcruxes total - the diary from "The Chamber of Secrets" which Harry destroyed, the ring that was Tom Riddle's grandfather's and Slytherin's heir which Dumbledore destroyed and ruined his right hand, Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's cup, something from Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's, possibly Nagini Voldemort's snake, and the last horcrux resides inside Voldemort's body. Once all the horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort may be attacked and effectively killed.
Originally posted by Ex Nine
And yet his parents were clearly assisting him in ghost form, along with Cedric, actually telling him to take his body back, not to mention Moaning Mertile helping Harry out with the second task. Crying out loud. I can't take all this inconsistency. You can't have it both ways, Rowling!
The ghost forms of Cedric and Harry's parents are not them brought back from the dead. The are echoes of the spells that killed them - Priori Incantatem makes the wand spill out the spells it has previously cast, therefore spewing out the "echo" of Cedric and Harry's parents. And Moaning Myrtle is a ghost that never crossed-over to begin with.
So nobody was brought back from the dead with magic in either of these cases.
Originally posted by Ex Nine
And Ralph Fiennes, just horrible that they had to completely cover his face in prosthetics and makeup, while being bald, having no nose, and destroying his voice so that it is nothing but a raspy whisper. Fiennes is always smooth and debonaire. That takes away everything Ralph Fiennes is. What a disappointment. Anyone could have played Voldemort with all those cheesy modifications.
Actually, I thought Ralph Fiennes did a great job portraying Voldemort. That character would be so hard to live up to because in the books, he the pinnacle of an evil sorceror, and you picture this horrible being in your mind. So of course that would be hard to communicate to the movie screen. They did a good job of sticking to what Voldemort was described to look like in the books - white skin and a flat snake-like nose. They didn't give him red eyes in the movie, though, which he did possess in the books. I think Ralph Fiennes' eyes have a eerie quality anyway (even without makeup they look mysterious), so I think the character was cast very well.
So anyway, regarding "The Goblet of Fire" movie, I thought it was the best of the movies so far, but that's because the book was the best of the series so far, in my opinion. It's more of an epic with the Triwizard Tournament than any of the other books. My other favorite books were "The Prisoner of Azkaban" and "The Half-Blood Prince".
Originally posted by Barbizzle
I just saw the movie. I never read the book ( I just do not like the Harry Potter books) *It was...long. *The movie felt too long and never quite conveyed that feeling that a whole year passed. *I felt too bounced around, it was very episodic. *I don't understand how that man who was the teacher ( the guy with the eye) was replaced. *Was he ever him in the first place? *And how did the man who replaced him know all of those things to get harry to do what he wanted to? *The story just tied up to cheesy and "scooby doo"ish for me. *Reminds me of the play "mouse trap" in the way how everything was solved but the solution didn't make sense because it was just made to fit for the sake of fitting.
Anyone who hasn't read the books, can't really give an good opinion about the movies because they are so different. You REALLY need to read the books before seeing the movie - then I promise you will totally appreciate it. The books are too in-depth and detailed for all the stuff to make sense in a movie that they had to cut stuff out of. I hate when people say they didn't like the movie, and when asked if they've read the books, they say no. So don't complain then! I'm sorry but you just don't get it without reading the books.
"The Goblet of Fire" book has 734 pages. A two and a half hour long movie only has about 100 pages worth of pages - so that tells you how much they had to cut from the book. I think they did a good job with the time they had to work with. Originally, filmmakers were thinking of turning "Goblet" into a 2 part movie - but decided on one movie in the end, because they couldn't come up with 2 separate plots for each movie - and I'm glad they only did one.
Filming for "The Order of the Phoenix" movie has already begun, and tentatively will be released in theaters Summer of 2007.
|
|
Bookmarks