UPDATED!! New GOBLET OF FIRE film pics!!

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:19 pm

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:
SofaKing381222 wrote: P.S. I do believe that HP4 can do better than Star Wars did. You are underestimating how much more popular the books got after Book 3. Now we even got a larger fan base than we did with HP1-3.
I bet you a million dollars there are more Star Wars fans than Harry Potter fans. Plus the HP movies have never seemed to get quite as popular as Star Wars. I mean especially that last one. There were quite a few Harry Potter fans disappointed with that movie, especially me, and the box office records were not as great as COS and SS.

There are more Star Wars fans only because Star Wars has been out way longer than Harry Potter. The movies never got popular because the first two were to kid-targeted. Prisoner of Azkaban didn't make a lot in the box office not because it was 'bad', but only because Chamber of Secrets was still kid-targeted and was believed the next movies might follow suit. Even though some fans were disappointed with Prisoner of Azkaban, there were some who only watched the movies and liked the third one the best.

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:27 pm

magicalwands wrote: There are more Star Wars fans only because Star Wars has been out way longer than Harry Potter.

I personally disagree with that. The Lord of The Rings and The Chronicals of Narnia were based on books that came out before Star Wars yet Star Wars is still more popular than both franchises. I mean the reason the original Star Wars is popular because it was so unlike other movies. The special effects were AMAZING! I mean back in 1977 there was no doubt the movie with the best special effects was Star Wars. Plus it changed the way movies were made. Heck without Star Wars, Fluffy from SS would be a sock puppet. Well okay a bit more realistic than that, but not quite as amazing as it does today. Plus I always found the character to be more relatable in Star Wars than Harry Potter. I mean I'm the same age of the characters in the HP books yet I could relate to Luke's problems more than Harry's problems. Plus there was dialouge and some performances that made me go:

in some of the HP films. In Episode 4 and 5 the performances and dialouge are done as close to perfection as man can make them. While people could argue the others are a bit cheesy, I still personally found alot of the acting and dialouge in Star Wars better than most of the acting and dialouge in Harry Potter.

As for box office predicitons, I think GoF will do better than POA and COS but it won't do as well as SS. But than again what do I know. I'm the only one who thought Herbie wouldn't even pass 70 million.

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:36 am

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:In Episode 4 and 5 the performances and dialouge are done as close to perfection as man can make them. While people could argue the others are a bit cheesy, I still personally found alot of the acting and dialouge in Star Wars better than most of the acting and dialouge in Harry Potter.

I beg to differ on that statement. I'm a fan of Star Wars (not a huge novel reading, dress-into-Vader fan, but I love the movies). Heck, my favourite of the series are the cheeziest (prequels) but I can't say I agree with that. Acting and dialouge was never a strong point for Star Wars, so to put down the Harry Potter films in comparission is an insult to the writers. Yes, it has its embarrasing moments, but so does every family film. To compare it to some dreaded Star Wars lines (that are considered classic for some stupid reason) is not a fair comparission. Star Wars is not a bit cheezy. It's a cheeze fest (though it works well in the movies).

And also, my take on Prisoner of Askaban not doing as good... Look at any movie that has matured. Batman Begins failed to do much better than the others because people (non-fans) expected campiness once more. Instead they got serious dialogue and so-called "boring" scenes (yeah, character developement is boring

). Revenge of the Sith also made less then Phantom Menace because prequel fans expected more fun, yet got serious stuff in there. Same goes for Harry Potter. I+II were plain fun, III began to show a serious side. Not everyone accepted this too well. I believe that after III crossed the line between kiddish and mature, people will know what to expect of GoF and it'll do much better! I'm also hoping for less fluffy one liners in this one (the whole skull character on the bus in PoA was embarassing).

SuicideSeaside · Post by **SuicideSeaside** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:32 am

According to the reviews from the screening, GOF is funnier and darker at the same time. There are more Fred and George scenes and a huge Yule ball. The graveyard scene is violent. They show Pettergrew cutting off his hand. They also kept Frank Bryce's death in the movie. I thought they were going to cut him. But SPEW isn't in the movie.

SofaKing381222 · Post by **SofaKing381222** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:39 am

I can live without SPEW. Im glad they didnt kiddy it down with the had and Bryce, but I do wish they hadn't eliminated Winky's role.

SuicideSeaside · Post by **SuicideSeaside** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:05 pm

I just remembered that Malfoy: the amazing bouncing ferret made it into the movie. Keke.

They probably cut Winky because she wasn't really necessary in the story. Plus, the special effects is concentrated on the triwizard tournament....I guess they didn't want to waste time and money on Winky.

lord-of-sith · Post by **lord-of-sith** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:48 pm

As most of you know, I am a huge fan of both franchises. Even though my screen-name is lord-of-sith, I am an equally as big Potter Fan. HAd my name not been SW-related, it would have definatley been HP-related. And I am as excited as anyone else on here for this film. Yes, I still have to change my avatar, and I'll do that as soon as my actual computer is fixed. But, more to the point, I don't think this can beat RotS at the BO, but I hope it comes in a good 2nd. This is my fav book of the 6, and will most likely be my fav movie.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:55 pm

I think HP4 will finish #3, behind Narnia and Star Wars. I hope to see a lot of promotion for HP4. There hasn't been a ton yet, but it's also only just now September. The trailer is great. It, apparently like the movie itself (and the book), has a different feel than that of the first three. That should catch people's attention.

-Aaron

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:50 pm

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:I'm also hoping for less fluffy one liners in this one (the whole skull character on the bus in PoA was embarassing).

I think the only reason why they added the shrunken head was so they could have Ernie, the driver, be mute. I believe Ernie did not have any lines in the book. Otherwise, there would be no other logical explanation for adding the shrunken head, other than Alfonso wanting to put his own stuff in the film.

GhostHost · Post by **GhostHost** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:53 pm

even if it is scarier a PG-13 is not justifiable.
PG movies like Garfield, Home on the Range, Lilo and Stich, and The Incredibles should definately be G.
PG-13 movies such as Spider-man 1 and 2, X-men 1 and 2, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Star Wars episode 3, the Batman films(except Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, they said be rated NC-17 for being piles of crap). should all be rated PG.

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 5:27 am

magicalwands wrote:I think the only reason why they added the shrunken head was so they could have Ernie, the driver, be mute. I believe Ernie did not have any lines in the book.

Maybe so, but his character was too kiddy-ish. It's not only that as well. There are many irrelvent jokes that don't fit in with the tone of the movie. Also, I hope this new director can get some dramatic acting from Harry. His scene in the snow when he was 'crying' was just bad. Lol, don't get me wrong, I love the movie, but I think there's much to improve upon.

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:17 am

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:
magicalwands wrote:I think the only reason why they added the shrunken head was so they could have Ernie, the driver, be mute. I believe Ernie did not have any lines in the book.
Maybe so, but his character was too kiddy-ish. It's not only that as well. There are many irrelvent jokes that don't fit in with the tone of the movie. Also, I hope this new director can get some dramatic acting from Harry. His scene in the snow when he was 'crying' was just bad. Lol, don't get me wrong, I love the movie, but I think there's much to improve upon.

I was biting my lips because I thought <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/ ... g">this</a> would be what the merpeople will look like in the movie. The picture is from the game for the movie, they said they wanted to make the game look totally like the movie. Well, it turns out (I read in a magazine) it is a Grindylow and not a Mermaid. I mean, I don't think I'm the only one who imagined that merpeople had the Ariel-Mermaid type look.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:20 am

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:I hope this new director can get some dramatic acting from Harry. His scene in the snow when he was 'crying' was just bad

Hmm, I don't think its alfonso's fault that daniel is a bad actor, do you?

Pasta67 · Post by **Pasta67** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:26 am

Alan wrote:
DisneyFan 2000 wrote:I hope this new director can get some dramatic acting from Harry.
Hmm, I don't think its alfonso's fault that daniel is a bad actor, do you?

It's the director's job to make the actor feel confortable with his role/scene so that the actor can give the best performace he can give. That's what DisneyFan 2000 meant.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:30 am

Pasta67 wrote:
Alan wrote: Hmm, I don't think its alfonso's fault that daniel is a bad actor, do you?
It's the director's job to make the actor feel confortable with his role/scene so that the actor can give the best performace he can give. That's what DisneyFan 2000 meant.

Well, Daniel has had bad acting all along, so its probably not the director's fault.

SofaKing381222 · Post by **SofaKing381222** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:02 am

New Pictures! Cho and McGonagall

(click for a larger version)

<a href="http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/al ... .jpg"><img src="http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/al ... -cho02.jpg" HEIGHT=466 LENGTH=700></a>

<a href="http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/al ... .jpg"><img src="http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/al ... omo004.jpg" HEIGHT=466 LENGTH=700></a>

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:16 am

Alan wrote:Well, Daniel has had bad acting all along, so its probably not the director's fault.

I disagree. He acted fine in I and II. Then he started growing up and 'lost', in a way, his innocent acting. He has done well mostly, just with the last one he messed up, big time. And his fault or not, the director's prime job is to get the best he can out of his cast. I hope this new director does that!

SuicideSeaside · Post by **SuicideSeaside** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:30 pm

I think the shrunken head was added to create the spirit of the magical world. The same goes for the frog chorus and the non-verbal spells Lupin used. What I also liked about the 3rd movie was the scene where Harry and his friends were hanging out and eating candy. Not once in the first 2 movies were they shown having fun and acting like real kids. The first 2 movies were more loyal to the books but they failed to capture the spirit.

I was biting my lips because I thought this would be what the merpeople will look like in the movie. The picture is from the game for the movie, they said they wanted to make the game look totally like the movie. Well, it turns out (I read in a magazine) it is a Grindylow and not a Mermaid. I mean, I don't think I'm the only one who imagined that merpeople had the Ariel-Mermaid type look.

Really? I thought those were the merpeople. Cuz in book 4, Harry describes the merpeople with gray-ish skin, long. wild green hair and yellow teeth and eyes.

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:08 pm

SuicideSeaside wrote:Really? I thought those were the merpeople. Cuz in book 4, Harry describes the merpeople with gray-ish skin, long. wild green hair and yellow teeth and eyes.

I'm so proud of myself for spotting this: In the UK trailer, at the part where Harry is in the water and he confronts the mermaid. When the camera goes back to Harry, look to the right of him (his left) and you will see another mermaid swimming in back of him. Play the same part again and if you look to the left of Harry (his right), you can see it's tail.

But I'm sure you guys already spotted that.

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:38 pm

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:
Alan wrote:Well, Daniel has had bad acting all along, so its probably not the director's fault.
I disagree. He acted fine in I and II. Then he started growing up and 'lost', in a way, his innocent acting. He has done well mostly, just with the last one he messed up, big time. And his fault or not, the director's prime job is to get the best he can out of his cast. I hope this new director does that!

YES!!!

Somebody actually understands where I'm coming from! I guess that's what you get when you get some director of a porn movie who admits he never read any of the HP books or watched the first two movie.

Another thing I hated was that none of the characters actied like the characters would the books. I mean I just burst out laughing when Harry said to Snape, "I would very much like to keep my privacy thank you!" because:

1. The way Daniel said sounded ridiculous!

2. In the books Harry would NEVER say that. Even if it's a teacher like Prof. Snape in which he hates he would never disobey a teacher like that.

There were some other examples of painful dialouge and bad acting.

But there's alot we can blame for this: the director, the actors, the writer. I personally would blame the directing and acting because I thought both were terrible in several places.

By the way did anyone else think that werewolf looked hideous! I mean he was so poorly animated. I'm pretty sure the director is responsible for that as well.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

UPDATED!! New GOBLET OF FIRE film pics!!