UPDATED!! New GOBLET OF FIRE film pics!!

Siren · Post by **Siren** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:54 am

He reminds me of Elijah Wood. My how Harry has grown now that he's close not being to jailbait

Kram Nebuer · Post by **Kram Nebuer** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:03 am

Hey thanks for the pics Ichabod and SofaKing! (though the link doesn't work)

I don't know why, but I just started reading the 4th book again. I guess I subconciously realized the movie is coming soon! I've found that I actually like the 4th book the best and I'm excited to see how the movie turns out. Wasn't there an older thread that had photos of the rest of the cast?

EDIT: N/m...found it:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... rry+potter

SofaKing381222 · Post by **SofaKing381222** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:23 am

Kram Nebuer wrote:Hey thanks for the pics Ichabod and SofaKing! (though the link doesn't work)

I don't know why, but I just started reading the 4th book again. I guess I subconciously realized the movie is coming soon! I've found that I actually like the 4th book the best and I'm excited to see how the movie turns out. Wasn't there an older thread that had photos of the rest of the cast?

Welcome, and thanks (I fixed the link)

I actually plan to read the 4th book again, but itl be weird considering i just finished reading th 5th for the 2nd time

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:57 pm

Noooooooooooo!

Liz Hurley in Harry Potter 5?
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,5 ... 44,00.html

Please say it isn't so!

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:03 pm

Maerj wrote:J/K Potter fans... in fact, its such a cool photo, I decided to use it as my avatar! Coolness!

That's your coolest avatar yet! I love how Daniel's now sporting the Farah Fawcett feathered look. Wheeeee!

SofaKing381222 · Post by **SofaKing381222** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:57 pm

2099net wrote:Noooooooooooo!

Liz Hurley in Harry Potter 5?
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,5 ... 44,00.html

Please say it isn't so!

Ive actually heard that those rumours were debunked weeks ago.

See here: http://www.veritaserum.com/movies/movie ... rley.shtml

It shows that WB debunked those rumors a while ago.

I thought she would have made a good Bellatrix Lestrange, she does look the part!

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:03 pm

pinkrenata wrote:
Maerj wrote:J/K Potter fans... in fact, its such a cool photo, I decided to use it as my avatar! Coolness!
That's your coolest avatar yet! I love how Daniel's now sporting the Farah Fawcett feathered look. Wheeeee!

At long last, someone finally noticed. Renata you love me, you really, really love me!

Siren · Post by **Siren** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:35 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing Elizabeth Hurley in the movie. They could have picked much worse actors. The only thing I've ever seen her in was Bedazzled and I loved her in it. She did an excellent job. Besides, it's not like she was going to have a huge part, more likely a cameo. But it was a rumour anyways.

This dog may be in the movie as part of a spell that goes hay-wire. I hope she is: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/twoleggeddog.wmv

dvdjunkie · Post by **dvdjunkie** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:45 am

HOT OFF THE PRESSES!!!!

According to Hollywood Reporter the week of February 22, 2005, Warner Bros. is considering releasing "Goblet of Fire" in two parts. They want to do justice to the book and if they continue editing the way they are the movie will be less than two and a half hours long.

The powers that be at Warners want to convince the financiers of the film that a two-part version of the film would be beneficial to all. They already have over 8 hours in the can and they can't really do the book justice if they leave out all the parts that they will have to leave out with the editing of the movie.

How do you feel about this?? Would you like to see a two part version of "Goblet of Fire"??? I know that I would. I think that it would be a fitting climax to the careers of Daniel Ratcliffe and the others, since they will be recasting the Harry Potter series for the next movies.

JiminyCrick91 · Post by **JiminyCrick91** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:11 am

i think thats are great ideas (both haveing #4 in 2 parts and have having liz in #5) but would they have a difernet dvd for each part?

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:37 am

dvdjunkie wrote:HOT OFF THE PRESSES!!!!

According to Hollywood Reporter the week of February 22, 2005, Warner Bros. is considering releasing "Goblet of Fire" in two parts. They want to do justice to the book and if they continue editing the way they are the movie will be less than two and a half hours long.

The powers that be at Warners want to convince the financiers of the film that a two-part version of the film would be beneficial to all. They already have over 8 hours in the can and they can't really do the book justice if they leave out all the parts that they will have to leave out with the editing of the movie.

Interesting... where did you see that?

I want as much Potter as I can get but I also want the film to work as a film (and still be true to the books). Alfonso Cuaron left out what I feel are 2 important things that wouldn't have taken much time, but overall, his decision to tightly edit HP3 (a longer book than the first two, which appropriately spawned more detailed movies) was for the best and made it the best Potter movie yet.

But the difference in page numbers and plot events in GoF is WAY bigger than the difference in the first three. Mike Newell and Warner (and I assume Rowling) originally wanted to make HP4 in 2 parts, but Cuaron reportedly convinced Newell that he could do it one 2.5 hour movie a la Azkaban. I've had my doubts. Considering how well-done HP3 was, I want to trust Cuaron, but I don't see how it can faithfully exist in that time span. It either needs to be a 4 hour-ish movie or needs to be released in two parts. The former would be my personal preference, but would translate into lower box office receipts and film popularity, so the latter seems most logical (despite the seemingly unnatural feel of a two-part movie released separately).

Therefore I have mixed feelings and won't really be able to judge until I see the final product, but I REALLY hope this is done right (it's the best Potter book to date, imo).

I find it odd, though, that Warner would have filmed so much that they didn't originally plan to use. Why film well over 10 hours' worth (which leads me to assume they filmed the whole book like LOTR did) if they only planned to use less than 2.5 hours of it? It doesn't make any sense, unless they wanted to release a 4-Disc Extended Cut a la LOTR (which I would love).

This will be very interesting to see progress. For the time being, I'm torn.

dvdjunkie wrote:How do you feel about this?? Would you like to see a two part version of "Goblet of Fire"??? I know that I would. I think that it would be a fitting climax to the careers of Daniel Ratcliffe and the others, since they will be recasting the Harry Potter series for the next movies.

I don't think that's been established at all. It's just a rumor/question up in the air (or at least that's the last I heard). It seems unlikely to me that when all has been considered that any of the involved parties will want recasting.

-Aaron

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:59 am

GOF is going to be just as short as the previous movies. Warner Bros has denied this rumour over and over again but somehow it keeps resufacing. I've even read some parts of the script online and I can assure you LOTS has been cut. Some characters haven't even been cast due to the story cuts. This movie will focus all on the action sequences and the final confrontation. Most sidestory's have become smaller and less important. The Dursley's opening has been cut for example. This is gonna be one movie, not two.

And I am happy about that. WB still has bad nightmares of the lame ending to the Matrix franchise. They're not gonna make the same mistake and chop a movie in two again.

And as for the cast returning. Rupert Grind said recently that he's in for the rest of the franchise and doesn't see how they could not return. Re-casting is insane. Unless they don't want to go on, but they have given no indication yet that they wanna quit. Quit the contrary in fact. the re-casting has not been confirmed. In fact, lots of actors have already confirmed they're returning, like the actor playing Lucius Malfoy. I have full confidence they will be back.

ichabod · Post by **ichabod** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:46 am

If they're struggling now, It's going to be hell when it comes to HP and the order of the Phoenix!

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:15 pm

PatrickvD wrote:WB still has bad nightmares of the lame ending to the Matrix franchise. They're not gonna make the same mistake and chop a movie in two again.

Well a lot of fans were displeased with it, but they still made a hefty chunk of change. I doubt they have nightmares.

-Aaron

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Do you really think PoA was the best Harry Potter film? It may be OK for us, those in the know, but it left out critical information. The worst offender being not naming how Padfoot, Prongs etc actually were! Plus, lots and lots of other - needed in my opinion - exposition.

I'd rather they kept this all in, and got rid of Madame Trelawny for example.

I think PoA was the worst Harry Potter film. CoS was be far the best.

BonusMage · Post by **BonusMage** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:06 pm

2099net wrote: I'd rather they kept this all in, and got rid of Madame Trelawny for example.

What? shes key to one of the most important plot lines of the series, but I do agree important info on Harry's dad and his schooldays was wrongly left out.

I think GoF was always the best one to be turned into a film, 3 big action sequences, gripping finale duel, mystery whodidit? plotline. I'm not angry at things that have been leftout like Bagman and the Dursleys, and I'm happy its fit into one film. We know details will be in there but not as big as the book.

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:04 am

awallaceunc wrote:
PatrickvD wrote:WB still has bad nightmares of the lame ending to the Matrix franchise. They're not gonna make the same mistake and chop a movie in two again.
Well a lot of fans were displeased with it, but they still made a hefty chunk of change. I doubt they have nightmares.

-Aaron

uhm.. true let's just call it "bad dreams of all the money they missed out on"

SofaKing381222 · Post by **SofaKing381222** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:18 pm

MORE PICTURES!!!!!!!!!! IM LOVING THEM ALL!!!! I CANT WAIT TILL THE MOVIE!!! SO EXCITED!!!!!!!

Fleur, Barty Crouch Sr., and Dumbledore

The Trio on "The steps of Hogwarts"

Rita Skeeter and her photographer

The Trio doin' some studyin (the students actually do something at school, related to school???!!!)

Harry doing some "aerobics" during the First Task.

Harry walking into Dumbledores office.

A new "More-Mature Lokking" Daniel Radcliffe

Thanks to my 2nd favorite site (UD #1) www.veritaserum.com for supplying the pics. Go check it out. Its awesome!

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:27 pm

COOL PICTURES! The kids sure have grown! I just hope this time the director is much better!!!

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:00 pm

2099net wrote:Do you really think PoA was the best Harry Potter film? It may be OK for us, those in the know, but it left out critical information. The worst offender being not naming how Padfoot, Prongs etc actually were! Plus, lots and lots of other - needed in my opinion - exposition.

I'd rather they kept this all in, and got rid of Madame Trelawny for example.

I think PoA was the worst Harry Potter film. CoS was be far the best.

I know this is an old post, but I just had to comment on it (dunno why I hadn't noticed it before). To me, Prisoner of Azkaban was the best because it worked as a film. I absolutely love SS (PS for you) and CoS, but that's mainly because of my love of the books. When looked at as literary adaptations, problems arise. SS/PS in particular plays out like a series of live action storyboards. Chris Columbus just kept trucking along from one major event to the other without making them flow, resulting in a somewhat choppy film. Admittedly, the first book is pretty episodic, and one understands that with the enormous pressure laid on Chris, he had no choice but to be safe or else have his head severed. Still, he should've taken more risks. Of all three Harry Potter films, the first would benefit the most from an extended version (from what I understand, something like 20 minutes of footage was cut, yet the DVD only gives us about 5 of that). Chris started to come into his own with CoS, though. He started embellishing, condensing, and outright omitting various things, which resulted in a much better flow and film experience. Then Alfonso Cuaron came in and took that to a whole other level. I feel that Alfonso understood the concept of storytelling better than Chris Columbus did. Alfonso pretty much tossed out all of the fat that didn't push the plot forward, yet still added his own touches, and cleverly combined various scenes into single ones to compress time. As a result, I think PoA ends up being the most cinematic of the three. The first two, as previously said, are more like moving storyboards/reader's digest outlines whereas PoA is really an adaptation not afraid of change. When I saw the first two in theaters, I always immediately noticed when something was left out or when the film took a rare deviance from the novel. I didn't notice that with the third at all until I thought about the film some time afterwards. Also, Cuaron grasps magic better than Columbus did. Magic in SS/PS and CoS was always put into the spotlight, but was practically non-existant when not the focus of the camera. PoA, on the other hand, has magic everywhere, but it's not highlighted with exclamation marks; it's all embedded into the background, thus making multiple viewings a treat. Yes, leaving out the Mauraders explanation (which would only have taken a grand total of 2-3 minutes to explain) was wrong, but from what I understand, it'll be addressed in the next film. Besides, the previous films left out little plot points that caused unanswered questions such as who gave Harry the invisibility cloak, why does Harry's scar keep acting as red flag, how did Tom Riddle use the diary to possess Ginny, why did the sword of Gryffindor randomly appear out of the sorting hat, etc. People just tend to notice the Maurader's thing more because that's what comes to most fan's minds when PoA the book is brought up. All right, I just typed A LOT more than I originally intended, but I just had to defend PoA.

As for the actual topic: The stills have me greatly excited for this.

What I most want to see is Ralph Fiennes in Voldemort make-up, but I know WB won't show that before the film comes out (they didn't with movie 1's Voldie).

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

UPDATED!! New GOBLET OF FIRE film pics!!