Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

[cigardawg]

The acceptance into Hogwarts is the age of 10, not 11. Sorry to inform you that. :laugh:

[snapback]252996[/snapback]​

Sorry, but Hagrid comes to get Harry on his 11th Birthday. Therefore, he is 11 when he starts at Hogwarts.

 

[Wurm]

The movies would all be 3 to 4 hours long if they left everything in bro... lol not that I would complain.

[snapback]253000[/snapback]​

Nah..thats not what I am referring to tho. Look at book 1. When they are sent out into the Forest with Hagrid as punishment. The children that went out in the books and the ones that was sent out in the movies, doesnt even come close. Longbottom was supposed to be there, but then again, its Hollywood.

I guess it all depends on what they think is important for the movie goer to see. I can go on all day on many things that they changed or should have put in and other parts they put in that didnt need to be there. I'm sure you can too. :thumbs:

[snapback]253005[/snapback]​

I could... in fact Double D and me argue about the HP movies all the time.

 

[Mr Peat]

The acceptance into Hogwarts is the age of 10, not 11. Sorry to inform you that. :laugh:

[snapback]252996[/snapback]​

Sorry, but Hagrid comes to get Harry on his 11th Birthday. Therefore, he is 11 when he starts at Hogwarts.

[snapback]253011[/snapback]​

He was 10 when accepted into Hogwarts. he got many letters before Hagrid even came on his 11th b-day. Then Harry turned 11 and Hagrid shows up with the last letter of acceptance. Re-read my original post. I said he was accepted into Hogwarts at age 10, not that he was 10 when he went.

 

[Drake]

i'm going to see it on an IMAX screen tonight. i can't wait!

 

[Rob_k]

my wife and her friend saw it last night, i no longer have tolerance of cell phones and chatting in the movie theater, hence why i have a home theater. the books are far better than the movies, although they do a pretty decent job with the screen play for the films.

 

[wicked stick]

I would not let my son see it. he is 5 but ok film, I would have liked to see a little more dragons and twists. Maybe I was expecting to see another LOR I do not know My 2 cents

 

[KayakinBoy]

i'm going to see it on an IMAX screen tonight. i can't wait!

[snapback]253035[/snapback]​

If they can get my girlfriend's walker in there, I'd like to see it in an Imax myself. Should be pretty damn cool!

 

[vewyphishy]

This movie has changed directors too many times. Outside of the first 2, no movie has had any resemblence to the previous one. The main characters not withstanding, it feels like a brand new movie each time rather than a continuation. With that said, I liked this latest episode the least of the 4 that have been released.

Also, as one last critique of the series... if they are to finish the story with the same cast, they better start filming in succession ala LOTR. Any older, and they're going to need to start shaving the 5 o'clock shadows on Ron and Harry.

 

[Treamayne]

The acceptance into Hogwarts is the age of 10, not 11. Sorry to inform you that. 

[snapback]252996[/snapback]​

Therefore, he is 11 when he starts at Hogwarts.

[snapback]253011[/snapback]​

He was 10 when accepted into Hogwarts. he got many letters before Hagrid even came on his 11th b-day. Then Harry turned 11 and Hagrid shows up with the last letter of acceptance. Re-read my original post. I said he was accepted into Hogwarts at age 10, not that he was 10 when he went.

[snapback]253022[/snapback]​

It's semantics. According to JKR (in an interview, when asked how children get their Hogwarts letters) she said that McGonagal is now keeper of a special book, that automaticaly adds the names of children in the UK on the first occasion of accidental magic. That book then tracks their age and any child who will be 11 at teh start of a term is sent a letter to attend Hogwarts.

My original point was that they had to be 11 to attend the first year (regardless of age when they receive their letter).

The movies would all be 3 to 4 hours long if they left everything in bro...

This movie has changed directors too many times. Outside of the first 2, no movie has had any resemblence to the previous one. The main characters not withstanding, it feels like a brand new movie each time rather than a continuation. With that said, I liked this latest episode the least of the 4 that have been released.

Also, as one last critique of the series... if they are to finish the story with the same cast, they better start filming in succession ala LOTR. Any older, and they're going to need to start shaving the 5 o'clock shadows on Ron and Harry.

SC may have more insight into this, but when I took my writing courses, we were always told that the "rule of thumb" for screen adaptation scripts was 1 hr of film for every hundred pages of book. Hence, Films one and two lost very little in the change, while PoA and GoF lost alot more.

As to the directors, The first change was intentional to shift the mood to a darker setting as the story itself grew darker. The Director changes for movies 4 and 5 are because they are now filming in succession, so as one director does post production, the other director starts on the next movie. With the exception on Draco (Tom Felton) all the kids are at, or just above where they need to be for the movies, but it will get worse by Book 7.

-K-

 

[AVB]

The best part about Harry Potter was the SNL skit with Lindsey Lohan as Hermoine :love:

 

[Wurm]

The best part about Harry Potter was the SNL skit with Lindsey Lohan as Hermoine :love:

[snapback]253186[/snapback]​

This had to be before she decided to turn herself into a toothpick...

 

[AVB]

You tell me. Click here or Click here.