Goblet of Fire out on DVD today!

[tracilicious]

If you missed in the theaters, like poor, sad, me, this is good news! :D

[wendybeth]

You didn't see it in the theater? Well, I saw it enough for the both of us, and them some. Tori is ecstatic that it is out today, although she's already seen it like ten times.:rolleyes:

[tracilicious]

No. We had (have) free tickets too. It just isn't the kind of movie I could take Indi to though. And since I don't have a babysitter that he would stay with for four hours, I was SOL. Michael and I planned on taking turns seeing it solo, it just didn't work out.

[Matterhorn Fan]

Must go to Target...

[Prudence]

I missed it in theaters, too. Stupid law school. But this weekend is spring break. Hmmmmm......

[innerSpaceman]

Ho hum, I've had it on DVD for months now. Yawn.

[/smugness]

[Not Afraid]

Maybe I should see it now.

[Matterhorn Fan]

The first movie?

[Not Afraid]

No, the last one.

[Matterhorn Fan]

They haven't made that one yet.

But iSm probably already has it on DVD.

[Prudence]

Ho hum, I've had it on DVD for months now. Yawn.

[/smugness]

And yet, you never offer to share. :(

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Gee, it's too bad that it's not near a holiday. Or anyone's birthday.

/hint

[Kevy Baby]

I saw it sitting on the couch today. GusGus couldn't resist.

Now if we could get the movie and books we loaned to certain Lotabot

[innerSpaceman]

And yet, you never offer to share. :(
Academy rules prevent me.

[Kevy Baby]

Academy rules prevent me.And we all know how good ISM is at obeying rules ;)

[Snowflake]

Should be in the mail today, yum!

At least you have BBM on DVD iSm, I STILL need to see it! I had an invite to see it at Universal when I was in LA, but the damn interview took so long, I missed it. :(

Donna

[mousepod]

This message might already be too late, seeing how the release date was yesterday - but there's a limited edition lenticular cover on the DVD exclusive to Target. It's a couple dollars more than Best Buy, but if you're a true geek...

[tracilicious]

Ooo, we got the Target DVD. I don't know if it's special though. I did find out that we didn't buy the two disc set, therefore we get zero special features. Bastards.

[wendybeth]

Ooo, we got the Target DVD. I don't know if it's special though. I did find out that we didn't buy the two disc set, therefore we get zero special features. Bastards.

We discovered the same thing, which royally pissed me off. Eric picked up the DVD at the store last night, unaware that there was also a Deluxe version released which was not for sale where he was shopping. One of my favorite things about DVD's is the outtakes, etc, of which this has nada. Bastards!!!!!!

[Matterhorn Fan]

So the regular non-deluxe version is just the movie and nothing else, right? That is, I DO need to buy the special version--right?

I saw them in Target today and thought I'd check it out online before purchasing (since I was in Target for another reason anyways). I thought the lenticular cover was ugly--what's the regular one for the deluxe edtion look like?

[Not Afraid]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000E6EK3S.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS260_.jpg

[mousepod]

Just got back from Target. Got the lenticular cover (they had a couple dozen left - if anyone wants me to pick one up for them). The lenticular exclusive is a slipcover over the regular deluxe cover.

I took some crap photos to try and show the three pictures on the special edition cover - here's kind of what they look like:
http://mousepod.com/lot/goblet1.jpghttp://mousepod.com/lot/goblet2.jpghttp://mousepod.com/lot/goblet3.jpg

[tracilicious]

Dang it, mine didn't have anything over the cover. So I got the non-special edition and no special cover. Bastards!

[CoasterMatt]

Hey, at least it didn't have pasty white goo on it from fanboy "appreciation"

[tracilicious]

And now, since I just saw the movie, I will post my review:

Love the opening, the quidditch arena was breathtaking. I was all set to see a quidditch match that wouldn't bore me, and then they skipped it. They didn't even explain the Vislas (veela's? I don't remember.)

I loved how funny it was. Easily the funniest movie. Liked that there was a mix of emotions, the characters had more dimension in this one than they did in the others.

Really disliked how they did Dumbledore. To me. Dumbledore is all about quiet strength. He doesn't need to yell and freak out to get his point across. I miss the first Dumbledore a lot, as I felt like he portrayed him very accurately. This Dumbledore is just too overdramatic.

I thought they skipped too much. I know it was a long long book, but they could have had half an hour more of movie.

Overall, I loved it. My favorite movie yet.

I am more afraid now that Snape is bad and that Harry will die in book seven. Is it 2007 yet?

[innerSpaceman]

Long on laughs derived from by-now-well-known personalities: A definite plus.

Only the essentials of the story: An acceptable necessity.

Hamhanded segues to accommodate only the essentials: A decided minus. I am painfully aware of these, even though I've seen the film a dozen times. It remains choppy.

Wonderful Art Direction does not equal "style." I felt the film looked great, but did not have anything like the visual flair, much less the director's flair or the screenwriters adaptation skillz of the last outing, Prisoner of Azakaban - which remains my favorite HP, and remains to me - quite seriously - the best picture of 2004.

Goblet comes in as my next fave Potter flick. Not bad. But I'd prefer steady and definite improvement. Oh well, an all around good movie and the funniest Potter by far. (The Twins should have a spin-off series of their own.)

[tracilicious]

You're right. PoA is better directed. I blamed Dumbledore's change on bad directing, as he was acceptable in PoA. I liked PoA a lot. Especially because there was so much Sirius. Overall though, I felt more satisfied from GoF. I think it's the broader range of emotions that did it.

They had best do a spectacular job with OotP. It deserves it.

[Kevy Baby]

Goblet of Fire needed to be two movies.

I don't know how, but it should have been. There was just way too much story to fit into a single movie.

[wendybeth]

Got the Deluxe version, and am happier now. Still pissed about the other, but we can use it as back-up. Emma's got braces, and she talks in her interviews as if she's gone veddy, veddy Brit on us, but then you see a glint of silver and it's "Ahhhh.....traintracks!"

[Kevy Baby]

Damnit... isn't she 18 yet?

[innerSpaceman]

Ahem, I must confess one of my disappointments to be that I found both Emma and Daniel to be far less attractive in Goblet than they were in Azkaban. I had hoped that as it became less pervy for me to find them attractive, they would naturally age into greater attractiveness.

But either they've hit an awkward spot of adolescent development, or their drop-dead gorgeous days are forever gone (though thankfully preserved in the amber of PoA).


Now, I am hardly known as one with any compunctions against robbing the cradle ... but I do get a bit self-creeped by lusting after kiddies who aren't even legal in the U.K. (where sex-allowed age is lower than in the states). What kind of cruel irony lies before me that I find them unattractive now that legal age approaches?



Ah well, there's always the Twins. :iSm:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'll probably never see this movie again...it was fun in the theater, but two things make it completely unacceptable for my DVD collection...

1 - Dumbledore

2 - a 13 year old Harry, with years of Hogwarts schooling, acting surprised and saying "I love magic!". :VOMIT:

[Capt Jack]

I'll probably never see this movie again...make it completely unacceptable for my DVD collection...

1 - Dumbledore

Saw it last night for the first time........
I could NOT possibly agree more. I know you cant really do a movie without the Dumbledore character but the voice and persona just werent there........not even a little.

the first of the series I can say 'eh...that was pretty marginal'.
disappointing to say the least.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, with 30 years of MagicKingdomry behind me, I still sometimes walk into the Park and exclaim, "I Love Disneyland!"

Appreciation of what's new is easy. It's the appreciation of what you've already got that is the secret to happiness and bliss.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Um, with 30 years of MagicKingdomry behind me, I still sometimes walk into the Park and exclaim, "I Love Disneyland!"

Appreciation of what's new is easy. It's the appreciation of what you've already got that is the secret to happiness and bliss.
Nah, not the equivalent in my eyes. Just say you had a teen who was into cars. If you showed him a brand-new Corvette, he might say "That's one sweet ride" but not "I love automobiles!"

I could hear Harry saying "What a cool spell!" but not "I love magic!"

[innerSpaceman]

Remind me to have you pick the nits out of my hair next time we meet.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Remind me to have you pick the nits out of my hair next time we meet. Pot, kettle, black. :p

[Not Afraid]

Um, with 30 years of MagicKingdomry behind me, I still sometimes walk into the Park and exclaim, "I Love Disneyland!"

Appreciation of what's new is easy. It's the appreciation of what you've already got that is the secret to happiness and bliss.

I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's an age appreciation thing though.

I had GoF in my basket at Target today and I just couldn't get myself to buy it.

[tracilicious]

I thought the "I love magic" line was believable. The guy did grow up with muggles. He only spends nine months a year at Hogwarts. I sometimes see a new gadget and think, "technology rules!" Yet, I've been around technology my whole life.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It may just be my perception, but I snickered when Harry said that. My teenage brothers also thought it was ludicrous, and I give them more credence on the believability of Harry than I give myself. Like NA said, I think it's an age appreciation thing that is completely unbelievable in a 13 year old.

Did iSm "I refuse to call the original Star Wars movie A New Hope" Zlick try to tell me I'm a nitpicker? :p Like GD said...

[Prudence]

So I sent BT out this morning to rent the DVD so I could give my two pfennigs.

First - re: "I love magic" - didn't bother me, and if I hadn't been looking for it I wouldn't have noticed it. If I had to assess it, I'd say that Harry's spent most of his life among muggles or at Hogwarts and doesn't see wizards using magic in every day situations that often, unless he's with the Weaslys. Thus, he's expecting one thing when he sees the tents and it turns out to be magic and wonderful and he's reminded that magic is cool.

Again, that's if I had to assess it and was feeling inclined to defend it. Reality is that I wouldn't have noticed had I not been looking for it.

Second - re: Dumbledore - I agree that his potrayal differs from the prior movies, and I'm not sure it's all the actor's fault. This story was condensed so much and the parts with the outside world were mostly cut out. So we don't see the growing tension in the ministry as they try to pretend everything's under control when dark eater signs are appearing and clearly something is wrong. I'm wondering if the change in the movie Dumbledore is deliberate on the part of the director/screenwriter to substitute for the stress the book attributes to other adults. Since we don't really see the ministers, someone else has to provide the sense of "people in charge are really worried, so we should be worried, too." If this is the case, I think it was a mistake to alter a central figure.

Third: pacing way WAY too fast. It really would have been better as two movies - one covering the events leading up to the cup, and one covering the cup itself. We could have learned more about the characters and the tension could have built more realistically.

Forth - re: the trio - I do think it captured some of the teen angst well - not knowing where you stand with your friends, or even with yourself.

Funniest part: Hagrid dancing with Madame Maxime.

Miscellany: not nearly enough Snape. Boo hiss! Meanwhile, I'm developing a fangirl crush on Lucius Malfoy. What is it with me and the movie villians? Also, thought Rita Skeeter was a hoot, even if I did keep waiting for her to shout "Nursie!"

[wendybeth]

The funniest part to me is when Snape tugs his sleeves up and smacks the boy's heads together. That, and the Weasley twins- every scene they were in was great.

[Ponine]

I agree with both people above on some counts.
I loved it.
I loved Snape.... needed to see more of him. But I lust after Rickman, so there you go.
I love Malfoy, but... I have a fan girl crush on Isaacs... imo, not enough of him.

Dumbledore... he's not Richard Harris. Period. But, I thought he was okay, maybe a bit tired.

I am not a huge Potter geek, but I think the story could have been stretched a bit, and I liked the feeling we left with.
I had read this book, and was sorry we didnt see more of Cho or Cedric.
All in all, I had fun.

oh, and "I love magic"? I was okay with it. I understood what he meant. "I will never tire of magic" , might have been a better line.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh please. He's just spend his usual summer with the Muggles. He's spent all of an evening (in the movie) with the Weasley's, and he's had his first happy magical morning in a long time. He says "I love magic." Is there really a problem?


Dumbledore's character change is, however, a legitimate source of ire. It's a big change from the character in the book. Prudence pointed out that the anger in Gambon's performance could have been a deliberate point of story condencing. But what about if it were just a point of editing, and the explanation for it ended up on the cutting room floor?

I've a feeling there's another whole film on the Goblet of Fire cutting room floor.

[tracilicious]

Even if some of it were a matter of editing, it can't all be. Think about when Dumbledore was in his chamber with Harry. He flies around the room freaking out, and then sits on the floor in a huff exclaiming that the situation is driving him mad. Dumbledore just doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve like that. I also missed the kindness in him during the last scene with he and Harry. I don't think he would have so abruptly told Harry that he can't bring his parents back.

Perhaps this is their way of detaching us from him since he dies in book six? Maybe they don't want their audience getting angry about his death?

I'm glad that it isn't two movies. It easily could have been, but I really want to see them make all seven movies. They need to do it as quickly as possible for that to happen.

And just because it's been bugging me, Harry is fourteen in this movie, not thirteen.

[lindyhop]

I liked this movie until I re-read the book about a month later. After that all I could think was that only the Cliff's Notes version was filmed. There was just too much great stuff left out.

[BarTopDancer]

Perhaps Page 596 in Half-Blood Price occurs because of the disdain of Gambdon as Dumbledore. I think he is fine as an actor and plays Dumbledore the
best that he can but he is no Harris.

[katiesue]

I watched some kind of making of special before the movie came out. The film makers had originally wanted to make it two films but no one could come up with a good place to split the story, so they ended up with the cliff notes version.

[innerSpaceman]

Frankly, I think Harris played Dumbledore too kindly and ineffectually. He was a wisp of a man, obviously near death. I sensed nothing but kindness in him as Dumbledore ... no strength, no mystery, no awesomeness.

Gambon is not my perfect Dumbledore either, but I admire him playing it a bit more forcefully than his predecessor did. I, too, think that roughing Harry up was over the line. But I'm fine with him "Silence"ing the assembled students rather gruffly, and being a bit more cantankerous and eccentric all around.



I'm not glad Richard Harris is dead ... but I am happy that he was replaced in the role.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I'm just thinking of the kind of force required for the climax of OotP and there's no way Harris at his age could have had the fire and strength required for that. And the physical demands (and sheer screen-time) of HBP... there's just no way. While I disagree with the *writing* of Dumbledore's character in the later films (frankly, the earlier ones too-- I always mourned the lack of oddment, blubber, nitwit, tweak--) I think that Gambon is playing the role as written in Kloves' screenplay.

Also, I totally love magic, and can imagine myself saying so in the situation (or, in the audience, at that exact moment.) Harry is the eyes of the audience, ergo, it's OK that he said "I love magic" if it's something I'd say. For you, perhaps not. For me, just fine.

[Alex]

I had mentioned the "I love magic" thing in the discussion way back when. For me it isn't so much that he is still awed by what magic can do but that after several years of magical schooling he still seems to have no conception of it. He approaches a tent into which a half-dozen people have just entered and rather than thinking "magic sure is neat" seems instead to think "what I'm seeing isn't possible!"

I just don't like the character of Harry Potter. I like most of the other characters but Potter himself sucks quite a bit.

It was funny to see this thread. On the flight back from Japan last night, this was the last movie in English that I hadn't yet watched on the airplane and ended up sitting through it again. I still think it is the worst of the four (with the third one being best artistically, the first best storially, and I can't remember what happened in the second).

[innerSpaceman]

I think my problem with the first two films is that they are the straighest of adaptations, and are addressed in tone squarely to the kiddies.

The recent film, while also filmed quite "straight" could not manage to be a straight adaptation simply because so much of the book had to be left out due to time constraints. The tone seems to me to be very adolescent, which I suppose is appropriate to the age of the characters.

I love the third film so much because it was a very stylistic adaptation, and had a tone suitable, imo, to both young adults and adults.

Although Goblet of Fire is the only one of the film series to date to feature scenes that aren't even in the lliterary source material, it's Prisoner of Azkaban that seems like a looser adaptation ... more suited, imo, to a movie experience than the page-filming style of the other three films.

I think Goblet is a mess, storywise. But it suceeds mightily on the strength of its character-based comedy ... something you pretty much have to get around to once you're on the fourth film with these characters.