Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - - (Spoiler zone) - Page 4

Alex · 11-21-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, 'natch the reason that the evil plot was done convolutedly through the tournament (rather than, say, having one of Harry's socks be a portkey) was that ... wait for it ... there wouldn't be a movie otherwise.

It is true that this complaint can be levelled against many movies, but it doesn't make it any less valid a criticism. It is just a sign of sloppy plotting. All it would take is a little bit of effort to give that particular path a purpose. Perhaps the rebodification spell would in some way require both Potter and the Triwizard Cup or some change in Harry Potter that would come about because of participation in the tournament.

Sloppy writing is not an excuse just because a lot of other people do it.

wendybeth · 11-21-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It is true that this complaint can be levelled against many movies, but it doesn't make it any less valid a criticism. It is just a sign of sloppy plotting. All it would take is a little bit of effort to give that particular path a purpose. Perhaps the rebodification spell would in some way require both Potter and the Triwizard Cup or some change in Harry Potter that would come about because of participation in the tournament.

Sloppy writing is not an excuse just because a lot of other people do it.

If you've noticed, Alex, no one else has made the above comment- because they've read the books! The return of Voldemort was facilitated by Harry- he had to have Harry's blood for the spell to work, for a variety of very complicated reasons that are outlined in the books. He was too weak to get to Harry, so he contrived to have Harry brought to him. The tournament was the method. I'm not sure if you are saying the script was sloppy, or JK's writing is. I hope the script, as you haven't read the books and reviewing books that one hasn't read is just...weird.

Again, I didn't care that much for this particular book, but subsequent books have been built upon the plot of this book, and with the benefit of hindsight I have come to appreciate it more.

It's just a fun read, Alex. No one is claiming that the HP series is the penultimate in high literature. Which, btw, there are many examples of piss poor movies being made out of, Madame Bovary being one.

innerSpaceman · 11-21-2005, 12:57 PM

I think Alex is simply pointing out that the Tournament is a helluva complicated way to get Harry to a particular portkey. Now if the portkey MUST be the authentic TriWizard Cup, maybe there's a legitimate reason for all that.

But I don't agree that sloppy writing is at work here in not coming up with some absurd explanation to make the Tournament ploy meet logical standards. As I pointed out above, convoluted plots are the accepted method of choice for maniacal villians intent on global domination. It's become an accepted (and much spoofed) film characteristic of comic-bookish or fantasy villains. If this were a political thriller, some explanation of the reason behind a convoluted plot would be necessary; not so for the plans of a James Bond nemesis.

I think Voldemort falls firmly into the cartoon villainy deparment, and his convoluted plot can be accepted at face value.

Alex · 11-21-2005, 01:37 PM

Yes, Wendy, I undestand that the movies make more sense if you've read the books. But it remains my point that a movie that can only be appreciated by having read the source materials is not a good movie. As I said before, I'm guessing you have opinions of hundreds of movies that are based on books you haven't read. It isn't "weird" at all. It is the norm.

If Voldemort is essentially a Bond villain then I will attempt to recalibrate my expectations for him (though I will point out that the last 15 Bond movies haven't been very good simply because they have embraced formula to the point of acheiving irrelevancy). Like I said, I was so thoroughly bored that it gave me plenty of extra mental computation time for picking nits. If the movie had been engaging I wouldn't care so much. Stupidity and sloppiness that entertains is much more easy to ignore (thus, I like Red Dawn despite its many flaws) than stupidity and sloppiness that bores.

wendybeth · 11-21-2005, 01:45 PM

I agree with regards to the whole portkey thing- that's one of the reasons I didn't care for the book. I kept thinking it would have been so much easier for Moody/Crouch to simply hex an everyday item of Harry's to transport him to Voldie. Of course, the book would have been much shorter then.

The Tournament was a good way to introduce new characters and schools, though. It also helps to propel Harry more firmly into the world of defensive magic, as his learning curve must be a bit more enhanced than the average fourth year student, given that he has an evil homicidal maniac on his ass. I like your comparison of villians, iSm- it's right on. Voldemort is the ultimate cartoon bad guy, and nothing is ever uncomplicated with him.

wendybeth · 11-21-2005, 01:54 PM

Alex, I understand what you're saying, but the fact remains that the books are driving the movies. I'm not going to go see a movie based upon a book and state that the book sucks because the movie does. I won't review a book driven movie without reading the book first, either. Especially not one of a series. Kind of like going to see The Two Towers without having read either the books or seen the first movie. It's a great movie, but it does not stand on it's own without the support of it's cinematic or literary predecessor.

Alex · 11-21-2005, 02:13 PM

If I have ever given any sense that I am condemming the books because of the movies I apologize. I have no opinion on the books at all.

I don't generally care for juvenile literature so I'm not much interested (whereas I do generally enjoy juvenile movies) in reading them and the movies through their lack of charisma have done nothing to change my mind.

So while I have no expectation that the Harry Potter books are something I would enjoy, I'm completely willing to work on the assumption that the books are good while the movies are bad.

Steve, trust me, I gave up on the Harry Potter movies after the third one (I liked the first one, was bored by the second and the third confirmed which opinion I should go with). However, Lani wanted to see it and since most of the time it is me dragging her to movies we have an open agreement that I will go along without complaint whenever she actually says "I would like to see X." So, I have no desire to see the next movie, but if Lani again says she wants to, I'll be there. Hopefully whoever is directing/writing that one will give some priority to making a movie rather than just annotating a book.

wendybeth · 11-21-2005, 02:42 PM

Alex, I really do understand- I generally don't care for this sort of genre either. I got sucked into the Potter vortex courtesy of a co-worker, who asked me way back when the first movie came out if I was going to see it. I scornfully responded no, at which point she shreiked "You haven't read the books!" I was a bit proud of the fact that I hadn't succumbed to to Pottermania, and I said as much. When I arrived at work the next day, I found she had deposited the first three books on my station. That weekend I started reading book one, and by Monday I'd read all three and was jonesing for the fourth.

As far as 'annotating', you are not far off the mark. The way the books are laid out there really is no other way to do it. If you can read the books and then figure out how to do otherwise, you may want to contact the producers. There are so many intricate plot twists and turns- some that are for entertainment purposes, some for red-herring duty and others that are essential to the ending, which has already been written. It really is fantastically involved and it is the writers somewhat thankless task to incorporate esential elements and to weed out the unnecessary, thereby facing the wrath of zillions of fans. (I'm still convinced that having Harry give the Weasely twins his Tri-Cup winnings to start their gag shop is a better ending, as it gives them a platform to continue on as the comedic relief after their departure from the school and foreshadows the coming darkness).

Snowflake · 11-21-2005, 02:52 PM

I'm finding the discussion fascinating. While I have not seen the film yet, to me it makes no real difference since I am very familiar with the books. GoF, in particular was my favorite of the books in the series for some time (meaning the spoilers here won't affect my view of the film)

I, too, lamented the passing of Richard Harris. In other work, I have long admired Michael Gambon. His portrayal as Dumbledore could not be farther from what I envision from the books. I found myself wishing that someone such as Jim Broadbent could be coerced into replacing him as Dumbledore. This is a flaw that will continue to irk me with each remaining film.

While I have never thought of the books as fine literature, I enjoy them. I tried for years to read the Tolkein books, without success, could never get "in" to them. Loved the films, however. The Potter novels suck me in and, frankly, any book that encourages and makes kids enthusiastic about reading is a great thing to me.

Hopefully I will see HP & the GoF this coming weekend and if I have anything else to add to the good discussion, I will.

Donna

innerSpaceman · 11-21-2005, 01:43 PM

Ah, good point there, Alex. To which I would counter that Harry Potter fans were not bored. Oh, it wasn't the TriWizard Tournament that kept us entertained, but the comedy of the Weasely Twins, Moaning Myrtle, Crouch Jr. as Moody, Profs. Snape and McGonigal. I daresay it was comedy that made this one enjoyable to the fans, and I will admit that the comedy might be less enchanting for non-fans.

Though why non fans would go see this movie is beyond me. And apparently, there are enough Harry Potter fans to support a $101 million opening weekend. (Let's make that an even one hundred million, to knock off a million for the folks like Alex who were dragged against their desires.)

11-21-2005, 12:57 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I think Alex is simply pointing out that the Tournament is a helluva complicated way to get Harry to a particular portkey. Now if the portkey MUST be the authentic TriWizard Cup, maybe there's a legitimate reason for all that. But I don't agree that sloppy writing is at work here in not coming up with some absurd explanation to make the Tournament ploy meet logical standards. As I pointed out above, convoluted plots are the accepted method of choice for maniacal villians intent on global domination. It's become an accepted (and much spoofed) film characteristic of comic-bookish or fantasy villains. If this were a political thriller, some explanation of the reason behind a convoluted plot would be necessary; not so for the plans of a James Bond nemesis. I think Voldemort falls firmly into the cartoon villainy deparment, and his convoluted plot can be accepted at face value.
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 01:37 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, Wendy, I undestand that the movies make more sense if you've read the books. But it remains my point that a movie that can only be appreciated by having read the source materials is not a good movie. As I said before, I'm guessing you have opinions of hundreds of movies that are based on books you haven't read. It isn't "weird" at all. It is the norm. If Voldemort is essentially a Bond villain then I will attempt to recalibrate my expectations for him (though I will point out that the last 15 Bond movies haven't been very good simply because they have embraced formula to the point of acheiving irrelevancy). Like I said, I was so thoroughly bored that it gave me plenty of extra mental computation time for picking nits. If the movie had been engaging I wouldn't care so much. Stupidity and sloppiness that entertains is much more easy to ignore (thus, I like Red Dawn despite its many flaws) than stupidity and sloppiness that bores.
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 01:45 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I agree with regards to the whole portkey thing- that's one of the reasons I didn't care for the book. I kept thinking it would have been so much easier for Moody/Crouch to simply hex an everyday item of Harry's to transport him to Voldie. Of course, the book would have been much shorter then. The Tournament was a good way to introduce new characters and schools, though. It also helps to propel Harry more firmly into the world of defensive magic, as his learning curve must be a bit more enhanced than the average fourth year student, given that he has an evil homicidal maniac on his ass. I like your comparison of villians, iSm- it's right on. Voldemort is the ultimate cartoon bad guy, and nothing is ever uncomplicated with him. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 01:54 PM	#6
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Alex, I understand what you're saying, but the fact remains that the books are driving the movies. I'm not going to go see a movie based upon a book and state that the book sucks because the movie does. I won't review a book driven movie without reading the book first, either. Especially not one of a series. Kind of like going to see The Two Towers without having read either the books or seen the first movie. It's a great movie, but it does not stand on it's own without the support of it's cinematic or literary predecessor. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 02:13 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If I have ever given any sense that I am condemming the books because of the movies I apologize. I have no opinion on the books at all. I don't generally care for juvenile literature so I'm not much interested (whereas I do generally enjoy juvenile movies) in reading them and the movies through their lack of charisma have done nothing to change my mind. So while I have no expectation that the Harry Potter books are something I would enjoy, I'm completely willing to work on the assumption that the books are good while the movies are bad. Steve, trust me, I gave up on the Harry Potter movies after the third one (I liked the first one, was bored by the second and the third confirmed which opinion I should go with). However, Lani wanted to see it and since most of the time it is me dragging her to movies we have an open agreement that I will go along without complaint whenever she actually says "I would like to see X." So, I have no desire to see the next movie, but if Lani again says she wants to, I'll be there. Hopefully whoever is directing/writing that one will give some priority to making a movie rather than just annotating a book.
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 02:42 PM	#8
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Alex, I really do understand- I generally don't care for this sort of genre either. I got sucked into the Potter vortex courtesy of a co-worker, who asked me way back when the first movie came out if I was going to see it. I scornfully responded no, at which point she shreiked "You haven't read the books!" I was a bit proud of the fact that I hadn't succumbed to to Pottermania, and I said as much. When I arrived at work the next day, I found she had deposited the first three books on my station. That weekend I started reading book one, and by Monday I'd read all three and was jonesing for the fourth. As far as 'annotating', you are not far off the mark. The way the books are laid out there really is no other way to do it. If you can read the books and then figure out how to do otherwise, you may want to contact the producers. There are so many intricate plot twists and turns- some that are for entertainment purposes, some for red-herring duty and others that are essential to the ending, which has already been written. It really is fantastically involved and it is the writers somewhat thankless task to incorporate esential elements and to weed out the unnecessary, thereby facing the wrath of zillions of fans. (I'm still convinced that having Harry give the Weasely twins his Tri-Cup winnings to start their gag shop is a better ending, as it gives them a platform to continue on as the comedic relief after their departure from the school and foreshadows the coming darkness). __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 02:52 PM	#9
Snowflake lost in the fog Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 7,831	I'm finding the discussion fascinating. While I have not seen the film yet, to me it makes no real difference since I am very familiar with the books. GoF, in particular was my favorite of the books in the series for some time (meaning the spoilers here won't affect my view of the film) I, too, lamented the passing of Richard Harris. In other work, I have long admired Michael Gambon. His portrayal as Dumbledore could not be farther from what I envision from the books. I found myself wishing that someone such as Jim Broadbent could be coerced into replacing him as Dumbledore. This is a flaw that will continue to irk me with each remaining film. While I have never thought of the books as fine literature, I enjoy them. I tried for years to read the Tolkein books, without success, could never get "in" to them. Loved the films, however. The Potter novels suck me in and, frankly, any book that encourages and makes kids enthusiastic about reading is a great thing to me. Hopefully I will see HP & the GoF this coming weekend and if I have anything else to add to the good discussion, I will. Donna __________________ Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. - Oscar Wilde
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 01:43 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ah, good point there, Alex. To which I would counter that Harry Potter fans were not bored. Oh, it wasn't the TriWizard Tournament that kept us entertained, but the comedy of the Weasely Twins, Moaning Myrtle, Crouch Jr. as Moody, Profs. Snape and McGonigal. I daresay it was comedy that made this one enjoyable to the fans, and I will admit that the comedy might be less enchanting for non-fans. Though why non fans would go see this movie is beyond me. And apparently, there are enough Harry Potter fans to support a $101 million opening weekend. (Let's make that an even one hundred million, to knock off a million for the folks like Alex who were dragged against their desires.)
	Submit to Quotes