Goblet of Fire was...terrible!!!!

[bookworm21]

Okay, I know I''m not the only Harry Potter fan out there, and I don''t know if there was another thread started about the latest HP movie, but I just have to vent...

SPOILER WARNING!!!

I just watched the latest installment of the HP series this past weekend. I thought the Prisoner of Azkaban was a bad adaptation, but this was MUCH worse. They left out Dobby and Winky, house elves that play a big part in the book. They left out the creatures out of the maze and added Devil''s Snare instead? They had Neville Longbottom give Harry the gillyweed rather than Dobby.

ARGGGGHHHHHH!!!!! It drove me NUTS when I watched the movie. Much of the charm of the book was gone. The screenwriters left out so much of the magical stuff that it wasn''t even that much fun to watch anymore. And I don''t like the guy that they cast to play Dumbledore, Richard Harris was soooo much better. The replacement, IMO, should have been Sir Ian McKellan (sp?). The Dumbledore in the book is a soft spoken, good humored wizard. The one in the movie yells at everyone and never finds anything funny.

There are so many other things that are wrong with the movie that I can''t even begin to describe them. They left out Hagrid''s origins, that he was a half giant. They downplayed Rita Skeeter''s role in giving Harry a hard time. In fact, the screenwriters basically wrote everyone out of the script besides Harry, Ron and Hermione. How could JK Rowling agree to such a bare bones script?!?!

 

[anchor31]

I''m sorry you didn''t like it.

It was discussed here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/harry-potter-comes-out-tommorow.36174/=

 

[portoar]

Well, the book was so lengthy (way too lengthy IMO). Goblet of Fire was where JK Rowling began to be too big for her editors. That book needed a serious editing job and fell far short of the first three novels, which were in the 200+ page range and hit the mark better. I thought it was a sound decision to leave out all the house-elf rights side story. Some changes get made because what reads well in a book doesn''t always translate well to movie format.

Take Lord of the Rings. I have been a huge fan of those books since my first reading at 10 years of age, and have probably read the whole series at least 25 times since then. Each of those three books took three hours of movie to tell the story, and they switched all kinds of things around . . . and left out beloved characters like Tom Bombadil. But these changes made movie sense and most were good decisions.

I think that if every little thing had been put in the harry potter movie, it would have been ponderous. And frankly, to have a rote duplication of the book in movie version (like the sorcerer''s stone) is a bit boring. The one thing I was sorry to see them leave out was Rita Skeeter getting her come-uppance when Hermione finds out she is an unregistered Animagus and captures her in insect form. . . that would have been a hoot to see on screen.