Character changes in Goblet of Fire
by David Haber
In the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie, there is a scene in the Gryffindor common room, where Harry is lamenting that they still don't have dates, the Patil sisters walk by, and in unison they say, "Hi, Harry!" But wait! What is Padma Patil doing in the Gryffindor common room?!
> Read the full article
Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 > >>
Reader Comments: (Page 4)
speaking about rupert, slughorn accidently mistakens rons name when hes drunk,as rupert. Look on page 485, Harry potter and the half blood prince:
"I had it all tested for poision," He assured Harry, pouring most of the first bottle into one of Hagrids bucket-sized mugs and handing it to hagrid. "Not after what happended to your poor friend, Rupert."
RUPERT GRINT! HELLO? I wonder is this a coincidince or did she do this on purpose?
Posted by Samantha from west virginia on November 7, 2006 2:07 PM
i thought this when i saw the movie. I like "if you're gonna make the movie of harry potter and the goblet of fire, at least make it right"
Posted by chrus from net,bungee on November 11, 2006 2:42 PM
Yes, Padma Patil should not have been in the Gryffindor House Common Room. But such miniscule faults with the fourth movie are of no importance whatsoever with clues leading to the Seventh Book. The director wants to make the plot work in his action movie, not play to JK's every word.
Posted by Koby from New Jersey on November 12, 2006 09:05 AM
I think my point is that the director has a duty to the fans as well...
Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on November 12, 2006 09:07 AM
I couldn't agree more with that! It is not that GoF wasn�t brilliant or the director not capable of directing the movie. They even go to great length to choose the perfect actors. But do the people who are in charge, think HP fans are not ing to sit more than two hours at the cinema?
I especially found that part with Barty Crouch Jun. at the beginning of the movie irritating. A non Harry Potter reader would not understand Barty Crouch Jun. motive to send the DARK MARK up in the sky.
Another thing that angered me was at the third task. In the book Mrs. Weasley and Bill come to visit Harry and stay with him until the task begins. In the movie version only the other Champions had someone with them. But of course the screenwriter had no idea at that time that Bill would play a more important role in book six and seven!
The same happened with Narcissa Malfoy. Don�t tell me the movie would have cost more if she would have been in that scene at the Quidditch World Cup? Here again is a character they wanted to leave out and plays now in the Half-Blood Prince such an important part. Or do they mean to quit that part with Severus and Narcissa doing the Unbreakable vow?
Have the people responsible for the films not realized that we Harry Potter fans are equal to the Lord of the Rings or Star Trek fans?
Posted by Mistral from Switzerland on November 12, 2006 2:16 PM
Taking this all to heart I re played and re read. The 'odd couple' comment is, in my opinion, a total red herring.
More to the point is Sirius' comment at the end of the film that those that love us are NEVER TRULY GONE. They remain here (taps Harry's chest). This sounds very much like not leaving Hogwarts until those who are loyal to me are also gone. I suspect that this means that the spirit(s) of Lilly, James and Albus remain in the hearts of Harry and the others and support them at the end of the series.
Also, in the book form it is clear that an 'informant' made it clear that Voldemort was looking for James and Lilly. What is happening is a clear path to the conclusion that 1. Snape loved Lilly. 2. The 'Beech tree' memory was when he lost his chance to ever be a couple with her 3.He was so deeply affected by his causing Voldemort to seek her /unhappyness that he changed sides. The clue in Azakaban is that the 'informant' was Snape trying to have Lilly and James hide when Voldemort was after them because of his reporting of the prophesy. I'd love to discuss this more.. CT
Posted by Charlie Tarbox from Gettysburg, Pa on November 13, 2006 6:26 PM
That's so right. But i understand the dispossition of the movie makers. I myself do not think it's significent in book 7. The only real thing about the movies i'm realy disappointed about is in the 4th movie they leave out Dooby, Winky & the kitchens. I'd be ing to sit and watch for at least another half hour if this were added.
Posted by Pud from Oakland MD on November 16, 2006 3:21 PM
Ah! finally someone noticed this! Thank you Dave! I seem to remeber reading that Harry originally asked Lavender Brown to go to the ball with Ron and Parvarti to go with him. Lavender was going with Seamus I believe and Parvarti was going to ask her sister of RAVENCLAW Padme if she would go with Ron. There was no need for Padme to be in the house as it says in the book that members from other houses were meeting in the Entrance Hall, not in their dormitories. This was one of the many mistakes I noticed in the moveies (including the fact that Barty Crouch Jr. was NOT supposed to be in the dream at the beginning!)
I have one question that I have not been able to find an answer in either the book or the movie: who did George Weasly escorted to the ball. As we know Fred took chaser Angelina Johnson. All I can assume is that George went dateless......
Posted by Katherine from Boerne, TX on November 17, 2006 8:48 PM
I'm interested in why the actresses who played the Patil twins in POA, who appeared to be actual twins, were switched out for the girls who played the twins in GOF, who didn't a seem to be related at all?
Was it just because the one girl was so good at that look of utter disgust she gave Ron when shr saw his dress robes?
Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on November 20, 2006 1:22 PM
I am of the opinion that Literature and Cinema are two very distinct art forms. What works in one does not neccesarily work in another. When making adaptations from novel to film, ommissions changes etc. are not only inevitable, they are necessary for the good of the movie.
I think the whole topic of the Patil twins' respective houses is completely irrelevant. Given Jo Rowling's role in the formation of these movies (a practice not common in book to film adaptations) these and other changes are not very important. As for characters who be in OOTP that were not included in the GoA film (ie Narcissa Malfoy), I defer to the necessity of changes. It is not a good idea to introduce too many new characters at a time. Each movie has to be able to be self-contained. The whole SPEW subplot, which serves as a nice bit about 'race' relations in the wizarding world, in a movie, would stray away from the main plot of the Tournament.
Expectations of pace are far different in a movie than they are in a book. There is this mystery unwraveling in the movie set around the events of the Triwizard tournament. What does the SPEW subplot do for this narrative? Not much.
Now, I understand the agony at some of the changes. Would I have liked to see some things that were not included? Sure, but most of the things people are concerned with are trivial (COLOR OF HERMOINE'S DRESS). Those that people feel are critical (omission of characters and/or connections for next movie's sake etc.) clearly be dealt with in some other way. Ms. Rowling would make sure of that. I challenge anyone to find fault with my logic.
Posted by Anthony Soto from California on November 21, 2006 12:02 AM
Your logic is sound, however, even if the movies do follow the main story line, there are still several interconected sub-plots that are also very important. They provide the setting, a general feel for the world in which these events take place. These events do not take place in "OUR" world, and all the action that takes place on the periphery add scope and depth to the action we're meant to focus on. Do we need to know Florean Fortescue or Mr. Ollivander disappear to feel the suspence of the story? NO, but these facts show that Harry and Morty do not exsist in a vacuum.
They may not be necessary to the telling of the story, but they make it much easier to get wrapped up in the story.
Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on November 21, 2006 07:01 AM
I don't see anything wrong with sisters hanging out in each other's dormitries. I had always assumed that if there siblings in seperate houses, that they would be able to visit each other in private. Like if Ginny was sorted in another house, I can't see her brothers just leaving her alone!
And it is never mentioned that people can't visit each others houses, just they can't know the password which keep out those who would get in to play pranks - Weasley twins or to bully - Draco.
And yes, Hermione's dress is wrong but I think pink suits Emma Watson better than blue and imagery is everything in a film. The wardrobe people were probably thinking the same thing.
Posted by Kristi from Australia on November 21, 2006 4:53 PM
Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 > >>