Beyond Hogwarts

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
Harry Potter Spelling Reference

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 9)

I don't think it matters that Padma is in Gryffindor, but it bothers me that they deleted Lavender's character. She can't just show up to be Ron's girlfriend in movie 6- where has she been all this time? And Ron can't fly solo, that's no fun.

Posted by Ashley from Missouri on April 15, 2007 09:04 AM

another thing about the GoF movie - in the book dobby gives harry gillyweed, in the movie, neville does. not cool.

Posted by Tshego from Johannesburg on April 17, 2007 04:19 AM

Tshego from Johannesburg--
The reason they used Dobby in the book and Neville in the movie is because Dobby is computer animated. One, computer animation is more expensive and time consuming than a regular actor, and two, no house elves were in the GoF movie at all. Winky was gone and that bothered me.

Posted by Ashley from Missouri on April 17, 2007 2:09 PM

Tshego from Johannesburg,

I find it deviates to much from the characters we know, Neville would NEVER steal anything from a teacher ESPECIALLY from Snape, whom he is terrified of.

Posted by Emilio from Mexico City, Mexico on April 18, 2007 2:38 PM

While I hate this change too, I don't believe the movie claims that Neville stole the gillyweed from Snape. I think they want you to assume he just had it because he was stu it...

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on April 18, 2007 3:38 PM

Dave Haber--
Snape said when he was yelling at Harry for being in his private stores that someone had stolen the gillyweed, along with lacewing flies and boomslang skin.
Incidentally, didn't Hermione say that lacewing flies were in the student cupboards in CoS?

Posted by Ashley from Missouri on April 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Oops. That's right, he did. I only remembered boomslang skin from that scene. So, then, Dobby stole the gillyweed and gave it to Neville to give it to Harry... ok, now my head hurts...

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on April 19, 2007 07:29 AM

Maybe Moody-Crouch stole the gillyweed and gave it to Neville? He planted the book on Neville, after all. (Sorry no pun intended.)

Posted by Monkeeshrines from Orlando FL on April 19, 2007 09:06 AM

There is another change in the movies that has always bothered me. In the books, only one or two houses of any year of students until the sixth year are in a class together. However, in the movies, all of the houses share the same classes. That has bugged me from the first movie on.

Posted by Flying Squirrel from Bountiful, Utah on April 21, 2007 3:46 PM

we all have the same sentiments.. the movies doesn't strictly follow what the book all says. but i guess you're also right, that the movie should also stand alone.

anyway.. jo's still the boss. we can never do anything. but it's just sad to see the movies so incomplete.. actually, i'd be happier if they'll make the movie 5 hours long. just as long as the story's complete.

Posted by Ashley from Baguio, Philippines on May 2, 2007 08:29 AM

Dave, to add to your headache: Dobby stole the gillyweed in the book and gave it to Harry, but Dobby isn't in the film so he can't have given it to Neville there...
I'd think 'Moody' stole it in the film, he had to go to Snape's office regularly anyway, to steal ingrents for polyjuice potion, which he needed to stay 'in shape'...

I can't be too bothered with the differences between the books and the films really; it only surprises me that I've seen no complaints about Dudley (in the books his hair is blond, maybe they wanted him to look more like sort of Harry's 'brother' in the films? Seems a difference much more apparent than someone's eye-colour (face it: apart from close-ups, nobody can really tell, while haircolor is the most apparent thing that stands out from a distance)

The one thing that did bother me a bit however: Hermione is supposed to have very thick, bushy hair and quite big teeth (picture a rabbit)
She made a Cinderella-like transformation for the Yule Ball in book 4; in the film this effect is completely lost, because her hair and teeth look quite normal all the time...

compared to this, the colour of her dress is completely irrelevant to me;)

Posted by broom with a view from rotterdam, netherlands on May 2, 2007 1:46 PM

Well, my opinion about how movies are adapted, at least Regarding Harry Potter, is that the first two movies are better adapted than PoA and GoF. In PoA, if you have not read the book, you are left in the dark about loads of things. How does Lupin know how to work the Marauder's Map? Why does Harry's Patronus have the shape of a stag? And the Firebolt? Does Harry not play Quidditch that year, with the exception of the first game? For goodness sake, that year Gryffindor wins the Quidditch Cup for the FIRST TIME in YEARS! What about the Womping Willow? I mean, if "immobulus" worked on it, anybody could stop it from giving them the beating of their lives.

For my taste, my countryman Alfonso Cuar�n used too many irrelevant scenes (i.e., all the ones with the Womping Willow shedding leaves, too many unnecesary ghosts) and left many important things out. In GoF, there were also many changes, but in essence they didn't affect the overall result. I really hope OotP is better adapted.

Posted by Ariadna Quijano from Mexico on May 4, 2007 3:26 PM

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  >  >>

Featured Discussions | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | Dumbeldore Is Not Dead | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2010 David Haber, All Rights Reserved