[Powerman293]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

The movie was already a convoluted clusterfuck, would you really want Kamille and Judau having their characters ruined like this movie did with everyone else?

For me, my brain couldn't fathom the fact that you have an organization like Londo Bell, who is being led by people who were in the 3 previous wars, yet don't call up Kamille and Judau to help out too. Especially when you have this new psycoframe technology that Kamille and Judau would take much better advantage of then Amuro.

Even if they were just on the sidelines or made a cameo, it'd at least acknowledge fix the fact that there's this big plothole elephant in the room.

[KRX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

Harry Potter is all right. The first three were pretty good, but the fourth movie was just down right awful. THe fifth and sixth movies were decent, but there was no need to turn Hollows into two movies when half of the movies are spent watching them do nothing but argue and camp instead of actually showing us characters die. Oh yeah, who cares if Mooney and the werewolf dude were important characters, we need to spend time showing Harry and McWhinyLoser arguing for the 800th time. And then we are going to give you the most cop out ending by having Harry marry a girl who has had NO character development at all during the entire series (and she was nothing more than Princess Peach) and just throw out the Asian girl they spent 2 movies building a relationship with just because. OH yeah, and let's just completely ruin Dumbeldore's character because it is edgy.

I don't know what the hell Rowling was on, but she needs to go George Lucas on that last book and have them remake it into ONE movie.

WHAT.

Aside from that, I think it would be best to read the books. There was only so much they could do in the movie, and while they did the best they could, a lot of the subtle things that served to better develop the world did get cut out. Ginny had a lot more development in the books than in the movies, and even then, I think the movies handled her fairly well. This scene in particular is one of my favorites between the two:

[ZeoRangerV]

I have to agree with him there , Goblet of Fire isn't a great film even if the Tri Wizard tournament bits are pretty great.

It's not Chamber of Secrets levels of bad, but it's definitely one of the lower tier Potter films.

[ComicGuy89]

Then I will have to disagree. I have always felt that Goblet was consistently enjoyable even after rewatching it so many times, and it added a lot of world-building for the movie's world. It balanced out the zaniness of Azkaban and condensed a thick plot into a decent movie length. The only thing I disliked about it was Dumbledore's portrayal, and Michael Gambon improved in the movies after this one.

In general, I loved all the Potter movies, although I'm least enthusiastic about Chamber, which I felt was a tad too long.

[Dr Kain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRX

WHAT.

Aside from that, I think it would be best to read the books. There was only so much they could do in the movie, and while they did the best they could, a lot of the subtle things that served to better develop the world did get cut out. Ginny had a lot more development in the books than in the movies, and even then, I think the movies handled her fairly well. This scene in particular is one of my favorites between the two:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeoRangerV

I have to agree with him there , Goblet of Fire isn't a great film even if the Tri Wizard tournament bits are pretty great.

It's not Chamber of Secrets levels of bad, but it's definitely one of the lower tier Potter films.

Goblet was a train wreck of a movie. Ten minutes in I say to my g/f, "Why does it feel like they just went through 100 pages in 10 minutes?" and she says, "That's because they did." The movie was just poorly written, poorly paced, half of it did not make a lick of sense (like why there were black hooded KKK members blowing up the campsite), and they threw out all of the great visuals that the first three movies had. Instead of a gothic medieval style backgrounds they went for a more bland classical style. Not to mention it featured the horrible acting of Robert Pattinson.

And no, I've made a decision that except for finishing the original James Bond novels, I will not read a book I have seen the movie to. I had to listen to hours of discussions from my g/f and her parents (among some) about how much they changed this from the book, how they changed that from the book, how this was ruined, etc.

[KRX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

Goblet was a train wreck of a movie. Ten minutes in I say to my g/f, "Why does it feel like they just went through 100 pages in 10 minutes?" and she says, "That's because they did." The movie was just poorly written, poorly paced, half of it did not make a lick of sense (like why there were black hooded KKK members blowing up the campsite), and they threw out all of the great visuals that the first three movies had. Instead of a gothic medieval style backgrounds they went for a more bland classical style. Not to mention it featured the horrible acting of Robert Pattinson.

And no, I've made a decision that except for finishing the original James Bond novels, I will not read a book I have seen the movie to. I had to listen to hours of discussions from my g/f and her parents (among some) about how much they changed this from the book, how they changed that from the book, how this was ruined, etc.

Robert Pattinson was not that bad in Goblet of Fire.

And that's your decision to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89

Then I will have to disagree. I have always felt that Goblet was consistently enjoyable even after rewatching it so many times, and it added a lot of world-building for the movie's world. It balanced out the zaniness of Azkaban and condensed a thick plot into a decent movie length. The only thing I disliked about it was Dumbledore's portrayal, and Michael Gambon improved in the movies after this one.

In general, I loved all the Potter movies, although I'm least enthusiastic about Chamber, which I felt was a tad too long.

I felt that the weakest was Sorcerer's Stone, simply because I found the other movies to have more interesting stories.

[XW1n5t0nX]

I think the Potter movies aren't all that terrible or even bad. They're actually quite well made and are pretty good film adaptions of the books. If I had to pick my least favorites, probably Azakaban and Half Blood Prince.

[Paladin]

The "Harry Potter" film franchise definitely suffers a bit from the release schedule. With the books still being released as films were being made, the production crew likely had no idea what scenes would be important later on. Id guess some people regretted a number of cuts.

If they had it to do over again (which will probably happen, sad to say) things might be different.

[ZeoRangerV]

Honestly, I think Order of the Phoenix is the only one that really suffers from cutting stuff plot specific stuff. And even then the films manage to get the story moving fine.

Goblet of Fire cuts a lot of stuff at the beginning (Kain's girlfriend isn't wrong in saying they did about 100 pages in 10 minutes), but a lot of it is just fluff and world building. Fluff and world building I missed though, as its about the only time I found quidditch interesting outside the first book/film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRX

I felt that the weakest was Philosopher's Stone, simply because I found the other movies to have more interesting stories.

Fixed.
Bad KRX, you don't say that around British people

[Dr Kain]

? I just looked at our BD and it says Sorcerer's Stone.

Granted, Philosopher's Stone would make more sense since that was the damn thing is.