“Goblet of Fire” Director Reflects on Lack of Clues from JKR on Outcome of Series

330

Oct 30, 2007

Posted by SueTLC
Uncategorized

“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” director Mike Newell has given a new interview to MTV, where he reflects back on working with author J.K. Rowling, and his inability to obtain any clues from JKR regarding the outcome of the Harry Potter series. Mike Newell says Jo would not reveal any hints or tidbits about the future, such as the fate of Harry. Quotage:

No. Absolutely nothing. I asked her and she wouldn’t [say a thing]. She was very funny about that’ Newell recalled. “I asked her questions [and] she simply said ˜I’m not answering them. Not that. Not that. Not that.’”

“I remember we went up to see her in Edinburgh and her little daughter was in the room and she started to say cute things like, ˜Are you going to do this mummy?’” Newell continued, amused. “And [Jo] said ˜Sweetheart, why don’t you go into the other room and play?’”

The director says he is happy with the way the film turned out, and says he would not change a thing, not even to add in cut storylines such as S.P.E.W.

There was something in the book that was absolutely glorious and would produce this great driven vehicle which would really hum along. It was a God given thriller. It’s like ˜North by Northwest.’ That’s how the strong story in ˜Goblet’ worked’ Newell said. “I thought that was a colossal way of structuring the story, and would work really well. You would dilute that if you went into all the subplots.”It would be especially diluted, Newell continues (breaking every fans’ heart at once)if it were to be two movies.

“There’s a whole storyline for [Hermione] that’s all about free the house elf, and it was okay. But if that was going to be shunted into a second movie I couldn’t see what was going to keep that second movie afloat’ he said, defending his choices.

And J.K.?

“[She] was happy as a lark’ Newell insisted. “She says the book is the book and the movie is the movie.”





64 Responses to “Goblet of Fire” Director Reflects on Lack of Clues from JKR on Outcome of Series

Avatar Image says:

Making multiple movies for each book. Now THAT is a good idea. I really wish they would do that.

Avatar Image says:

And Jo is right. Curse you, wizard purists! The book is the book, and the movie is the movie. Maybe they’ll make a tv series like they did for The Shining where it’s more like the book. That could be fun…in about 10 years or so. It’s way too close right now, but in the future, it’s an awesome possibility!

Avatar Image says:

GoF was the worst of the movies for me, it was sooo boring! All the interesting stuff was left out.

I’d have been more than happy if they’d done two movies instead and had had a different director.

Avatar Image says:

I don’t know about a TV Series (been there, done that with almost every successful movie) I agree with Mr Newell. Turning it into two movies would have diluted the whole thing. Too many subplots spoil the premise! (my own thought, by the way)It’s about time someone pointed out “the book is the books…the movie is the movie!” And it was our very own JKR!Maybe, now, someone will actually LISTEN! Way to go, all round!

Avatar Image says:

HAH! So that’s your excuse.

Although, I can’t say it was entirely his fault. The soundtrack as every bit as abysmal as Emma’s acting and Newell’s disjointed flow of the story.

Avatar Image says:

Hah, this made me giggle a little bit. Goblet of Fire is by far my least favorite movie (I’ve only seen it once, while I’ve seen the other movies much more than once). So dull. Then again, Goblet of Fire ranks pretty low on my favorite in the series.

Avatar Image says:

I thought Goblet was really quite good. Not as detailed or as full of intrigue as the book but I thought the dragon challenge was better than the book. The cemetary scenes were just as I had pictured them in my mind, so on the whole I thought it was a success.

I bought my wife a T-Shirt from “Signals” that says: “Never judge a book by it’s movie”

I think that’s the truth.

Avatar Image says:

Well, the books and movies may be separate entities, but they ARE related, yes? Not that you could necessarily tell from GoF… I don’t think it needed two movies, it needed about 20 extra minutes, especially between the second and third task. In my personal opinion, they would have heard a LOT less grumbling from fans if they had added just a touch more, and the movie as a whole would have flowed much smoother. But a TV series? No, thanks. I don’t want to see anyone but Dan as Harry, and I certainly don’t want to sit through all the commercials that would entail. Maybe if I get a TiVo and can skip them…

Avatar Image says:

Actually, other than the choice to leave out Dobby (and substitute Neville as the source of Gillyweed), I think all the most crucial points were covered…perhaps in a less than exciting fashion, but still, the major points were covered. In terms of what was left in vs what was left out/changed, I thought OotP far more problematic (in OotP, no Dobby, again; the blasting open of the Room of Requirement; not showing the cleaning at Grimmauld place [hey, who didn’t figure out that scene would prove crucial!]).

Of course we now know that a hint about Krum’s wand would have been useful, along with at least a brief appearance by Ollivander, but in all honesty, I doubt any of us picked up on those.

Glenn, I need one of those shirts!

Avatar Image says:

I hate how the Potter community seems to loathe Newell. I think he did a solid job with GoF, especially in setting up that British prep school vibe which worked wonders. Along with this new Britishness, the humour was perhaps the best yet, very dry and witty.

Avatar Image says:

oh, and there should have been at least a brief 10 seconds of Ginny being disappointed at not going to the Yule Ball with Harry….again, that was an obvious point in the book, and would have taken just mere seconds to convey

Avatar Image says:

Oh my hell. If I hear one more director talk about how happy Jo is with their film… of course she’s going to be “happy”, she has to be. Its essentially in her contract.

But that is besides the point. She herself said the movies are the movies, the books the books…

Anyway. What makes GoF disapointing is not what they left out or added (despite how much SPEW could have done and how ridiculously long and drawn the dragon scene was—was killing the thing nessecary? No. Not at all.) What makes it disapointing is how untrue to the characters and to the overall feeling of the book it was. It was even untrue to Dumbledore, not just the movies usual Ron and Hermione. And Harry was leaning further and further from the Harry we know.

Which is one of the reasons David Yates and Michael Goldenburg were such a good replacement team for the Potter films—they held true to both the things nessecary to truly pay homage to this great series, its author, and its millions of fans. Now with Goldenburg gone and Kloves back, I’m hoping Yates can help him keep the characters on track, and keep the feeling of the books alive.

Avatar Image says:

PS-why can’t I learn how to spell necessary. Geez _

Avatar Image says:

I still cannot watch GoF in its entirety. Too many things are missing, humor is one of them, The visit at the Dursley was hilarious in the book, it should have been there. The way the Weasly were treated, as second class people, while in the book they were with the Minister, better seated than the Malfoys, was another irritant. The first task was a complete nonsense : How can one attribute points for the performance if one does not see the performance?

M. Newell was a bad choice who made bad choices all along. What a pity.

The fifth film was better.

Books are better, most of the time.

Avatar Image says:

redreh, I don’t think you have to worry too much about Kloves being on for HBP. If Yates wants him to change something in the script, he’ll do it. And if the script is way too faithful to random details (a la GOF), Yates will either truncate or cut it out in the editing room if he feels he needs to keep the flow of the film going.

And I don’t know why people give Newell a hard time for GOF (is it because Emma Watson said something about not liking his directorial style?), he did a fine job overall. It’s just that his direction seems a bit pedestrian and like Columbus, he seemed a bit reluctant to cut out more scenes to make the movie move more quickly. For OOTP, Yates and Goldenberg knew how to straddle the line between being faithful to the book and cutting out stuff to make the film under 2 1/2 hours.

Avatar Image says:

As a self confessed book purist the things about GOF that bother me the most are the inordinate amount of time spent on the dragon sequence and DD shaking Harry. I think if less time would have been given to the dragon, then they could have had someone, anyone comfort Harry after V’s return. No wonder he was messed up in OOP.

Avatar Image says:

The fact that Newell is defending his movie is quite hilarious. What has he to complain about? His movie was much better than Chamber of Secrets or Prisoner of Azkaban, even if there was far too much dragon time in it.

Avatar Image says:

It is good to read others opinions each of us have our own.(pity that the “fandom” including myself weren’t able to make the film !) ((I would love to have had access to all the props etc the film would probably have been 9 months long,lol))

Avatar Image says:

Is it just me, or every time an HP movie comes out people love it and speak wonders of it and a few months months down the road, they hate it? I swear I’ve seen this happen here with every Potter movie since CoS.

I remember people saying how brilliant GoF was but now it’s reached the mud pit, along with PoA and the rest. OotP has started to gather a few loathers already and I’m wondering how long it’ll take for it to hit the mud pit too.

I say March. Maybe April.

Avatar Image says:

For me, GOF is a pretty awful movie because there is no emotional base to it all. It’s all a bunch of lame action sequences, there’s no heart to it, and honestly if I wanted to watch a bunch of cheesy action junk I could just pop in a fantastic four movie. Meh.

El Caz, you’re completely right of course. I think we’re all so excited about the films at first that we look over any faults. It’s only once we calm down a bit do we realize that people start to get annoyed by all of the inevitable problems with the films. But for me, time has made me love POA even more, so I suppose it doesn’t always happen like that.

Avatar Image says:

I don’t get caught up in the whole “OMG, THEY LEFT THAT OUT!!!” stuff. I mean, it’d ruin the movie for me and Jo is right, a book’s a book and a movie’s a movie.. That’s why I get so annoyed at the purist and it’s been 5 movies to date and SOME of them are still complaining. I say, get on with life and just enjoy it.

I love all the movies and books each in it’s own. But that’s just how I am.

Avatar Image says:

To add a little more:

I LOVE PoA!!! It’s my second favorite movie to date after OotP (It was my first until OotP). I don’t understand why Alfanso Cuarón is getting all this crap when I though he did PoA beautifully. Granted, there were a LOT of stuff taken out of the book, but he captured the mood better than any other film besides OotP. LIke me and Jo Rowling say, the books and movies are separate, related yes, but still separate.

But it is my own opinion.

Avatar Image says:

The book is the book and the movie is the move. So true, and yet how disappointing. Aren’t the movies supposed to reflect the books? Granted, it would take hours to fit in all the subplots, but Christopher Columbus managed it in the first two. As far as Prisoner of Azkaban is concerned, it was artistically mutilated by a director too concerned with putting his own mark on the series. Newell was promising, and Goblet turned out almost as good as Sorcerer’s stone and Chamber of Secrets. It would have been nice to include S.P.E.W., but he is right in saying it probably would have detracted from the overall storyline. Order of the Phoenix was incredible, including [almost] all important details [thank heaven they included Kreacher], and did make a piece that was visually moving and with a driven plot. We can only hope that this new movie lives up to the reputation of its predecessors.

Avatar Image says:

Is there anything the potter community doesn’t hate? :P

I really enjoyed GoF, and most of the cuts were ok… only problem I can foresee is that the R/Hr kiss in DH is going to be severely undermined by the total lack of House Elf subplot in the films, which is a shame.

Avatar Image says:

I liked Goblet of Fire when I watched it the first couple of times… but it doesn’t have a great re-watch quality. Just because I like a movie when I first see it, doesn’t mean that I want to watch it over and over again. For me, 1, 3, and 5 are fantastic to watch again and again.

Avatar Image says:

At the time I saw the film, GOF was my favorite HP book. I also loved “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, so I was really looking forward to GOF.

But other than the dragon task, which I thought was spectacular (even though it strayed from canon), I didn’t like the film. Newell may have done the best he could, but in my opinion, it is the poorest HP film to date.

Like JKR said to Newell, “the book is the book and the film is the film”.

Avatar Image says:

Potter fans are far too picky when it comes to the films.

Rotten Tomatoes scores for the first five Potter Films:

Philosopher’s Stone: 79% Chamber of Secrets: 82% Prisoner of Azkaban: 89% Goblet of Fire: 89% Order of the Phoenix: 76%

All five movies are “certified fresh”, highly acclaimed films.

Avatar Image says:

The strictly movie audience doesn’t know anything about a whole bunch of house elves working in Hogwarts, so yes, basing the kiss on Ron caring about them seems weird. They could do a mini-SPEW thing though. Just have Ron saying mean insulting things to Kreacher while at Grimmaulds in DH and Hermione defending the elf. But in the Hogwarts battle scene, have Ron trying to protect Kreacher from getting killed, showing some amount of caring for the little fellow. Ta-da, instant kiss.

I’m still wondering if they’ll do Dobby’s death, though. They’ve been avoiding him for three movies now. Now that the books are done, at least Yates and Kloves won’t run into the same problem Newell ran into regarding answers about where the plot is going.

Avatar Image says:

Elizableth said: “Granted, it would take hours to fit in all the subplots, but Christopher Columbus managed it in the first two.”

Are you aware of how much shorter those book are then the later ones? Here’s some perspective: My copy of CoS (the longer of the first two books) is 341 pages long, complete. GoF is 734, which is over twice as long. In fact, it’s longer than the first two books put together.

Oh, and I can think of subplots that were left out of the first two films: Filch being a squib, dealing with Norbert, one of the tests to get to the Stone…

I’m not Newell’s biggest fan, myself (I blame him for a lot of the new DD hate since he directed him to be such a spazz), but don’t blame him for cutting things when he was dealing with twice as much material as Columbus did.

Avatar Image says:

Nice way of him to simply say “I know its the worse movie of the bunch, I left alot of important stuff out that is in the book, and Im never going to admit that WB made a horrible mistake hiring me”

Avatar Image says:

Greetings Haters: GoF made nearly one BILLION dollars at the Worldwide Box Office. Add DVD and TV earnings and Whoa that’s a ‘Whole Lotta Love’!

Avatar Image says:

I want the movies to include every single joke and reaction. I don’t care if I would have to buy two tickets or sit there for 6 hours. It would be all Harry Potter good.

MAY THE POTTER BE WITH YOU

Avatar Image says:

SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST

Avatar Image says:

I think GOF was dreadful. I don’t necessarily mind leaving out things, all the movies have done it. But Newell BUTCHERED the delicate plot. He totally made everyone out of character just so he could throw in his sitcom-style slapstick humor. I could vomit.

He directed Dumbledore to be an angry git, and made Snape a joke. Dumbledore doesn’t, in his own words, “manhandle” his students. I forgot where I read it, but supposedly Rickman himself was disagreeing with Newell saying “Snape would never do this”. Snape doesn’t hit people on the backs of their heads and let people giggle about it. He would have thrown them in detention.

Not to mention that wand-using magic was missing. HELLO! The tournament is a magical one, so the maze was totally silly.

I think Newell took the wrong approach; in my opinion GOF wasn’t an action thriller-—it was a MYSTERY. Do you remember reading GOF, and when you got to the end and Moody turned out to be Barty Crouch Jr, if you were like me you said, “DOH! I should have known!” JKR wove that plot so delicately, it was awesome. When Harry spotted “Barty Crouch” on the Marauder’s Map, etc, those should have been our clues in the movie- not some weird tongue thing they made Barty Jr. do. HA!

5 minutes extra is all it would have taken to have Barty get the dementor’s kiss & show the “parting of the ways”. If EXTRA time was an issue, they could have cut the darn Yule Ball down a few minutes.

Dumbledore’s explanations are still to this day detrimentally chopped out. I know filmmakers like to “show things”, not “tell them”. But it’s necessary, even if they have to break a small rule of filmmaking. “Priori incantatem” mumbled was all Harry got in GOF as an explanation from Dumbledore.

I think Yates did a phenomenal job with OOTP. He did cut a TON of things, many which I would have loved to have seen. I would have given anything to see the St. Mungos scene. But Yates kept everyone to character, he somehow pulled off the closeness of Harry & Sirius, and I think he can still bring Dumbledore around.

Avatar Image says:

Now the series is finished we can see that Newell was right about what to cut. Charming digressions are acceptable in novels, in movies they are fatal. Thank heavens Newell had the nerve and the focus to make a really strong film. Great critical reaction and you can see it in the massive financial success for OotP. Obviously Ludo Bagman and Bertha Jorkins aren’t going to add anything significant to the film. Just keep doing what you do, Mike.

Avatar Image says:

BTW, Leaky, according to IMDB, Alfonso Cuarón is scheduled to direct FOUR movies over the next two years. Even if he only does half that many, that practically rules him out for DH. And it seems Newell is pretty busy too. (No doubt thanks to their work on HP getting a such good response.)

So it looks like we’re stuck with Mr. Yates, unless Dave Heyman wants to hire someone who can direct a truly epic conclusion.

Avatar Image says:

Goblet of Fire was my least favorite of the five films for several reasons:

1) Dumbledore is completely untrue to the character built by Rowling. He shouts at Harry, tries to strangle him, and says the most out-of-character line that Dumbledore could ever say: “It’s maddening!” The power and intelligence of Dumbledore was omitted by Gambon—this will take away from his death in the next film. It wasn’t so much a big deal that Dumbledore died until you account for the fact that Dumbledore’s awesomeness was the only thing preventing Voldemort from overthrowing the Ministry of Magic. If you were to tell me the weak, confused, angry, and over-animated Gambon’s Dumbledore scared Voldemort, I’d laugh in your face.

2) No explanation was given for the priori incantatem sequence at the end of the film. Of course fans of the books understand what’s going on, but if you haven’t read the books you may just assume that every time two wizards duel, their spells can meet in the middle and produce such an effect. It’s one thing to not include in the movie parts from the book, it’s quite another to include a movie sequence and completely omit an explanation for said sequence. If you don’t want to explain it, don’t put it in the film. That was my major problem with OotP: the prophecy was barely touched upon. If you haven’t read the book, you have no way of knowing that a) the prophecy is why Voldemort tried to kill Harry in the first place or b) the prophecy is the reason Voldemort is still trying to kill him.

3) Snape being a Death Eater was so lightly touched upon that the drama and suspense of his supposedly traitorous nature in HBP will be difficult, nay impossible for filming this concept effectively. The part will rest entirely on Alan Rickman’s amazing acting.

4) The emotional impact Sirius’ death had on Harry was downplayed by shoving the entirety of Harry and Sirius’ relationship into the fifth film.

In conclusion, most of these issues could have been dealt with in a simple addition of 20 or so minutes to the film. Add the Parting of the Ways chapter to the film and you have foreshadowing for the entire fifth film, a brief foray with Sirius, Snape revealing his Dark Mark and illuminating the viewers even more about his past, and the altogether nature of this sequence would speak volumes about the gravity of the situation. Voldemort’s return was a big deal—in the film it comes off as fan-service.

Avatar Image says:

First let me say, cry me a river Mike, next time make a better movie. Oh boo-hoo Ms Rowling never told me anything that I couldn’t figure out on my own from the previous books and two sequels. Second, I’m glad you cut the subplots out. s.p.e.w? it never resolved itself anyway. so who cares, not me.

I was so looking forward to the world cup, it could of been the greatest quiditch scene ever “filmed”. Instead you and the studio blew it, chop it up, and served us some half baked piece of dung.

Avatar Image says:

Ok, problem solved. Film the books, every joke and reaction, then edit them down to the films like we see now… Put the extra 6 hours on bonus DVDs, and you have a whole bunch of happy fans.

Avatar Image says:

Hate to tell you casey, but S.P.E.W. kinda was resolved. In an interview Jo said that Hermione went on to become an expert on Magical Laws who took a stance on and greatly improved the lives of house elves.

Avatar Image says:

re: what el caz said about the shelf life of HP movies.

“Is it just me, or every time an HP movie comes out people love it and speak wonders of it and a few months down the road, they hate it? I swear I’ve seen this happen here with every Potter movie since CoS.”

I will say that i did actually say to a friend that the movies get better and better. And to some extent thats true. The EFX get better, the story gets told better. However, however all of them have failing points as films and not just as adaptations either.

I got into the series a bit late, POA was the first book I first read before watching the movie version. The mood of the movie and the pace still work for me. OOTP was even better, I would only have wanted more time in the dept of mysteries and the true ending with angry potter vs sorry dumbledore.

and btw where did people get this idea that movies HAVE to be 2.5 hours long or less. why can’t they be double 2 hour features. it worked before. of course you and i know the answer. $$$$$$$$.

Avatar Image says:

it wasn’t resolved in the books. and the small note in “oh btw she goes on to be a lawyer, really doesn’t resolve the plot about house elf slavery.

Avatar Image says:

“However, however all of them have failing points as films and not just as adaptations either.”

Yea, like almost every film in existence. There are very few “perfect” movies, if any. There will always be certain things about every film that someone can pick apart and complain about. The point is, the HP movies are damn good. Not perfect, but very good, some would even say great. They all have their flaws, but all films do. At the end of the day, each Harry Potter film has been a critically acclaimed piece of cinema. All have great reviews overall, and the filmmakers and actors seem to improve with each installment. We should be thankful for how good these movies really are, and not whine and complain because they aren’t exactly like the books or the greatest movies of all time with no apparent flaws.

Avatar Image says:

But if HP fans didn’t whine and complain, we’d have nothing left to do!

Avatar Image says:

i just think it’s interesting that the film directors seem to think they should be privy to the later happenings in her books… why do they seem to sound so upset?? it’s one of the biggest kept secrets!

and as hard as this is for me to do, i have to take the movies completely separate from the books. even still, all but the first movie do terrible jobs of explaining what’s going on at the end! how are non-book fans supposed to get it at all?

Avatar Image says:

Gosh he is awfully rude… I think he’s just a little bitter that GoF recieved the worst feedback of all 5 of the movies.. because honestly, it was awful, he didnt seem know a thing about the characters, and he messed with the plot terribly. I mean, I don’t think anyone has a problem with changes in the plot, if it has a worthy purpose, but he just completely screwed around with it. Thats my opinion anyway

Avatar Image says:

“Is it just me, or every time an HP movie comes out people love it and speak wonders of it and a few months months down the road, they hate it? I swear I’ve seen this happen here with every Potter movie since CoS.”

Actually, not so, El Caz. I hated GoF from the first time I watched it. Granted, it surpassed its predecessors, but I still hated it.

Here’s why you only hear the good things—propaganda for the WB, propaganda for the books, and for all the future films. Also, the people who dislike the films are instantly disregarded, whereas the good reviews are paraded everywhere—this is true of any movie or anything media, really. Only after the movie’s lost its new glitz and glitter do the darker reviews come out.

Now I happened to love OotP, mostly because I got to see my beloved Ron and Hermione is character, but also because it lived and breathed the essence of the book. I don’t think my opinion will change.

But the point is, I’ve noticed that even here at the Leaky Cauldron, esp listening to the PotterCast, it seems taboo to say anything bad about the films—to speak our opinions about them. Now granted, I know we have interviews with the actors and film-makers, and we have a reputations to keep, but isn’t it a fan’s job to help maintain the truth of what they love?

Order of the Phoenix made my dad finally consent to reading the books—no other film had made him do that.

My point is just this: GoF was always bad, no matter how much its earned. I mean, its Potter for Potter’s sake-we’re fans, of course we’ll go see it and buy the movie. I own them all-I rarely watch them. I flip to random scene I like occasionally (like Kenneth Branaugh in CoS), but I rarely watch them all the way through. (SS has gotten the most views, and that’s just cause I listen to Wizard People, Dear Reader over it _).

When Order comes out, I will watch it constantly. Because that one is actually worth all the alleged hype in its beginning.

Avatar Image says:

Also, to say that they’re all “perfectly acclaimed” is to see what you’re meant to see. These movies are not great-they are not masters of much of anything-if they didn’t have the fan following they did I couldn’t expect ANY good reviews.

For a film series to last 7 episodes, of course it has been perfectly acclaimed. Politics, my dear sir, are the rulers here. Not Jo, and not the fans.

They never listen to us; well, not never. We did get Marvolo taken off the gravestone, which just goes to show how much they knew about the books anyway.

I think that was my first sign to give up hope on GoF, seeing that Marvolo on the gravestone. Its silly, but it was a huge indicator that if they missed that, they had no idea what they’re doing with the characters and the world.

But don’t think I believe the actors, directors, and crew are not putting their heart and soul into it; I just know that most are not motivated by the goal of telling HP’s wonderful tale, but by the money involved in such a huge franchise.

Avatar Image says:

GOF has 89% positive from over 200 film critics (Rotten Tomatoes), OOTP has 76% because critics thought it too dark and to certain extent repetitive with unresolved ending. So, Mike has no worry about feedback. I am sure they took account of Fan’s reaction, but that’s only half or one-third of the picture. If general movie-goers are happy with the films, box-office wise, they are less likely to cater for book fan because admittedly, they can’t possibly satisfied book fan, each of us want many different things, whereas directors tend to concentrate on particular theme.

All HP films are good, not great but good. You should see some other craps like Eragon and The Seeker. My sympathy to the fan of those series.

Avatar Image says:

I love HP but ‘North by Northwest’ pulverized GoF.

Avatar Image says:

(I really hate how I have to re-sign into the comment box everytime, no matter how often I click “Remember Name and Email Address…”)

Well, no gonna lie, the numbers are surprising, mostly because all the people I talk to who see the movies and have never read the books really don’t get what’s going on at all, and generally are “meh” or “so-so” overall. I think that that stance must be more positive than outright hate. And what is our definition of positive? I despise the movies, so my review is poor, but I’m sure others are just not that fond of it, and would give it a low rating. But those who sit on the middle would be more inclined to vote positive.

The OotP rating is also taken into context of these are “children’s books” and therefore “children’s movies.” While us readers know that isn’t necessarily the case (woo I spelled it right…), most movie reviewers and film go-ers don’t, despite all the warnings Yates and Co. put out and the higher rating.

And I’d rather a movie be repetitive with a point than incomprehensible, like most Potter films for non-book readers.

I guess it all boils down to the age old question of these types of issues-Do you make the movies to honor the fans and its author’s vision, or to bring in audiences that were turned off by the books? In my opinion, as big as the HP phenomenon has been, you should think of the fans and the author first-its going to be a success no matter what, so pay heed to them and their imput.

And yes, I heard all about Eragon from its fans-and I totally feel for them, and I’m grateful that we didn’t have that mess to deal with here in HP land-and I think we can thank the fact that HP is so popular for that. Which is kind of ironic.

Avatar Image says:

stupid crossouts… I’m just trying to make a dash…

Avatar Image says:

“defending his choices?” “breaking every fan’s heart?”

Mike Newell doesn’t have to defend himself to anyone. He’s made the best film of the series so far – it was the most emotional, the most amusing and the most purely cinematic adaptation we have seen as yet.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluded child with no filmic appreciation or so blinded by the omission of material from the novel that they have closed the mind to the cinematic experience on offer.

Avatar Image says:

GOF is my least favorite movie. As a fan it doesn’t kill me what he left out because I agree with the cuts, what kills me is the characterization, dialog, and acting. This is both Newell’s and Kloves’ fault (well except for the acting on Kloves’ part). If you watch GOF as a film, it’s very shallow. The characters are all over-the-top and superficial. Emma’s acting is really really bad, and that’s partially her fault and it’s partially Newell’s fault since he’s the director and it’s his job she performs how he wants her to, and there’s no way that Mike had her try her lines enough times. Not that she’s very good in OOTP, but she’s at least bearable through most of it with a few cringe-worthy moments. I’m not going to get into the dialog because it’s something I feel strongly about, but with a wealth of source material to choose from why does Kloves decide to throw in gems like: “I’m not an owl!”, “Ruddy pumpkin head”, “I’m scared for you…”, and who can forget “Everything’s going to change isn’t it?” and there’s many many more. I actually don’t mind his script for POA, except for various line stealing there seems to be less cheese, I like his script for SS (but then again he was probably too afraid to stray too far from the book and its characters at this point), and I like his original script for COS (but the movie is too faithful to the plot and there’s no real characterization, all the characters do is push the plot with no wit, humor, or personality thrown in). The humor was good in GOF the first time, but the second time (and any time after) the humor gets old quickly and what you’re left with is a shell of a film with no substance or real feeling, the graveyard should have been more of a horror film, the characters could have had real depth, etc. I agree with the poster above who said that GOF is not re-watchable. SS/PS, POA, and OOTP are the only re-watchable films for me, and OOTP gets better every time I see it. The other two anger me too much for their poor characterization and lost potential (COS is a slave to the plot and GOF is a shell of a film that had the most potential out of any of the books so far to be great and powerful instead of fun and acceptable.

OOTP is the best IMO because except for the horrible “I feel sorry for you line” and “wizard’s bread and butter”, I absolutely love the script. I love how Yates made the characters real, believable, and tangible instead of the fake, over-the-top caricatures that Newell fed us. The pace of the film is also perfect, not too slow or too fast and the plot was tailored to a film format which makes it a good movie. Yates made the relationships real and put in little details. I think the difference was that Yates really loves the books and respects the books and understands what they’re about, while Newell just saw the plot of the book he was making. OOTP just feels more like the books and the characters and that’s the most important thing to me, I don’t care if they cut things (they have to) or change the plot, but don’t change the characters or the whole focus of the series. My 2nd favorite is POA (though characterization does make me angry sometimes), then SS (though it could have been edited, but it’s really the only film that has the real Ron and Hermione in it, well OOTP came close). Whoa long post, sorry!

Avatar Image says:

My favourite Harry Potter movie is ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’ but I really liked ‘Goblet of Fire’ too. I didn’t know people hated it so much until I read this comments page. Wow. Lots of anger.

Avatar Image says:

Of course she didn’t give clues, all the clues were already in the book, moron!

Avatar Image says:

Bollocks! this movie was terrible, just terrible! It had no real story…it was all action and just a bit of story…Ootp was by far so much better. GOF did not move the story along to me at all…can ya tell I dont like the movie…lol

Avatar Image says:

Serge, and others who thinks GoF lacked humour, cud u just give me an example, please! Oh—Give me a break! I mean, it had all the humour it needed! Fred N george’s scene, to Ron’s foolish acts, and this book, was supposed to be scary, not funny, and i think Newell did a pretty good job in making us realize that! And i think that, most of the actors were able to better express themselves in this one, better than ootp! The thing ‘unusual’ was that they seemed more serious. And i think it blended quite well with the movie atmosphere. I dont know why people complain abt Newell like that, but if Yates was given the choice to direct it, i dont think he cud hav brought the realism into it, like Newell did.Nothing felt real as far as i cud see.I’ve got so many unlikely aspects of ootp, but then again,’BOOKS WILL BE BOOKS, AND MOVIEs WILL BE MOVIES.’

Avatar Image says:

“Nothing felt real as far as i cud see.”~ I meant it for OOTP.

Avatar Image says:

im sorry Mike Newell, but any movie that spends over 80% of the camera time taking shots of the main character is a BAD movie, and GOF sure qualifies as one, if for nothing else, for this 1 reason. besides: 1. i have yet to see character developments for Hermione, Ron, Ginny, and Neville. they’re just there to fill in the shots between harry and then harry again. 2. hated how Wicky or whatever her name was never even made it to the movie. how the wand story of Barty taking harrys wand got lost, and how it was never explained how he got out of jail, where he was before, how he got a wand, etc. 3. no Dobby…that killed me. no Hermione/Ron conflict over elf rights, no kitchen visits… 4. no storyline besides the 3 tasks. really, thats pretty bad! 5. Dd’s character was POORLY portrayed. theres alot anyway.

the movie was in one word, a DISASTER! it was an oversimplification of what should have been alot more complicated storyline involving more than one person and certainly no phantom appearances (as was done to R, H, D, G, N,...)

i didnt like OoP either since it lacked flow, and seemed pretty chopped up, and….has Yates heard of such thing as ‘transition effects’? didnt think so…

Avatar Image says:

T_D_O, I couldn’t agree with you more.

And Libatius Borage, I am professional actor, playwright and director. I think I know what I’m talking about. Not to mention that, while we have all stated our opinions, no one else felt the need to call people names like, what was it? “Delusional child?”

Avatar Image says:

I’m just still amazed at how people are just bashing GOF and Newell. I really don’t think Newell deserves the majority of the blame, it’s Steve Kloves who was responsible for the script. Newell did a fine job directing, it’s just Kloves would’ve fared better if he was co-writing the script with another person instead of being left to his own vices. Goldenberg did a MUCH better job adapting OOTP, maybe it’s because he was less picky about what to cut. Goldenberg knew what to cut and what to leave in, and paid homage to specific things (such as Kreacher and Sirius’s mother’s portrait) that was mostly cut out or truncated.

Had someone polished Kloves’s GOF script (all of the cuts made to the book were fine, it’s just that quite a few scenes needed rewriting), GOF would’ve been a better film. As it is, I like GOF as it is… granted it’s not perfect, but it does build upon what was established before it and it’s an enjoyable entity separate from the book.

But when OOTP comes out on DVD, I’ll just watch POA and that film back to back. And then I’ll have a movie marathon and watch all five films in chronological order.

Avatar Image says:

Matthew, I agree completely. Raises pitchfork and cries “DEATH TO KLOVES!”

... AHEM.

No, I do agree, though.

Avatar Image says:

“[She] was happy as a lark,” Newell insisted. “She says the book is the book and the movie is the movie.”

this is enough assurance for me. =)

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.