What do you think should have been included in GoF?

[JWfangirl1992 18]

I think they should have focused more on Siruis to make the audience more tearful for when he dies. Also the end with Rita Skeeter being an Agnimagus (sp)

[SturgisPodmore 0]

The worst thing to leave out was the "Parting of the Ways." It's one of the best scenes if not the best written by Jo, and it sets up the plot of the next book/film.

~Sturgis

[nightscape94 965]

I think they should have focused more on Siruis____________________________- Also the end with Rita Skeeter being an Agnimagus (sp)

I would edit this because of the massive spoiler. Not everyone has read the books.

Tim

[SturgisPodmore 0]

They knew what they were getting into, I say let them suffer!

~Sturgis

[nightscape94 965]

Oh, and I honestly don't think they could have put anything else in the movie that's not already there. There's a difference between what I "think" should be in the film and what I "would have liked" to see.

Tim

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Of all the things that should have been in there, I think focusing on Sirius is one of the least problems. He gets plenty of time in OotP (in the book anyway), and I don't see the use of investing valuable screentime in him in this movie, with all the other stuff that was left out.

They should've dumped Rita Skeeter though (even though Richardson was brilliant in the role).

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

What should have been included? A plot.

Marian - :?

[Composer_Fan 2]

What do you think should have been included in GoF?

John Williams.

I agree, Sirius and Rita, since they'll come back in OOTP. And I think it would've been nice to have Mrs. Weasley in there, even if she didn't have but one speaking part. I missed her...

[Justin 2]

What should have been included? A plot.

Indeed. The script should have focused more on the overall arc of the book instead of individual scenes.

Justin

[JWFAN4LIFE 0]

I totally forgot about Mrs. Weasley! I totally agree with Sturgis, "Parting of the Ways," should have not been left out. I don't like how the movie ended. It did not set you up for the flow of the next movie.

Siruis should have been in the movie more. I think it will be hard to convey the emotion that Harry feels when he dies, becuase they have not set up a foundation for their relationship yet. They could do it in the next movie, but I don't think it will be as effective.

I enjoyed the movie for what it is was worth. However, I do feel if you never read the books, there were moments in the movie where you would be like what is going on? And I felt the puberty issue was too over played in the movie.

[Trumpeteer 302]

I think they should have focused more on Siruis to make the audience more tearful for when he dies. Also the end with Rita Skeeter being an Agnimagus (sp)

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Ban her for life.

Jeff -- most likely not the only member of JWFan.net/com who has not read the books

[Justin 2]

Jeff -- most likely not the only member of JWFan.net/com who has not read the books

And who's fault is that?

Justin -

[Sandor 796]

Who do I think should have been included in GOF? Jar Jar Binks of course.

[King Mark 3,626]

And Ewoks,lots of Ewoks.

K.M.

[Sandor 796]

Am I the only one who thinks there were not enough Ewoks in ROTJ! LOL

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yes.

[Sandor 796]

Yes.

Good you're already sounding like Neil! LOL

[Elmo Lewis 6]

So what else is new?

At least he's not blatantly trying to, like Mirko with Stefancos.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Mirko is to Stefancos as Guiseppe the wall painter was to Michelangelo.

[Composer_Fan 2]

Or as Salieri was to Mozart??

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Who's Mozart?

Didn't Salieri get an Oscar at least?

[nightscape94 965]

Guiseppe the wall painter was to Michelangelo.

Weren't they lovers?

Tim

[SturgisPodmore 0]

That's exactly the point.

~Sturgis

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Only in the sides of your head.

[Trumpeteer 302]

Jeff -- most likely not the only member of JWFan.net/com who has not read the books

And who's fault is that?

Justin -

I'm doing it on purpose. If I read the books, then what's the point of seeing the movie? If I read "POA," I would have known all about Sirius and not be surprised when he comes out from behind the door in the Shrieking Shack. Or what the deal is with Scabbers being such a major character.

Nah. I want some surprise in this series. It certainly helped me with "Fellowship of the Ring." Those who read it probably weren't crying their eyes out when Gandalf said "Fly, you fools!" They knew what would happen in the next film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah, I was glad i read Fellowship after I saw the film.

The books definatly spoiled the other 2 films for me.

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

If I read "POA," I would have known all about Sirius and not be surprised when he comes out from behind the door in the Shrieking Shack. Or what the deal is with Scabbers being such a major character.

If you knew what surprises you've missed by not reading the books.

Nah. I want some surprise in this series.

Then read the books. The films have no surprises.

Marian - sad that some people really miss out on HP.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Yes. I'm not quite sure everyone understands that the books came first; they're the original and complete telling of the story/ies. Why experience the severely watered-down and markedly less fantastic movies first? All I can think as to why someone would do that is that they hate reading.

And information from a book that came out two-and-a-half years ago is not a spoiler.

Ray Barnsbury

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

Actually, my newspaper just spoiled Narnia for me. :mad:

Marian - who does not believe in spoiler expiration.

[JWfangirl1992 18]

Okay Captain Obvious...If you see something titled what should HAVE BEEN included you have to figure out that there will be spoilers.

[fommes 153]

Yes. I'm not quite sure everyone understands that the books came first; they're the original and complete telling of the story/ies. Why experience the severely watered-down and markedly less fantastic movies first? All I can think as to why someone would do that is that they hate reading.

I have read all Potter books (except the last one) after seeing the first three films. Actually, I didn't mind first seeing and then reading Prisoner of Azkaban; if I could start over again and choose, I'd probably do the same thing. I'm very glad I read Goblet of Fire first though. I guess it depends on what I find 'most accomplished', Prisoner of Azkaban as book or as film. I'm not saying that the film is better than the book though, or vice versa for that matter.

Yes. I'm not quite sure everyone understands that the books came first; they're the original and complete telling of the story/ies.

So you would read every book first before seeing the film? Thackeray's Barry Lyndon for instance? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Then what do you think about novelisations? Joe, if I remember correctly, for instance, read Revenge of the Sith before seeing it. Novelisations are versions of the original and complete telling of the story, from a certain point of view, as they are based on screenplays.

[Justin 2]

Who's Mozart?

I'm not certain but I hear from a reliable source that he can suck it.

Justin

[Composer_Fan 2]

LOL

I loved that banner...

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

So you would read every book first before seeing the film?

No, just ones I care about. Like Potter. And if people kept telling me how much I was missing by not reading the books, I'd take a hint.

Then what do you think about novelisations?

I have no interest in or opinion on them. Especially the Star Wars prequels.

Ray Barnsbury

[Saxbabe 28]

Percy, Percy, Percy! Percy Weasley, that is.

Throughout the book, that link to him was important to give clues about what was *really* up with the Crouch family. And he was such a mangy git, which would've been pretty funny in the movie.

I think that's about it though.

Greta

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

Yeah, but at least, the word "git" finally showed up in one of the movies.

Marian -

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

indeed.

[JWfangirl1992 18]

They should have shown Percy because how are they going to lead up to the fight between The Weasleys and Percy unless we dont see Percy anymore.

[AI 0]

Why experience the severely watered-down and markedly less fantastic movies first?  All I can think as to why someone would do that is that they hate reading.

The books themselves are a severely watered-down and markedly less fantastic reality than the true reality which you exist in. Your statement is irrelevant.

In addition, they are not literature, they are fluff. People who love reading, don't read Potter.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Yes.  I'm not quite sure everyone understands that the books came first; they're the original and complete telling of the story/ies.  Why experience the severely watered-down and markedly less fantastic movies first?  All I can think as to why someone would do that is that they hate reading.  

And information from a book that came out two-and-a-half years ago is not a spoiler.

Ray Barnsbury

Ray, stand up straight and put your logic cap on! One shouldn't have to read the books in order to understand and enjoy the films. I saw PS/SS in 2001 before even touching any of the books. At the time, I didn't hate reading.

Does this mean I have to read every book that a film is based on before I see the movie?

[JWFAN4LIFE 0]

First of all, when you see a title like "What do you think should have been inclued in GOF?" That should be your clue that their are going to be spoliers. Because how could you comment on what was not in it, if you did not read the books?

As for reading the books, I suggest everyone to do it. Look at it this way. You will learn more about the series, experience some great things, and follow the characters much closer than a two to three hour movie can get you.

For me it is good to see something I read come alive on the screen. You have to take the movies for what they are and the books for what they are.

[JWfangirl1992 18]

First of all, when you see a title like "What do you think should have been inclued in GOF?"  That should be your clue that their are going to be spoliers.  Because how could you comment on what was not in it, if you did not read the books?  

As for reading the books, I suggest everyone to do it.  Look at it this way.  You will learn more about the series, experience some great things, and follow the characters much closer than a two to three hour movie can get you.  

For me it is good to see something I read come alive on the screen.  You have to take the movies for what they are and the books for what they are.

Thank you someone gets it!

I am not calling you guys old, but Harry Potter is written for KIDS! It was never made for a 30 year old man to read! You are taking it to seriously.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Hahaha, I think that it's you who's taking it a bit too seriously.

They should have shown Percy because how are they going to lead up to the fight between The Weasleys and Percy unless we dont see Percy anymore.

Not if the new screenplay-writer for OotP rightfully disposes of that sub-plot. It's great to read, but doesn't advance the plot at all. If they include it at all (even a short scene) it would be a mistake. My main gripe with CoS was trying to include as much as possible, despite it having little to do with the plot (overly-long Mandrake scene, Cornish Pixies, Borgin and Burke's, Gilderoy's first appearence etc.)

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Ray, stand up straight and put your logic cap on! One shouldn't have to read the books in order to understand and enjoy the films.  

Where did you get this idea? I didn't say anything like that.

I saw PS/SS in 2001 before even touching any of the books. At the time, I didn't hate reading.

I was referring to someone whe would continually refuse to read the books. If you love the movies, why not check out the source material?

Does this mean I have to read every book that a film is based on before I see the movie?

Yes. Yes, it does.

I was talking about Potter only. Simma down!

Ray Barnsbury

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I was talking about Potter only.  Simma down!

Funny how Potter's always the exception in this continuing debate.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Well, since it's one of the few (or only) series that consists of both books and movies that I read and watch, I can't very well comment on anything else, can I? You just love to instigate.

Ray Barnsbury

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Well, since it's one of the few (or only) series that consists of both books and movies that I read and watch, I can't very well comment on anything else, can I?  You just love to instigate.

Ray Barnsbury

They're also both works in progress. One thing that concerns me is that future movies will contradict earlier movies because the author was too vague and secretive to the filmmakers.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I've wondered about that too. It seems like they'd have to know as much as she does in order to connect the series as intricately as the books are, and make the most meaning out of everything. Another (inherent?) downside of only experiencing the films.

Ray Barnsbury

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

Funny how Potter's always the exception in this continuing debate.

That's because, as has been explained before, the books are complex puzzles which you try to solve while reading. The movies are very simplified versions of this puzzles, with a guide on putting them together to boot. Enjoyable though they are (and I consider POA a great film), they completely lack the best thing about the books. And that's not even an argument for why the books are better (there would be much more to list for that), but why they should be read first.

Marian - who will stop now and leave those who don't believe it to their fate.

[JWfangirl1992 18]

To make the movies more alike to the books they should have a director who is already firmiliar with the books. Not one who has just skimed through the book when they hear they got the directors job. The directors need that inside Point of Veiw to see what should be included.