Okay, I just watched Harry Potter: The Goblet of Fire.
--SPOILERS--
Like I have said about a great many films by now:
wonderful visuals, but...
I am afraid I just found it unrealistic. While I have no trouble believing in dragons and transformation spells, several things just rubbed me the wrong way. The main one is the big contest itself. Apparently we are to believe that the leaders of a great school, supposedly responsible and good people, will host a contest, a glorified sports event, where teenage students are in imminent mortal danger, and do in fact die?
Not only that, but they will kidnap innocent kids at fourteen, who have NOT signed up for it, and bind them with chains deep under a lake, only to survive if the "champions" are skillful and lucky enough? (Two of them actually only survived because Harry was willing to give his own life if needed.)
And not only that, but after a student finally dies, not one student, not one parent, stands up and says: "enough, you have maliciously or recklessly killed this boy. This is not the kind of school I signed up for, we are leaving. Expect our last cheque to bounce."
Not only that, the school board knows that Harry did not sign himself up for the contest, and yet they force him to go through with it, even though he is not ready or old enough by a long stretch, and is highly likely to die.
I say pooh. Either the filmmakers botched it up bad and left out some sorely needed explanations, or Rowling wrote a pretty bad book there.
30 comments:
"...Either the filmmakers botched it up bad and left out some sorely needed explanations, or Rowling wrote a pretty bad book there."
I can assure you that it is, in fact, a great book, but, as with the previous Potter films, the books are hard to adapt for a movie, which has a practical length limit.
It could even perhaps be called a miracle that you understood the film at all without previous knowledge of the story. (I hardly did, having read the book.)
So the contest was discontinued... *after* this story takes place then? I thought Harry Potter stories happened in the present?
The Binding Contract is very dubious. For one thing, why would the high and mighty wizards use magic they can't control, especially for something so trivial as a sports contest? For another thing, in the film they discuss if they should *let* Potter go through with it, and agree to do so "to keep an eye on the situation" (of the outside influence).
They agree to let him proceed under the alleged protection of the guy with the eye, but it is still pure luck Harry is not killed several times.
And even if all the danger had not been real, it is still sheer cruelty to let the kids believe it is, that contest is cruel no matter how you look at it.
"And even if all the danger had not been real, it is still sheer cruelty to let the kids believe it is, that contest is cruel no matter how you look at it.
These kids are supposed to be the creme-de-la-creme of the magic world. I think that testing them in a way which is anything less than believed to be life threatening would be a great disservice to them. These kids will most likely be the ones that eventually end up running the schools and teaching the next generation. If they should cumble into a sobbing pile the minute something truely life-threatening happens to them or those in their charge then they are of no use to the the magic communty and will most likely be its downfall.
"These kids are supposed to be the creme-de-la-creme of the magic world."
In that case I think they're being treated with remarkable little respect.
In any case, there are many ways of testing somebody to the limit without putting their lives in danger.
Even if we say it is not cruel, it is just stupid to needlessly risk the lives of your best and finest.
Hey guys,
I'm with annonymous on this one.
It's only a story, not someone's thesis.
When reading or watching fiction, one is supposed to suspend belief and enjoy the moment.
I can't believe we're having this disscussion. It reminds me of the uproar that ran rampant through various theoligcal sects when the first Harry Potter Book came out.
I've read all the books seen all the movies, enjoyed them all and gave them not another thought.
"I've read all the books seen all the movies, enjoyed them all and gave them not another thought."
I wish I could do that. I take *everything* seriously.
And I did predict somebody would tell me what you did. :)
If you really want to enjoy a Harry Potter book...don't see the movie...don't read the book...Listen to it...The audio tapes are incredable...(not a word or sentence is left out) The narrator (I wish I could remember his name) is one of the most compelling readers I have ever heard...
Try it...you'll like it
Thanks. I might well. I like audio books for resting my eyes, and when I walk.
For what it's worth, Dumbledore is relieved of his Headmastership in the next volume, "Order of the Phoenix." Although I don't remember that the climax of the Triwizard Tournament is one of the reasons cited as why, there is clearly a majority of opinion that Dumbledore is not taking due care of his charges' safety; a majority that includes many folks not under Voldemort's thumb.
Sorry Wonko...
Jim Dale is the Harry Potter audio book reader...I looked up Stephen Fry and he has an interesting web site...I'll read more about him.
Jim Dale though, is truly a genius with his voice...I understand that his list of characters for one book is an all time high for one reader...
Uncle Ron
Stephen Fry is actually the reader for the audio books, at least here in the UK. (He is a great british actor and comedia.)
My guess is they wanted an American actor for the American edition.
Actually I am not American, I am Danish, living currently in the UK, and I used to come in the same cafe (The Elephant House) where Rowling wrote the first Potter.
Also, Pixar for instance make wonder stories that work well for both children and adults.
lol. I have a tremendous amount of respect for ya man, but this whole discussion is rather goofy. It's just good storytelling. If their lives weren't in danger, who'd want to watch it?
I will agree though that Goblet of Fire is the worst adaptation of a Harry Potter book yet. They should have made it at least 30 minutes longer to reconcile it more with the book. As it is, you almost have to read it to make sense of it.
That's what I mean, I don't think it is good storytelling.
If the author wants danger of death, bring in some of those *actual* threats the wizards must doubtlessly face sometime.
Or at the very least explain why the shool board endangers the students without good reason. And why nobody seems to think this is wrong.
Same reason no one has a problem with high school football. Dude, you're looking for something that isn't there. The HP books weren't written for the sake of social commentary, except for some stuff about bigotry. JK Rowling has said so herself. Personally, I'm against the idea that all art has to mean something. Sometimes you just have to turn the volume up and dance to the music.
"Same reason no one has a problem with high school football."
... Maybe they would if there were dragons involved.
I am not looking for something which isn't there... the story could have been fixed easily by simply giving a good reason why those lives had to be put in danger. Even as dumb as Dumbledwarf having been drugged or blackmailed or whatever and was forced to do it. Or an attack on the school from the outside, and the teachers being incapacitated so the students *had* to join a battle. Whatever.
I am not saying it is *wrong*, just that it does not make sense.
Well, I imagine 6th year magic students of their caliber are expected to be able to handle a dragon or else they wouldn't be fighting one.
...Okay, at this point I'm starting to feel like a dork for even having this conversation. Does this not seem extremely silly to you?
Could be worse. We could be discussing football. :)
Lol, good point. Next time we should discuss what happens to Superman's regular clothes when he changes in the phone booth.
Funny enough, he never did that in the source, the comic book.
Just like Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, dear Watson" in any of the novels.
Films and TV usually dumb things down. More's the pity they really don't have to.
In fact, the Triwizard contest was discontinued for centuries, until somebody had the brilliant idea of reinstating it. Otherwise, Harry Potter might have been short of a gratuitous mortal peril during one of his study years, and we couldn't have that! People are so absent-minded... they have to be reminded constantly that this is the Boy who Lived.
As for the binding of a magical contract, it's likely to be similar to another binding, the Unbreakable Vow spell mentioned in book 6. "What happens if you break it? -You die." The wizarding world is no garden of roses. Look at the soul-sucking cops they hire! (Even worse than the LAPD.)
A true wizard wouldn't suspend his disbelief, people : he'd hang it on a tree branch before slapping its horse.
"Maybe they would have a problem with high school football if there were dragons involved."
I think you raise an interesting point here. Although technically, if you rode dragons, football would turn into polo... Reminds me of that soccer match in Disney's Bedknobs & Broomsticks. Now, THAT's what I call sport! Jolly good fun, what?
"eolake said...
Could be worse. We could be discussing football. :) "
You mean real American football? Or that silly game that Europeans call football just because it's played by kicking a ball with your foot? Um, wait a minute, that didn't come out quite right. I mean, oh never mind!
Good points wonko, but it's worth noticing that Erick's comment was tongue-in-cheek.
About the Goblet of Fire public... perhaps they're just excessively believing in the principles of Corneille? "Peril and glory".
Ergo, the most insanely suicidal show would be the most enjoyable, yay!
Good point.
That was another thing: They kept saying that the winner of the contest would win "eternal glory!!" The boys practically wet their pants thinking about this.
"Eternal glory"??? It's a SPORTS CONTEST, people, not saving the universe!
Last word. When all is said and done evryone missed the BIG picture. These books were actually written for children who were fascinated by them.
Remember Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn were also children's books, classics today. I'd bet that if you asked an adult today what are the two most well known works of Mark Twain those two would top the list. Why? Because they hold the reader in thrall.
ANYONE who can get the huge number of kids away from the "boob toob" that J.K.Rowling's books have, and actually read is in my mind a very good writer.
Perhaps not a classicist in todays terms but then who of us can see into the future.
Good point.
I love argumenting for the sake of it, so I'm going to go against Anonymous on at least two points.
First, I'm 35, I read all the Harry Potter books, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I read lots of genres (Van Vogt and Guy des Cars aren't very childish, for instance), but with a minimum amount of "suspension of disbelierf", my inner child had no qualms about these books. They're not forbidden to the over-aged! (Unlike the Teletubbies...)
Second, I agree Rowling's books have brought back a whole generation into rediscovering the pleasure of reading (what's a chat-room discussion or a blog, anyway?)... But then, why did they have to spoil everything and make them books into blasted movies? Some Catch-22!
I'm not having MY books made into movies, no, siree! Um... unless they pay me well, of course. ;-)
But I'm personnally supervising the video games. They'd better be decent.
I meant decently done, of course. Good games. They'd better not try to cut off the nudity!
I've read all the books and thoroughly enjoyed them - they are all a good book should be: entertaining, believable, consistent, touching, thought-provoking, and so on.
I only saw the first movie and was extremely disappointed - I cannot imagine that anyone who hasn't read the book could get a grasp on what was going on. I think it's because there's just too much going on in the book and too much detail gets lost when condensing it into a movie - just like a jpeg with far too much compression doesn't look good anymore, no matter how good the original was.
I suspect that the Goblet of Fire movie has the same problem because if you had read the book, which is a lot thicker than the first one, you wouldn't have these questions.
Similar problem with the Lord of the Rings where the first 27 pages happen within the first three minutes, but there the makers could compensate by moving the emphasis to the special effects and fighting scenes because in the end it's really an adventure with lots of bonus detail thrown in. The substance of the Harry Potter books is the story and the details matter while the fighting scenes are just bonuses. That just doesn't work for a movie although one might well make a 30-part TV-series out of it.
Forget the movie and read the books, they are great. I guess the audio books are probably a good choice, too, if they don't leave anything out.
Post a Comment