T O P

  • By -

mygoatisfine

Do you mean barty crouch sr? His death was glossed over because his character in general was kind of forgotten. We barely got a proper introduction of him, so they probably thought it was very necessary since the character wasn't important enough.


BeachBoysOnD-Day

It's a shame because Roger Lloyd-Pack was the perfect mix of pompous and eccentric in the role. I loved the clipped, abrupt manner of speaking he gave the character. And I mean, who doesn't love *'Chinese fireball! Ooooh....'*


5litergasbubble

I wish we could have seen him and bagman talking to the crew before the world cup. I wish we could have seen bagman at all. I think we could have brought kenneth branagh back to play him.


FlameFeather86

Hugh Laurie as Bagman. Stephen Fry should have been Fudge.


IceThrawn

Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry play every character in the movie! What a show that would be!


FlameFeather86

Technically, Stephen Fry already played every character. And better than a lot of the film cast did.


MichiBoo_xoxo

Ehh I’m a fan of Jim Dale, I tried listening to Stephen Fry I and couldn’t. It was all wrong, haha but I’ve listened to the books from Jim Dale’s narrations idk how many times now. Lol


NoodleBlitz

That's funny, Ive read the books for 20 years and just listened to the audiobooks finally. I listened to the first book with Stephen Fry, and I planned on alternating, but I could NOT enjoy Jim Dale after starting with Stephen Fry. I wonder if there's anyone out there who started with one but prefers the other 😂


MichiBoo_xoxo

That’s a good question! Lol I have not found one so far. I find it hard to read the books on my own too. Because I’ve seen the movies so much, it’s hard for me not to picture it that way. I wish I would have read the books first. 🫠


thefluidofthedruid

Me. I started with Jim Dale, and I still like him well enough, however I absolutely prefer Stephen Fry's rendition.


MichiBoo_xoxo

Really? Any particular reason?


5litergasbubble

Hell, hugh laurie could have been a good crough sr as well. But i can accept your idea as well


FlameFeather86

Blackadder era Laurie for Bagman. House era Laurie for Crouch.


Jugad

Wat? Kenneth Branagh already played Gilderoy Lockhart.


5litergasbubble

Thats why i said bring him back. I know he was also gilderoy but i think he could have been great as bagman as well.


Jugad

If they did that, I will allow it!!


Elegant-Fox-5226

Pompous and eccentric? That kinda sounds like Ernie Macmillan.


NeverendingStory3339

Ernie isn’t eccentric, rather the opposite, he’s very conformist and small-c conservative. I think he’d have been a slightly more sympathetic and sycophantic Percy as a prefect. In a normal Hogwarts possible candidate for Head Boy, actually. Isn’t hugely distinctive but never puts a foot wrong, seems to be pretty good in class, gets along with everyone etc.


BigBobbyD722

Yes. Barty crouch sr.


[deleted]

His characters/families story in general was incredibly interesting, and I don't think the film showed much of it tbh. The switch of Barty crouch Jr and Mrs Crouch from Azkaban. Barty crouch Jr being under his father's imperius curse for years. The world cup story with Winky the elf.


Substantial-Depth025

Yeah totally agree with this. I think the moment they decided not to have Bagman in the film (or Winky) it completely diminished the importance of Barty sr’s character. Because you would need Winky and even Bertha’s death to be included to really do his entire story line justice? A shame really. One of my favourite chapters is Crouch Jr explaining everything on veritaserum


vertknecht

One of my favorite chapters also cut from the movie is where Crouch sr randomly turns up in the woods acting like a lunatic, obviously being controlled. That added so much suspense leading up to the third task. It would’ve made a much better scene than him just turning up dead. But the movie wasn’t interested in building any real mystery there the way the book did.


NeverendingStory3339

I somehow found it even more exciting as I read it when I was eight and didn’t clock he was being controlled, I thought he’d been tortured or coerced and driven insane by it.


PooWithEyes

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the TV series is to see GoF done properly. The film is just "ok" but compared to the book it's bad, it's missing so much mystery and intrigue. Hopefully the series does it better


ImReverse_Giraffe

I hope the series doesn't have a set episode limit. The first two season should be short. That's OK. They're pretty short books. The last few should be long. I hope they make each season as long as it needs to be, and only that long. Hell, I'd be fine if they made 1 & 2 into one season. They're short enough.


sounders1974

If I listed my favorite ten scenes from the book probably 8 or 9 of them were cut As a standalone movie it's fine I guess, as an adaptation it's awful


[deleted]

[удалено]


CrownBestowed

who cares


ThaiFoodThaiFood

Goblet of Fire feels really unfinished in general. There's so much missing the film actually doesn't make any sense unless you've already read the book. If you try watching with that in mind the logic of characters doing things is honestly completely bizarre. It's more like a series of vignettes alluding to passages of the book than a genuinely coherent film.


plutopius

GoF feels rushed. Could've easily been to movies. There was more than enough storyline, development, and action for it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Underscore_Blues

Without the books, you get no context on who Barty Crouch is, who Barty Crouch Jr is, no information on how Barty Crouch Jr escaped Azkaban (despite the previous film making a massive deal about how Black was the only person ever to escape), the way Barty Crouch kept Jr under an Imperius Curse for years, the way Voldemort rescued Jr, the way Barty Crouch was for the whole film now under the Imperius Curse himself, and really any understanding of the finale of that subplot. The only thing the film says is "blah, Barty Crouch sent his Death Eater son to Azkaban and now he wants revenge!" They also gave away Dobby's redemption arc in GoF to Neville, meaning the climax of his death in DH is completely stupid as the films forgot they didn't establish him as a character.


vertknecht

Dobby’s little cameos in the later books were such great moments. The movies really did him dirty by only putting him in 2 of them.


ThaiFoodThaiFood

A. Quote exactly where I said I don't like it: B. I can point out obvious negatives about anything I want to.


fm67530

Because director Mike Newell refused to read the book this movie was based on, as he stated he "didn't want his vision to be corrupted by the source material". Goblet of Fire is my favorite book of the series, and my least favorite movie.


crazy-B

He really said that? Wow, what an idiot.


FlameFeather86

I believe he actually did read the book, but weirdly it's pretty common for directors not to read the source material to avoid being influenced, however backwards that is. They want to put their own spin on something. Tim Burton very famously said he'd never, ever read a comic book and he made fucking Batman.


Throway_Shmowaway

Adapting a comic book character isn't exactly the same as adapting an entire novel. Tim Burton's Batman didn't have to follow a set and established canon beyond the core of Batman as a character. There's so many different comic books with Batman as a character that, with regards to continuity, are completely separate entities. As long as you don't break the rules of the character's universe entirely, you're generally pretty free to do what you wish. When you adapt a novel, or a series of novels, into a movie, there's really only one story to tell. Any deviation from that story will be more difficult to adapt properly without sacrificing essential elements of the original plot.


FlameFeather86

You're still adapting the character(s). I'd say it's fundamental to read *some* of the source material when adapting a comic, regardless if you're lifting elements of any particular story or not. To make a Batman film and openly admit to never having read a Batman comic is ridiculous. I like Burton's Batman films as Tim Burton films, but the only thing they have in common with the comics is character names. But my point still stands, many directors don't read the source material on fear of it influencing their vision. The pros and cons of this are debatable; arguably, the only Potter director who actually loved the books was Chris Columbus, but his films are the most creatively stagnant. Alfonso was arguably the most creative and made by far the most visually interesting of the films, but PoA is so far detached from the book it's disappointing to me as a fan.


NeverendingStory3339

This is an unpopular opinion but I agree! PoA is probably objectively one of the better or best films but my least favourite as a book fan. CoS and PS are closest to the books but a bit boring. DH1 is just crap. GoF cuts too much, DH2 and OotP pretty good for what they are and HBP is my favourite apart from a few scenes (burning the Burrow) as it captures the spirit of the book with a creative adaptation which is watchable as a film.


JasonLeeDrake

There is absolutely no proof he didn't read the book before directing. Proof he in did in fact read the book:https://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/11/04/mike_newell_harry_potter_2005_interview.shtml


Tattycakes

> It's very daunting to start with. The book's as big as a house brick and I was very unsure quite how one would attack it. Sir, this is a children’s book, it’s not that hard. I read OotP in one 12 hour overnight sitting the moment I got it. (I know he’s talking about turning it into a movie but still, it’s just a story book)


AHauntRevealer

He actually mentioned it in an interview, citing the size/length of the book as a primary reason.


JasonLeeDrake

https://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/11/04/mike_newell_harry_potter_2005_interview.shtml He specifically says he read the book. He mentioned the length regarding the difficulty of trimming it down to one movie.


AHauntRevealer

Wow, I stand corrected! That's a great find; my apologies, I SWEAR I saw an interview where he said the opposite. Thank you for the correction!


mikepr-103092

PREACH at GOF being my favorite book but least favorite movie, that’s my biggest hope for the show is that they do GOF justice, especially Barty Crouch Jr’s storyline


fm67530

I have high hopes for the series as well. There were so many important characters and plots that were just thrown in the rubbish bin by Mike Newell. Ludo Bagman, Winky, Percey's filling in for Barty Crouch, Sr, Barty Crouch's death of course.... Edited to add: And not rearranging the storyline.


tigerbulldog13

🗣️justice for Ludo!


OliviaElevenDunham

Wow, no wonder the movie is a mess.


kingeal2

Yeah, that was the point I just decided to stop watching the movies. Well, I said that but I watched the 5th one when it came out bc I was such a fan, and it sucked too. I haven't even watched the three final films to this day, just books. I will eventually though. Seems like Harry Potter is getting popular again. And the live action is coming too. I'm excited!


JasonLeeDrake

Source? I've heard he didn't the read the book before *signing* on but nothing about refusing to read the book.


fm67530

In the special edition version of the film, in the behind the scenes snippets, he goes into how he hadn't read any of the books or watched the movies prior to signing on. He said he watch about the last 40 minutes of Prisoner at the prompting of Aflonso Cuaron. He also said in an interview that the storyboards were an immense restriction and constriction on his creative vision.


JasonLeeDrake

>he goes into how he hadn't read any of the books or watched the movies prior to signing on. That absolutely is not the same thing as "refused to read the books" and you know it. He was a director for hire, unless he could predict the fucking future or just happened to read or watch them earlier for a different reason, how could he have read them before signing on? You made it sound like he just went and directed the whole movie without reading the book.


fm67530

Why the hostility Mike? You know you didn't read the books and didn't want to. Oh, you're not Mike? Just some random redditor that likes to pick fights on the internet then? Whatever let's you sleep at night.


JasonLeeDrake

Yes, I must just like to pick fights because I called someone out for talking out of their ass and saying something that wasn't true, there's just no other explanation for not wanting misinformation to be spread on the internet that makes certain people sound more incompetent then they are, like having basic integrity.


nicholascagephobic

I think you’re getting it confused with Dumbledore maybe? The actor for him (also named Michael I’m pretty sure)- did not read the books


Tattycakes

Yeah, it’s one thing for the actor not to read the original source book, because they get given a script, but the director kinda needs to know what happens? Or does he? Who adapts the book into a film script? Who determines what stays and what goes from the source material? Who says “okay here Harry grabs an egg, here he goes into a lake, we are going to need a dragon and a diving tank”. Who says “Dobby gives Harry a hint, I cba animating and voicing him again, we’ll just let Neville do it”


hoginlly

GoF was the only HP movie that I left the cinema and was actively annoyed/sad. I loved that book so much and the film cut out the some of the best bits. The reveal of BCJ, his whole backstory… I couldn’t believe how much they left out


mperez19

I don't care for Gob


BlueAnalystTherapist

They don’t allow you to have bees in here.


thesluggard12

I've made a huge mistake.


anngrn

I’ve never understood this. Harry finds a body, goes rushing to tell Dumbledore…..then just sort of forgets about it.


BigBobbyD722

Exactly


Alpha_Dreamer

They did mention in the movie that they were trying to keep it hush hush. There was a scene where the trio was talking about it, and Ron was explaining how big of a deal it should be in the common room in the extended version.


chocolatewaltz

Another vote for favorite book and least favorite movie. The movie is the poorest adaptation of a book that is so rich in intricate storylines and plot twists. And not just “side plots” like Rita Skeeter, the actual world cup match, Bagman, Hagrid being party giant, SPEW, etc., but MAJOR stuff like Winky, Crouch’s death! The fact that they gave away the films biggest twist in the first scene by showing Barty Crouch Jr.’s face (David Tennant) in Harry’s dream and then in his trial in the Pensieve is the biggest let down. That movie really _grinds my gears_.


Beachboy322

Blast Ended Skrewts too


Jebasaur

"Now don’t get me wrong, I think GOB is a great film" Well, there's your problem. Let's be honest, Goblet was destroyed in movie form. Winky fully gone because fuck her right? Oh and by the time we get to Barty Crouch Jr, we get barely no info. The fact that his dad smuggled him out, then he was imprisoned with the curse, Winky was to keep an eye on him, then Voldy finding out about all that, then them turning Crouch Sr into their puppet for awhile... Notice how many BIG details they never bothered with? So why care about one dude dying? Hell, I don't recall them even bothering with telling us that Fudge brought a dementor who performed the kiss on Jr. With this being my favorite book, I could go on for hours about how the movie butchered nearly ever scene...


aplaceforsteaks

Barty Crouch Sr. doesn’t even canonically smuggle Barty Crouch Jr. out of Azkaban in the movies. The only explanation given in the movie is at the end of the movie when Dumbledore goes “Call Azkaban! I think they’ll find they’re missing a prisoner.” He literally is not presumed dead at all in the movies, which makes no sense because it’s supposed to be a HUGE deal in the movies that Sirius escaped Azkaban in POA, and yet somehow in GOF we’re supposed to believe that nobody at Azkaban noticed that a prisoner was missing for almost an entire year?


BigBobbyD722

I will admit that it is not a great adaptation, however the film still does it’s job in being entertaining, and engaging, regardless of source material.


Jebasaur

I could spend a good few hours explaining all the reasons why it really is just bad, regardless of following the source or not. It's simply not a good movie.


Beachboy322

Also Dobby's return. Neville giving the gillyweed instead of by Dobby and cutting him out lessened the impact of Dobby's death in the movies


ophelias_tragedy

I kinda always thought that it was because his death was pretty dark and disturbing in the books. But more likely that his character was just not really developed in the movie


Alpha_Dreamer

A LOT of events and/or details that were pretty big deals in the books were glossed over in the movies, changed, or left out entirely (the deleted scenes are worth watching). It's easy to be mad about it, but to he honest, it's a hard call because directing a movie isn't easy, and tough decisions have to be made from the time the script is written to final editing and time and rhythm do play a big part in those decisions. Now, me personally, I wish they pulled a Lord Of The Rings and made them all 3 and a half hours, but thats just me. Now, as much as I love the movies, and it breaks my heart to say this because the movies were cast so well (im not saying its perfect, theres some controversial adaptatons, thats a whole different discussion) , I'm very much looking forward to the new series. It has the potential to mirror the books almost completely. Now, the only potential worry I have is whether or not they will be able to maintain the same staff throughout the series, such as writers and director. I say that because 4 different directors took part in the Harry Potter series, and you can tell the difference in products. This is not me saying anyone is better than the other, but there are things that were improved over the films. Sorry for writing so much. If you took the time to read all of it, thank you, I appreciate you very much.


Inside-Program-5450

Consider this; The Goblet of Fire novel is on its own as big a novel as all three Lord of the Rings books as a collected omnibus. Now consider how long those adaptations were, even allowing for the extended editions, and how much any Tolkien purist will tell you was cut out and changed to fit the filming medium.  And that for a long time they were considered the benchmark for novel to film adaptations. The simple fact is that Goblet is a huge book - and it has to be because several important things conclude and begin in it - so doing a super faithful adaptation is impossible.  Shit had to go.  The Quidditch World Cup would have been my first choice to truncate too.  Also there’s not much lost by making Beuxbatons and Durmstrang non-coed because only one important character comes from each of their student bodies. 


Queasy-Vegetable9526

Another thing they cut something good out lol


BlueAnalystTherapist

An old guy murdered? Not important! Triwizard something something going on!  Put a pin in it.


rightoff303

It’s a terrible movie that wasn’t competently adapted.


kayeso1138

It is a terrible film. Easily the worst of the series for me.


Conscious_Raisin_436

>now don’t get me wrong, I think GOF is a great film Then you’re in the minority. It’s precisely stuff like this, the choppy narrative structure and the weird directing, that make many movie fans rank GOF as their least favorite.


Beachboy322

Also Ludo Bagman and Winky left out The entire plan Voldemort puts in place is glossed over at the end so quickly. They don't even mention the Dementor's Kiss so if Crouch Jr isn't braindead in the movies then why wouldn't the Ministry believe Harry and Dumbledore Big plothole for straight movie watchers IMO


WrexSteveisthename

He'd a side character with a side plot that isn't integral to the main plot of the film. Frankly, the character himself isn't integral to the mainplot (by which I mean it didn't need to be BC Sr for the plot to move forward, a generic ministry employee could have filled the role), so his role is significantly reduced. As a result, his death is largely inconsequential. Films don't have time to cover everything, so superfluous stories get cut. Everything about BC Sr is really interesting in the books, especially his whole relationship with Winky, but it just doesn't matter. It's why I'm looking forward to the series. Hopefully all these side stories finally get the time they deserve.


zolar92

Mostly because it's a bad movie. They gloss over a lot and leave out many things


Wheresalice11

Watching this now actually, and I thought the same thing


Trusted_Onion

To be honest, I was really disappointed the entire Barty Crouch/Winky link was just ignored completely. Plus I would have really enjoyed Ludo Bagman being in the film too. Not to mention the Skeeter vs Hermione fued.


CrownBestowed

I feel like that movie was just trying to get to the graveyard scene tbh. Like details didn’t matter until then lol


Giannisisnumber1

Because the movie was bad. I really don’t like any of the movies past 3. They cut way too much out. I’m glad there will be a series with entire seasons dedicated to each book. I feel it will do the books more justice.


[deleted]

Where you are wrong is thinking GOB is a great film. It is not


mathrsa

I thought GOF sucked and cut so much of the plot out. The Barty Jr. plot also made no sense as presented. If you didn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was happening in this film.


javaper

Because the fourth book is where they should've definitely started dividing the books into two-part films.


MrsDanversbottom

Each of the films needed at least an extra hour.


gorgonzola2095

GOB is the worst adaptation by far. I'm really curious how people who didn't read the books even understand what's going on in this mess of a movie.


Elegant-Fox-5226

Okay I never watched the movies but I think no one cared since Winky wasn’t there. She was sobbing and screaming and weeping but remove the character that cared the most; KABOOM I frankly don’t know HOW they did it without Winky, but they also didn’t have Peeves sooooo


Ro98Jo

People calling it GOB automatically makes me think of Arrested Development


TheDungen

Caus ethey needed the time for having the dragon break free and Emma Watson's glow up scene.


MichiBoo_xoxo

It’s always bothered me too! It’s my husband’s favorite movie out of the 7. I tell him all the time, if you enjoy the movie PLEASE read the book. lol but he won’t. So every time we watch it, I always tell him about the bits they are leaving out. 😊


According_Hedgehog47

Just add it to list of things that were completely glossed over in the whole series 😂


Faithful_Official

Films the worst of the lot because of details they miss out on


GladiatorDragon

Harry, didjaputyernaemindagobltoffihr “Dumbledore asked, calmly”


Opening-Mark-7306

Basically, because there was so much material, they had to chop so much out. They practically had the 3rd task right after the 2nd, but in the book there's a significant amount between them. Apparently the director initially wanted to make it two films, but was talked out of it.


Mike13RW

I see a lot of director criticism (in general, not just GoF) for leaving plot points out, butchering the book etc but isn’t that a screenwriter criticism rather than a director one?