DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Dumbledore's Army Refugees
HTML https://darefugees.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Goblet of Fire (film)
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114--------------------------------------------------
Two films are better than one?
By: kamikaze ginny Date: August 26, 2011, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There were rumblings that GoF was originally supposed to be two
films before Mike Newell decided one would suffice.
#Post#: 140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: will Date: August 26, 2011, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said no, but it wasn't great as it was. I watched it and
thought it was entertaining, but I think they should have just
redone that one.
#Post#: 146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: Hermes_The_Exile Date: August 26, 2011, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy it for what it is, but yeah, not sure two films would've
made it any better. It had a lot of fat that needed trimming,
namely S.P.E.W.
#Post#: 401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: mrcase Date: August 27, 2011, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That and they already had 8 movies. The actors were getting
kind of old for their roles, and then it's hard to imagine none
of them were burning out. So, it's just hard to imagine them
having done things to drag it out even more. I'm glad they
split Deathly Hallows, but I'm also glad they didn't split a
bunch of the other ones. It would've been too much.
#Post#: 610--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: YouBetcha Date: August 27, 2011, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said no, but I also don't think it was great as it was. I
believe it just needed a different director (maybe Yates?).
#Post#: 714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: ShrunkenHead Date: August 27, 2011, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I voted no, but like the others, I don't think it was great as
is (actually, I don't think any of the Potter films are great,
they're all merely good).
The problems with the fourth film are more character related
than they are to what was cut.
#Post#: 8503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: Fawkes Date: September 22, 2011, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I voted no, but only because I feel they could've fit all they
needed to within 2 hours 30 minutes easily. They just went a
different route with this film that I don't feel worked as well.
#Post#: 8506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: magic_is_might Date: September 22, 2011, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm on the fence, but I put yes.
No, because if done right, and with the right amount of stuff
cut, the movie could've been made into 2.5 hours and done pretty
well (which it wasn't).
And yes, because GoF is tied with OotP as my favorite book. A
lot of the "fat" stuff I would've liked to see on screen.
#Post#: 8559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two films are better than one?
By: RaithGyaron Date: September 22, 2011, 8:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said "no" because I didn't like the idea of splitting the
books. Deathly Hallows I could understant because it had to tie
all the loose ends. [sub]I havn't seen it yet so I don't know
what those ends were.[/sub]
*****************************************************