Here stash ya reckin you can get that movie on your pc and seed it?



So then i can DL it :P

irish fan Escribi�:

on movie topic i met one of your favourite writers on monday whirly and stash

neil gaiman.

8O



Man, that's awesome!



stash is going to be so jealous!

I'm going to make a reservation for my tickets for next wednesday. No way i'm gonna wait in line !!! Moeha!!

he was singning in a comic shop next to my college so i got him to sign good omens and neverwhere and some comics.

That's really friggen cool, irish fan!



It's even cooler that you were allowed to bring in more than one item to sign. Usually at those things (at least here) the stores limit to only one or two things for people to sign. Or the stores make tou buy a new release of something and you can only have that signed.

it was in a really small store the size so they didn't mind. he was talking to people about his new film mirrormask. nice chap

irish fan Escribi�:

it was in a really small store the size so they didn't mind. he was talking to people about his new film mirrormask. nice chap

That's awesome... Neil is my favorite scientologist.



and the more I think about the movie, the more I dislike it.





after everyone's seen it, I'll bitch about it.

Well, like I said it was enjoyable but not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban. It's a good way to kill a week night if you've got nothing else going on.



If someone goes into the Goblet of Fire film having not read the books, I have a feeling they might have a hard time trying to get the hang of everything going on. Not enough emphasis on crucial parts of teh story, too much lingering on lesser points. Plus there's too much that moves way too fast. For those who are going to see it, you'll know what I mean.



To be honest the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with stash though his dislike of the movie seems to be a lot more severe than mine. I'll let him do the bitching. X-D

ok, i admit it, im now hooked on potter, finished the first 2 and went out and bought the next 2 as well :-//



they're so cool! a really enjoyable read, proper bomb-it-along-as-fast-as-u can stuff so u can find out what happens! love it :D



still dont think their as good as the phillip pullman 'his dark material' trilogies though - yet ;)

stash has been reading His Dark Materials, he loves it! I need to pick them up and give a read myself.



There's nothing to be ashamed by reading Harry Potter, mippio. As they say one should never judge a book by its cover!

oh im not ashamed, i just cant believe ive been missing out this long!! :)



the ending of the amber spyglass (the last of the pullman trilogy), is totally awesome - i had a lump in my throat for the last half hour of that book! beautifull :D

I seen the movie yesterday, i thought it was alrite, but they missed alot of the 'tension building' in my opinion. THey got the parts they thought moved the audience most and just did them.



Also there was a Movie inermission... :-|

First time id ever see anything like that, but it was kinda good, it give us all a chance to speak our thoughts on it so far.



I was kind of disappointed with the opening i was really looking forward to seeing the Match between Ireland and Belgium.. but they skipped that..



i'd give it about 2or3/5

I totally agree, Foxboy! The first part of the film was so rushed. I was really looking foward seeing how that part of the book was going to translate onto film. It only slightly brushed over the magic and wondrement of the wizarding world at the championship outside of the Hogwarts setting. And when the dark mark appeared, it's destruction on the joy of the event and the magical world didn't have the sort of impact as it had on the book. In my opinion the first part of the book was crucial to the overall tone the story would take on.



Did you also think the movie interpretation of Dumbledore losing his cool was way off mark?



I read a somewhat brief interview with Newell the director - he wanted to focus more on the dialogue than on special effects and whatnot. He was even so bold as to criticize the other movies for their lack of human drama. What sets the world of Harry Potter apart is the magical world in which it takes place, and how that coincides with all this coming of age that the Goblet of Fire book really plays up on. Newell's cinematic vision sort of defeats the purpose of the magic that's obviously a massive part of the story.



That's interesting about the intermission in the film, I guess it's a good thing considering a lot of younger kids are going to see the movie and 2 and a half hours is a long stretch of time to go without releasing the tension in one's bladder.

I'm not gonna read in this topic anymore until after i saw it :P I dont wanna go there with everybody's opinions in my head hehe :o

whirlygirl Escribi�:

Did you also think the movie interpretation of Dumbledore losing his cool was way off mark?

Completely.. I mean, when i was watchin it, compared to the books and previous films, it seemed as if he was alot more energetic and not himself, as if he was some sort of Rebel Know it all. In the books hes a 'man of few words' and very observing in my opinion. In the movie however he was a Kick ass Runnin riot, which wasnt the impression that was suppose to be giving.



This clearly demonstrates that, the Book is always better than the movie :D



One of the scenes i enjoyed though was the Voldermort Respawn scene.. i liked that alot. It was kind of what i had imagined when i was reading the book.



Its been so long since i read that book, i read it back when i was 13, so i cant remember the little details that built the tension, but i knew it was missing definately. The important sections wernt exactly prolonged if you know what i mean, but yeh thats probably cause of the length of the movie. Basically a mess :?

The best book-to-movie adaptations are the ones that recast the book in a different setting, different form, etc.



The best example of this is Trainspotting, which has to be the standard to beat of all adaptaions. Far less pessimistic and far more energetic than the novel, Boyle's Trainspotting adaptation really does stand on its own. (Although the book is unbelievably good as well; I'd sooner choose b/w my own children than choose b/w book and movie).



Even Jurassic Park is a good example of an adaptation. It remains one of the few decent summer blockbusters of the past 15 years, but is very, very different from the darker, more introspective novel Crichton wrote.



American Psycho is another good example of a book that would have been very difficult to directly port onto the screen.

Newell used the same crew and FX team from 1 and 2 for 4, so I put the blame on his "WTF is he directing this for?" head.



I smell a lot of behind the scenes bit of buddy-buddy between Newell, Radcliffe (Producer and Potter's Daddy), Columbus, and Warner Brothers.



The upside is that I think book's 5 and 6 will make much better films than they do books. I can't wait for book 7.

Darkstar, I agree with your point about book-to-film adaptations with switching the settings and whatnot. Hell, even the movie Scrooged based off of A Christmas Carol worked because of its dark and cynical humor and modern setting. Yet swtiching the time period or the setting doesn't always work (see Great Expectations, that travesty with Gweneth Paltrow, or the god awful remake of Romeo + Juliet...) but I think it boils down to the director's cinematic vision and a good team of writers who can adapt a novel to a film screenplay.



As far as film adaptations go, again it's down to how a director chooses to adapt a story to film, how well he can pull it off. One that springs to mind instantly is the movie Blade Runner (my favorite film of all time) based on the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. In my opinion a better film than the book which is rare (again, my opinion!) The setting was futuristic like the book, but there were things in the book that wouldn't have worked in the film or would've been too lengthy or dry or disruptive to the film's story flow to get into - so I think Ridley Scott did an awesome job with everything from casting, story adaptation, special effects - the ultimate sci fi movie in my opinion.



Another good adaptation I think is Lord Of The Rings. I know it pissed off the hardcore fans that the love story was played up or this and that were tweaked to fit onto the big screen. I think a big part of why the films worked so well is because it's obvious they were a labor of love on everyone's part from cast to crew. But overall I think the movies were very very well done, a real cinematic feat that couldn't have been easy to pull off given how sacred Tolkien's works are to the die hard Rings books fans.

Consumer Escribi�:

Newell used the same crew and FX team from 1 and 2 for 4, so I put the blame on his "WTF is he directing this for?" head.



I smell a lot of behind the scenes bit of buddy-buddy between Newell, Radcliffe (Producer and Potter's Daddy), Columbus, and Warner Brothers.



The upside is that I think book's 5 and 6 will make much better films than they do books. I can't wait for book 7.

Yeah, I think 5 and 6 are going to make better movies than Goblet of Fire which does cover too much ground imo to have been only one film. I can't wait to see what they do with Order of the Phoenix which is my favorite book so far. As long as they don't get Newell to do that one... I'd like to see warner bros get Cuaron (Prisoner of Azkaban) back to direct that Order of the Phoenix but I doubt it will happen.



Hell yeah, I can't wait til book 7! When I got done reading the last installment, I was so bummed because I'd have to wait til 2007 before I could read the next one.



The nice thing about the Harry Potter books is that they are such an easy read, you can pick them up and re-read them again just to go back and catch little details you might have either missed or hastily skimmed over before. It's interesting the intricate framework of clues that pop up without you realizing them or even giving them much thought until the next book comes along.

In an atrocious sort of way, I actually like Lurhman's Romeo & Juliet.... it really is bad, but I like it..... a fair bit, mind.... :-//



The acting is terrible, the directing and cinematography over the top, some of the shifts in scenes b/w Shakespeare and modern day ridiculous..... yet..... still....... *dies of embarrassment, R&J tape and Kylie CD clutched to his chest*