GoF Maze: book vs. movie

View previous topic View next topic Go down

GoF Maze: book vs. movie

Post  Elanor on Sat May 28, 2011 2:58 am

GoF Maze: book vs. movie

This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. Elanor

freshwater - May 4, 2006 9:34 pm
Edited by Kip Carter Jul 2, 2006 12:45 pm
Watching the GoF movie I was disappointed that the magical traps and animals were eliminated in favor of moving bushes, but, hey, I enjoyed the rest of the movie. I wasn't until I was watching the info on the 2nd disc of the 2-DVD set that I began to seriously compare the book maze and the movie maze, and to wonder if JKR's characterization of or purpose for the maze was perhaps substantially different from Mike Newall's.

Movie Maze:

--On the DVD Mike Newell said that the maze had "a malevolent personality".

--movie DD said "people change in the maze"

--maze hedges were 25 feet tall, were almost a cognizant force of their own, and moved, closing off retreat, changing the path available and so limiting the choices of the champions as to where they would go.

--with moving walls, grasping roots and high winds, it was the journey through the maze that became the challenge, not facing a variety of magical tasks.

--the champions in the maze gradually succumbed to the weakness or flaw in their characters: Fleur was hindered by her own fears, Krum was imperioed which is indicative of the controlling role of Karkarov in his life, Cedric --except for Harry's intervention-- would have over-reacted and hexed Krum which may show an over-abundance of competative spirit or a lack of self-control on ethical matters. Even Harry nearly left Cedric to be taken by the hedge in his desire to win the cup and be recognized for his own accomplishments.

Book Maze:

--I don't recall the height of the maze, but, due to the magical challenges within it, the maze was not of gargantuan proportions: it fit within the Quidditch pitch.

--the hedges did not move, and the champions' direction and progress was dependent upon their own individual choices and their own magical skill.

--the magical challenges within the maze tested different abilities: the sphinx's riddles required both creative and logical thinking, the upside-down-world bit required one to deal with a totally unexpected situation and to trust their instincts despite what they experienced with their senses, etc.

--the journey itself is not dangerous, but the challenges that are met along the way are the hazards or roadblocks.

I'm sure other folks will have many other insights that have not occurred to me, and I look forward to seeing them posted. What kinds of life experiences or tests compare to JKR's book version of the maze? And to Newell's movie version? I'm thinking they are pretty different.

Normally a thread that discusses the movies is moved into one of the existing threads in the Movies section; however I granted an exception to this thread being it compares the book and the movie, not just about the movie. It will remain a thread as long as it does not develop into just a movie thread. - Kip Carter 5 May 2006

avatar
Elanor
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 45
Location : France

Back to top Go down

GoF Maze: book vs. movie (Post 1 to 41)

Post  Elanor on Sat May 28, 2011 2:59 am

Finn BV - Apr 29, 2006 7:32 pm (#1 of 41)
Me kayaking, Niagara River, August 2006. I have been likened to Reepicheep in this photo.
Edited by Kip Carter May 4, 2006 10:37 pm
I missed the creatures, but I think the movie version had something to it. It was unique and was its own, which I am always glad to see in a movie based on a book, even if it is Harry -- and that's that it brings something new. While I would have loved to see the Sphinx, I understood that there just wasn't time or room for it. The one thing about the maze that bugged me, though, was DD saying "people change in the maze," like he knew what was going to happen. It was eery...

I removed the first paragraph of this post. - Kip Carter

- - - - - - - - - -
Liz Mann - Apr 30, 2006 5:22 pm (#2 of 41)

Join us for the Philosopher's Stone Watch-A-Long
I think the film makers just wanted something more cinematic. In the book Harry got through most of that maze unhindered because Moody was clearing his path. Apart from the mist and the sphinx nothing got in his way. The scene was exciting on paper but wouldn't really have been on screen.

As it was, the film-makers' idea for the maze was a good one. Mazes can be scary in themselves when you're all alone in a gigantic one, and being scared and panicy like that can make bring out your personality flaws magic or no. At least when you go in a tourist attraction maze there are plenty of other people in there and there are sign posts that you can lift a flap on to tell you the correct direction if you want.

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Apr 30, 2006 5:54 pm (#3 of 41)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
It sort of reminded me of the maze in the movie adaptation of The Shining (the one with Jack Nicholson -- horrible adaptation of a great Stephen King book, in my opinion; the TV-movie with Steven Weber was much better.) Anyway, I really wondered if the GoF movie folks were thinking of the maze from The Shining at all because they were similar in that both the mazes seemed to have a life of their own. It does make for good movie "scaries," I guess, especially if you have any claustrophobic tendencies. Very creepy to be in there all alone with the walls closing in on you or trying to grab you. Also, the filmmakers can convey the sense of fear and danger without taking half the time necessary to have to explain the sphinx or the fog or the skrewts or whatever.

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - May 5, 2006 6:36 am (#4 of 41)

I think all the extra CGI for the sphinx, the mist, the boggart, the skrewt and the spider was too much on top of the big, tall maze, so they just made it move.

I was glad the game on the DVD at least covered it!

- - - - - - - - - -
Magic Words - May 5, 2006 8:50 am (#5 of 41)

I also missed the sphinx, but I can't deny that all that mist and darkness creeped me out. That and the fact that I knew what was coming, so the suspense just kept building the longer they all crept around with nothing happening. I was unsure what Dumbledore had meant in the first place, but freshwater, that makes sense about the champions succumbing to their flaws.

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - May 5, 2006 9:48 am (#6 of 41)

Seeing Fleur being taken over by the maze really creeped me out. How'd they get her out of there?

I was a little angry at Harry for waiting so long to save Cedric. Those roots & vines were a little scary.

- - - - - - - - - -
Magic Words - May 5, 2006 12:50 pm (#7 of 41)

I thought that was a good touch, actually. "For a second I though you were going to let it get me." "For a second, so did I." "Some game, huh?" That concept wasn't so clear in the book maze, because the book had much more focus on external conflict as opposed to internal.

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - May 5, 2006 12:58 pm (#8 of 41)

Magic - yes, once he saved Cedric, the dialogue was great.

I'm currently re-reading GOF so I don't get too contaminated!

I just finished the First Task, so I have a ways to go before the Maze.

- - - - - - - - - -
Mattew Bates - May 5, 2006 2:51 pm (#9 of 41)

“Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” Kahlil Gibran
One thing that struck me about the movie is that Movie Harry didn't seem to have to study loads of advanced curses, hexes, and jinxes in preparation for the unknown challenges of the maze. In my eyes, this leaves Movie Harry much less prepared to lead the D.A. in OotP than Book Harry; he has no compelling reason to be more advanced than the rest of his year.

- - - - - - - - - -
Choices - May 5, 2006 7:10 pm (#10 of 41)

*Completely Obsessed With Harry Potter*
I thought Harry's hesitation before he saved Cedric from the vines/roots was great. Sometimes it takes a moment to decide to do the right thing (helping Cedric) rather than the easy thing (ignoring Cedric and going for the cup)....although the easy choice would have saved Cedric's life.

- - - - - - - - - -
virginiaelizabeth - May 8, 2006 6:03 pm (#11 of 41)

SPCA : Society for the Promotion of Cat Attire!
I personally didn't like the maze in the movie, it just wasn't right, but I won't go into that here because I feel they messed that whole movie up completely, but I don't want to get off topic. The maze in the book was overall more intresting, with the Sphinx, and the blast-ended Skrewts(which also failed to appear at all) an the wierd mist. All the movie maze did was try to swallow the champions. I feel like they could have done so much more with that whole movie(a.k.a. dragon scene shortened) and then they could have included the mist, or the sphinx.

Mattew- I totally agree, he pretty much did no preparing for the tasks, what exactly did they waste 2 1/2 hours on??

- - - - - - - - - -
Jewel - May 8, 2006 8:43 pm (#12 of 41)

I liked the book maze way better than the movie maze, as I'm sure alot of people here did. But you do have to realize that the movie makers are trying to squeeze a 700+ page book into a little over two hours of film. There would be no way to have each and every line from the books played out on screen, it would probably take three or four years each just to film. Not to mention editing, CGI, and whatever else they do to put a movie out. Then when it finally got to theatres, the movie would probably be like nine hours long. Now, I'm not trying to say it wouldn't be worth the time to see it, I would as would others here. But to the part of the general public who want the movies and haven't read the books, it just wouldn't be practical.

I think they have done a good job with the movies so far, not as good as JKR has done with the books, but no one should expect the movies to be as good as the books. JKR put her Harry Potter's world onto paper, the best director in the world could never do it complete justice on the big screen!

- - - - - - - - - -
Soul Mate for Sirius - May 19, 2006 8:58 am (#13 of 41)

Counting the days until 6/20/09....
Matthew, I totally agree with you about Movie Harry not being as prepared or as qualified for the DA as Book Harry. It will be interesting to see how they justify Harry knowing the spells and curses he does in the fifth movie. It could potentially make the Book DA and the Movie DA very different things.

-Jenn

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - May 19, 2006 11:20 am (#14 of 41)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
I agree also, Mathew, -- excellent observation. To me, one of the main focuses of the books has been that Harry has got to prepare -- he simply has to study and focus in order to be ready for Voldemort. (Learning "expecto patronum" in PoA; learning the proper magic for the tasks in GoF; Quidditch practice; learning in the DA; his occlumency lessons; tutoring from Dumbledore in HBP; etc.) Movie Harry just hasn't done much of that studying so far, except for the "expecto patronum" I guess. The time he was in the library looking for a solution to the second task wasn't so much studying as it was pure desperation-searching. Hope they cover more of the studying in upcoming movies. I suppose studying isn't exactly "compelling viewing" so maybe that's why they have chosen to focus on more action-oriented things (like, say, the flying car sequence )

- - - - - - - - - -
The giant squid - May 22, 2006 2:52 am (#15 of 41)

Still, they could always do a "searching through the stacks" montage. Every movie needs a montage...

- - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - May 22, 2006 12:31 pm (#16 of 41)

I think the differences in the film and book mazes are indicative of the differences between the film and book as a whole. The film wanted to emphasize the big visual scenes, so the maze had to become an even bigger visual "feast," with primarily visual confrontations -- not characters having to actually think and figure things out. Similarly, although throughout the book Harry is watching, listening to various conversations, trying to figure out where and who the threats are, what various other characters are up to, these aspects are faaaaar downplayed in the film and in fact generally left out in favor of big visually exciting scenes. In the end, I personally felt the book was all "event" oriented with little real "meaning" left in. Exceptions were there, of course (such as the graveyard scene), but that's my general feeling about the film. I've now seen it far more times than I can count (my kids are addicted to HP films), and I still feel that way.

I also agree with Matthew's thought that the film maze does not require Harry to really learn anything prior to the competition, and so leaves him woefully inadequate to face the challenges of OOTP. The film as a whole leaves out much of the development needed to open OOTP -- for instance, that Fudge refuses to accept LV's return. So it's hardly surprising that film makers would not worry about Harry not obtaining the magical skills that he did in the book.

- - - - - - - - - -
Pamzter - May 26, 2006 8:28 pm (#17 of 41)

Ah, but that's the magic of the movies. Just throw in a line by Harry, something to the effect of "Boy, I've studied magic loads this summer," and it's all taken care of. Bonus points if they add a montage, as mentioned earlier.

PS: I liked what the movie chose to focus on (the house elves are too "JarJar Binks" for me) and I liked the new and the condensed scenes (don't shoot me, but some of them were cleverer than JK's version), but maybe that's because I hate to see plain old straight renderings and love to see other people's takes on things.

- - - - - - - - - -
frogface - May 28, 2006 4:10 am (#18 of 41)

I think in some ways the movie maze was better. I found it more scary because rather than being solid, physical obsticles, it seemed to be more about facing your fear and keeping your head. It was more mysterious and a good foreshadowing of the darkness of things to come.

- - - - - - - - - -
Torill - May 28, 2006 6:25 am (#19 of 41)

"The good thing is that God gave us admiration so we don't spoil our liver, and I changed envy to admiration" - Alfonso Cuarón
What bothered me most about the maze was what also bothered me with the other tasks in the movie - the way it was all made out to be actually potentially life-threatening to the contestants. I am all for letting film makers do what they have to do to make the story work visually - telling a story with words is vastly different from telling it with images, so you can't be literal in your adaptation, that would make a lousy film.

But what they have done here with the threewizard tournament is in effect paint a picture of Hogwarts, Dumbledore and the faculty of teachers as callous and deeply morally flawed in their indifference towards the lives of the young student contestants.

In the book, Jo makes it repeatedly clear that the tasks are not really too dangerous if you are old enough for them. Challenging, yes, definitely, but meant to be managable provided you have reached a certain level of magic. Steps are taken to ensure that no one's life will really be put at risk. In the first task, the dragon is tethered all the time; and Charlie Weasly and his collegues are close at hand, ready to stun the the beast should the situation turn bad. In the film on the other hand, the dragon breaks loose and chases Harry all over Hogwarts without any of the Hogwarts faculty doing anything more than clasp their hand over their mouth and gasp. I really couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this in the theatre.

Yes, visually stunning - but would Dumbledore really be prepared to let Harry be killed by the dragon, as he clearly is willing to let happen in the film? Never. The Dumbledore of film four is horrible, very far from the wise and benevolent mentor we know from the books...

In the second task of the book, we discover that the merepeople really aren't as threatening as they may seem, and of course their "prisoners" wouldn't have drowned when the time was up - Dumbledore never subjected them to any real danger. This last point is never made clear in the film, we are left to suspect that they really would have drowned if Harry hadn't gotten them up in time. This is not only shocking when it comes to the kind of headmaster the film makes DD out to be, it also paints Cedric and Krum as very morally flawed; since they are willing to risk the lives of the others in order to win the contest. The mermaid Harry is confronted with seems like she would have attacked him for real - definitely not something you should send 17 year olds down under the water to meet for no other purpose than a game of sport, a mere entertainment..

And in the third task, DD is willing to send his students into a truly malevolent maze where their personalities may be corrupted and where their magical abilities do not really seem to count - it seems to be all about running fast enough and reach the cup by pure chance, if you haven't been eaten by the bushes or lost your marbles first, that is. (I also think it was not made clear enough that it was the false Moody who had imperied Krum, but this point is sort of off topic here). This made any kind of studying before the third task pointless, true - as the use of their wands seemed to make little difference in there. It really annoyed me how this made it seem as if Harry indeed was at even footing with the others, not actually too young, which is a major point in the book.

Again, it is visually stunning - and yes, creepier than in the book - but this is exactly why it is so wrong. In the book, the tournament is still a sports event, exiting and thrilling. In the film, the whole thing is changed to a sort of gladiator fight, where the exitement is about whether they will all survive or not; and the twins are depicted as cruel enough to offer bets on that, not just on who will win, like the book twins could perfectly well have done. As I said, what kind of place is Hogwarts made to look like here?

But the most damaging effect of "spiking up" the tournament like this, is in my opinion that it makes the confrontation with Voldemort seem like just the fourth task of the tournament. In the film, Harry has already been up against mortal danger: singlehandedly slayed a dragon, narrowly escaped drowning and hostile merepeole, and finally outwitted an evil maze. Of course he can handle Voldie too, what's the big deal? The fact that the film never explains the wand effect adds to this: it looks like 14 year old Harry is strong enough to counter Voldemort with his own Expelliarmus spell.

To sum it up: sigh.

- - - - - - - - - -
Choices - May 28, 2006 12:53 pm (#20 of 41)

*Completely Obsessed With Harry Potter*
Torill - "In the film, Harry has already been up against mortal danger: singlehandedly slayed a dragon...."

Nit-Pick Alert - Harry didn't slay the dragon, he merely stole a fake egg placed among the real dragon eggs.

Torill - "The fact that the film never explains the wand effect adds to this: it looks like 14 year old Harry is strong enough to counter Voldemort with his own Expelliarmus spell."

I think if people go to see the movie and haven't read the book, they probably don't care (and wouldn't understand) what happened with the wands. Those of us who have read the book, understand completely what happened and are able to fill in the blanks as to other things that were left out of the film. I say if the film-goer is curious about the wand thing, let them get the book and read it. LOL

- - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - May 28, 2006 5:39 pm (#21 of 41)

Torill,

I completely agree with your criticisms of the movie maze and the tournament in general.

Yes, it's true that people who haven't read the books and just see the movie will read the book if they're interested enough. But ever since films started to interpret books, the very best films (from books) were the ones that did the best at putting what was in the book into the film, not reinterpreting it into some new idea. (Last of the Mohicans is a big exception.) So, sure, you can see the movie without reading the book and have a good time. But it would have been even better if the film had been more true to the book.

- - - - - - - - - -
Torill - May 30, 2006 4:49 am (#22 of 41)

"The good thing is that God gave us admiration so we don't spoil our liver, and I changed envy to admiration" - Alfonso Cuarón
You know wynnleaf, it is ok for me if they change details from the book, move scenes around, cut scenes, add scenes to perhaps illustrate something by one scene that the book uses a lot of different situations to show. What I don't like is when these changes alters the essentials of the book, and basically makes a totally different story..

One good example is how Draco sends Harry that paper bird in class in PoA, with a drawing of him being struck by lightning in the upcoming Quidditch match. This never happened in the book of course. But what does happen is Draco constantly bullying and taunting Harry. They can't spend screen time on repetitious scenes of this kind, though, that would become boring very quickly, and they have so many other things to cover. But this one added scene sums up the book relationship between Harry and Draco perfectly. The drawing also makes a good transistion to the actual thunderstorm Quidditch match. So this scene is just a good visual way of showing an essential element in the book, which is what the films must alawys find. The actual written scenes may not always function as well visualy - books and films are totally different media.

The way the tournament was depicted in film four on the other hand, ALTERS the essentials in the book in major ways - what kind of school Hogwarts is for instance, risking student's lives like that; it portrays the fourth year student Harry as a far more powerful wizard than he actually is, paints DD as a callous monster etc. Then it doesn't matter how visually stunning it is. And I definitely think the film should work on its own, you shouldn't have to consult with the book to get it right... I mean - it doesn't excuse the film to say the book is better.. ;-)

Oh, and to the nitpicking Choices: the film does show Harry slaying the dragon after having stolen its egg: by outsmarting it and flying better than it does, Harry manages to have the dragon smash into the bridge and die....

- - - - - - - - - -
Choices - May 30, 2006 11:56 am (#23 of 41)

*Completely Obsessed With Harry Potter*
Sorry, I have watched GOF more than 20 times and I never thought, or heard anyone say, the dragon died. At the end of the credits it specifically says no dragons were harmed in the filming of GOF. LOL

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - May 30, 2006 12:43 pm (#24 of 41)

So there's a loose dragon flying around Scotland then??

Quick, Charlie! Get it before Hagrid does!

- - - - - - - - - -
timrew - May 30, 2006 4:20 pm (#25 of 41)

Middle-aged Harry Potter fan
I think Buckbeak will get it first..........

- - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - May 30, 2006 9:06 pm (#26 of 41)

Choices,

It's nice to see someone else has seen that movie so many times. Honestly, I've no idea how many times I've seen it! The first week different assortments of my kids watched it practically back-to-back constantly. Whew! And they still see it at least once a week. We're sort of crazy over here.

Torill, I guess maybe it sounded like I want the films to be exactly like the books. What I really want is more like what you described. Like you, I certainly don't mind changes that still convey the right meaning, even if the chain of events or the events themselves are slightly different.

- - - - - - - - - -
Torill - May 31, 2006 4:50 am (#27 of 41)

"The good thing is that God gave us admiration so we don't spoil our liver, and I changed envy to admiration" - Alfonso Cuarón
Ok wynnleaf, nice that we agree!

Haha - go Buckbeak, get that dragon!!! But Choices - Ron calls Harry a dragon slayer in the outdoor scene where they talk about getting dates, doesn't he?

:runs out of the thread to check the DVD:

(Yes, of course I have the DVD even though I was so terribly disappointed in the film - must have my HP collection complete, you know!)

- - - - - - - - - -
Torill - May 31, 2006 5:06 am (#28 of 41)

"The good thing is that God gave us admiration so we don't spoil our liver, and I changed envy to admiration" - Alfonso Cuarón
:Runs back into the thread:

Found it! Here is what Ron says to Harry in that scene (copied from the English subtitles):

Blimey, Harry, you've slayed dragons, if you can't get a date, who can?

So we are invited to believe Harry did indeed get the dragon killed by having it smash into that bridge or what it was. Phew, that's a relief - no live dragons roaming the grounds of Hogwarts!

- - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jun 1, 2006 8:03 pm (#29 of 41)

Bullheaded empiricist
I think that part of the reason the maze seen had to be greatly changed from the book was that the main plot line had been greatly changed from the book.

In the book the main plot was about a death eater on the loose. Who cast the Dark Mark at the World Cup? What happened to Bertha Jorgins? Who killed the muggle in Little Hangleton? Why does Harry's scar hurt? All of those questions were the main plot. The tournament was a sub-plot.

In the movie there was no time to explore all of the book's important plot lines. There was no time to delve into the flaws of Barty Crouch, Sr, much less bring up the red herring character of Ludo Bagman. So the tournament becomes a sub-plot masquerading as the main plot. This means you have to change the significance of the maze in how it relates to character development.

In the book the maze scene has Harry thinking Bagman has been helping him for money reasons and then Presto! Bagman wasn't helping him it was a Death Eater setting up Harry's death scene. Big evil surprise. You need the same sense of building in the movie to make the surprise work, so you have to change the impact of the maze scene.

A writing prof once told our class that movies have plot lines like novellas. There just isn't enough time for all of the developments on the side plots. So, when you turn a book into a movie you have to hack away the sub-plots to make the movie flow right.

To sum up. To fight the movie into less than 10 hours you had to change the main plot line. To make the maze scene work in the new plot line it had to be given a different significance to the lead character.

- - - - - - - - - -
Torill - Jun 2, 2006 4:56 am (#30 of 41)

"The good thing is that God gave us admiration so we don't spoil our liver, and I changed envy to admiration" - Alfonso Cuarón
I don't disagree with you there, TomProffitt - they had to cut sublplots, and that would mean that they had to change what they kept in as wel, to make the story work. This was after all supposed to be a film in the theatre, not a 12 episode tv-series.

But there are still good and bad ways to do this. This film changed the whole tournament, and the maze with it, in a way that changed some of the core sentiments and themes in the book, not just the storyline. In short, changed the "spirit" of the book dramatically. This is what makes me conclude that film four wasn't a very good adaptation.

I don't mind adaptation as such though. Book-as-script attitude will never make a good film...

- - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jun 2, 2006 6:55 am (#31 of 41)

Bullheaded empiricist
I understand what you mean when you say that the spirit of the book was changed for the movie, Torill.

I don't really disagree with your assessment that it wasn't a very good adaptation, either. I simply accepted from the beginning that a good adaptation was not possible (for any of the movies) given the constraints imposed by the format.

I guess the bottom line for me as it pertains to this thread is that the way the movie presented the Maze scene it was an inevitable alteration given the earlier editing decisions that they made. I would not have changed the main plot emphasis as they did, so I would not have needed to change the maze as much either. Two thumbs down.

- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jun 2, 2006 7:13 am (#32 of 41)

Librarian
Welcome back, Tom. Haven't seen you for quite a while.

- - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jun 2, 2006 7:15 am (#33 of 41)

Bullheaded empiricist
Steve, I got extremely angry with a moderator a while back so I don't feel like coming back very much anymore.

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Jun 2, 2006 7:41 am (#34 of 41)

Whatever the reason, glad to have you, Tom!!!

I still think it was just money. Moving hedges were easier to CGI than golden mist, a sphinx and a giant spider.

- - - - - - - - - -
deletedaccount - Jul 2, 2006 10:15 am (#35 of 41)

I hated the maze in the movie. The movie was an insult to the book. Voldemort was very poorly done. In the book he was scary. In the movie I was actually laughing. I had no idea who was playing Voldemort in the movie because I hadn't looked it up prior, but during the movie I was thinking 'that guy reminds me of the guy from Maid in Manhattan' and I logged onto the internet and looked it up and sure enough it was he.

The part about Neville yelling at the top of his lungs that he killed Harry Potter made me cringe. I wanted to slug him. That was nothing like Neville's character from the book.

The Dumbledore in the movie was a raving lunatic and seemed more scary to me than Voldemort. Dumbledore in the book is my favorite character and very calm, kind, and wise. Book Dumbledore would've never attacked Harry or anyone else.

The movie felt rushed. I hated the movie, but loved the book.

- - - - - - - - - -
sere35 - Jul 5, 2006 12:20 pm (#36 of 41)

The Dumbledore in the fourth movie was my favourite Dumbledore of all the movies and is how I imagine him in the book. He is all calm and laid back and then something happens to set him off, and then he becomes a intense, and tough, the version of him that was the only one Voldermort ever feared.

- - - - - - - - - -
deletedaccount - Jul 5, 2006 12:44 pm (#37 of 41)

Dumbledore has never been portrayed that way in the books. He is always calm, even in battle.

- - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Jul 5, 2006 1:22 pm (#38 of 41)

*Completely Obsessed With Harry Potter*
I agree, Mazuzas - The Dumbledore of GOF (movie) was definitely nothing like the Dumbledore I have grown to know and love from reading the books - a very pale imitation.

- - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Jul 5, 2006 3:50 pm (#39 of 41)

Is there anything more to be said about the maze?

If not, we should take this over to the GOF thread.

(Not that we haven't hashed these issues to death over there!)

- - - - - - - - - -
sere35 - Jul 5, 2006 6:42 pm (#40 of 41)

He is described like I said. He is described at radiating hatred, fierceness, anger, and a tangible power that you could almost feel.

I just got done rereading all of the books paying close attention to the characters of Dumbledore and Snape and he is described like that. He has very brief flashes of strong emotions.

- - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jul 29, 2006 5:31 pm (#41 of 41)

The movie maze was better for a movie. The book maze was better for a book. The movie maze had to be visually stunning, and move the scene along quickly. The maze in the book would not have done either of those things.
avatar
Elanor
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 45
Location : France

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum