Talk:Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 Complaints 2 Most Expensive 3 PG-13 4 Cho Chang 5 Ratings again 6 Trivia section 7 Release Dates 8 Hermione 9 UK Rating doesn't count now? 10 Plot Problems 11 Useless Trivia 12 Snape 13 Film of the Quidditch World Cup Game 14 Criticism

[edit] Complaints

i know this is rude, but can you all stop complaining about this article, and just change it if you have to?

---

[edit] Most Expensive

"It is said to be the most expensive film to date." Does that mean the most expensive of the four HP movies, or the most expensive movie ever made? And can we possibly get a cite for that? MrItty 15:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Response:Most expensive ever made.

My vote is most expensive HP movie. EvilPhoenix 03:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

According to Box Office Mojo, the film has a production budget of $150 million. Quite a big budget, that's for sure, but not enough to be "the most expensive ever".

The most expensive film to date is King Kong (2005) with over $200,000,000.00 If anybody is reading this, please change the article where it says is the most expensive movie.

[edit] PG-13

Where did the PG-13 rating come from. I haven't seen any news of it and the site (gobletoffire.com) stills says "Not rated." Am I missing something?

• As a matter of fact, you ARE missing something: Go to the IMDB message board for Harry Potter 4 and see for yourself. --User:Ryanasaurus0077
• Maybe the site didn't get word of the PG-13 rating yet. --208.183.105.11 13:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Even Mugglenet discussed it back in August ewe2

[edit] Cho Chang

"'Recently, certain fans had been complaining about the casting of an Asian actor for the role of Cho Chang in the fourth Harry Potter film, even though Cho Chang is an Asian character.'" that doesn't make any sense at all... could someone explain? Xunflash 02:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever stated that Cho is asian, but I am fairly certain she is. Maybe these losers were too thick to realize that the name is asian. Probably just some racist biggots though. Maybe a mix of both. You would think harry potter fans would be the last people to be racist, with the uber-obvious blood-race allusion running throughout the book. Also, perhaps they were merely complaining about that one particular actress. I do think someone should look into it.

I cannot believe people are complaining about the casting for Chang. What the hell? I've spent 3 hours trying to find information on this but to no avail. Just a bunch of annoying weirdo fans who are angry at Cho for "breaking" Harry's heart. The same fans who write horrid slash fiction in which Draco and Potter making out...

Well with Cho being Asian, if I recall one of the drawings at the beginning of a chapter in the Order of the Phoenix show an Asian girl sitting across from Harry at a table. I think the chapter is in the teens, but I don't remember its name.Cornince 05:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The actress who play Cho is actually from Motherwell, Glasgow; the second Glaswegian to be in a Harry Potter movie (Oliver Wood was the other one).

I still could have want another actress for the role. Heart Evangelista from the Philippines? hehe... Katie Leung is sp "forgettable" (and i said that since I had known she is the one playing Cho) until now....

[edit] Ratings again

Cut from intro:

These ratings have raised some controversy due to the fact that many Harry Potter fans are under the ages of 12 and 13.

If by "raised some controversy" you mean that SOMEBODY has objected to the ratings, then say so. You might try:

• Storms of protest erupted over the PG-13 rating, which frantic fans feard would dissuade parents from allowing children under the ages of 12 and 13 from watching the movie; or,
• Many critics felt that the ratings were unjustified, as there is certainly nothing in the BOOK which would be harmful for young children to read.

You see, if there as a "controversy", that means a dispute between two or more different points of view.

If it's just one group protesting something, then please identify that group. Uncle Ed 00:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There were reports in August 2005 when the rating came out that Warners were surprised and considered challenging the rating. There was some discussion of this on the Harry Potter mailing-lists and several Potter-related sites. However, in November, Warners strongly marketed the PG-13 rating saying it had been their intention all along. Any controversy stemmed from WB's initial opposition to the rating, not from Potter fans. ewe2

[edit] Trivia section

There was a thriving trivia section for this page and it was blanked in what looks like a vandalism edit. If it should be here, could someone restore it? Ke6jjj 22:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have been restored. Thanks! Ke6jjj 01:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Release Dates

I believe that the dates given in the article are press-preview release dates. The Wide-Release date for this movie is still 11/18/2005. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermione

Some anonymous IP has added that "Hermione combed her hair in the movie; but rather in the book, she used a potion". I very much doubt that this is true due to the fact that it has not yet been released. I have just use the �UNIQ182323b85559488a-nowiki-31c5a5825ef9307f00000001

[edit] UK Rating doesn't count now?

Both ForestH2 and Carl.bunderson removed the BBFC rating, with Carl saying "adding UK rating is a slippery slope--see talk". I don't SEE anything regarding that on talk, so now I'm talking

Well, this is the English Wikipedia, not American, English. This is a film based in Britain and rife with British actors. So why exactly is the American rating more important than the British rating?

Personally I think neither should be in the opening few paragraphs, but both should be shown otherwise. And if for some reason only one can be shown, I fail to see why it should be the American one. I'm going to add back in the BBFC rating on no reply--Cyberdude93 08:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They should both go from the intro - neither is a significant summary of the whole topic, more a side-point that could be mentioned in a later section. Adding only the American rating is fairly blatant Americocentrism. Just my opinion, of course.Ziggurat 09:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly someone deleted my addition to the talk page, but here it is again: I argue that we shouldn't include the UK rating for 2 reasons. First, if we do, then who's to say we shouldn't include the rating in every other country? This would be too bulky. Each film should include only one country's rating. WikiProject Films should decide this, but I'd say it should either be the US or the film's country of origin. I couldn't find a policy like this, but maybe its out there. Secondly, if persons do want to know the rating in other places, then they can go to the IMDB link at the bottom of the page, where all these are listed. Carl.bunderson 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I'm by no means Americancentric [I'm rather an Anglophile], but I do think that pragmatically, if we include any ratings, it should be American or British. But Ziggurat's argument that neither should be in the intro is probly the best idea. Carl.bunderson 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Cyberdude93, looking at the history for this page I see you deleted the better part of it on your first edit, which included deleting my comments that I've had to repost just now. Carl.bunderson 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to suggest that if the ratings are worth including, it's worth including as many major ones as possible (English, American, Japanese, German perhaps), but given that this film is such a collaborative English-American effort it's certainly worth talking about both. I'd like to think that I can be objective on this, as I don't think my own country's ratings are important enough to be mentioned! Ziggurat 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit, and honest to god I only made one edit O_o. The previous editions of the page just ended with the Hermione section to me (while the source differs). I blame someone messing up the page.--Cyberdude93 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On the ratings front, like I said, personally I'd include no ratings in the paragraph (I'd rather like them in the infobox like with games, but meh, not my decision). Personally, if I were to define a policy for this, I'd say the US AND country of origin. I do realise that is a bit Americancentric in itself, but including all the ratings is bulky, and just about everyone understands the MPAA system by now. The thing is, I think with a British movie made from a British book looked at by the British Board of Film Classification, the UK rating should have at least a mention.--Cyberdude93 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Cyberdude, I must have looked at the edits incorrectly; I apologise for any ill-will. I think including the American rating is pragmatic [making the assumption that most movie-watchers are American] but that country of origin actually makes more sense. So maybe we should include the rating in only the country of origin? My only concern is that these don't get too bulky, esp since all the ratings can be found in IMDB Carl.bunderson 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Problems

I brought this up on the Prisoner of Azkaban discussion page as well. The plot size for this article is violating the standard summary for Wikipedia. The way to remedy this is merging the Plot and the Summary sections, and having about two paragraphs briefly detailing the main points of the story. If no one replies, or we all agree, I'll go ahead and make the changes. I want to make sure no one has a problem with it. - Raditzu 02:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. We need a little bit about the plot and the summary at least. ForestH2 not logged in. ForestH2

What's the deal with all of these revertions to the long plot? - Raditzu 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hpfan1 doesn't look at his talkpage and he still wants the plot to be long-doesn't understand violations. Treebark (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Trivia

The trivia that reads "The fake Mad-Eye Moody and the real Barty Crouch Jr. always licks his lips. This is a hint that they are the same person. In one scene, after fake Moody licks his lips, Barty Crouch Sr. stares at him, realising that this is his son, so Barty Crouch Jr. kills him shortly after his discovery." doesn't seem like it should be there. It's not a "fun fact" about the movie production...it's merely a part of the story, seems more like a plot point than anything else. Besides, most people would have been able to figure it out anyway, and trivia is supposed to be things that not everyone would know....it's not the kind of "behind the scenes" trivia that should be in that sort of section. I think it should be removed, but before I delete it, I'd like to see if anyone agrees/disagrees that this is out of place. --Scotsworth 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That was ONLY in the movie and not the book, so it should be referenced in some manner, though it is a bit awkward as is... Michael 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snape

From the Reaction section: "While fans enjoy Alan Rickman's portrayal as Snape, there are complaints that he didn't have enough screen time..."

The people lodging this complaint either didn't read the book or have forgotten it. Snape played a much smaller part in the book as well, so it follows that his screen time would be reduced too. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a fan problem; it does not belong here. Michael 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film of the Quidditch World Cup Game

There should be a film - perhaps computer-animated - of the Big Game between Ireland and Bulgaria. Das Baz 19:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? Michael 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ireland-Bulgaria match is a favorite part of the book, but is totally missing from the movie. There is a need that should be filled.Das Baz 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Who are the critics that disliked the film because it was "jerky and confusing?"Ohyeahmormons 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)