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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Triwizard Tournement[edit]

The first task is incorrectly described. Each competitor draws lots for a different breed of dragon to face, although the goal of a golden egg is the same for each of them. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I revised the statement to say each competitor must retrieve a golden egg guarded by a dragon, without specifying the breed. IMO the breed and the lot-drawing isn't significantly important to add to a plot summary that's already longer than it should be. Doniago (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List Changes[edit]

See [1]. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion referenced is currently inconclusive, but certain editors seem to be intent on keeping the list minimal, a policy which is not being followed on other HP pages. 1Z (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since David Tennant also played Barty Crouch Jr. (even though it was only part of the film) should he also be casted as Barty Crouch Jr.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.253.207 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The cast list is determined by studio contract, and this article must match the list actually displayed in the film. Any revisions would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Its content is determined by previously published information...."
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material[edit]

Below material has been unsourced for months. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with proper sourcing. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reincorporated the material back into the article with sources. TFunk (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priori Incantatum[edit]

Since Peter "Wormtail" Pettigrew, not Lord Voldemort, murdered Cedric Diggory, Voldemort's wand could not and did not disgorge Cedric's spirit. Voldemort did, however, personally murder caretaker Frank Bryce, but I think I recall the novel missing that too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dick Kimball (talk • contribs) 2011-04-19 18:31:40‎ UTC

Both the novel and film produce Cedric's spirit – he asks to be returned – because Wormtail uses (and holds) Voldemort's wand. Wormtail has no wand of his own as he ran away from capture. We don't know how he finds Voldemort's wand.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the book[edit]

There has been a spate of recent edits listing differences from the book. There are a couple of policies and guidelines to consider:

  • WP:SYNTHESIS – Commentary discussing a work must be explicitly sourced i.e. You can not note differences from the source material by simply comparing the film to the book. You need a source that that actually discusses such differences.
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE – Even if such a source can be found, the information must not be indiscriminate i.e. we don't list differences for the sake of it.

Useful guidance for discussing adaptations can be found at WP:FILMDIFF, which instructs "Details from secondary sources about such changes, such as why they took place, how they affected production, and how outside parties reacted to them, can be included in the respective sections of the article body." In other words if we are to cover differences from the source material we must provide a real-world context for those alterations. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few differences that are not on the page I would like to add. Mostly the lack of obstacles during the 3rd task. This is my source http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2005/11/harry-potter-the-goblet-of-fire-book-to-film-comparison/. Though when I try to add this to the page it gets reverted. Does anyone have a problem with me adding " For the third task in the book the champions faced monsters,magical creatures and enchantments. This however was not in the film" lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with it. The source you provided is just a list of differences with no discussion or commentary. As Betty mentions above, if we're going to discuss the differences than we should strive to provide real-world context as well, not just list them. DonIago (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this source then http://thatwasnotinthebook.com/diff/harry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire_book_2000_vs_harry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire_movie_2005/0#diffPage. This source mantions that there were creatures in the Maze in the book but none in the movie. This also mentions that Dobby gives Harry Gillyweed in the book but it's Neville in the movie(another one of my edits that was removed) I'm not looking to add these things just to edit. These are significant differences IMO lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still just a list. DonIago (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it's a list of what's different between the books and the movies. What do you want then as a source? I provided two different sources that both verify the same thing. I was told I cant source the actual book or I would source that as well. Again These are not minor things. I'm assuming you read the book so I would guess that you know these are accurate facts and the two sources support that. Do you have a problem with the information being put on the page? If so why? lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Betty said, if you want to discuss the changes you should include real-world context for the changes, not just a list of them. Consequently you need a source that discusses, for instance, why the changes were made, not just a listing of them. We're not looking to verify that changes occurred, becuase changes always occur when a film is adapted from a book. "Dobby doesn't appear" isn't appropriate. "Dobby doesn't appear because the producers felt his appearance would be disturbing to small children and they wanted the film to be more family-friendly" is (with an appropriate source of course). If you look at the rest of the section there are examples of appropriate sources provided. DonIago (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So even though the facts I'm adding are accurate and my sources support those facts because the sources don't discuss why those changes were made the sources are not good enough. Even though those sources support the facts I am adding?lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't so much the problem as the actual content: it simply lists differences. Your source offers no explanation for the changes, no critical observation on how the changes impact the production etc. It's simply a list, and we don't "list" differences in Wikipedia articles. We explain why alterations were made and how they affected the end product. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Success[edit]

In the article it discusses the success of the movie within the United States and Mainland Chine, but not the country of its origin-- the United Kingdom. I think adding to the success of the movie internationally as well as individual countries relevant to the film would add to the article. Emilygess (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.K. Rowling[edit]

Another point of interest that could add to this article would be the role of JK Rowling in the production of the film or lack thereof. This can then be compared to her role in the production of the other movies in the series and would provide an interesting perspective for readers. Emilygess (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRATINGS[edit]

I know people think film ratings in general are notable, but WP:MOSFILM discourages including them. WP:FILMRATINGS "avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources." I know some editors will keep trying to add them to articles anyway and it can be a hassle to get them to stop. I know people think the ratings for this film are in particular notable because they are higher than the previous films in the series, but it has not yet been shown that there was substantial coverage of the ratings, or that there was any coverage of the ratings at all. (This came to my attention because the MPAA rating didn't even have a proper reference to WP:VERIFY it, and it should have more not just a reference to verify the simple facts but more to show the rating was notable and received substantial coverage. It also feels a bit like a case of WP:OVERSECTION that this is a whole separate subsection and not a part of the Theatrical release section.)

The critical response section does address the fact that this film was seen as darker and more mature, but the reviews care about the story, the actual content of the film, the ratings are still incidental and not relevant. Maybe editors can find sources to show the ratings were notable, or mabye editors want to ignore the rules in this case but as it stands this article is failing to follow the WP:FILMRATINGS guidelines and I think improvement is needed,(reference to show notability/substantial coverage) or at least discussion that editors want to deliberately make an exception to the rules here. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a good quality reliable source to simply WP:VERIFY the MPAA rating and ended up finding a Box Office Mojo editorial article about the ratings of the Harry Potter film series,[2] which might be a good start to show the ratings of this film are notable, but the guidelines do say "substantial coverage". -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Los Angeles Times review talks about the film's PG-13 rating. This The Guardian article is exclusively about the 12A rating the film received. This The Times article is about that as well. El Millo (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in a review is coverage, that's not bad. That guardian article is excellent, just what is needed. The Times article looks pretty good too (but damn them and their paywall, I hate having to use them as a source). It would be a substantial improvement if they were referenced in the Ratings section. I'd rearrange it to put the UK Rating and reliable sources first, the less notable USA and AUS ratings after. (I'll do that soon unless you want to do it first.)
Do you think the separate subsection is entirely necessary, or could/should the ratings be folded into the Theatrical release section? -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC article is also about the rating. I think it would be better integrated into the Theatrical release section, yes. El Millo (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm reasonably satisfied with the results. Maybe more would be better but I think it does now meet the minimum requirements of WP:FILMRATINGS. Thank you for finding quality sources.
Tangent: the Lawsuit section doesn't make any logical sense as a subsection of Distribution/Release, I'm going to bump it down to the end as a separate section. Maybe getting clearances for trademarks and copyrights (and getting sued for failing) is a a Production issue? Anyway it doesn't relate to Distribution IMO. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the archived discussions about ratings (which don't matter anyway because they don't lead to any sources that might have been useful, so I wasn't missing anything). There were some people complaining that the rating would exclude some younger fans[3] and there were people getting annoyed at editors removing the UK ratings from the article.[4], but nothing interesting. Now I'm really done with this discussion. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore "screams" at Harry[edit]

I'm not aware of a source that uses this particular wording. If you are, or believe that using this wording would be an improvement over not using it, please make your opinions known here! DonIago (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film)&oldid=1207561397"