Goblet of Fire Teaser Trailer Released

bryan8m writes "The teaser trailer for the next installment of the Harry Potter series has hit the web. The clip begins with a bit of a flashback but quickly turns to the triwizard tournament with some amazing visuals. And there is new director (again): Mike Newell."

Comments

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

The books are much better. They are not solely for kids.
I bought the books last summer and read all 5 of them in a matter of days (spread out over a few weekends). Since them I have reread them and I am most certainly looking forward to the next one in ~62 days.
Give them a change, most likely you wouldn't be disappointed.
They are funny, well written and at the end of each book, you hit yourself over the head, because you didn't see it coming. One really can't stop reading them. Rowling even makes a joke in one of her books about a magical book that you can never put down. Well, her books are certainly magical.
They are also kind of a mystery spread out over 7 books. Only two left to go.
But if you can't take the suspense, perhaps you should wait untill book 7 is out in a few years.
What is also surprisingly is that the writing style ages with the characters. While book one is more targeted at 11 year olds, the 5th one is more for young adolescentes. But any age can and does enjoy them.

A decent fansite is: www.mugglenet.com
The editorials are usually good.

Before I read them I just discarded them as over hyped kids books. I was proven wrong, lucky me.

Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Nova Express]

I was listening to National Pravda Radio when they did an interview with Terry Gilliam. He said that he had been one of the three finalists for the job of directing the first Harry Potter movie, but only because J. K. Rowling had wanted to see him direct it. He said he felt stupid that he'd actually believed he had a chance when the studio was dead-set against it. Then there was the following exchange, which is as close to verbatim as I can remember it:

Gilliam: Eventually they went with another director, and since the film made over $300 million, that was obviously the right decision.

NPR: What did you think of the movie when it came out?

Gilliam: Crap.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

The kids grow at the usual rate of 1 year to a year, and the movies are coming out about 1 1/2 years apart. In the first one, some of them (at least Hermione) were younger than the part they were playing. The kids in the storys are also a year older with each story, so if you consider 7 movies at 1 1/2 years each, that's 10.5 years to finish, which means when the last one is DONE, they'll be about 3.5 years older, assuming they started when they were the same age as their characters. But, again, some actors are younger than their characters, and the first two came out only 1 year apart.

There's also the difference of their age when they start filming a movie and their age when it is released, about a year and a half later. For instance, when I mentioned Hermoine's age (I remember seeing it in the "What Happened Today" column in the newspaper), she was a year or so behind her movie age at the time of release. Even if you don't take that into account, assuming the kids ages matched when they started filming, at the end, they'll be 21 playing 18 year olds. That has happened quite often in TV and film.

So, yes, the actors are aging fast, but you have to remember the characters are aging, too. It is a bit hard to get used to, since we see the characters in "snapshots" spaced a year to year and a half apart, and if you're used to watching a kid grow up, it's so gradual you don't notice it as much. In the latest movie, they should be 14, and I don't think the characters look too far off.

Teens also tend to grow much more when they're 12-16. Often you don't see quite as much of a change from 16-18, so if they look okay for the next movie, I think they'd be fine in the last 2.