This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
See [1]. Evil Genius77 ( talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Its content is determined by previously published information...."
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)
Awards
| ||
---|---|---|
===Awards===
The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction, but lost to Memoirs of a Geisha. At the 2006 Teen Choice Awards, the film won the award for Choice Movie Drama. The film won the BAFTA Award for Best Production Design, the only Potter film to win a BAFTA award as of July 2009. At the 2006 Kids' Choice Awards, the film won the Blimp Award for Favorite Movie, becoming the first Harry Potter film to do so. |
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
There has been a spate of recent edits listing differences from the book. There are a couple of policies and guidelines to consider:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_9856.php/Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_International_Trailer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051104/wyrd_sisters_051104/20051104?hub=Canada{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.classification.gov.au/Usingclassification/Findaclassification/Pages/Classification-search-result.aspx?sid=i1MvqeNn6Ajb2T7mOlsE9g%253d%253d&ncdctx=Xe9pUybB4XBcPuuHE%2bck6G0lQZD35saZTHbgM9uPQoaEPuT9hPG4udhbUFUWgz8vWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
See [1]. Evil Genius77 ( talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Its content is determined by previously published information...."
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)
Awards
| ||
---|---|---|
===Awards===
The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction, but lost to Memoirs of a Geisha. At the 2006 Teen Choice Awards, the film won the award for Choice Movie Drama. The film won the BAFTA Award for Best Production Design, the only Potter film to win a BAFTA award as of July 2009. At the 2006 Kids' Choice Awards, the film won the Blimp Award for Favorite Movie, becoming the first Harry Potter film to do so. |
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
There has been a spate of recent edits listing differences from the book. There are a couple of policies and guidelines to consider:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_9856.php/Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_International_Trailer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051104/wyrd_sisters_051104/20051104?hub=Canada{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.classification.gov.au/Usingclassification/Findaclassification/Pages/Classification-search-result.aspx?sid=i1MvqeNn6Ajb2T7mOlsE9g%253d%253d&ncdctx=Xe9pUybB4XBcPuuHE%2bck6G0lQZD35saZTHbgM9uPQoaEPuT9hPG4udhbUFUWgz8vWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)