Fellow blogger and Harry Potter fanatic Travis Prinzi reviews the Goblet of Fire DVD. I said there was no way the book Dumbledore would have allowed that dragon to chase Harry around the school, and Travis disagrees, citing Triwizard Tournament Rules. I believe the book Dumbledore would have flouted the rules rather than watch Harry risk his life.
Granted, Harry has been in several dangerous situations, and in most cases, Dumbledore wasn't around to save him. But sitting in the stands twiddling his thumbs while a dragon breaks loose from its chains and breaths fire at The Boy Who Lived?
Travis writes:
I disagree with this reasoning [mine] in particular, because Dumbledore was just as bound by the rules of the Triwizard Tournament as anyone else. By magical law and contract, my guess is that Dumbledore simply would not have been allowed to interfere. The Tournament had killed people before.
My problem with it is its length. With so many great things to cover, and the final scene rushed, I would much rather have seen a shorter dragon scene and a longer LV rebirthing scene. Nevertheless, I can understand, from a Hollywood point of view, why the cool dragon action scene was added.
We definitely agree that the rebirthing scene should have been longer. It was the climax, after all. It should have been diabolically slow and well-paced. And we agree about Michael Gambon: he's no Dumbledore.
Despite all the fan grumbling about deleted and embellished scenes, here's a cold, undeniable fact: J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter’s “mother,” obviously approved the changes. So that settles it. I suppose. 
Thanks for the post material, Travis. 
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:17 am
Yes, it's the "book" Dumbledore vs. the "movie" Dumbledore that I'm getting at. It makes sense in the context of the film, because the last two movies have butchered Dumbledore. I'm trying to think of the film in the context of the movie.
Even so, I have to wonder - was Dumbledore keeping a constant eye on Harry to prevent him from death? Wasn't there a chance that Harry would die in any of the challenges, not least the third one, even in the book? And Dumbledore would have had to let it happen?
The fact does still remain that Dumbledore allowed Harry to enter a contest that he was too young for and had a very good chance of dying, all because of the rules of the tournament.
I'll have to think more about it, I suppose.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
I would've much rather have had a longer maze scene. Granted, the shifting maze was a neat idea, but other than that it was just a maze. I'd really hoped to see some blast-ended skrewts!
If I had my druthers, I also would've liked the 'bones of the father' to have come in the form of dust from cracks in the ground, rather than a dog bone. I can't remember - isn't that what happened in the book? The ground cracks?
But I could spend all day picking the nit.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
You know, I didn't like the attacking maze scene, but I guess they had to do that in the movie because they didn't include the maze creatures. Too bad. About the bone, I thought it came from V's father. It was a dog bone?
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:26 am
JKR may have script approval, but I don't know that that necessarily means she has approval over the edits and final cut of the film. She may have approved the concept of the dragon breaking free. I read somewhere that she gives the films a fairly free rein because she realizes that the pacing and background that you have in a print novel don't translate well to the screen. IIRC, she only redlines script items that don't exist in the HP world or which will conflict with later plot developments. I "don't know much about" film-making, but the length of the chase and the amount of screen time it got was probably decided on in the editing process.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Quoting myself: I’m trying to think of the film in the context of the movie.
This could be one of the dumbest things I've ever said =)
I'm trying to think of the actions of Dumbledore in the context of the film.
There. I feel better.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Wait… someone KEPT the rules in a Harry Potter story?
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:17 am
This is off the subject, but I didn't know how else to approach the question. In the graveyard scene of the GOF movie, when LV boasts to Harry that he can now touch him, he touches Harry's scar. This causes Harry a great deal of pain, but if you look at LV, does it appear that it also causes him pain? It looked that way to us. If this does cause LV pain, it would seem to open up further speculation as to the properties of Harry's scar, including the horcrux argument. Would his own horcrux cause LV pain, and wouldn't he have recognized his horcurx if indeed it was the scar? Why then, would he want to destroy Harry in the graveyard? Thanks for answers.
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:29 am
Dawn, good questions.
My guess is that LV touching Harry's scar did not cause pain, and I don't think LV would experience any pain in the presence of any of his other horcruxes. I think we need to remember (as LaShawn mentioned over at my site) that the movies aren't really part of the HP "canon." They are not keys to interpreting the novels.
It seems more likely that (if Harry's scar is a Horcrux) that LV would not have know until he tried to possess Harry in OotP.
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
I don't think LV was in pain while touching Harry in the graveyard. He was mocking Harry, imitating his screams.