Why do people rank Goblet of Fire as the worst movie in the dullest franchise so much?

Why do people rank Goblet of Fire as the worst movie in the dullest franchise so much?

because it is.

it's the most intellectually lazy book she writes.

And despite being one of the longest books, it barely advances the plot.

who cares? it's for children you manchild

You might call this a dull franchise, but I call this a serious ground for discussion of this heavily flawed series of so-called "literature". But what else could you expect from the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Every time.

Because of thisAnd the directing is batshit. The tone is all over the place and only consistent if you deem the entire thing batshit. You may recall dumbledore yelling and foaming at the mouth at harry, barty crouch JUNIOR licking himself etc etc. Hermione seems normal in this film compared to everyone.

Its still good obviously and I enjoy it but its simply put the others are better. Still very well paced with a great climax.

it was a fun movie desu. though i never really understood the point of barty crouch

they're all bad

No matter how many times you say it, it won't be true faggot. They are all good. I know it upsets you to hear the word good and harry potter you little shit.

Barty crouch lets his son escape azkaban by allowing his wife to take his place with polyjuice potion and die in prison. She was sick.

You should check out the unoffical extended version theres a whole music number in the yule ball.

Because it does nothing to advance the over-arching plot till the very end. You could cut out everything before the graveyard and nothing would change in OotP - DH.
Prisoner of Askaban suffers from a similar problem but it at least has a good bit of character and world development throughout. Half-Blood Prince has a minor problem with this but for the opposite reason, it almost has too much character development being Harry Potter: Slice of Life edition. Order of the Phoenix is the best entry in the series both book and film.

NO DEY BE KINO
U R KIENO CARD REVOKED:((

>order of the phoenix is the best
you mean worst right?
i agree there's too much plot though in 6 and not enough fun times. that's why 3 is so good. but harry gets extremely angsty during 5-6 books which is why i didnt like it

>hp
>not lotr
gay

>i agree there's too much plot though in 6 and not enough fun times
What. Thats opposite of what I was saying. The majority of Half-Blood Prince is just normal day-to-day life in Hogwarts with unusual or main plot shit in between.

Because I said so.
Hint: its the one plebs love the most because le epin tournament

>Chamber of Secrets that low

Not him order isn't the worst it was second best or best when released.

Half blood prince has a lot of comedy because it was the last time it could be fairly lighthearted with the deathly hallows up next. In terms of direction goblet is one of the lower ones along with the first

I love chamber lad here's the thing chamber extended I would put higher than philosophers extended. You're right it is one too low at least.

Why don't you judge both Deathly Hallows parts as one? The only reason they're even split is because it would've been too long for cinemas.

They made the decision way beforehand and are two completely different types of films that's why how you can't recogize how different they are is astounding why aee you here. Also the original cut was 5.5 hours they wouldn't have called it deathly hallows if it was only one film they wouldn't be able to focus on the hallows at all just the horcruxes. Part 1 is slow and personal

>he posted the autistic pasta again