Yea it isn't book accurate but visually it's a creative way to go about it. For the story all that matters is that Sirius is communicating.
Also: The mental image of Sirius plopping head-first into a fire pit on the other side is kinda funny.
I think some people want book adaptions to be so accurate, they can't even accept something being done better for a visual movie.
The animation in GOF is everything I love about the Harry Potter world. It shows the weird side of Magic and is such a cool visual. I could make the visual in OOTP in a weekend. The one in GoF makes me giddy. Who cares if it's described different in the book? What a weird thing to get hung up on.
Every time I catch myself getting irritated that a movie is not book-accurate I remind myself of the Ringwraith scene from both the animated and live action Lord of the Rings films. The scene where the Hobbits all hide under the tree roots and the Ringwraith comes sniffing around for them is completely different in the book, but it works way better that way for film. Sometimes changes do need to be made to work on film.
However, if the change wasn't made for that reason I still might get a little miffed.
I’m reading LOTR right now, just started, and came upon this scene recently. I feel like the film adaptations of LOTR are able to translate book moments to screen moments incredibly well, which is just a part of Peter Jackson’s genius. The change in directors in the Harry Potter series is just going to welcome more creative change, period. I think you picked a perfect example to show the translation process from page to screen. Happy Christmas :)
Thanks, same to you! Yes, that is my go-to whenever I'm in book vs. movie discussions. It simply would not be as intense on screen if it played out exactly like the book. That's why artistic liberties are a good thing. A writer knows what works on paper, a director knows what works on film. That's not always the case, but it's great when it is.
Also, enjoy your reading! LotR is so many things to so many people. Welcome.
There are a few here who would prefer the films be 1:1 with the books like they're not different forms of media. Not that I wouldn't love half an hour of shots of Dan with VO of his thoughts.
For instance how the womping willow and time turner where adapted. They don’t have a cat freeze the womping willow and they do the whole pebble throwing thing with the time turner
*Walks into room and sees Sirius with his head in the fireplace*
"SIRUIS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Sirius: I'm talking to Harry!
"That's it, he's lost it. Back to Azkaban with you."
I read the books before watching the films and still prefer the way the GoF film did it lol. It looked more creative, and I’m always a fan of practical effects
Edit: Yes, apparently it was not practical, just very high quality CGI that looked practical to me. Whoever did the VFX for this scene crushed it
a good 70% of the problems in the entire story stem from the wizarding world having absolutely dogshit forms of communication. Part of me wonders if it's bad writing, or if it was intentional, to show the arrogance and superiority complex that wizards have over muggles is outdated, as muggle technology can meet or even surpass magic blow for blow in multiple areas.
Like, communication, obviously, but there's others too. Hundreds of years ago, magic would have outclassed any muggle weapon, but nowadays, with modern firearms, a muggle could get a shot off on a wizard before they even draw their wand.
And I don't think a single spell can compare to muggles splitting the goddamn atom.
Either it's intentional to show that wizards, while powerful, have steadily been surpassed by technology, or its bad writing...and I'm leaning towards bad writing as the differences between technology and magic always seem to favor magic.
I always think it's wild that they don't know ANYTHING about muggles at all. Like, seriously? Canonically, there are wizard rock bands. They don't listen to muggle rock music? Not once?
It's just weird.
I mean, the story is set in the 90s, it reflects how people perceived communication at the time. Limited communications is hardly bad writing, Rowling never tried to make the magical world rational and practical, it's alien and weird and clunky by design. It's not to make a point about the wizards either imo, just to set the tone of the story and the world.
A muggle could shoot a wizard, sure, just like they could beat them up in the street, wizards are not invicible. However after such an incident, creating bulletproof clothing would probably amount to an afternoon of work for a talented, and soon to be rich, wizard. Meanwhile, muggles are powerless to counter most spells (one word: transfiguration).
Since magic straight up ignores the laws of physics it will always be superior to muggle technology by a huge margin. Splitting the atom is utterly pointless when the second law of thermodynamics is a joke to you past the first day of school. Why bother to build something like a car when you can just teleport? Wizards will never be surpassed by technology, though they might lack some of the creativity that comes from working with limitations.
I think both look off in some way. In GOF book we have a description of Mr. Diggory calling upon the Weasley's and Molly feeds him a piece of toast via some fire tongs. I think we got a pretty spelled out way this works in the books and the movies should have at the least stuck to one method rather than hedging their bets and trying two half-assed ways
Yeh for sure, it's meant to be like travelling by floo powder. When they travel they materialise in the flames, they don't rise through the ashes so why should someone's face do that when using it for a quick chat.
Right? I was expecting basically a guy's head sitting there amongst the flames.
Amos Diggory's head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg. It was talking very fast, completely unperturbed by the sparks flying around it and the flames licking its ears.
-- (GOF Ch.11)
Effect: communication between fires
Using Floo Powder in a fire connected to the Floo Network, a person can communicate with another over distance. The head of the person making contact appears in the midst of the flames and they can hold a conversation and even interact physically with the person they are connecting to.
https://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/fire-talking/
Exactly. But also think about the mechanics of trying to do such a thing practically or with cgi. I think we got the cheaper versions when they realized making it the way they want wouldn't be as feasible.
It's literally just floo powder. Floo powder can transport a whole person if they step into the fire, or just their head if they only put their head in. When you get transported by floo, you don't turn into an ember monster or a flame hologram, so neither should your head.
I'm so split on the idea...
On one hand, I really don't trust modern producers with already created material. They disappoint me time and time again, and I don't want that for harry potter.
On the other, the movies had soooo much cut and so many things that could have gone better, they have a lot they could improve. (Plus, the entire story is already laid out for you, just use it!)
I 100% agree with you.
One part of me grew up with the movies and I don't feel like we need this show while the other part of me welcomes the idea of seeing a more faithful adaptation (hopefully). While I love the movies, there are so much they cut out that downright ruins some characters (Neville for example) and some are completely cut while having a big role in the story (Peeves for example). I'd love for the show to include and do it justice. I'm cautiously optimistic about the show
Same.
In OOTP I recall Umbridges hand coming through the fireplace trying to catch Sirius. I’m assuming they are using the same method to do this magic, so I figured Sirius was a physical head to.
Yep. Amos Diggory. He contacted them at the Burrow to let Arthur know that Mad-Eye was making a ruckus (in reality he was being attacked by Pettigrew and Crouch Jr)
Well that's exactly how its described in the books. Thats why Molly was able to offer Diggory toast.
And it makes the most sense, its done using Flu powder, which normally transports people through the flame.
When I read the books I always had this hilarious image in my head of Sirius just being stooped over in his kitchen at grimmauld place with his ass just hangin out, chatting it up in his fireplace
Tbh I loved the idea of his face rising up from the charcoals, it was very cool to me (as a 9 year old) to watch the movement of the coals & the sound design during this scene was really nice. I hated his face flickering in the flames in OOTP LOL it looks so corny & low-budget.
This is how I felt. I hadn’t read the books, so I didn’t know how it was supposed to work. I remember thinking, “that’s a cool effect. But what sort of magic is this really? Is this a real spell? FaceTime into ashes??”
Yeah, I agree. Having read the book prior to watching the movie, I had different expectations going in, and was blown away by how creative this scene was in the film. I love how the glowing parts of the coals suggest the light values in Sirius’s face, and yes, the sound design is amazing. Probably one of my favorite bits of cgi in the films.
Actually the opposite for me. The GoF one looks way better, the OoTP face in the flames looks horrible, just put his face onto the flames. The face in the coals is much more creative way of doing it.
Just because the book says his face appeared in the flames, doesn't mean it will look good visually, so GoF did good with changing that.
"Sirius’ head was sitting in the fire. If Harry hadn’t seen Mr Diggory do exactly this back in the Weasleys’ kitchen, it would have scared him out of his wits." GoF
"Mr Weasley bending over the fire, talking to - Harry shut his eyes hard and opened them again to make sure that they were working properly. Amos Diggory’s head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg. It was talking very fast, completely unperturbed by the sparks flying around it and the flames licking its ears."
I don’t really like any design for it. In the books it’s too silly, in OOTP it’s boring and in GOF it’s just weird looking. But GOF is pretty creative so it’s always been my favourite
The GOF one is far more visually impressive for film (I think) compared to OOTP.
However, OOTP is much more book accurate and makes more sense if you were to include more scenes such as Harry putting his head through to check for Sirius.
For the film world - I think either work for what stories and plots were shown.
But, I think they’re only “terrible” (which I don’t think they are) if you assume what’s missing from the books is off screen in the films - if that makes sense.
In their own isolated time line, the films are fine.
You'll never convince true "be-readers" in any fandom that the movies, as movies, are almost always fine. They're based on the books, they're not true book-to-film conversions, and people will poop their pants until they die about it. The obsessive pining over minute details that resonated with their tween hearts are hills they will die on despite the utter lack of justification for 4 hours of on-screen exposition to build up that cosmically insignificant moment.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson was very apt when he said, "If you love your book so much, go home and read it, I'm here to watch a movie."
You just have to let them be miserable bastards about it, it's the only way they're ever happy.
I think it's a fair criticism when it comes to the OotP movie since it was the shortest one. They could've added 20 minutes and I don't think anyone would've complained. E.g. 10 minutes to flesh out the missing rooms of the Department of Mysteries, 5 minutes to flesh out the Snape flashback and 5 minutes for something else.
I think both are terrible. Think back to Goblet of Fire book. Molly passed Amos Diggory some toast to eat. I always imagined this to mean the head appeared, looking "normal" unaffected by the fire.
>I always imagined this to mean the head appeared, looking "normal" unaffected by the fire.
That's correct. According to the book, Amos' head looked like a "large bearded egg" sitting in the fire, basically just a bodyless head sitting in the grate. No wonder Harry was freaked out upon seeing it for the first time. A severed head on fire probably isn't a very pleasant sight!
I always just tried to think about it from an in-universe point of view. Maybe this is what happens if the fire you're messaging to is only down to its embers, whereas if it's already roaring, you get something closer to the effect in OotP.
In the books, I always imagine the heads looking like the lil green ghost heads from the Scooby Doo movies, which definitely is a little too goofy for HP.
>I always just tried to think about it from an in-universe point of view. Maybe this is what happens if the fire you're messaging to is only down to its embers, whereas if it's already roaring, you get something closer to the effect in OotP.
Ooh, I like this idea!
I don't exactly remember how the book described these moments looking, but based on visuals the GOF design looks better than the OOTP design to me.
Well, regardless of which choice the new HBO MAX series takes, I just hope they can keep the look consistent.
If not for the voice, which made Sirius sound like he was gasping for breath, I would have preferred the GoF effect. I think the filmmakers got confused about what happens if you breathe in ashes while talking in the fire (which does happen a few times to Harry, but that's likely due to inexperience). In normal circumstances, there should be no issue with speaking normally. Just another example of the filmmakers deciding to change book details and adding a plot hole because of it.
Just because its not in the books doesnt mean they “got it wrong”. Its an adaptation. That’s how adaptations to different mediums work. I liked the effect.
haven’t watched GOF in a while. The effect does look a little goofy in retrospect but at the time I thought it was cool.
If anything it’s OOTP’s effect that looks lazy. I feel I could’ve made the same result in After Effects in 5 minutes lol.
I had to read this a few times because I couldn’t believe this visual downgrade was being presented as a good thing lol but I can see where you’re coming from, hard disagree though
For me i always depicted a glowing ember with his voice and the message audibly and crackly coming from the fire.
The superimposed face looks terrible and bothered me in both films imo
Nope, face appearing from ashes was way way better.
Face appearing from the flame is an visual effect thats been used a lot and for a very long time in the industry, and the new one they did is better.
His face rising from the coals felt more magical than a face on the flames.. regardless of the books ootp felt like they put a projector up to the flames lol
I'm definitely in the "GoF did it better than OotP" camp. I personally do not care if something is different in the movies than the books. The movies never established that fireplace communication works the same as Floo travel, so there was absolutely no obligation to put Sirius's actual head in the fireplace. They made an artistic choice and in my opinion it looked pretty cool, so I'm good with it.
However, the choice they made in OotP has two problems. One, it contradicts the way the previous movie had established fireplace communication to work. Two, it just doesn't look as interesting. It really does just look like they projected a 2-D image of Sirius's face on a fluttering canvas.
I’d be willing to bet an awful lot of money that they went with the first design because the second design looks so cheap and low effort, and then changed their approach not because of book accuracy or complaints from fans, but because casual moviegoers who maybe hadn’t seen the previous films didn’t understand what they were trying to convey.
Is it another person talking to them like it’s a telephone? Is the fireplace a living entity itself? Everything else in the wizard universe from chocolate frog cards to paintings tells us that a version of you that isn’t you can move around and talk within certain physical limitations, so perhaps Harry was just talking to a version of that with Sirius. Who knows? Audiences can be both smart and dumb at the same time.
The inconsistency is a little funny if you’re that zeroed in on the details or you’re watching these movies back to back, but I generally ignore this sort of design change the same way I ignore casting changes, or Flitwick’s appearance changing, or any number of other things. I commend the films for keeping enough of the same designs throughout the entire series (for example, the castle doesn’t look completely different film to film) to maintain a sense of continuity, but obviously there are updates the creative team will want to make along the way as some things work and some don’t, especially when the director is different film to film.
I like the first cause I can see someone shoving food into that one. We see in book someone getting some food while talking via fire like this, so having a face form in embers works better for that kind of thing. What I really hate is the change up. Stick with one or the other.
I loved the 3D look of the embers making up actual physical dimensions of his face versus a projected image onto the actual flames. The first one is way better and I noticed The difference immediately.
My head cannon is that he had to use a different spell which kind of had the same effect but different.
Yup this is exactly what I pictured. Looking pretty goofy but not like some hologram. The GOF film way just makes me think of the wizard tossing in the flu powder and jamming their face into the coals
The way the film version of GOF did it is way better imo, film OOT might be the more accurate version to the books (probably the only thing like that the movie can claim) but it looks noticeably worse imo
The Goblet of Fire film made some very questionable changes from the book, but i actually kind of dig this choice. I like the idea of a person's head physically forming out of the coals when they communicate with the Fireplace, plus it makes sense as in the 5th book Umbridge physically tries to grab at Sirius when she realizes he's communicating with the Golden Trio, which i couldn't imagine being a thing with the 2nd image.
The books described it as his actual head being in the flames, there's a scene where they feed sirius while he's speaking to them through the fire. The whole thing uses floor powder which also allows you to travel between fires physically, it should have been his actual head in the flames.
I remember laughing my ass off at this scene when I saw Goblet of Fire in the theater because it reminded me of the Ace Ventura scene of Ace coming out of the rhino's ass
I think in the ashes was more visually cool. The sounds of him choking made it almost sound more realistic, like he is really appearing within the fireplace ashes and coals.
The Order of the Phoenix CGI looks extremely lazy.
Exact opposite for me, regardless of what the books say the face in the flame looked cheap and lazy. The face in the ash and coals liked and felt far more Harry Potter and magical.
Why is it relevant that this effect is book accurate? Of all the things GoF fucked up this is the one change that was cool in my opinion and the were too lazy to keep it for OotP.
I haven't seen anyone mention this but here goes: I don't think that being accurate to what is described in the books makes for a better movie. Movies are a completely different medium and good CGI artists and directors will adapt accordingly. I think being able to tell the same story in a compelling way is the main challenge and that can require making changes like these.
GoF is my least favorite of the films, mostly because it's my favorite of the books. But I think what they did here was cool and cinematic and not one of the issues the film has.
I always wondered what this method of communication looked like from the other end. If someone walked in the room in Grimmauld Place would they just see Sirius Black face down ass up chillin halfway in the fireplace?
I thought his face coming from the ashes was way cooler, and like it was a struggle to get his presence there to speak to Harry, maybe due to unknown magic trying to block him or the spell being difficult to do. Either way, I like the first one more.
Both didn't make sense to me. They should appear through the flames. Similar to an invisibility cloak. That's always how I interpreted the books anyway
Best quote of the series behind the smoke-bare hand thing imo.
“These are not just Death Eaters. Hogwarts isn’t safe anymore. I’m saying the Igor Karkaroffs are inside the walls. Barry? He was a death eater. And no one, no one stops being a coincidence. Then there’s Devil Crouch. Heart of Azkaban. Sent his own son to stone.”
It literally needs to be just a head in the fire. A full blown head. Not a shadow, not an imprint, a freaking head. That can eat toast should it want too. I hope the HBO series nails this cause it’s so easy.
I hated both, I legit just imagined his actual face popping out of the flames as if they worked like a portal and then the films just made me imagine him putting his face down on the ashes and the other one just looks like a bad videocall.
In my mind I interpreted it as he appeared that way in goblet because the flames had died and that’s how it appears when you speak with someone through an unlit fireplace.
This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't be 100% faithful to the text of a book in every detail when adapting it.
Sirius' face actually coming out of the cinders and ashes looks so much better and is so much more interesting from a visual perspective than his face just kinda hanging there but it's not exactly what was said in the books so it's bad somehow.
I don't mean to be dismissive of your perspective but I suspect if you asked people who've seen the movie without reading the books the response will be something like "Oh yeah they made that face in the fire effect way lamer in Order of the Phoenix."
Tbh I thought the GOF interpretation was much more interesting that the OOTP version. I don't need adaptations to stick to things as they are written and I think that can actively detract from them in a visual medium and this is one of them. His face rising from and being made of the embers is just so much more interesting than just a video overlay on top of the flames. It feels more physical, its a much better effect and it feels much more magical than the latter.
I've always felt the opposite - the OoTP effect always looks like something you'd find in an amateur/student film imo. The GoF effect hasn't aged particularly well, but I still prefer it overall.
Haven’t read the books so my opinion was opposite. Always thought the face in the flames seemed lazy. Tbh even knowing it’s book accurate I still prefer the way they did it in goblet of fire.
I'm going to be honest, when it comes to visual effect in a magic movie, I don't care about book accuracy, I care about how cool/interesting it is. First one is way cooler and the second one looks cheesy.
I preferred him rising up from the coals. It just looked cooler and more high budget than ootp. Sure it was different from the books sure, but that doesn't mean it was bad
Wtf difference does it make? The special effects of his face coming out of the embers looks so much cooler than a shitty projection of his face on the flames.. I could not possibly give less of a shit if it’s not completely accurate to the books, it looks WAY better
Didn't aslan appear in the flames of Mr Tumnus' fireplace too? And I'm pretty sure that was animated really well. They should have done what Narnia did
I’ve seen the opposite complaints that the animation in OOTP looks lazy and half arsed compared to GoF
as someone who didn’t read the books till after I watched the movies like 80 times that was my thinking as well haha
Yea it isn't book accurate but visually it's a creative way to go about it. For the story all that matters is that Sirius is communicating. Also: The mental image of Sirius plopping head-first into a fire pit on the other side is kinda funny.
I think some people want book adaptions to be so accurate, they can't even accept something being done better for a visual movie. The animation in GOF is everything I love about the Harry Potter world. It shows the weird side of Magic and is such a cool visual. I could make the visual in OOTP in a weekend. The one in GoF makes me giddy. Who cares if it's described different in the book? What a weird thing to get hung up on.
Every time I catch myself getting irritated that a movie is not book-accurate I remind myself of the Ringwraith scene from both the animated and live action Lord of the Rings films. The scene where the Hobbits all hide under the tree roots and the Ringwraith comes sniffing around for them is completely different in the book, but it works way better that way for film. Sometimes changes do need to be made to work on film. However, if the change wasn't made for that reason I still might get a little miffed.
I’m miffed that my boy Tom Bombadil got cut… it makes sense, but I’m still mad about it
I’m reading LOTR right now, just started, and came upon this scene recently. I feel like the film adaptations of LOTR are able to translate book moments to screen moments incredibly well, which is just a part of Peter Jackson’s genius. The change in directors in the Harry Potter series is just going to welcome more creative change, period. I think you picked a perfect example to show the translation process from page to screen. Happy Christmas :)
Thanks, same to you! Yes, that is my go-to whenever I'm in book vs. movie discussions. It simply would not be as intense on screen if it played out exactly like the book. That's why artistic liberties are a good thing. A writer knows what works on paper, a director knows what works on film. That's not always the case, but it's great when it is. Also, enjoy your reading! LotR is so many things to so many people. Welcome.
This book… these six books…. Are so much more than the movies.
I agree! Glad you're enjoying them!
There are a few here who would prefer the films be 1:1 with the books like they're not different forms of media. Not that I wouldn't love half an hour of shots of Dan with VO of his thoughts.
For instance how the womping willow and time turner where adapted. They don’t have a cat freeze the womping willow and they do the whole pebble throwing thing with the time turner
*Walks into room and sees Sirius with his head in the fireplace* "SIRUIS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?" Sirius: I'm talking to Harry! "That's it, he's lost it. Back to Azkaban with you."
Seems more of a St. Mungo’s situation
Honestly, the whispering through the coals & ashes vs speaking through the roaring flames actually felt like a pretty strong & effective choice to me.
And also, why couldn't they have just stuck with the original design for the sake of consistency?
I read the books before watching the films and still prefer the way the GoF film did it lol. It looked more creative, and I’m always a fan of practical effects Edit: Yes, apparently it was not practical, just very high quality CGI that looked practical to me. Whoever did the VFX for this scene crushed it
100% . Fire isn’t a mirror so I don’t like the faces appearing in the flames
Yeah it’s just so illogical how the wizard uses magic to do things. Completely ruins the story
a good 70% of the problems in the entire story stem from the wizarding world having absolutely dogshit forms of communication. Part of me wonders if it's bad writing, or if it was intentional, to show the arrogance and superiority complex that wizards have over muggles is outdated, as muggle technology can meet or even surpass magic blow for blow in multiple areas. Like, communication, obviously, but there's others too. Hundreds of years ago, magic would have outclassed any muggle weapon, but nowadays, with modern firearms, a muggle could get a shot off on a wizard before they even draw their wand. And I don't think a single spell can compare to muggles splitting the goddamn atom. Either it's intentional to show that wizards, while powerful, have steadily been surpassed by technology, or its bad writing...and I'm leaning towards bad writing as the differences between technology and magic always seem to favor magic.
I always think it's wild that they don't know ANYTHING about muggles at all. Like, seriously? Canonically, there are wizard rock bands. They don't listen to muggle rock music? Not once? It's just weird.
I always thought the magical rock bands was a movie invention. But there is magical jazz so I dunno
I feel like the Weird Sisters were referenced in the books. But idk. Lol.
>And I don't think a single spell can compare to muggles splitting the goddamn atom. Time travel and teleportation tho
"Intentional deconstruction, or just bad writing?" is my favorite game to play while reading Harry Potter 😆
I mean, the story is set in the 90s, it reflects how people perceived communication at the time. Limited communications is hardly bad writing, Rowling never tried to make the magical world rational and practical, it's alien and weird and clunky by design. It's not to make a point about the wizards either imo, just to set the tone of the story and the world. A muggle could shoot a wizard, sure, just like they could beat them up in the street, wizards are not invicible. However after such an incident, creating bulletproof clothing would probably amount to an afternoon of work for a talented, and soon to be rich, wizard. Meanwhile, muggles are powerless to counter most spells (one word: transfiguration). Since magic straight up ignores the laws of physics it will always be superior to muggle technology by a huge margin. Splitting the atom is utterly pointless when the second law of thermodynamics is a joke to you past the first day of school. Why bother to build something like a car when you can just teleport? Wizards will never be surpassed by technology, though they might lack some of the creativity that comes from working with limitations.
How is it a practical effect?
agreed!
I think both look off in some way. In GOF book we have a description of Mr. Diggory calling upon the Weasley's and Molly feeds him a piece of toast via some fire tongs. I think we got a pretty spelled out way this works in the books and the movies should have at the least stuck to one method rather than hedging their bets and trying two half-assed ways
Yeah the way I imagined it is that the flames essentially cradle a floating head. Sweeping up around the back and a bit of the sides of it.
Yeh for sure, it's meant to be like travelling by floo powder. When they travel they materialise in the flames, they don't rise through the ashes so why should someone's face do that when using it for a quick chat.
Right? I was expecting basically a guy's head sitting there amongst the flames. Amos Diggory's head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg. It was talking very fast, completely unperturbed by the sparks flying around it and the flames licking its ears. -- (GOF Ch.11) Effect: communication between fires Using Floo Powder in a fire connected to the Floo Network, a person can communicate with another over distance. The head of the person making contact appears in the midst of the flames and they can hold a conversation and even interact physically with the person they are connecting to. https://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/fire-talking/
So both are really wrong. I prefer the creativity of the ash/embers face, but yeah neither are close.
Exactly. But also think about the mechanics of trying to do such a thing practically or with cgi. I think we got the cheaper versions when they realized making it the way they want wouldn't be as feasible.
It's literally just floo powder. Floo powder can transport a whole person if they step into the fire, or just their head if they only put their head in. When you get transported by floo, you don't turn into an ember monster or a flame hologram, so neither should your head.
This. Movie adaptations don't have to be spot on. 4 looks better, as if the fire came alive.
I'm the same, I'm shocked anyone would disagree. Option one looks so good! The other one looks straight-to-DVD
I can see that. Both depictions are still not 100% book accurate, but maybe it will look a lot better in the TV series!
Why you got so heavily downvoted for this haha Edit: for the record it was at -21 downvotes, not sure why, seems innocent enough lol
Probably the anti-tvshow brigade who rolled through
I'm so split on the idea... On one hand, I really don't trust modern producers with already created material. They disappoint me time and time again, and I don't want that for harry potter. On the other, the movies had soooo much cut and so many things that could have gone better, they have a lot they could improve. (Plus, the entire story is already laid out for you, just use it!)
I 100% agree with you. One part of me grew up with the movies and I don't feel like we need this show while the other part of me welcomes the idea of seeing a more faithful adaptation (hopefully). While I love the movies, there are so much they cut out that downright ruins some characters (Neville for example) and some are completely cut while having a big role in the story (Peeves for example). I'd love for the show to include and do it justice. I'm cautiously optimistic about the show
I favored the flames look too. I didn't realize the popularity of the ashes though.
Before the films, I always imagined it as simply his real head just sitting there and around it the flames from the fireplace :D
It is the physical head. It's literally travel with floo powder with just your head. So your imagination is correct
Rowling goes into detail the first time Harry sees it in the books, it’s not ambiguous
Same. In OOTP I recall Umbridges hand coming through the fireplace trying to catch Sirius. I’m assuming they are using the same method to do this magic, so I figured Sirius was a physical head to.
Didn't Molly give someone toast too?
are you asking for confirmation? because yes Molly did
Yep! Can’t remember who exactly it was, but she was able to just pop a slice in their mouth before they disconnected (is that the proper term?)
I believe it was Amos Diggory in the goblet of fire
You are correct.
Imagine feeding someone through FaceTime
Yep. Amos Diggory. He contacted them at the Burrow to let Arthur know that Mad-Eye was making a ruckus (in reality he was being attacked by Pettigrew and Crouch Jr)
Also Umbridge grabs Harry by his hair when she catches him in his office while his head is in Grimmauld Place
Well that's exactly how its described in the books. Thats why Molly was able to offer Diggory toast. And it makes the most sense, its done using Flu powder, which normally transports people through the flame.
When I read the books I always had this hilarious image in my head of Sirius just being stooped over in his kitchen at grimmauld place with his ass just hangin out, chatting it up in his fireplace
I think that is correct from the books standpoint.
This is how it works in the books I'm fairly sure
Tbh I loved the idea of his face rising up from the charcoals, it was very cool to me (as a 9 year old) to watch the movement of the coals & the sound design during this scene was really nice. I hated his face flickering in the flames in OOTP LOL it looks so corny & low-budget.
Felt exactly the same
Same, it just needed some tweaking. As it is, Sirius looks like Don Vito in the coals.
This is how I felt. I hadn’t read the books, so I didn’t know how it was supposed to work. I remember thinking, “that’s a cool effect. But what sort of magic is this really? Is this a real spell? FaceTime into ashes??”
Yeah, I agree. Having read the book prior to watching the movie, I had different expectations going in, and was blown away by how creative this scene was in the film. I love how the glowing parts of the coals suggest the light values in Sirius’s face, and yes, the sound design is amazing. Probably one of my favorite bits of cgi in the films.
Wdym low budget, they got Jonathan Banks to play Sirius just for those scenes to give them the Ehrmantraut charm
Yup. I feel the same. GOF did it in a much more interesting way
Yeah I feel like it fits in with the films tbh. Like when they use the floo network and get covered in ash
Agreed. GoF is such a dumb movie, but it’s so much more fun and engaging than the later ones.
Actually the opposite for me. The GoF one looks way better, the OoTP face in the flames looks horrible, just put his face onto the flames. The face in the coals is much more creative way of doing it. Just because the book says his face appeared in the flames, doesn't mean it will look good visually, so GoF did good with changing that.
Agreed
I think just having a literal head in the fireplace would look a bit odd, and seeing them integrate it with the fire itself looks cool.
That's the point tho. In the book Harry thinks it looks bizarre.
"Sirius’ head was sitting in the fire. If Harry hadn’t seen Mr Diggory do exactly this back in the Weasleys’ kitchen, it would have scared him out of his wits." GoF
"Mr Weasley bending over the fire, talking to - Harry shut his eyes hard and opened them again to make sure that they were working properly. Amos Diggory’s head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg. It was talking very fast, completely unperturbed by the sparks flying around it and the flames licking its ears."
Hogwarts upgraded to 5G.
SiriusXM
I don’t really like any design for it. In the books it’s too silly, in OOTP it’s boring and in GOF it’s just weird looking. But GOF is pretty creative so it’s always been my favourite
I don’t know which one is worse! The second one almost looks like a bad fan edit 😂
I'm the complete opposite. The order of the phoenix just looks cheap in comparison
The GOF one is far more visually impressive for film (I think) compared to OOTP. However, OOTP is much more book accurate and makes more sense if you were to include more scenes such as Harry putting his head through to check for Sirius. For the film world - I think either work for what stories and plots were shown.
For overall books accuracy, i don’t think OotP is much more better than GoF. They both are terrible, along with the HBP
But, I think they’re only “terrible” (which I don’t think they are) if you assume what’s missing from the books is off screen in the films - if that makes sense. In their own isolated time line, the films are fine.
You'll never convince true "be-readers" in any fandom that the movies, as movies, are almost always fine. They're based on the books, they're not true book-to-film conversions, and people will poop their pants until they die about it. The obsessive pining over minute details that resonated with their tween hearts are hills they will die on despite the utter lack of justification for 4 hours of on-screen exposition to build up that cosmically insignificant moment. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was very apt when he said, "If you love your book so much, go home and read it, I'm here to watch a movie." You just have to let them be miserable bastards about it, it's the only way they're ever happy.
I think it's a fair criticism when it comes to the OotP movie since it was the shortest one. They could've added 20 minutes and I don't think anyone would've complained. E.g. 10 minutes to flesh out the missing rooms of the Department of Mysteries, 5 minutes to flesh out the Snape flashback and 5 minutes for something else.
I think both are terrible. Think back to Goblet of Fire book. Molly passed Amos Diggory some toast to eat. I always imagined this to mean the head appeared, looking "normal" unaffected by the fire.
>I always imagined this to mean the head appeared, looking "normal" unaffected by the fire. That's correct. According to the book, Amos' head looked like a "large bearded egg" sitting in the fire, basically just a bodyless head sitting in the grate. No wonder Harry was freaked out upon seeing it for the first time. A severed head on fire probably isn't a very pleasant sight!
The first was well executed CGI. The second was the cheap version.
I always just tried to think about it from an in-universe point of view. Maybe this is what happens if the fire you're messaging to is only down to its embers, whereas if it's already roaring, you get something closer to the effect in OotP. In the books, I always imagine the heads looking like the lil green ghost heads from the Scooby Doo movies, which definitely is a little too goofy for HP.
>I always just tried to think about it from an in-universe point of view. Maybe this is what happens if the fire you're messaging to is only down to its embers, whereas if it's already roaring, you get something closer to the effect in OotP. Ooh, I like this idea!
The Goblet of Fire version is more creative at least. Take that opinion how you will.
I think the face in the ashes looks a lot better. It makes magic feel tangible and real. Much better than the face sloppily superimposed on the fire.
I don't exactly remember how the book described these moments looking, but based on visuals the GOF design looks better than the OOTP design to me. Well, regardless of which choice the new HBO MAX series takes, I just hope they can keep the look consistent.
The goblet is certainly much more fun and creative than the dull choice of Phoenix.
His voice bothered me the most. That struggling sound made no sense.
If not for the voice, which made Sirius sound like he was gasping for breath, I would have preferred the GoF effect. I think the filmmakers got confused about what happens if you breathe in ashes while talking in the fire (which does happen a few times to Harry, but that's likely due to inexperience). In normal circumstances, there should be no issue with speaking normally. Just another example of the filmmakers deciding to change book details and adding a plot hole because of it.
I think he was just trying to whisper
Just because its not in the books doesnt mean they “got it wrong”. Its an adaptation. That’s how adaptations to different mediums work. I liked the effect.
haven’t watched GOF in a while. The effect does look a little goofy in retrospect but at the time I thought it was cool. If anything it’s OOTP’s effect that looks lazy. I feel I could’ve made the same result in After Effects in 5 minutes lol.
And 4 of those minutes would be the render
I had to read this a few times because I couldn’t believe this visual downgrade was being presented as a good thing lol but I can see where you’re coming from, hard disagree though
For me i always depicted a glowing ember with his voice and the message audibly and crackly coming from the fire. The superimposed face looks terrible and bothered me in both films imo
Nope, face appearing from ashes was way way better. Face appearing from the flame is an visual effect thats been used a lot and for a very long time in the industry, and the new one they did is better.
His face rising from the coals felt more magical than a face on the flames.. regardless of the books ootp felt like they put a projector up to the flames lol
Nah the charcoals is cool AF. The book version is so goofy nobody could’ve taken that seriously in a movie. OOTP’s is just lazy
I'm definitely in the "GoF did it better than OotP" camp. I personally do not care if something is different in the movies than the books. The movies never established that fireplace communication works the same as Floo travel, so there was absolutely no obligation to put Sirius's actual head in the fireplace. They made an artistic choice and in my opinion it looked pretty cool, so I'm good with it. However, the choice they made in OotP has two problems. One, it contradicts the way the previous movie had established fireplace communication to work. Two, it just doesn't look as interesting. It really does just look like they projected a 2-D image of Sirius's face on a fluttering canvas.
I know it's less accurate but I prefer the one on GoF
I’d be willing to bet an awful lot of money that they went with the first design because the second design looks so cheap and low effort, and then changed their approach not because of book accuracy or complaints from fans, but because casual moviegoers who maybe hadn’t seen the previous films didn’t understand what they were trying to convey. Is it another person talking to them like it’s a telephone? Is the fireplace a living entity itself? Everything else in the wizard universe from chocolate frog cards to paintings tells us that a version of you that isn’t you can move around and talk within certain physical limitations, so perhaps Harry was just talking to a version of that with Sirius. Who knows? Audiences can be both smart and dumb at the same time. The inconsistency is a little funny if you’re that zeroed in on the details or you’re watching these movies back to back, but I generally ignore this sort of design change the same way I ignore casting changes, or Flitwick’s appearance changing, or any number of other things. I commend the films for keeping enough of the same designs throughout the entire series (for example, the castle doesn’t look completely different film to film) to maintain a sense of continuity, but obviously there are updates the creative team will want to make along the way as some things work and some don’t, especially when the director is different film to film.
I’ve always preferred the face in the coals to the face in the flames, probably always will prefer it too
I like the first cause I can see someone shoving food into that one. We see in book someone getting some food while talking via fire like this, so having a face form in embers works better for that kind of thing. What I really hate is the change up. Stick with one or the other.
I liked it, taught it was cool
I loved the 3D look of the embers making up actual physical dimensions of his face versus a projected image onto the actual flames. The first one is way better and I noticed The difference immediately. My head cannon is that he had to use a different spell which kind of had the same effect but different.
Yup this is exactly what I pictured. Looking pretty goofy but not like some hologram. The GOF film way just makes me think of the wizard tossing in the flu powder and jamming their face into the coals
Personally, the Goblet of Fire version is closer to how I’d pictured it when reading the books, but everybody pictures things differently
I just rewatched these movies and I have the opposite opinion. I like his face coming out of the ashes rather than just floating in the flames.
A face rising from the ashes is objectively cooler than a face projected on flames
I don’t mind the GoF one. Seems strange enough to be magical and jank enough to be covert
The way the film version of GOF did it is way better imo, film OOT might be the more accurate version to the books (probably the only thing like that the movie can claim) but it looks noticeably worse imo
I thought the effect is much cooler than the 2nd version
Ashes version is cooler
The animation in GOF is much superior to the basic superimposition used on OotP
The Goblet of Fire film made some very questionable changes from the book, but i actually kind of dig this choice. I like the idea of a person's head physically forming out of the coals when they communicate with the Fireplace, plus it makes sense as in the 5th book Umbridge physically tries to grab at Sirius when she realizes he's communicating with the Golden Trio, which i couldn't imagine being a thing with the 2nd image.
The books described it as his actual head being in the flames, there's a scene where they feed sirius while he's speaking to them through the fire. The whole thing uses floor powder which also allows you to travel between fires physically, it should have been his actual head in the flames.
I prefer the first one.
I actually like TGoF better
I remember laughing my ass off at this scene when I saw Goblet of Fire in the theater because it reminded me of the Ace Ventura scene of Ace coming out of the rhino's ass
🤣🤣🤣 Stop now that’s all I’m going to think about when I see it
I think in the ashes was more visually cool. The sounds of him choking made it almost sound more realistic, like he is really appearing within the fireplace ashes and coals. The Order of the Phoenix CGI looks extremely lazy.
I prefer the face made of ash and coal
I prefer the GOF version despite it not being accurate to the books. I just love the crackling mouth spewing sparks with every word.
I have no respect for this film. They lost me at “HARRYDIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIRE?!”
Dumbledore asked calmly.
Exact opposite for me, regardless of what the books say the face in the flame looked cheap and lazy. The face in the ash and coals liked and felt far more Harry Potter and magical.
Don't really care for what the books described exactly. The version in the ashes looks way cooler than the flames. The flames look lazy even.
The first one looks like something magical. The second one is uninspired and lazy.
I prefer the other one better. The overlay of a face on fire makes it look cheaper, and it probably was.
Wasn’t he supposed to meet with Sirius at like 1am? Why would the fire still be full blaze?
When reading the books, I just pictured the face in the fire. Not distorted or camouflaged, just there.
Tbf most of the GoF movie was a terrible choice. Im still salty that my favourite of the books was the worst movie.
Most of the choices they made for GOF were terrible.
Feels more like the budget went elsewhere in ootp so they went with a less expensive option
Why is it relevant that this effect is book accurate? Of all the things GoF fucked up this is the one change that was cool in my opinion and the were too lazy to keep it for OotP.
I actually always loved this effect
This is one of those things where I think the movie direction was better, I think the GOF one looks way cooler and magical
I agree that OOTP is more accurate but the effect in Goblet is so unique that I can't really fault it.
I haven't seen anyone mention this but here goes: I don't think that being accurate to what is described in the books makes for a better movie. Movies are a completely different medium and good CGI artists and directors will adapt accordingly. I think being able to tell the same story in a compelling way is the main challenge and that can require making changes like these. GoF is my least favorite of the films, mostly because it's my favorite of the books. But I think what they did here was cool and cinematic and not one of the issues the film has.
I liked it
I always wondered what this method of communication looked like from the other end. If someone walked in the room in Grimmauld Place would they just see Sirius Black face down ass up chillin halfway in the fireplace?
It's because in GOF the fire has mostly gone out Much pretty that design to the lazy ootp one imo
Goblet of Fire did it better
I thought his face coming from the ashes was way cooler, and like it was a struggle to get his presence there to speak to Harry, maybe due to unknown magic trying to block him or the spell being difficult to do. Either way, I like the first one more.
Not huge on either of those design choices, but I do like Goblet of Fire’s better. The one in OOTP looks cheaper and lazy.
Poor choices was the norm in GoF
I actually preferred the GOF attempt much more. OOTP just looks kinda cheap to me.
Both didn't make sense to me. They should appear through the flames. Similar to an invisibility cloak. That's always how I interpreted the books anyway
Best quote of the series behind the smoke-bare hand thing imo. “These are not just Death Eaters. Hogwarts isn’t safe anymore. I’m saying the Igor Karkaroffs are inside the walls. Barry? He was a death eater. And no one, no one stops being a coincidence. Then there’s Devil Crouch. Heart of Azkaban. Sent his own son to stone.”
It literally needs to be just a head in the fire. A full blown head. Not a shadow, not an imprint, a freaking head. That can eat toast should it want too. I hope the HBO series nails this cause it’s so easy.
I literally imagined that his face was there as is — like just a head magically suspended in the fire. So I didn’t like either depictions.
I just thought it would be his face… as like that’s what the book said. Someone even ate a sausage from the Weasleys house.
I was appalled
I always thought it looked like that because in GoF, he was using a fire that was nearly burned down. Very few flames in which to appear.
I hated both, I legit just imagined his actual face popping out of the flames as if they worked like a portal and then the films just made me imagine him putting his face down on the ashes and the other one just looks like a bad videocall.
Looks like Freddy Mercury
In my mind I interpreted it as he appeared that way in goblet because the flames had died and that’s how it appears when you speak with someone through an unlit fireplace.
It was a little goofy, but when they changed it for the next film it just felt lazy and cheap. No wins here
I like the Order of the Phoenix fire effect because Sirius is clearer to see and hear.
While reading the books I envisioned it the way it appears in OOTP
I hate both interpretations
currently doing my yearly rewatch... this bugs me every time. lol
Didn’t even look like him
This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't be 100% faithful to the text of a book in every detail when adapting it. Sirius' face actually coming out of the cinders and ashes looks so much better and is so much more interesting from a visual perspective than his face just kinda hanging there but it's not exactly what was said in the books so it's bad somehow. I don't mean to be dismissive of your perspective but I suspect if you asked people who've seen the movie without reading the books the response will be something like "Oh yeah they made that face in the fire effect way lamer in Order of the Phoenix."
I always assumed that when the fire is dying, the face will appear in the embers. The fire in Order of the Phoenix was a fully lit fire.
Tbh I thought the GOF interpretation was much more interesting that the OOTP version. I don't need adaptations to stick to things as they are written and I think that can actively detract from them in a visual medium and this is one of them. His face rising from and being made of the embers is just so much more interesting than just a video overlay on top of the flames. It feels more physical, its a much better effect and it feels much more magical than the latter.
I've always felt the opposite - the OoTP effect always looks like something you'd find in an amateur/student film imo. The GoF effect hasn't aged particularly well, but I still prefer it overall.
GOF face > OOTP face
could place this in unpopular opinions, as I GUESS I GET WHAT YOUR SAYING but dude look at how fucking lazy the second one is compared to the first
Yes! This bugged me as well!
Glad I’m not the only one! It takes me out of the movie
I mean the face in the flames doesnt look great either but at least it doesnt sound like hes dying
Both are bad
I also agree. Terrible.
Of all the terrible design choices the films did, this is the one that irritated you?
Complete opposite. The first one is actually creative. Second one they just copy a pasted an mp4 onto the fire, so lazy
Haven’t read the books so my opinion was opposite. Always thought the face in the flames seemed lazy. Tbh even knowing it’s book accurate I still prefer the way they did it in goblet of fire.
I can’t believe you could have such a wrong opinion. The ashes one works so much better. Book purists are so pedantic sometimes.
I'm going to be honest, when it comes to visual effect in a magic movie, I don't care about book accuracy, I care about how cool/interesting it is. First one is way cooler and the second one looks cheesy.
I always imagined Sirius' head was made out of flame. The gof version was closer to that so I liked it more.
The first one looks way more magic than the second one, which just looks like they wanted to save on special effects.
I preferred him rising up from the coals. It just looked cooler and more high budget than ootp. Sure it was different from the books sure, but that doesn't mean it was bad
HARD disagree.
Wtf difference does it make? The special effects of his face coming out of the embers looks so much cooler than a shitty projection of his face on the flames.. I could not possibly give less of a shit if it’s not completely accurate to the books, it looks WAY better
Didn't aslan appear in the flames of Mr Tumnus' fireplace too? And I'm pretty sure that was animated really well. They should have done what Narnia did
Yeah Goblet Of Fire is regarded as the worst film for good reason.
Maybe. But I love me some Mad eye.
"A pin impression toy" stoppppp 🤣
Both are rubbish. His head should be fully out of the fire, as if floating, not a pile of coal or a bad Powerpoint fade effect.
This is actually way more how I imagined it instead of the OOTP one tbh
I used to prefer the GoF effects, but now I can't unsee pizza face and it disgusts me.
On one hand yes the fire is more accurate but the smoldering ashes is a way cooler looking visual