Question: At the beginning of the movie, Peter asks Voldemort if they can perform the ritual without Harry. Why? Does he now feel bad for betraying Harry's parents?
Question: During the graveyard scene Voldemort says "I can touch you now." But then he starts screaming, so is he actually in pain or is he mocking Harry?
Answer: Mocking him.
Mocking him and intending to harm him.
Question: With Peter being such a coward, why did he actually go and find Voldemort?
Answer: Because he is far more afraid of what would happen to him if Voldemort returned and Peter hadn't assisted in it.
In the movies, Peter Pettigrew is less cowardly than in the books. In this movie, he never shows any sign of cowardice and is depicted as a ruthless, cold-blooded character.
He cowers away when Voldemort accuses him of returning out of fear, not loyalty. He is Voldemort's pet, and does as he says without question because he is afraid of him. That does make him cold-blooded though.
Question: Even though Harry didn't put his name in the Goblet of Fire, why did all the students (especially Ron) think he did? Did any of them see him do it?
Answer: People thought Harry put his name in the Goblet for more attention and fame, and thought he already had enough. Ron was grumpier at Harry because, according to Hermione in the books, he was jealous of Harry's fame.
Specifically, Ron is jealous of Harry because Ron has five older brothers, and feels that he must compete for attention at home. Harry is yet another person who gets more attention/recognition than he does.
Corrected entry: After the first task in the tournament, Harry's arm is in a sling. But in the second movie, Madam Pomfrey stated that she can "mend bones in a heartbeat."
Correction: But his arm was fine when he was carrying the golden egg and cheering with his friends in the common room. Then the next day, he was wearing an arm sling. I don't understand.
Correction: Just because his arm is in a sling doesn't mean it's broken. He could have a tingling sensation that won't go away or his arm hurts when he moves it and they don't know why (magic). It's just a precaution.
He actually got a big cut in his shoulder when he was falling from the roof, and the sling was to keep his arm and shoulder still so the cut would heal.
Corrected entry: In this movie, Professor Flitwick was in human form. However in all the other Harry Potter movies and even in the books, he was a troll-like creature. I know this movie had a different director and they sometimes change things a bit, but at least keep the characters looking the same.
Correction: Most things (school robes, Hogwarts geography, ect) are different between each of the films. It's not a continuous series, the way LOTR is.
Mistake is still valid. Clothing and buildings can easily explained when they change. But even in the wizard world, changing from a creature to a human? Come on.
Question: What I cannot understand about this movie, having watched it 3 times, is why there is no response to Crouch senior's death by anyone. Having read the book, I assumed it would be made clear at some point that he had been killed by his son, but in fact it's left hanging as a huge loose end. Is it conceivable that the tournament would just continue when the referee and judge has been found dead close to the castle?
Answer: You're right, and there is no real answer to this. The way Crouch Sr.'s death was handled did not make much sense and it is yet another example of how the movies glossed over many plot details that were explained in the books. It would be completely unrealistic that an important official's murder during the event would be overlooked. It's unfortunate that the overall story arc of the series has so many gaping holes in it and the filmmakers expected the audience to "fill in the blanks." That is why there are so many questions about the HP films on this site.
Actually it wasn't overlooked. In the next scene, just after Crouch's body was discovered, Dumbledore, Fudge and fake Moody are discussing the matter and are unsure what they should do about it. Moreover, in one of deleted scenes Harry, Ron and Hermione talk about Crouch's death.
Answer: But his death is explained in the book. Barty Crouch Jr. explains having killed him, transfiguring him into a bone and burying him in Hagrid's garden. As for why there was no announcement, Barty Crouch Sr. Was believed to be ill and had been out of sight for some time now. Percy Weasley, his assistant still had continuous messages from him via owl. At the end of the Tournament however and upon revelation, Fudge might've been acting out of fear and kept the entire incident low. Not to mention how he had limited proof considering he had Barty Crouch Jr. immediately kissed by a dementor. The movie plot for this is definitely flawed but the book, admittedly, allows proper assumption of the aftermath of his death.
Not quite flawed. After Crouch's body is discovered in the forest by Harry, there is a scene where Dumbledore, Fudge and fake Moody debate what actions should be taken due to this incident. Fudge, being afraid of losing his position of Minister Of Magic, refuses to cancel the Tournament because he doesn't want to be perceived as a coward.
Answer: It actually makes some sense. Fudge refused to cancel the Tournament because he was afraid of losing his position of Minister Of Magic.
Question: Why didn't Harry simply refuse to take part in the Tri-Wizard tournament? Even though his name came out of the goblet, he could have said no.
Answer: No, he had to participate because the goblet of fire forced him into a "magical contract." The goblet itself is probably partially sentient and would punish anyone who didn't participate after being selected by the goblet. How this works exactly is never explained, but the tournament judges were pretty clear that he had no choice but to participate.
What would have happened to Harry if he broke the contract?
Broken magical contracts usually resulted in death; a good deterrent for not breaking them. Keep in mind, however, Harry (in the book at least), like many students, very much wanted to compete in the tournament despite the danger, but initially couldn't because he was underage. He still wanted to compete, despite knowing the selection process was rigged.
It's never explained.
Question: Given the Tasks are the main point of the Triwizard Tournament, they're pretty poor spectator sports - one is an hour underwater and another is in a dark maze. So all the overseas students spend most of a year at Hogwarts to watch three short rounds of a competition, two of which happen out of sight?
Answer: This is better understood in the book. The students were not invited there solely to watch the Triwizard Tournament. It was also a year-long educational and cultural experience. Dumbledore revived the tournament in its original form for a specific purpose - his secret goal was to build an international wizarding community to help fight Voldemort, who he was certain would return and spread his evil beyond the U.K. Bringing the Durmstrang and Beauxbaton students to Hogwarts for the school year was intended to build lasting friendships and alliances and for them to work cooperatively. Also, the original competition was never designed to entertain a crowd. It was a dangerous, life-threatening event that tested competitors' courage and abilities under extreme conditions, That is hardly boring and would likely keep spectators engaged long enough to see if the champions survived, even if some events weren't entirely visible.
Not sure where that is in the books, other than it being a genuinely good strategy, but the original question does seem to have a point - if you're going to collate three communities to watch a very spread-out version of the Olympic Games, why select two games where the action is entirely invisible to the audience other than who eventually emerges from the lake/maze first? It's like staging the Indy 500 when the crowd can only see the podium and not the track.
It is part of the book's overall plot, and, in the movie, Hermione mentions its purpose is about "magical cooperation." I don't recall that Dumbledore personally selected the events. He revived the original TriWizard Tournament, albeit with safety modifications. The real answer, however, is that this is a book/movie. J.K. Rowling crafted the plot to make it exciting and suspenseful and to allow for Voldemort's ultimate plan at the story's end to unfold, hidden from Dumbledore, the Hogwarts staff, and Ministry officials, who, naturally, would intervene. Otherwise, how could Harry be captured, Cedric killed, Harry be part of Voldemort's resurrection, and the climatic duel with the Dark Lord in the graveyard take place? Sometimes facts/reality/logic, etc. are suspended for the sake of the story.
Corrected entry: Harry summons his Firebolt when facing the dragon; He specifies "Accio Firebolt". But the broom that comes is a dirty old thing that looks like a small tree branch with some straw attached - Definitely not the sleek, highly polished racing broom that everyone was drooling over in the third film. This is most clear when Harry tries to unhook the broom from the tower window as the dragon stalks him.
Correction: That's due to the films being made/directed by different people - they had different ideas about how things like the Firebolt, Hogwarts, the teachers etc. should look. Artistic license, not a mistake.
The broom has aged by a year. So it has been used to the point where its won't look brand new. Look at the broom he got in Philosopher's Stone. It looked sleek as well but by Prisoner of Azkaban, it didn't look as good.
Corrected entry: Just after Harry speaks to Sirius in the fireplace and Ron comes down, Ron leaves and Harry goes back to the fireplace. In the background you see Ron going up the stairs, he goes into the dormitory on the right, but this is the *Girls Dormitory*. When they all arrive in the Common Room in the first movie, Percy says, "Boys' dormitories is upstairs and down to your left. Girls' the same on your right. And also in the first film, we see Hermione go through the door on the right after they see Fluffy for the first time.
Correction: This is four years later. It's entirely possible they switched the dormitories. Remember, it's a magical place so it wouldn't be difficult. Also, a number of things change physical locations between the films. For example, Hagrid's house and the Whomping Willow have been repositioned several times. There is no inconsistency within this film.
Yes, but why would they want to?
Same reason people in real life change where their own bedrooms are. They simply want a change as things can get dull keeping them the same all the time for many people.
Question: Why was Ron angry with Harry for allegedly putting his name in the Goblet of Fire?
Answer: Ron was becoming a jealous of Harry's fame and, feeling inadequate, was tired of being in his shadow. He (wrongly) believed Harry had entered his name into the Goblet for the attention.
Answer: Harry has an invisibility cloak and the Marauders Map, easily undetectable to anyone but Mad-Eye Moody. I'm sure Ron thought that Harry could have slipped away; surely they aren't together every second of the day. Ron was jealous, it doesn't have to make sense.
Question: Who killed Frank Bryce? I doubt that was Voldemort, because he doesn't have a body at that moment.
Chosen answer: Oh, but it IS Voldemort. He is small like a hairless, feeble child, but he has a body nonetheless. When Nagini tells Voldemort, who is sitting in the chair (beside Barty Crouch Jr), that Frank Bryce is in the corridor, he tells Wormtail to step aside before he himself performs the Avada Kedavra with his own wand. We see Voldemort's entire body as Wormtail drops him into the cauldron with the 'rebirthing potion', which gives him the new adult form.
But who killed Cedric? Is it still Voldemort or Wormtail. I know Voldemort gives the order but Wormtail has the wand.
Yeah that's always very confusing but the idea is that since Wormtail did it on orders by Voldemort, it was with Voldemort's wand and that Wormtail basically was a slave of Voldemort so Voldemort killed Cedric. Womrtail hasn't really got a will of his own anymore, including the point he is choked to death with the magical hand Voldemort gave him (in the books).
Wormtail did it on Voldemort's orders, so technically it was him.
Question: Why was Hermione being chased by Ginny in the tent? Hermione isn't the kind of person who'd do a harmless thing and make someone chase them for a joke.
Answer: Hermione is a 14 year old girl, having fun with a close friend. Of course they will horse around and tease and play. Hermione might be serious as a student and quite mature for her age, but she also knows how to have fun.
She is almost a year older than Harry, so that explains the maturity.
Answer: If you're referring to the tent scene at the Quidditch World Cup, I don't remember Ginny chasing Hermione, but the twins, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and Harry are in high spirits after their favored team has won. All are jumping around, laughing and singing in celebration. If that's not the scene you're referring to, can you be more specific?
Ginny was chasing Hermione when Fred and George said "feet off the table"
I watched the clip on YouTube. Ginny and Hermione are excited after the group arrive inside their rented tent. The girls rush into where they will be sharing a room and drop off their gear. They then rush over to the other side of the tent, probably to where the kitchen is. Hermione is just running ahead of Ginny and is not being chased.
Question: When Harry is packing his trunk at the end and Dumbledore is talking to him about setting the curtains on fire, does anyone know what is written on the inside of the lid of Harry's trunk?
Answer: It's hard to say what was written on the inside of the trunk. Sometimes they write the company that made the trunk so it might have had the manufacturer's name inside of it and maybe even the year that it was made as well. It seems like everyone at the school has very similar trunks so it may have his name written inside of it so as not to confuse it with anyone else's.
Answer: It looks like information for Harry's trunk in case it was ever found by someone. Probably had his phone number and address inside of it.
You wouldn't put that information on the inside.
You would if you didn't want to display your personal information everywhere but also expected that if your trunk was lost, the finder would open it to see whose it was. Yes it is more practical to have an ID tag or similar in modern luggage but the Harry Potter stories are deliberately written as quaint and old fashioned.
You don't open luggage you find. Name of the owner is always on the outside.
Sure you would. Presumably, it's very difficult to lose a trunk that big, given the modes of transport that Harry uses. Info on the inside would be a last resort.
Corrected entry: There's no way anyone could cut off their hand with a knife the way Wormtail did. The only way they could do it is if they slowly sawed it off. Even if he raised the knife and swung it hard, there's no way it would work, the bone is way too strong. But Wormtail didn't even do that, he just placed the knife on his hand and moved it down. You couldn't even cut hair like that.
Correction: Wormtail is not just "anyone" though. He understood the importance of each of the ritual's steps and getting the potion done just right. He is following Voldemort's orders and instructions. Wormtail's dagger may have been magical, or a charm could have been placed on its finely edged blade to be swift in its tasks. Also, Wormtail was in a highly charged state of mind, which only intensified the force he used to "willingly" sacrifice his hand.
Correction: He didn't cut through bone, he cut his wrist and the knife moved past the bones. If the force is strong enough and the knife sharp enough it's definitely possible to do this.
Corrected entry: When Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, it is written on lined paper and not parchment. Wizards only use parchment.
Correction: In the books wizards only use parchments, but it is not stated in the movies that they never use paper.
Yep I even think its done intentionally. Barty Crouch Junior intentionally used muggle paper for Harry's name to make it more believable that Harry did it himself.
Question: In the graveyard scene, I'm absolutely sure that Wormtail cast the Avada Kedavra spell on Cedric, but why is everybody saying that Voldemort killed Cedric then?
Chosen answer: You're right. Wormtail did kill Cedric on Voldemort's orders. At that point, Voldemort did not yet have his body back and was unable to kill Cedric himself. Some of the confusion may come from the fact the Wormtail used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric, which is why his ghost comes out of the wand during the fight with Harry.
Why was Voldemort unable to kill Cedric? He could kill the muggle caretaker at the beginning of the movie himself, wasn't he? He didn't have his body then.
Pettigrew had his wand.
Also, everybody believed Pettigrew to be dead at this point.
Question: Why did Barty run away, letting Harry go at the world cup? I know he heard the voices of Hermione and Ron but he's smart enough to know that he could've killed them and then just taken Harry. After all, isn't that why he was there in the first place?
Answer: Taking Harry and killing Ron and Hermione at that time would have made it too obvious that Voldemort was behind it. Voldemort's plot hinged on abducting Harry in a way that no one would immediately know what had happened to him. The TriWizard Tournament was traditionally extremely dangerous, resulting in students in past events being killed while competing. Harry's disappearance in the maze would initially be attributed to some tragic mishap, giving Voldemort time to complete his resurrection.
Yeah, the ritual needed to be made ready too I think, for Voldemort's revival.
Answer: There are several reasons here. Peter Pettigrew regretted betraying the Potters and knows he is a lowly coward for having done so and for obeying Voldemort out of fear. He also knows that Harry spared his life during the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack (in Prisoner of Azkaban) when Lupin and Sirius were about to kill him. Because of Harry's mercy, Pettigrew is now magically bound to Harry with a life debt. In the books, this will later cost Pettigrew his life when he hesitates to kill Harry (in Deathly Hallows) and his silver hand instead fatally strangles him for defying Lord Voldemort.
raywest ★
In the movies, Pettigrew NEVER regretted betraying Harry's parents and, on the contrary, was actually proud of doing so.
Where did you get that idea from? He is a coward and cowardice controls him. Not pride.
lionhead
It is mentioned on the internet sites like TV Tropes, Villains Wiki, and Pure Evil Wiki. These sites mention that movie version of Pettigrew is far more evil than his book version.
None of those sites indicate he was proud of what he had done or does. They just mention the movies don't show Peter having regrets like he does in the books. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it. We see very little of him in any of the movies anyway. He is still only known as a coward and nothing more of him is shown than that.
lionhead
In the books, he betrayed James and Lily out of cowardice, while in the films, he betrayed them willingly.