Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[publicist 4,643]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:41 PM, Matt C said:

If the movie's opening weekend gross here in America ends up being less than the $61-65 million projected, WB is going to be doing some trimming. They're either going to have JKR work with an experienced screenwriter to shape the script for the third film, ditch David Yates for a new director (my preference), or trim the budget back.

 

It made $191,500,000 worldwide this weekend, so WB will probably be merciful. Which is a shame because with a good screenwriter like Kloves at the helm they would have had something. Part 1 was an unfocused mess of ideas in search of a good central idea and the second probably is worse. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

I think Yates is alright. He did what he could. The script was the main issue.

 

Rowling needs to think through her story.

 

I think they did not have enough story for 5 movies and so this one was just a filler entry.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

I still don't understand why people dislike script 1 so much...

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

I still don't understand why people dislike script 1 so much...

 

Script 1 is good. I am talking about Script 2.

[Arpy 4,145]

7 hours ago, Jay said:

8 glaring inconsistencies in 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' that will frustrate 'Harry Potter' fans

 

Some of those are pretty obvious and shows a lack of care on the filmmakers (especially including Rowling)

Most of these shouldn't be taken so seriously.

 

McGonagall's appearance does seem to be inconsistent, but only in one Pottemore article that Rowling wrote giving her birthdate a decade later than the events of the film (even more considering she was teaching in the flashbacks!) To me, Rowling could simply dismiss the Pottermore article and change her own canon. No biggie.

 

Other things on this list are examples of nit-picking of the highest order. The making of the Blood Pact and how it works haven't been divulged yet, all we can do is speculate. For all we know, the pact prevents one wizard from killing the other, not strictly duelling itself.

 

The scars of the Unbreakable Vow - just because we didn't see any in Half-Blood Prince doesn't mean they can't appear here, again, like the Blood Pact and other things in this list, the magic hasn't been entirely explained.

 

Grindelwald's British accent? Who cares? Really?

 

Accio Niffler? Yeah, Rowling stated the summoning charm only works on inanimate objects, but we don't know for sure if there are exceptions to that rule,cans exceptions made for plot convenience. 

 

[Bofur01 245]

9 hours ago, Arpy said:

Most of these shouldn't be taken so seriously.

 

McGonagall's appearance does seem to be inconsistent, but only in one Pottemore article that Rowling wrote giving her birthdate a decade later than the events of the film (even more considering she was teaching in the flashbacks!) To me, Rowling could simply dismiss the Pottermore article and change her own canon. No biggie.

  

Other things on this list are examples of nit-picking of the highest order. The making of the Blood Pact and how it works haven't been divulged yet, all we can do is speculate. For all we know, the pact prevents one wizard from killing the other, not strictly duelling itself.

 

The scars of the Unbreakable Vow - just because we didn't see any in Half-Blood Prince doesn't mean they can't appear here, again, like the Blood Pact and other things in this list, the magic hasn't been entirely explained.

 

Grindelwald's British accent? Who cares? Really?

 

Accio Niffler? Yeah, Rowling stated the summoning charm only works on inanimate objects, but we don't know for sure if there are exceptions to that rule,cans exceptions made for plot convenience. 

 

 

McGonagall says in the book to Umbridge that she'd been teaching there for 39 years. And we saw them try to catch a niffler for ages in film 1... surely if it were that easy, accio niffler could have been used. 

 

But yeah, some of these are  bit ott.

 

[Arpy 4,145]

39 years consecutively? @Bofur01

[Holko 9,499]

The point is that Rowling went out of her way to create a backstory for her outside of the books, involving some unrequited love for a Muggle if I recall correctly, but now that work is thrown out the window for a minute-long fanservice cameo.

[Bilbo 3,709]

6 minutes ago, Holko said:

The point is that Rowling went out of her way to create a backstory for her outside of the books, involving some unrequited love for a Muggle if I recall correctly, but now that work is thrown out the window for a minute-long fanservice cameo.

 

So? It’s only backstory from Pottermore. She’s entitled to change those details if she feels like it. Most of that backstory doesn’t have to change just her age 

[mstrox 6,647]

I haven't seen the new Fantastic Beasts, and care only mildly about the Wizarding World franchise in book or movie form, but I'll map this to my fanaticism about Star Wars to this and say "Who cares about canon if they're telling a good story!" with a side dish of "Ancillary materials are always subservient to the main canon texts."

[Arpy 4,145]

@mstrox 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

But what if the story sucks?

[mstrox 6,647]

That's a separate issue - haven't seen the second Beasts movie yet.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Jude Law's receding hairline is inconsistent with old Dumbledor.

[mstrox 6,647]

19 minutes ago, Horner's Dynamic Range said:

Jude Law's receding hairline is inconsistent with old Dumbledor.

 

It's spelled Dumbledorf

[publicist 4,643]

21 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

I still don't understand why people dislike script 1 so much...

 

Because by all rules of good screenwriting it sucks. I found it bleedingly obvious in this case that they had no clue what works on an audience emotionally and it would have been so easy: create an analogy to human mishandling of animals - Rowlings usually loves such stuff - in the wizarding world and you have something emotionally to root for. There is no effort made to make you care about any fantastic beast, they are just mere window dressing, so of course there is a distinct lack of empathy for their 'master,' too. Forget about the rest, if you squander your prologue to fleetingly introduce just another evil wizard instead of creating backstory giving meaning and importance to the creatures of its title to either the wizard guy *or* the audience, your movie series will be another empty blockbuster with loud stuff happening every 5 minutes.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

But can we blame JKR for these beasts? As I understand it, WB forced that idea upon her.

[publicist 4,643]

Who cares who's to blame? It's the title and the main *hook* of the movie. And hardly anything to make you care about it.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

I think there are a couple good moments where Redmayne sold a heart for his animals. I remember when this was first announced it seemed like the idea was gonna be more about Newt researching his book, globe-trotting and collecting his beasts. Probably could have gotten a couple fun movies with that concept, set up a nasty poacher antagonist or whatever. Optimistically, it might have been a fine Indiana Jones knock-off, replace the Ark of the Covenent with the Loch Ness Monster. You could do one or two or five or however many audiences want.

 

I don’t know why every blockbuster franchise must be about the end of times. It’s a convenient sub for drama, I guess.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

I've always found the beasts plot the most annoying part of this franchise. I wanted to see more Mary Lou Barebone/Second Salemers. Stop banging on about the animals already.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

The point is that Newt is the hero and so we and the movie should care about whatever it is that he cares about. When it starts going on tangents that he has no directly personal stakes in then it loses focus. 

 

Voldemort wanted to take over the world and had all these big evil ideas that must be stopped, but the reason we actually hate him is because he killed Harry’s parents and wants to kill Harry too.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

3 hours ago, publicist said:

 

Because by all rules of good screenwriting it sucks. I found it bleedingly obvious in this case that they had no clue what works on an audience emotionally and it would have been so easy: create an analogy to human mishandling of animals - Rowlings usually loves such stuff - in the wizarding world and you have something emotionally to root for. There is no effort made to make you care about any fantastic beast, they are just mere window dressing, so of course there is a distinct lack of empathy for their 'master,' too. Forget about the rest, if you squander your prologue to fleetingly introduce just another evil wizard instead of creating backstory giving meaning and importance to the creatures of its title to either the wizard guy *or* the audience, your movie series will be another empty blockbuster with loud stuff happening every 5 minutes.

 

One of the reasons I love the first movie is because of what you dislike. The title is a con. The entire beasts thing is a macguffin. It is what you think the movie is about but it is not.

 

I think the unexpectedness of it is what pleased me about the movie. That it basically marketed an entirely different kind of movie as something else.

 

The surprise isn't there so much with the second film. Now we know exactly what the franchise is. But it was an audacious coup that they pulled off in the first film.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The only Newts I care about:

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Drax would presumably also include Gingrich

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Who?

[Matt C 452]

On 11/20/2018 at 1:54 PM, publicist said:

 

It made $191,500,000 worldwide this weekend, so WB will probably be merciful. Which is a shame because with a good screenwriter like Kloves at the helm they would have had something. Part 1 was an unfocused mess of ideas in search of a good central idea and the second probably is worse. 

 

 

Grindelwald will be fine financially. But there are warning signs that WB and Rowling need to keep in mind for the third FB film, and whether or not to wrap things up. And just because Rowling says there is a five-film plan doesn't mean it will happen. Lionsgate canceled the final Divergent film due to diminishing returns and the idiotic move to split the third book into two movies, for example.  

 

 

And the two-part DH film closely followed the book, so any misgivings you had can be attributed to the source material.

[publicist 4,643]

5 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

One of the reasons I love the first movie is because of what you dislike. The title is a con. The entire beasts thing is a macguffin. It is what you think the movie is about but it is not.

 

Right. That's some great achievement, having a title introducing a half-decent idea and supplant it with rotten old blockbuster bullshit. Which of course would have happened anyway. But at least make people care about your MacGuffin, then. Hitchcock could. Yates obviously not.

[Arpy 4,145]

@Matt C The Potter Wizarding World franchise is larger than the Divergent series, the films of which were a trainwreck. 

 

They might stop at four, three, or do the full five. There is still buzz for this franchise, I doubt it will end as bitterly as lesser franchises...

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Also, can we really blame Rowling if we don't care about Newt? Isn't it Yates' fault? I recently heard an interview with Redmayne and didn't recognise his voice at all. Yates obviously wants everything to be depressing and uninteresting.

[Chen G. 3,944]

5 hours ago, publicist said:

having a title introducing a half-decent idea

 

Titles are a brand, a marketing tool: they mean absolutely nothing to the content of the film.

[publicist 4,643]

That's beside the point. Obviously some thought went into focusing on the creatures of this world and that sadly went right out of the window when they wrote the actual script which is strictly by-the-numbers blockbuster issues. After recently watching a surprisingly good Potter movie (7.1) i would have thought more was possible but alas...

[bollemanneke 3,338]

So you thought 7.1 was good and we need more beasts in Beasts? Might I point out that if there's one script that's a total mess, it's 7 and 8?

[Chen G. 3,944]

From memory, I liked 7 fine.

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

So you thought 7.1 was good and we need more beasts in Beasts? Might I point out that if there's one script that's a total mess, it's 7 and 8?

 

You point this out wrongly. 7.1 was - for what it was - rather good, especially because it presented its underlying themes in a manner much less cumbersome than these kind of franchise movies usually do. But generally reading what some posters here dislike and favour just gives me raised eyebrows, so this might be a generational gap. I have seen enough over the last decades though to know what is solid, bad or exceptional screenwriting (some movies get by with less because they do rely on other, more sensual or textual approaches). But since we are dealing with very narratively driven movies here it's fair to say 'Beasts' and many others cut from the same cloth just plain suck for very obvious reasons...which, i suspect, most of their makers probably know all too well.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Have you read the seventh book? If not, did the whole Dumbledore/Hallows plotline make sense to you at all? If that's the case, I really admire your intelligence. I don't think I would have understood half of it hadn't I read the book.

[publicist 4,643]

What was so hard to understand about THAT?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The best character was the blonde chick. Everything else was forgettable pap.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

I just thought DH really didn't make any sense story-wise. Like, did Voldemort just pick random objects for Horcruxes? Why is the Grey Lady angry with Harry and why would she want that diadem to be destroyed? Why does Harry hate Scrimgeour? Etc.

[Smaug The Iron 510]

22 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I just thought DH really didn't make any sense story-wise. Like, did Voldemort just pick random objects for Horcruxes? Why is the Grey Lady angry with Harry and why would she want that diadem to be destroyed? Why does Harry hate Scrimgeour? Etc.

Are you talking about the books or movies? Because all of this is explaind in the book. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I went to see the movie, not read the book. If it's unexplainable in the movie, it should have been left out. Jaws was based on a novel and didn't raise any questions. 

[bollemanneke 3,338]

13 minutes ago, Smaug the iron said:

Are you talking about the books or movies? Because all of this is explaind in the book. 

I was referring to the movie.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

23 hours ago, Horner's Dynamic Range said:

The only Newts I care about:

That one's a Nute, not Newt. And yes, he is very important.

[Smaug The Iron 510]

3 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I was referring to the movie.

In that case, I agree they should have explaind it better (especially the Horcruxes). 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Is this movie really as bad as people say. I liked the first one. Should I even bother with the second?

[TSMefford 1,509]

44 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Is this movie really as bad as people say. I liked the first one. Should I even bother with the second?

 

I did not entirely care for it when I first saw it...then I watched the first one again today...and now I like this one even less. 

 

If youre looking a proper sequel to the first one, then you’re out of luck. It might be more enjoyable on its own, but it’s an awful sequel. They botch half the characters from the first one in my opinion.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

9 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Have you read the seventh book? If not, did the whole Dumbledore/Hallows plotline make sense to you at all? If that's the case, I really admire your intelligence. I don't think I would have understood half of it hadn't I read the book.

 

Can confirm. Have friends that haven't read the books. I would say most of the Yates film but specifically the 7th did not make an iota of sense. They work because there's action scenes and the heroes and villains are so archetypically and unambiguously defined that you can more or less go along with it but yeah the movies don't make much sense on their own.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

The Deathly Hallows split was sort of a mixed blessing. I think the first part benefited with some room to breathe when a single 3 hour movie would have blown past a lot of that stuff to get to Hogwarts ASAP. There‘s a great shot when they arrive at Grimmauld Place, the camera pulls back into the hallway to surround them in darkness and Hermione says “We’re alone” before fading to black. That is some elegant visual storytelling that says something for the film going forward. Yates/Kloves stew in that atmosphere and it was good to let the series get to that place. I don’t really trust an abridged version affording Part 1’s section the same effect, since imo Part 2’s indulgences go the other way with a lot of nonsense and Yates too often lost much of an emotional pulse with his action director hat on.

 

But I think the split also gave them license to resist proper adaptation at times and just cram in Cliffsnotes from the book where possible. Superfluous elderly characters pay lip service to the Dumbledore backstory. Harry has some broken glass, don’t ask. Lupin’s son is solemnly referenced like we were all aware of that. This stuff barely registers.

 

Problem is the movies are never long or short enough depending on who you ask so the filmmakers can’t win. They were obliged to allude to whatever they could without really integrating it. Potterheads see the struggle but I imagine to everyone else, so much is white noise, anyway, that they adjust and follow the broad strokes pretty easily.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I think Yates or Haymen confirmed DH1 is the film that would have been the most affected had it been a single film. Ultimately I think the split was justified. It might have been the only book split in two where the decision was justified. I think if the books are ever remade for the screen it needs to be TV next time. 

[mrbellamy 6,272]

I remember Heyman mentioned Snape’s memories being something that benefited from the split. There was a lot of uproar because he was quoted saying “We would have lost the memories” which he probably misspoke, but surely at least meant that would have been a much shorter sequence. 

 

But yeah, I agree it’s less contrived than other recent split novels. They found a relatively clean two-part story. Everyone pretty much guessed right away how it was gonna be divided. I think the only alternative they considered was a cut-to-black cliffhanger just as they were brought to Malfoy Manor.

 

And the only problem I have with a TV remake is that for all their problems, the films are tough to compete with. All the onscreen wizardry money can buy and the same cast of kids growing up onscreen, those are the major novelties of filming these stories. “100% more SPEW” isn’t much of an added selling point to take on the entire series again. Might be more interesting if 5-7 were isolated and reimagined as its own story, though. Nobody really cares about redoing the pre-Voldy books, anyway.