Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[LSH 968]

On 27/10/2023 at 9:39 AM, bollemanneke said:

Thank God.

Yeah kill ‘em. I have no interest in them anyway.

 

Be glad for JNH to move on too. Good scores, but enough.

[Mr. Who 919]

Why do some people celebrate that a movie franchise appears to be cancelled? If it wasn’t your cup of tea, just ignore them.
 

Loved the first 2 films and thought the third one was a let down because of the clearly changed story. Anyway hope the Grindelwald Dumbledore story gets told somehow and that JNH can return to finish or expand his music in the wizarding world.

[Alex 2,835]

Pretty concerning how David Yates is a spokesperson on this. He should have been moved on from this universe a while ago.

[bollemanneke 3,346]

Like, in 2009?

[Richard Penna 3,687]

I've never seen any of them but the move away from the 'Fantastic Beasts' branding (awkwardly small by the third movie) indicated to me somewhat of an identity problem at WB. I suppose with a big franchise, the returns need to be substantial to justify big budgets so I'm not at all surprised if they're not enough by this point.

 

JNH's scores... mixed results. The first one feels like some fresh air but I never got into the second, and while I like the third, it feels a bit like a long playlist of extremely competent fantasy scoring but without that much holding it together. I'm content that he can move on to other things.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,524]

Personally, I'd like to see one more film, if only to join the dots between Fantastic Beasts, and Harry Potter.

[Mr. Who 919]

The thing is that I think some people misinterpreted what the franchise was about. Fantastic Beasts was literally the prologue, introducing Newt Scamander.

 

The "main story" is about Grindelwald and the threat that he posed to the world. This story was already being set up in the first movie with Grindelwald being the main antagonist and the anti muggle politics being central to the plot. Grindelwald is already shown in the first scene of the first movie, where he wipes out 12 people. It always seemed pretty clear to me that the franchise wasn't about cuddly beasts but that that was an aspect of it given who Newt is as a character. So personally I always had trouble understanding why some people were so surprised that the movies became darker. The first movie was the setup.

 

I do think that naming the franchise Fantastic Beasts was a mistake as it probably gave people the wrong idea about the main story though but I guess it made sense to have one recognizable name for all the movies.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, Mr. Who said:

The thing is that I think some people misinterpreted what the franchise was about. Fantastic Beasts was literally the prologue, introducing Newt Scamander.

 

Right. People just become too attached to titles, as though they're supposed to at all reflect the contents of the film: they're not.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

People just become too attached to titles, as though they're supposed to at all reflect the contents of the film: they're not.

 

A lesson I learned after watching "The Neverending Story". Talk about a misleading title. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,524]

The idea behind THE NEVERENDING STORY perfectly fits its title.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

21 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

The idea behind THE NEVERENDING STORY perfectly fits its title.

 

Yeah but with a running time of 94 minutes, the title is straight up false advertising. 

[bollemanneke 3,346]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Right. People just become too attached to titles, as though they're supposed to at all reflect the contents of the film: they're not.

People became attached to the FB title because WB wouldn't stop naming it like that. Why couldn't we have The Crimes of Grindelwald? As I said years ago, there's a reason you don't have Peter Pan: The Rise of Jack Sparrow or Iron Man: Thor's Last Stand. Pick your main story.