Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[Bilbo 3,709]

He does look like he could be the favourite son in that family alright. 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Filming for part 2 starts today. New cast members and characters announced:

 

https://www.pottermore.com/news/new-fantastic-beasts-film-will-be-set-in-new-york-london-and-paris?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Here's hoping they'll abandon that beasts plotline. I mean, you can't possibly make them interesting in five films, can you?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

16 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Here's hoping they'll abandon that beasts plotline. I mean, you can't possibly make them interesting in five films, can you?

 

Well the circus in the second film explains their role there. I'm intrigued as to how they'll fit them in for all 5 films!

[mrbellamy 6,286]

Magic circus could be cool for JNH.

[mstrox 6,651]

Sorry, this one is going to Giacchino.

[bollemanneke 3,348]

No it isn't, we need it to sound magical.

[mrbellamy 6,286]

4 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Sorry, this one is going to Giacchino.

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 hour ago, mstrox said:

Sorry, this one is going to Giacchino.

Get out.

[Fancyarcher 350]

3 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Here's hoping they'll abandon that beasts plotline. I mean, you can't possibly make them interesting in five films, can you?

 

You probably can't, though you'll be sure they'll try to include them in every film possible, if they can, and if they aren't, you'll see characters screaming "where's the beasts?"

[Arpy 4,145]

We've heard Giacchino in Jurassic Park mode, Star Wars mode, why not Harry Potter too?

 

(ps. it won't be Giacchino, but just a thought...)

17 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Here's hoping they'll abandon that beasts plotline. I mean, you can't possibly make them interesting in five films, can you?

I'm pretty sure they'll still centre around the 'beasts' part. Dumbledore will ask Newt if there's a beast that can find Grindelwald or some shit...

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

I quite liked the movie though I admit the beasts were not my favorite part. The beasts were actually the macguffin. They were the subplot rather than the main narrative.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The film had a tad too many subplots, some of them feeling quite irrelevant (still trying to figure out what was the point of the subplot with senator Shaw...).

[Arpy 4,145]

Either they're setting up a bigger Shaw subplot for the later films or they were simply trying to give an excuse for the muggles to be wary of wizards.

I wouldn't mind a film about the altercations between the no-maj's and the wizards, if they return to New York...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, RPurton said:

Either they're setting up a bigger Shaw subplot for the later films

 

That's what I'm thinking, but then again I don't see much of a point: we know Muggles will never know/be allowed to remember wizards exist, since they still don't know that by the time Harry's story starts...

 

But I guess we should wait and see. Maybe it'll end up affecting the heroes in a way we can't expect...

[crocodile 8,012]

Do you think Giacchino is going to use other Williams themes (other than just Hedwig's theme) in the next film?

 

Karol

[Arpy 4,145]

He'll quote the Diagon Alley theme right when the raptors jump on Hagrid.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

5 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Do you think Giacchino is going to use other Williams themes (other than just Hedwig's theme) in the next film?

 

He'll probably use Fawkes' theme, if the creature shows up in that one.

[Arpy 4,145]

9 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

That's what I'm thinking, but then again I don't see much of a point: we know Muggles will never know/be allowed to remember wizards exist, since they still don't know that by the time Harry's story starts...

 

But I guess we should wait and see. Maybe it'll end up affecting the heroes in a way we can't expect...

Seems like they're setting up the revenge plot. Henry Shaw Sr. will investigate the wizards but ultimately be foiled. Might stumble up the characters (kill Jacob etc.), but the films are in Europe now, so how much he'll be involved is unknown.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I forgot that Jude Law had been cast as Dumbledore and now I remembered and now I'm sad.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Jude Law is actually a really, really talented, and even underrated, actor.  I want them to stop casting big movie stars like Depp and Law.  They're just distracting.

 

I do think that Law has a greater chance at convincing me he was a good choice than Depp, though.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

4 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Pretty much my thoughts as well.

 

And still bothered that they didn't get Ben Wishaw to play Newt's brother, too!

 

 

At least he's Paddington!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

23 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

 

 

At least he's Paddington!

 

My most looked forward to sequel this year!  

[Bilbo 3,709]

I loved the first one!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Arpy 4,145]

A CGI talking bear is a beast, a real talking bear is a fantastic beast.

[mrbellamy 6,286]

3 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

They should do a Paddington/Fantastic Beasts crossover movie. That way, Wishaw would still be in the Fantastic Beasts franchise somehow!

 

David Heyman does produce both the Fantastic Beasts and Paddington movies...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

People still care about these films?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I care about Howard's score, my other interest is mostly idle

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

The film had a tad too many subplots, some of them feeling quite irrelevant (still trying to figure out what was the point of the subplot with senator Shaw...).

 

I think it served multiple purposes plot wise. It set up muggle characters who could be killed to raise the stakes for the wizards. So when the senator's son got killed, it was an Oh Shit moment for the magical Congress. It also gave a reason to jail Tina and newt and made the environment even more hostile for the wizards, so that they had to pull the elaborate stunt of erasing the memory of the entire city.

1 hour ago, KK said:

People still care about these films?

 

I daresay the film turned out way better than it had any business being. I thought it would be a rubbish cash grab like her horrible stage play but this actually turned out to be a very solid story by Rowling with some very good characters.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

I admire the fact that the film had literally 6-7 subplots going on, so that in any given scene, there were literally 2-3 things happening. Blockbuster filmmaking of the day rarely takes such care instead barreling the viewer with a single minded story or relentless cross cutting. 

 

This did not just introduce a large cast of characters but gave everyone atleast something to do. I am very easily bored by blockbuster films because they demand so little from you. So I liked the fact that this film had so much going on.

 

And as for the end of this series, I daresay the old adage that the journey is more interesting than the destination might be the operative motive here. Yes we know how things will pan out but even with that, if Rowling can make us care, that would be something. I think Tina and Jacob atleast are pretty good characters and I'm interested to see where they go next. 

 

I must give credit to Rowling that she didn't half ass this film. You can see the clearly see the effort that went into it. She adds a lot of color and detail and maybe ends up giving you a bit too much instead of too little but that's a plus. The story on its own works despite this one not having any deep connection to the harry Potter series.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

14 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I admire the fact that the film had literally 6-7 subplots going on, so that in any given scene, there were literally 2-3 things happening. Blockbuster filmmaking of the day rarely takes such care instead barreling the viewer with a single minded story or relentless cross cutting. 

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End did the same thing quite well IMO and everybody hated it. Every character has their own understandable motivation and every one of them is trying to manipulate events in their favor, like Jack did in the previous installments.

 

With Fantastic Beasts, I think it's just a matter of Rowling not knowing how much is too much, a problem she had in some of the novels as well.

 

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

Again, the problem is that this is a prequel we're talking about: we know ultimately what lies ahead, if not for our main characters, at least for the magical community as a whole. To me, trying to create tension around something we know is going to be resolved relatively easily by the characters is rather cheap ("Oh, my! Will Muggles find out about the magical world? What consequences could this possibly have??? And how could wizards possibly prevent that from happening??"), and ultimately does little for me as a viewer. I didn't care for it.

 

Well sure most of the audience isn't worried that the wizarding world could become exposed, but the characters would be at that point in the world's history. You know there are also going to be fans who are introduced to the world starting with these movies. The storytelling may work better for them.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

8 hours ago, Muldoon said:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End did the same thing quite well IMO and everybody hated it. Every character has their own understandable motivation and every one of them is trying to manipulate events in their favor, like Jack did in the previous installments.

And that's one of the reasons I think that movie is too short, rather than too long.

 

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

To me, it felt like useless padding (see what I did there?) in a film which already had too much going on in it.

Replace "too much" with "a ton" in that sentence!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Arpy 4,145]

I enjoyed the first film, but I don't think it found the right tone or story. I imagined it would be Newt traveling to distant lands and the audience would learn about the creatures and in the process we would witness the creation of his book. Instead this is the near equivalent of PJ's appendices-raiding Hobbit films where JK is fighting for more time to tell the backstory. 

 

Sometimes not seeing someone's backstory is far more interesting and I get the feeling that this is another cash grab to keep the Potterverse relevant.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[mstrox 6,651]

I really liked the first movie, and look forward to more.  I have some hesitation about including Dumbledore in pt 2 (and therefore tying it in further to Harry Potter's story), but Rowling hasn't steered me wrong at this point, so I'm hopeful.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The thing I'm the most "worried" about is Depp as Grindelwald.

[mstrox 6,651]

Yeah, I've been over Johnny Depp for a decade or more now.  Haven't really cared for anything, and am especially uninterested in light of his recent domestic abuse stuff.  His doughy 20-second turn in Fantastic Beasts didn't really make it seem worthwhile and reeked of stunt casting.

[KK 3,307]

14 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

On the contrary, I feel like blockbusters filmmakers try to cram too much into their films these days, thinking that by having many subplots and making your film plot more complex, it automatically makes it better. Yet the end result is rarely satisfying, instead feeling messy, with too much stuff happening and going in too many different directions. Sometimes, a leaner, more focused story is the best way to go.

 

This.

8 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Yeah. I remember, before the first film was released, there were talks about it possibly being a sort of "Indiana Jones in the Potter Universe" flick, which I thought could end up being quite fun and interesting. And while I did enjoy the film we got in the end, it was still far from perfect, and I still like the "Indiana Jones" concept more than the "magical creatures on the loose" thing in the final film (the story itself wasn't particularly interesting to me. Ultimately, it's the characters that were my favourite aspect of the film).

 

I found the story dull and even the characters only mildly interesting, if only let down but the blandness of their storylines. The creature designs (especially the "villain") seemed a bit uninspired. And there's something that irks me about seeing the Grindelwald storyline on screen. I know it's unreasonable to expect it, but I would have preferred to have all that in the books, leaving more to the readers' imagination. Now, especially having Depp play Grindelwald, it sort of ruins the image one might have had of these characters.

 

Also,it's a trivial question, but I wonder what makes fantastic beasts fantastic? Or magical? Aren't they really just different species of animals, just different products of evolution, with different characteristics? Not that it matters, but just a funny thought.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Amazing!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Harry Potter Is Better Than Everything!