Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It’s the least effective of the three Orient Express adaptations I’ve seen

[Bilbo 3,709]

It was just boring as sin and given the source material, it really shouldn’t be. 

 

It looked nice though I guess and I liked the score ok. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The 1974 version remains a classic!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Branagh isn't all too interesting, but I thought Pfeiffer, Dafoe, and Gad were the best actors. Not the best Orinet Express, but it's neat to see they'll follow with Murder on the Nile.

 

In terms of murder and mystery, Holmes is the top for me. I only ever really resonated with the Ian Richardson Sherlock though. The films and adaptations don't live up to the book anyways, at least in my experience.

 

I will not see Crimes of Grindlewald in theatre, but after it comes out I'll just rent it through the library and give it a spin.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

1 hour ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

Steve Kloves didn't write it?

 

Problems in Murder on the Orient Express?

I thought that movie was exceptionally well-done; one of my favourites of recent years.

No, I meant I want Kloves to return and supervise Rowling.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

It’s the least effective of the three Orient Express adaptations I’ve seen

Fair enough. Maybe I've just been lucky then to not have seen any others.

Taken on its own, it seemed like a well-made film with a lot of heart, good acting, good visuals, fitting music and more humour than I expected, which was welcome too.

 

19 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

No, I meant I want Kloves to return and supervise Rowling.

Ah; gotcha!

 

I didn't think Kloves did the greatest job either though.

There's some seriously weird story choices in basically all the Harry Potter movies.

[Bilbo 3,709]

4 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

Ah; gotcha!

 

I didn't think Kloves did the greatest job either though.

There's some seriously weird story choices in basically all the Harry Potter movies.

 

Ah, Kloves here is just filling the role of Gary Kurtz in the original Star Wars trilogy. Once the fanboy can no longer accept the creator’s vision they have to find someone else to latch onto and put their petty hopes in. In this case it appears to be Kloves. 

 

If Kloves had adapted this it would still have contained many of the issues people are unhappy about. I remain skeptical that he could have written a better script tbh. 

[mrbellamy 6,278]

2 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

 

Ah, Kloves here is just filling the role of Gary Kurtz in the original Star Wars trilogy. Once the fanboy can no longer accept the creator’s vision they have to find someone else to latch onto and put their petty hopes in. In this case it appears to be Kloves. 

 

If Kloves had adapted this it would still have contained many of the issues people are unhappy about. I remain skeptical that he could have written a better script tbh. 

 

Even sillier because unlike Kurtz he remains a producer on these films! It seems to me that he developed enough of a working relationship/friendship with Rowling while adapting Potter that he could give constructive criticism whenever he wants. She was always defensive of his screenplays and the films in general so I wouldn't doubt he's been sticking around on Fantastic Beasts at her behest. I would actually be pretty surprised if he isn't regularly giving notes or she's not taking them seriously.

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 minute ago, mrbellamy said:

 

Even sillier because unlike Kurtz he remains a producer on these films! It seems to me that he developed enough of a working relationship/friendship with Rowling while adapting Potter that he could give constructive criticism whenever he wants. She was always defensive of his screenplays and the films in general so I wouldn't doubt he's been sticking around on Fantastic Beasts at her behest. I would actually be pretty surprised if he isn't regularly giving notes or she's not taking them seriously.

 

Agreed. They seem to have a great working relationship and I definitely read before the first film that he was giving her advice. 

 

The film suffers most most from being part 2 of 5 and having to get through a lot of the back story to set everything else up. Film 1 didn’t do much of that so it could focus on the characters. All that build up is done so we’ll see how she gets on with 3-5.

 

obviously if the plot twists are your issue well, you don’t know how they play out, and they would be no different under Kloves  

[bollemanneke 3,342]

But that's the thing, so much of this backstory feels entirely unnecessary (I DO NOT CARE about Leta Lestrange.) And she also seems to abandon any kind of logic in her characters. Newt is an animal lover/researcher, but wait, that's not cool enough for five films, so we'll make him go and fight Grindelwald. Obliviating people means they forget everything, but... but... but not anymore! She clearly doesn't show any respect for her own world anymore. Some fans keep saying she can do whatever she wants, but I disagree. I used to really, really love Harry Potter, but it's just gone off the rails now.

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

But that's the thing, so much of this backstory feels entirely unnecessary (I DO NOT CARE about Leta Lestrange.) And she also seems to abandon any kind of logic in her characters. Newt is an animal lover/researcher, but wait, that's not cool enough for five films, so we'll make him go and fight Grindelwald. Obliviating people means they forget everything, but... but... but not anymore! She clearly doesn't show any respect for her own world anymore. Some fans keep saying she can do whatever she wants, but I disagree. I used to really, really love Harry Potter, but it's just gone off the rails now.

 

Newt fighting Grindelwald and Jacob getting his memories back (he was never obliviated anyway*) are problems with the first film not Crimes of Grindelwald. Jacob clearly recognizes Queenie at the end of the first movie AND the reason for the return of his memories is established throughout the first movie. What causes the people of New York to forget the whole incident is the Swooping Evil venom that Newt gives the Thunderbird to distribute. He says earlier that it can be used to wipe BAD memories. And it does that. Jacob forgets the bad stuff but seeing Queenie brings back all the good stuff and she has to fill him in on the rest. 

 

This film series was always going to be about Grindelwald. I dunno how you missed that one. 

 

Fair enough you used to like it but not anymore. Maybe move on with your life rather than whining about it over and over again? 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

What is your problem? I was just stating an opinion, my life moves on with our without HP. It's just sad to see a writer go crazy like this.

 

As for what you said. Why was this series always going to be about Grindelwald? It's called Fantastic Beasts (not that I like that angle either). Now we have a movie about the crimes of Grindelwald in which he commits no crimes.

 

And as for the swooping evil, okay, maybe I missed that. But Newt did say he wouldn't remember 'any of this'. Any of this isn't just bad memories.

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 minute ago, bollemanneke said:

What is your problem? I was just stating an opinion, my life moves on with our without HP. It's just sad to see a writer go crazy like this.

 

Yet here you are, two weeks after the film came out, still complaining. Why? 

 

 

And you have your silly Disenchantment thread anyway so contain it there if you have to keep moaning. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

11 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

It's called Fantastic Beasts (not that I like that angle either). Now we have a movie about the crimes of Grindelwald in which he commits no crimes.

 

How are people actually still taking film titles at face value?

 

They're just supposed to be pretty names to get you to look into the film. That's it.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

I came back to this topic because Pieter Boelen quoted me. Can I still do that? Why are you so upset about my disenchantment thread? Have you noticed how long the Star Wars one is?

 

As for franchise titles, okay, but Lord of the Rings was about Mordor, Harry Potter was about Harry Potter, Star Wars was about star wars and Indiana Jones revolved around Indiana Jones. What is this franchise about, really? Leta, beasts, Grindelwald, Yusuf, Tina, Queenie, or Nagini?

[Bilbo 3,709]

Really? You think the Star Wars Disenchantment thread is something worth emulating? 

 

 

Right... I’ve had enough of entitled fanboys at this point. I’m just going to put you on ignore now. 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Okay, if that makes you feel better. I'm just not a person loving everything they force down my throat.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

So would y'all say that the primary appeal of these movies for you to is to experience more of the Harry Potter world?

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

So would y'all say that the primary appeal of these movies for you to is to experience more of the Harry Potter world?

 

If that's the case, why not just stage a mockumentary in Hogwarts about its architecture?

 

People don't really come for movies to see the setting - they come to see a story set in that setting.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I didn't mean the world so literally, Chen.

[Bilbo 3,709]

11 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

So would y'all say that the primary appeal of these movies for you to is to experience more of the Harry Potter world?

 

I really like Newt but I love that this story expands on stories and characters that get mentioned in the Potter books. Grindelwald’s rise and fall is absolutely something I want to learn more about. 

 

More Newt + Grindelwald’s Rise? Perfect for me! 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Grindelwald’s rise and fall is absolutely something I want to learn more about. 

 

Is that in any way setting the stage for Voldemort's rise?

 

Because otherwise I don't understand what's the throughline from this into Harry Potter.

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Is that in any way setting the stage for Voldemort's rise?

 

Because otherwise I don't understand what's the throughline from this into Harry Potter.

 

Does it have to? That's one of the things that bugged me about The Hobbit trilogy was that it was too connected to Lord of the Rings. 

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Is that in any way setting the stage for Voldemort's rise?

 

Because otherwise I don't understand what's the throughline from this into Harry Potter.

 

I think there will be some Voldemort hints in the last three films somewhere because Tom is born between films 1 and 2 so he’ll be in Hogwarts during the series. 

 

I think Dumbledore’s character growth and what he does and learns is the throughline to Potter. 

 

It will obviously tell it’s own story but in book 7 you see how important Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald was for who he became as a person. 

 

I think Grindelwald’s Rise also warms up the pure bloods for what what Voldemort is later able to exploit. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

TS, there's something you need to know about Chen.....

[Bilbo 3,709]

2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

Does it have to? That's one of the things that bugged me about The Hobbit trilogy was that it was too connected to Lord of the Rings. 

 

While there will be connections I don’t think it’ll be quite comparable to the Hobbit. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

2 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

 

I think there will be some Voldemort hints in the last three films somewhere because Tom is born between films 1 and 2 so he’ll be in Hogwarts during the series. 

 

I think Dumbledore’s character growth and what he does and learns is the throughline to Potter. 

 

It will obviously tell it’s own story but in book 7 you see how important Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald was for who he became as a person. 

 

I think Grindelwald’s Rise also warms up the pure bloods for what what Voldemort is later able to exploit. 

 

Not the mention the potential set-up for The Elder Wand and the Deathly Hallows

1 minute ago, Bilbo said:

 

While there will be connections I don’t think it’ll be quite comparable to the Hobbit. 

 

That's what I'm hoping. Honestly Crimes of Grindelwald was borderline the Hobbit for me. Too much unnecessary crap trying to tie in Potter for fans.

[Chen G. 3,949]

13 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Does it have to? That's one of the things that bugged me about The Hobbit trilogy was that it was too connected to Lord of the Rings. 

 

The thing for me is that the eight Harry Potter films form a nice unified story. In spite of changing directors and aesthetics, the way in which Rowling (who claims to have outlined the major plot points in advance) has shaped the story gives it a nice flow.

 

If you were writing the entire Harry Potter series as one screenplay, you would have made Voldemort manifest himself in the end of the first act, and reveal the nature of the Horcruxes just before the beginning of Act three, with Dumbeldore's death ushering the characters into their lowest point and into the third act proper. Well, as it turns out, that's just what happened in the series, but on a much larger scale, and I think that's something that is to be commended.

 

If Fantastic Beasts can sit side-by-side with the Potter films, without making this kind of "meta-structure" too lopsided, It'd be great. Of course it wouldn't really work for new audiences, because the whole charm of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is predicated upon the idea that the audience is revealed to this wizarding world just as Harry is. But still...

 

11 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

I think Dumbledore’s character growth and what he does and learns is the throughline to Potter. 

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a throughline with regards to the central conflict of the series (that being, the Wizarding World versus Voldemort). Recurring characters or settings are fine, but not enough to form one overarching story, like the Potter films put together do.

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

The thing for me is that the eight Harry Potter films form a nice unified story. In spite of changing directors and aesthetics, the way in which Rowling (who claims to have outlined the major plot points in advance) has shaped the story gives it a nice flow.

 

If you were writing the entire Harry Potter series as one screenplay, you would have made Voldemort manifest himself in the end of the first act, and reveal the nature of the Horcruxes just before the beginning of Act three, with Dumbeldore's death ushering the characters into their lowest point and into the third act proper. Well, as it turns out, that just what happened in the series, but on a much larger scale, and I think that's something that is to be commended.

 

If Fantastic Beasts can sit side-by-side with the Potter films, without making this kind of "meta-structure" too lopsided, I'd be great. Of course it wouldn't work for new audiences, because the whole charm of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is that the audience is revealed to this wizarding world just as Harry is. But still...

 

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a throughline with regards to the central conflict of the series (that being, the Wizarding World versus Voldemort). Recurring characters or settings are fine, but not enough to form one overarching story, like the Potter films put together do.

 

Judging by Crimes of Grindelwald I don't think we're going to get anywhere near the cohesive narrative that we did with the Potter films. I don't think a throughline could fix that either.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I don't mean cohesive in the sense that there are or aren't plot inconsistencies (for instance, the use of magic) or continuity issues. I mean cohesive in a dramatic sense - i.e. that it kind of works like one huge screenplay told in multiple installments.

 

To me, that's the whole point of a film series: telling a story you could never hope to tell in one film.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Well I guess Grindelwald, Dumbledore and Credance are the lynchpins there. I feel Credance has a big part to play. And I think we might see more of teenage Voldemort and the creation of Horcruxes (the way Credance “dies” in the first film is quite similar to how Horcruxes are destroyed in the films). Just speculation on my part. 

 

Newt is the guide we see it all through. 

 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

28 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The thing for me is that the eight Harry Potter films form a nice unified story. In spite of changing directors and aesthetics, the way in which Rowling (who claims to have outlined the major plot points in advance) has shaped the story gives it a nice flow.

That is one thing which I can say is well done about the Harry Potter plot lines, at least in the films as a result of the writing craft of Rowling. They all work together as one large narrative with ease, something not many franchises are capable of fulfilling successfully or to the extent of Harry Potter. However, that being said, not many franchises end up being able to crank out eight films following the same characters in the same setting fighting the same villain, which is a privilege that the series thrives on. Quod erat demonstrandum, Harry Potter does have a very strong over-arching plot which is the figurative benefactor for the series.

 

34 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

If you were writing the entire Harry Potter series as one screenplay, you would have made Voldemort manifest himself in the end of the first act, and reveal the nature of the Horcruxes just before the beginning of Act three, with Dumbeldore's death ushering the characters into their lowest point and into the third act proper. Well, as it turns out, that's just what happened in the series, but on a much larger scale, and I think that's something that is to be commended.

The Harry Potter series is essentially that as a different proportion, yes. Whilst each adventure holds it's own climaxes and nadirs, the story as a whole also has more important moments utilizing the typical pathos and emotional scenes, as well as the pivotal moments which define the films.

 

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

If Fantastic Beasts can sit side-by-side with the Potter films, without making this kind of "meta-structure" too lopsided, It'd be great. Of course it wouldn't really work for new audiences, because the whole charm of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is predicated upon the idea that the audience is revealed to this wizarding world just as Harry is. But still...

Fantastic Beasts, I feel, is most strongly connected by it being a part of the Wizarding World cinematic universe. While some beloved characters of the HP series do appear and some, how do you say, easter eggs and references occur, the story at this point looks at an entirely different group ex heroibus and an antagonist who is related to Voldemort. There are no shortage of connections, some larger than others, but none of them really feel like a steady and strong link that would allow Fantastic Beasts and HP to share quarters too closely.

 

Additionally, the Wizarding World is given a chance to be expanded upon. I feel it's a lot for the hardcore Harry Potter fans however, I found the first film quite enjoyable, and I'm not all too amused by Harry Potter.

 

43 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I was thinking more along the lines of a throughline with regards to the central conflict of the series (that being, the Wizarding World versus Voldemort). Recurring characters or settings are fine, but not enough to form one overarching story, like the Potter films put together do.

In this case, it's the Wizarding World vs. Grindlewald, brother of Voldemort. But that's not enough just yet to be an adequate thread to tie these two relative franchises together.

[Arpy 4,145]

@Chen G. This isn't a question of whether or not you thought it was a good idea to make these films. Clearly Rowling believed this was a story she wanted to tell as a way of broadening several of the characters from the Potter series.

 

As for the Wizarding World vs. Voldemort/Grindelwald, Fantastic Beasts is giving us a different perspective from Potter, which was strictly more YA and that focus meant we would learn about the world through Harry. In Fantastic Beasts, it's more like we're peering into the Wizarding World to experience several connecting plotlines (to the point that there almost feels something like a matter-of-factly approach to the world).

 

The good thing is, there's enough of a time difference between Beasts and Potter for one to disassociate the other if they feel it necessary. Beasts doesn't tread on any toes or important established material that affects Potter in any way (so far).

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I don't mean cohesive in the sense that there are or aren't plot inconsistencies (for instance, the use of magic) or continuity issues. I mean cohesive in a dramatic sense - i.e. that it kind of works like one huge screenplay told in multiple installments.

 

To me, that's the whole point of a film series: telling a story you could never hope to tell in one film.

 

Oh I know, but they’ve already screwed that’s up. Why bother putting characters through arcs in movie one just to undo them in the first half hour of movie two?

 

Its hard to be invested dramatically in anything if I can’t even be sure it won’t all get undone for no reason

[Arpy 4,145]

1 hour ago, TSMefford said:

 

Oh I know, but they’ve already screwed that’s up. Why bother putting characters through arcs in movie one just to undo them in the first half hour of movie two?

 

Its hard to be invested dramatically in anything if I can’t even be sure it won’t all get undone for no reason

Such as? Are you talking about Jacob's memory?

[TSMefford 1,509]

9 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Such as? Are you talking about Jacob's memory?

 

Jacobs Memory.

Queenies weird personality change.

Tina becoming closed off again.

Credence is dead, now he’s fine (with no explanation).

Grindelwald is captured. Now he’s not.

 

Why should I get invested if I can’t be sure any character change will stick around for more than a moment? Will the twist at the end of CoG just turn out to be a lie?

 

EDIT: It would be like if you did the character thing in PS of Ron making fun of Hermione and her getting hurt only to eventually join the trio and be appreciated. Then, in CoS her and Ron are having problems again or something. And then she’d have to get reintegrated into the group again or something. 

[Demodex 557]

1 hour ago, TSMefford said:

Tina becoming closed off again.

 Credence is dead, now he’s fine (with no explanation)

 

Tina is obviously upset because she thinks Newt got engaged and didn't even mention it in the letters they're been writing to one another. 

 

If you watch the end of the first movie, part of the Obscurious escapes.  So everyone was wrong about Credence being dead. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

23 minutes ago, Demodex said:

 

Tina is obviously upset because she thinks Newt got engaged and didn't even mention it in the letters they're been writing to one another. 

 

If you watch the end of the first movie, part of the Obscurious escapes.  So everyone was wrong about Credence being dead. 

 

Yeah. I’m aware of both of those things. Credence’s return was set-up, but not handled with any suspense or gravitas. How does he come back from that? There’s no indication that he suffered at all from that and no difficulty either. There’s no gap either. He’s just back. Similar to Jacob’s memory. Just back.

 

Compare with something like Lord of the Rings. It at least takes Gandalf a bit to return and it’s made out to be a big deal.

 

As far as Tina, I didn’t say there was no reason for why she was closed off. There is, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the same arc she has in movie one. Just because there’s a flimsy reason doesn’t give you an excuse to make the character immediately go through the same arc. Last Jedi had this problem with Finn. He spends Force Awakens going from running away to fighting. Then does it all over again in Last Jedi.

 

Would it not have been better to have Tina’s struggle and conflict revolve around her sisters turn to the other side and how that’s affecting her (despite how out of character that was for Queenie). Does Tina even react? I don’t recall. Instead they did the same arc with her and Newt again with a slightly different reason just because it worked the first time

[Arpy 4,145]

Credence is a bloody magical entity, an Obscurius, who knows how much he can endure, how powerful he is, what it might take to kill him? Jacob's memories returning were addressed, in fact, the whole introductory scene of Jacob and Queenie showing up out of the blue was the joke, that yeah, what you guessed last film that he was beginning to remember, is happening.

 

 

 

[TheUlyssesian 2,477]

I think these minor minutiae, trivial inconsequential details would be entirely forgivable if the larger story and structure made sense. Sadly that is not the case here. Hence people are picking on these sort of things.

 

This was kind of a failed movie in conception. It should never have gone to production with that script. Little of importance happens in this film in the main storyline. It is just backstories of supporting characters in subplots.

 

EDIT: She really should have written these stories first as novels. And then a more capable screenwriter would have been able to transform them into proper movie scripts. It is still not too late. She needs a co-writer for sure.

[Arpy 4,145]

My biggest gripe with the film is that it nearly isn't as focused as it should be on Newt's character. I get that the ensemble is what's really pulling Newt along, but even with more concise attempts to bring him into the fore, he ends up being almost wasted. 

 

I've probably said this a billion times, but the way I envisioned the series was that we would follow Newt tracking down strange and magical creatures and learn a thing or two about how some of the entries in the textbook came to be. Instead, Rowling seems to be using Newt as a tool in order to show the rise and fall of Grindelwald.

 

One of these films, I just want Newt to have to hunt down some beast in a jungle, without having to deal with Grindelwald, maybe they cut back and forth between Newt and the rest of the cast - maybe one of the beasts has some magical properties key to stopping Grindelwald? I just want adventure dammit!!

[TSMefford 1,509]

9 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I think these minor minutiae, trivial inconsequential details would be entirely forgivable if the larger story and structure made sense. Sadly that is not the case here. Hence people are picking on these sort of things.

 

This was kind of a failed movie in conception. It should never have gone to production with that script. Little of importance happens in this film in the main storyline. It is just backstories of supporting characters in subplots.

 

EDIT: She really should have written these stories first as novels. And then a more capable screenwriter would have been able to transform them into proper movie scripts. It is still not too late. She needs a co-writer for sure.

 

Agreed.

Just now, Arpy said:

My biggest gripe with the film is that it nearly isn't as focused as it should be on Newt's character. I get that the ensemble is what's really pulling Newt along, but even with more concise attempts to bring him into the fore, he ends up being almost wasted. 

 

I've probably said this a billion times, but the way I envisioned the series was that we would follow Newt tracking down strange and magical creatures and learn a thing or two about how some of the entries in the textbook came to be. Instead, Rowling seems to be using Newt as a tool in order to show the rise and fall of Grindelwald.

 

One of these films, I just want Newt to have to hunt down some beast in a jungle, without having to deal with Grindelwald, maybe they cut back and forth between Newt and the rest of the cast - maybe one of the beasts has some magical properties key to stopping Grindelwald? I just want adventure dammit!!

 

Also agreed. That’s what made the first one great.

[Arpy 4,145]

I liked the first one, but not upon my first two viewings, it wasn't until about a year later when I watched it again that I began to admire and understand what it wanted to be. 

 

One thing I forgot to mention earlier was that they didn't really highlight the fact that Newt had released his book other than a few brief cameo mentions. 

[mstrox 6,651]

Just dropping in to say that I saw this over the weekend and enjoyed it.  I’m glad that they seem to have already hopped to this series’ “Goblet of Fire” moment (the series villain arriving, making the stakes clear, characters choosing sides, etc) instead of dallying around with half-related mysteries.

 

No strong feelings one way or the other for Credence as a Dumbledore- although it conveniently gives Albus a chance to right whatever wrongs he feels happened with his sister, as he discussed with Zoe Kravitz’s character in the classroom.

 

I hope the box office drop doesn’t make them alter course.

 

And yowza, the last thing I want is more connections/a throughline to the Harry Potter series.  The stuff/connections in Part 2 already bordered on too much.  I’m sure we’ll see Tom Riddle though by the end, given the timeline, the presence of Nagini, etc.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, mstrox said:

And yowza, the last thing I want is more connections/a throughline to the Harry Potter series.  The stuff/connections in Part 2 already bordered on too much.  I’m sure we’ll see Tom Riddle though by the end, given the timeline, the presence of Nagini, etc.

 

When I say connections I don't mean references, recurring characters or characters related to recurring characters in Harry Potter. I mean a continuation of the same central conflict. i.e. that, somewhere down the road, these films will explore Voldemort's rise to power.

 

Its fine that this pentalogy has its own story, but idealy it would gradualy morph into that of Harry Potter before this series concludes.

[Holko 9,516]

When these films end, presumably with Grindelwald's fall in 1945, a 19-year-old Voldemort will have just begun to create his first Horcruxes and speak nasty business with some old school lackies, unless JK decides to retcon it.

[Chen G. 3,949]

 

2 minutes ago, Holko said:

When these films end, presumably with Grindelwald's fall in 1945,

 

Unless that'd be treated as an early, false ending, and the five films will continue into Voldemort's rise to power.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I can’t see these films not ending with Grindelwald’s fall in 1945.

[Holko 9,516]

I can absolutely see Chen having problems with the series having 1 or two more movies "thrown in" after it dispatched its main villain.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Depends on how its done.

 

Five movies gives you a lot of wiggle room to play with those kinds of choices.

 

1 hour ago, Bilbo said:

I can’t see these films not ending with Grindelwald’s fall in 1945.

 

I'll take your word for it, then.

 

Oh well...