Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[Chen G. 3,949]

Precisely, the Halo effect.

[Holko 9,525]

Or, you can't comprehend how someone can't like Yates' drab, lifeless style that plagued the universe for more than a decade now, therefore they can only be saying they don't like it without actually meaning it to make the movie seem even worse.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Sorry, I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

His colour palette my be drab, but his framing is the best of all the directors to have worked on the series. He has a great sense of when and how to move the camera, etc...

 

He knows his stuff.

[Holko 9,525]

A good frame or two is nice, but not when actors are not allowed to even breathe for 15 seconds lest they ruin it.

Azkaban is shot fantastically, but it still looks presentable, there are actual blacks and colours present instead of a dull grey or tan wash, and the characters and places feel completely alive with lots of movement, irregularity, background chatter, humour and everything. Cuarón's direction on worldbuilding gave us the tricks in the Leaky Cauldron, the talking shrunken heads, the animal noise candy, the most book-accurate Hogwarts depiction (Fat Lady scene, knight ghosts, the tapestry/portrait gallery where Harry looks for Pettigrew), Yates' worldbuilding gave us... speakers in Hogwarts spouting Umbridge's truth? I did try to give HBP another go a few months ago but it was so stilted and dull on top of the script ignoring more than half the crucial point and buildup, I just shut it off at the Ron/Lavender hospital scene where teachers just stand in the background and look on over this private matter being furniture, after having a "conversation" avout a freaking poisoning in the school by politely waiting 2 seconds with every sentence after the other finished talking.

[Arpy 4,145]

HBP is my favourite Yates film, even if it's missing the juicy 'Half-Blood Prince' details and a whole chunk of Voldemort's past via the memories, the Gaunts as Riddle's heritage, and the significance of the Horcruxes! 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'd rather just re-read the book.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, it's probably my favourite book of the series, along with Goblet of Fire close second. Deathly Hallows comes in at number 3 for me, loved reading that when it came out!

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yates' Order of the Phoenix may be my favourite of all of these.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Yates is inoffensive. He is a competent director. He might not be pulling of fireworks but there is nothing terrible either. 

 

The last movie's problem was NOT the direction. It was the script which simply stalled and did not advance the plot at all.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Goblet of Fire is my favorite book of the series. 

There are many great life lessons in this book as well as lessons for dealing with death. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The story doesn't make a lick of sense.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

6 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I'd rather just re-read the book.

I'm actually doing that now and have to say Harry is an unbearable brat. Why didn't I see that before? I can't believe I used to like these stories, he's absolutely horrible. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

I re-scored the original Fantastic Beasts finale (last 2 minutes with Jacob's theme). It always bothered me that they discarded his theme from the film and did not even use it for the finale which ends with him. I have now corrected that. What do you think? Does it work well? Listen at loud volume for maximum effect.

 

 

What an outstanding theme. Probably my favorite in that score and it was SEVERAL great themes.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/eddie-redmayne-gives-latest-update-on-fantastic-beasts-3-production-jkr-screenplay-113333/

 

Is it normal that the script isn't finished yet? Are they still trying to pick up the pieces?

[Edmilson 7,436]

Well, considering the utter disaster that the last movie was, they'll sure need a lot of time to course correct. 

 

Just look at the Zack Snyder situation: after BvS disastrous reception and disappointing box office, they could have used a little more time to correct the franchise, but Warner rushed with the production of Justice League for it to meet its 2017 release dat at all costs. Now the DCEU as coinceived by Snyder doesn't exist no more, and Warner is still pretty much deciding what to do next ("Do we reboot the entire thing? But people love Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Jason Momoa's Aquaman!").

 

They apparently learned their lesson and are not rushing the production of FB3. However, I do wonder if this will save the franchise after the sour taste left on after the horrendous Crimes of Grindelwald (easily the worst blockbuster I saw last year, and I'm a Potter fan). Plenty of (relatively speaking) good movies bombed at the box office after they followed a much-hated film.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

Yeah, I'm re-watching COG this weekend, just to remind myself how bad it really was.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Fantastic Flops and How to Reboot Them

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

The production schedule seems too extended. It will shoot in early 2020 but release only in November 2021?

 

So basically 1.5 years after filming?

[Alex 2,835]

Time to shift JK off screen writing duties

[Edmilson 7,436]

I've always said that she shouldn't be the one writing the movies. She has no experience as a screenwriter and COG made it clear that she does not understand how a movie script is supposed to work. 

 

She should have written the FB saga as a book series, and then handle it over a professional screenwriter (like Steve Kloves, who adapted her material for 7 out of 8 HP movies) to adapt to a movie series. But, no, she decided that she's a great screenwriter and went to write the movies. 

 

And the worst part is: NO ONE has enough balls to tell her that she should at least get the help from a professional and experienced writer, even after the COG disaster.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I guess it's a similar to case to Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry.

[Fabulin 3,511]

46 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

And the worst part is: NO ONE has enough balls to tell her that she should at least get the help from a professional and experienced writer, even after the COG disaster.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Hello, Jonesy.

[Arpy 4,145]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Well, considering the utter disaster that the last movie was, they'll sure need a lot of time to course correct. 

 

Just look at the Zack Snyder situation: after BvS disastrous reception and disappointing box office, they could have used a little more time to correct the franchise, but Warner rushed with the production of Justice League for it to meet its 2017 release dat at all costs.

The FB series is kept afloat almost entirely on the lasting power of the Harry Potter franchise. It's actually quite remarkable once you recognize it's not based on a book (a proper novel). Justice League, however had decades of comics behind it and two mildly successful characters but came out standing on crutches - but that's also because of the dominance of MCU which has cornered the market on superheroes.

 

Crimes of Grindelwald wasn't terrible, it had some neat ideas that just weren't developed through the course of the film - and whilst I think Yates was a good choice to establish the transition cinematically between the two stories, I think there's little by way of a magical spark that really needed to be rekindled by CoG. I think we needed this series to start strong like Philosopher's Stone, which had a warmth to it that laid the groundwork for other directors to come along and add their creative touches to it that complimented the story; Yates was a good fit for Deathly Hallows in that regard because the story had progressed at that point where his filmmaking style fit.

 

Which is why I've always admonished FB1 for not starting with a spark of magical warmth and familiarity - and that's Rowling's fault too.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Warner Brothers has ruined all of their franchises. They make seriously bad decisions. Having Peter Jackson do a trilogy of Hobbits, Fantastic Bitches and How to Let Them Destroy Their Own Creations, The Matrix, DC...

 

They got lucky with Nolan's Batmans.

[Arpy 4,145]

I don't want to use a tired phrase, but that's because Nolan is a 'visionary'. 

6 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

They got lucky with Nolan's Batmans.

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Really?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Well, his vision for Superman was terrible. 

[Arpy 4,145]

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Really?

I'm actually a deacon of the Church of Nolan, so I'm biased.

[Edmilson 7,436]

44 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Warner Brothers has ruined all of their franchises. They make seriously bad decisions. Having Peter Jackson do a trilogy of Hobbits, Fantastic Bitches and How to Let Them Destroy Their Own Creations, The Matrix, DC...

 

They got lucky with Nolan's Batmans.

 

I agree with that, WB had more bad decisions than good ones over the last few years. On FB case, I dunno if it is the studio's fault for letting Rowling write the entire thing. Maybe they thought she was a talented book writer, so why not let her write the scripts for a whole new franchise based on her creations?

 

And I guess they're in a delicate position right now. If they push for a more experienced screenwriter to work alongside JK (even if it is someone she knows and trusts, like Steve Kloves), they risk irritating her and making she end their partnership. But, if they let she conduct the franchise all by herself, they also risk having to release a movie of terrible quality (like COG) which could further alienate the critics and the fanbase, leading to terrible box office (and these FB aren't cheap, if they don't gross at least US$ 600 millions worldwide, WB will lose a lot of money). So, their only hope is that Rowling actually creates a good, well written and crowdpleasing movie, and that people actually go to the theaters to watch it.

 

In a way, I guess the main problem that has been affecting WB is their conflituous relationship with their artists. The studio is caught in a dispute over what the artists wants vs what could be more commercial, and this battle haven't been good for no one. It happened with Snyder, with Peter Jackson on the Hobbit trilogy and now with Rowling.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

The greatest sin of COG is complacency. The assurance that the audience will watch anything. After 9 successful films in the franchise, it can feel that way.

 

But they shouldn't have taken the audience's attention for granted.

 

Rowling thought she could just sit on film out without moving forward the plot. This doesn't work that way. This isn't television where you can throw up 2-3 fluff episodes just to run out the clock and meet the episode count.

 

In cinema, you have to have sustained dramatic action (action not as in action scenes but as in plot (this is a literary term)), and Rowling failed there. Literally nothing of note happens in COG except at the end. And the film is populated by ridiculous and convoluted backstories of side characters.

 

This does not work in cinema. But it would have worked in a novel. In a movie adaptation, these uninteresting backstories are the first thing they would have cut.

 

It gave away WB's hand that 5 films is a money grab. And they only have enough plot for at best 3 films. That is why they created an inconsequential filler like COG.

[Edmilson 7,436]

My hope is that they'll scratch this ridiculous 5 movie idea and end the series on the next one (or, at least, on the fourth movie).

 

The audience won't get to the 5th film in the series if they continue being as pointless and filler like COG. 

[Arpy 4,145]

28 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Literally nothing of note happens in COG except at the end. And the film is populated by ridiculous and convoluted backstories of side characters.

It's the rise of Grindelwald that the film centres on, but this to me felt like Rowling's way of shoehorning Newt Scamander into the story which should've focused on Dumbledore instead. You could have Dumbledore be the central character who is forced out to confront Grindelwald.

 

 

Before FB1 was released I had an idea in my mind which revolved around the series being a fun adventure that follows Newt and Co. around the world trying to find beasts - perhaps something ala Indiana Jones. It would've been interesting then if Grindelwald was an unexpected villain at the end of the series, like an Emperor Palpatine type figure.They should've saved Grindelwald for the later instalments which would make his rise to power more satisfying, instead of showing him upfront in the first film...

 

 

[Pieter Boelen 740]

4 hours ago, Arpy said:

Before FB1 was released I had an idea in my mind which revolved around the series being a fun adventure that follows Newt and Co. around the world trying to find beasts - perhaps something ala Indiana Jones. It would've been interesting then if Grindelwald was an unexpected villain at the end of the series, like an Emperor Palpatine type figure.They should've saved Grindelwald for the later instalments which would make his rise to power more satisfying, instead of showing him upfront in the first film...

I would've been up for that.

[Chen G. 3,949]

11 hours ago, Edmilson said:

In a way, I guess the main problem that has been affecting WB is their conflituous relationship with their artists. The studio is caught in a dispute over what the artists wants vs what could be more commercial, and this battle haven't been good for no one. It happened with Snyder, with Peter Jackson on the Hobbit trilogy and now with Rowling.

 

Patently false. The idea to expand The Hobbit into three was Peter Jackson's: NOT Warner Brothers'.

 

I'm sure the same is true here.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, and there's no indication Rowling has had a hard time either. The only thing that sticks out to me was the pressure from the studio to get her to recast Depp following the controversy surrounding him. It seems Rowling has more clout than people think.

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Patently false. The idea to expand The Hobbit into three was Peter Jackson's: NOT Warner Brothers.

 

I'm sure the same is true here.

 

Giving too much creative control like with Zack Snyder, whoever the hell made that trash Suicide Squad, the Wachowski sisters or whatever the hell they are, Rowling and Fantastic Crap. They did the same thing many years ago with Tim Burton and Batman and while many of us loved it, it was a similar case where it was not so well received and apparently required a reboot immediately. 

 

WB puts too much faith in these people. They also let that guy make too many Harry Potter movies when they all turned grim and boring.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Most big-name directors are given a fairly free reign. Do you think anyone tells Spielberg, Cameron or Nolan what to do?

 

The fact of the matter is that creativity is a fickle mistress: Sometimes you produce good work, other times - not so much. But giving the director freedom to make his movie is always a good thing.

 

For me, the question isn't even whether the director is given free reign or not: its whether that director is beyond reproach in his demeanor or not.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

Most big-name directors are given a fairly free reign. Do you think anyone tells Spielberg, Cameron or Nolan what to do?

 

Someone should. Spielberg's movies are all boring now and Cameron is making 12 Avatar movies that no one wants.

[Arpy 4,145]

26 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

 

Giving too much creative control like with Zack Snyder, whoever the hell made that trash Suicide Squad, the Wachowski sisters or whatever the hell they are, Rowling

 

Those names and situations have to be considered separately and not jumbled as if they were all part of the problem of creative control gone amok. 

 

David Ayer is similar to Colin Trevorrow and Rian Johnston - indie directors given the keys to these huge franchises they don't deserve. 

29 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Cameron is making 12 Avatar movies that no one wants.

I'm surprised anyone wants an Avatar 2!

[Edmilson 7,436]

I express myself badly. Maybe "confrontational" is not the best word to describe WB's relationship with its artists. 

 

In general, it goes like this: most of the time, WB gives the filmmakers freedom to do almost everything that they want and do the movie according to their artistic sensibilities. And this business model, although it might seem risky, actually has been pretty good to WB most of the time, with the Nolan movies, the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy and even stuff like Zack Snyder's 300. That has attracted a lot of, say, uniquely talented filmmakers to the studio. I mean, it's not every studio that will spent US$ 160m - US$ 200m to do a big budget sci-fi movie based on an original concept like Inception or Interstellar, or even giving Zack Snyder almost US$ 100m to do whatever the hell Sucker Punch was.
 

However, what happens when the movie, even when it's the artists' vision, is not well received by the public and the critic and has a suboptimal box office? Will they "betray" the artists and force a more commercial vision, or will they let him continue to have freedom, hoping for the best?

 

It happened in the 90s, when Burton's Batman Returns received complaints that it was too dark and scary for small children, so they brought Schumacher to make the franchise more family friendly.

 

Then, two decades later the same story happened again: after the poor reception of Snyder's first DCEU movies, the studio had to interfere and brought Joss Whedon to make Justice League more like The Avengers, resulting in a humiliating failure for all involved.

 

In case of the Hobbit, there wasn't very much at stake here. It's not like The Hobbit was trying to begin a new cinematic universe, it was just three movies and that's it, the opposite situation of the DCEU. 
 

Rowling FB's case is a mix between the two. Sure, it'll be "just" five movies, not a neverending superhero universe, however, it's still a long franchise, and if one single movie isn't well received, people may not buy a ticket to another one, jeopardizing the entire franchise. So, here's WB with their old dilemma again: should we let the artist, in this case, JK Rowling, to do what she wants and trust her that the third movie will be better and more crowd pleasing than the second one? Or should we interfere, but risk having another Justice League in our hands?

[mstrox 6,651]

I liked the Wrath of Grindelwald, I think it was pretty good.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

13 hours ago, Arpy said:

It's the rise of Grindelwald that the film centres on, but this to me felt like Rowling's way of shoehorning Newt Scamander into the story which should've focused on Dumbledore instead. You could have Dumbledore be the central character who is forced out to confront Grindelwald.

 

 

Before FB1 was released I had an idea in my mind which revolved around the series being a fun adventure that follows Newt and Co. around the world trying to find beasts - perhaps something ala Indiana Jones. It would've been interesting then if Grindelwald was an unexpected villain at the end of the series, like an Emperor Palpatine type figure.They should've saved Grindelwald for the later instalments which would make his rise to power more satisfying, instead of showing him upfront in the first film...

 

 

I agree with a lot in your post. I did really like FB1, because at least that focused on the beasts. 2 seems to be a story about Grindelwald's rise that doesn't need or require beasts or Scamander at all, which was its biggest problem (that and Yusuf Whatshisname and everything else).

[Arpy 4,145]

@Edmilson You underestimate the loyalty of the Harry Potter fandom. They're buying tickets to sold out shows of The Cursed Child - essentially fan fiction - I think it's safe to say the films won't bomb financially.

 

Critically, on the other hand...not so successful...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

9 hours ago, Edmilson said:

It happened in the 90s, when Burton's Batman Returns received complaints that it was too dark and scary for small children, so they brought Schumacher to make the franchise more family friendly.

 

It was ahead of its time. Batman movies became dark and disturbing again.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yeah, Batman Forever was dark and disturbing.

[Edmilson 7,436]

1 hour ago, Arpy said:

@Edmilson You underestimate the loyalty of the Harry Potter fandom. They're buying tickets to sold out shows of The Cursed Child - essentially fan fiction - I think it's safe to say the films won't bomb financially.

  

Critically, on the other hand...not so successful...

 

Indeed, Potter fans (and most fandoms) are loyal enough to buy every new installment, be it books, movies or, on Cursed Child's case, tickets to the play. I'm a Potterhead myself so, depite reading the horrible reviews of COG, I actually went to the theater to watch the film, although today I regret the money spent on the tickets, popcorn, soda and the Uber to the mall and back home. 

 

Anyway, the diehard fans will show up anyway. The question is: is it enough for the movies to justify its huge production costs and be profitable? If just fans show up, will the movie still have huge numbers? And what if the franchise alienates the fandom even further to the point of most fans not even caring to buy a ticket? From what I've seen on the Potter community, most people were also pretty disappointed by the bizarre retcons the movie does over the established lore.
 

In 2016, FB 1 earned over US$ 814 millions worldwide, the eighth biggest movie and WB's second biggest movie that year, behind only BvS - and thus outperforming its major competitors, Marvel's Doctor Strange and Disney's Moana. Two years later, FB 2 earned "just" US$ 654 millions, still a blockbuster (10th biggest movie in 2018 and again WB's second, behind Aquaman), but dipping almost 20% from the previous movie. On american box office the fall was even bigger: from US$ 234 millions on FB1 to US$ 160 millions on the second one, or -32%.

 

FB2 costed US$ 200 millions to produce - the first one was made by US$ 180 millions. So, the movies got more expensive, but the BO took a hard dive. Still, COG were just enough lucrative for WB, but if future movies continue to fall compared to the previous ones, they'll stop being profitable, and the studio will have to take drastic decisions.
 

Just look at what happened with the Divergent franchise.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

1 hour ago, Arpy said:

Yeah, Batman Forever was dark and disturbing.

 

Eh? I was referring to how they opted for a lighter tone when it turns out audiences preferred the more dark and disturbing Batmans that were a huge success only a decade later.

[Arpy 4,145]

24 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

 

Eh? I was referring to how they opted for a lighter tone when it turns out audiences preferred the more dark and disturbing Batmans that were a huge success only a decade later.

This is how I should've phrased it:

 

Quote

Yeah, Batman Forever was dark and disturbing.

t'was a joke 

 

 

@Edmilson The Divergent Franchise is a different beast, though. Unlike Potter, the first film of the Divergent franchise was crap. Might've made a shit-load of money, but it was another YA story that popped up to confront the mega hit The Hunger Games, and fell.

9 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

I agree with a lot in your post. I did really like FB1, because at least that focused on the beasts. 2 seems to be a story about Grindelwald's rise that doesn't need or require beasts or Scamander at all, which was its biggest problem (that and Yusuf Whatshisname and everything else).

I don't see the structure quite the same as you do, and I suppose Rowling's plan was that all of the films would show the rise of Grindelwald from the beginning. 

 

My problem with FB1 was that they were kind of trapped in New York, whereas I thought they should've been travelling the world to some magical locations, you know, like out in the jungle somewhere. Especially when you have a compendium of magical creatures to draw from (which the films conveniently place within a TARDIS suitcase). I would've loved to have seen Newt travelling to Papua New Guinea to track down the deadly Lethifold: 

[TSMefford 1,509]

2 hours ago, Arpy said:

My problem with FB1 was that they were kind of trapped in New York, whereas I thought they should've been travelling the world to some magical locations, you know, like out in the jungle somewhere. Especially when you have a compendium of magical creatures to draw from (which the films conveniently place within a TARDIS suitcase). I would've loved to have seen Newt travelling to Papua New Guinea to track down the deadly Lethifold: 

 

I agree and disagree on that. Personally, I think Fantastic Beasts was a great way to start the franchise and I think constricting it to New York was a great way to let the characters shine. I feel like they each got their moment, which I can't say about CoG. I like to think of FB1 as sort of similar to Season 1 of Stranger Things. The story is pretty simple at the core and it's all happening in one area. The characters get to be more at the forefront and you don't have to rely on pretty locations and a "big" scope of traveling or something. Then, in the next ones you can go bigger and do more traveling...which they sort of did in CoG, but then they had such a convoluted and boring plot. The first is simple and effective. CoG is complex and meandering.

 

Personally, I wish they had just ditched the whole Grindlewald thing. I honestly don't care about it at all. It's great to read about as world building that supports or is in the background of a more forefront story, but it's simply not an engaging story to be the forefront. It's so very political (wizard politics is what I mean) and just not very active.

 

My initial hopes for this series were for it to be an adventure series. You don't have to have this big overarching baddie. But if you must have all this Grindlewald stuff, it would've been more interesting for me personally to see another adventure film, more traveling, but start to include some darker themes. Maybe explore or test Newt's love of creatures. Maybe have the Grindlewald political stuff start to affect our characters through the world around them and not necessarily have them interact directly with that storyline until a third movie. Could've done some interesting down to Earth stuff about what it's like living in that sort of tense political climate and how it affects the characters and their relationships, rather than it just being a "Let's take on Grindlewald" story. Which, to it's credit, I think CoG TRIED to do that a LITTLE bit, but very poorly executed. Then, MAYBE have a final conflict with Grindlewald for the third film (you know, the thing people actually give a damn about) and that be when Newt decides to finally get involved and he somehow becomes instrumental in helping take Grindlewald down. Could've been a cool arc to see Newt go from being sort of recluse who travels the world, to having him become more involved in that world and become better at interacting with humans and what not.

 

Idk. CoG took such a massive turn in the opposite direction I wanted, based on FB1.