Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bilbo

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series (Crimes of Grindelwald Spoilers Allowed)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

https://screenrant.com/fantastic-beasts-problem-rowling-director/amp/

Just ran across this article and I think the writer has the right ideas.

He even mentioned the music as a good thing, so that helps. ;)

 

I think Warner Brothers is not getting enough blame for this either. I'm sure in these days of franchises and cinematic universes they had a hand and this BS that is Crimes of Grindelwald. 

 

I will agree that Yates has a huge problem overusing the Priori Incantatem effect in his films. In the books you're lead to believe it's a rare occurrence, but it happens in almost every Yates Potter film. But Yates is hit or miss for me. I loathe Order of the Phoenix and Crimes of Grindelwald, but love Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows Part 1, and Fantastic Beasts 1. I'm indifferent towards Deathly Hallows Part 2. I'd be curious to know what caused certain things behind the scenes to create the ones I love, vs the ones I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

https://screenrant.com/fantastic-beasts-problem-rowling-director/amp/

Just ran across this article and I think the writer has the right ideas.

He even mentioned the music as a good thing, so that helps. ;)

 

I kinda completely disagree with this writer

 

Quote

the main recurring problem with Yates' Harry Potter-related movies is the realism that permeates his oeuvre, which was suitable for the darker, more political Harry Potter movies.

I think it is the opposite. The Fantastic Beasts movies are far more political.

 

Quote

The Harry Potter novels detail the sights, sounds, and smells of the universe and its magic. It bursts with vibrancy, variety, and movement. Naturally, this is hard to translate to a film, but thanks to the various directors who worked on Harry Potter prior to Yates, the series achieved this.

I would again disagree. Lets take the visual oscar categories - art direction, cinematography and VFX. The series is half and half, half non-Yates, half Yates. 

 

The breakdown is

 

Art Direction - 2 noms for Non Yates, 3 noms for Yates

Cinematography - 0 for Non Yates, 1 for Yates

VFX - 1 for Non Yates, 2 for Yates

 

The series received more accolades for visuals AFTER Yates came onboard. 

 

The thrust of the article above is that he wants more action. Maybe he doesn't like the Fantastic Beasts movie. I don't think the movie needs more action, but more incident, more plot. The first Fantastic Beasts had a lot happen across 4 separate story-lines that intersected.  Storylines is not the same as characters. Simply having 20 characters does not mean you have that much more plot, it just means you have more characters. Plot is when they actually do something. And that is where the second film failed. Hardly anyone does anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mstrox With Queenie as a powerful Legilimens, Grindelwald took his chance whilst in Paris to manipulate her. She was already emotionally distraught and compromised by prohibitive laws against marrying Muggles. Either Grindelwald sensed her presence in Paris, or by coincidence, Rosier happened across her in the streets. It doesn't seem like any strange ploy to get Newt and Tina, rather it seems that he's recruiting powerful witches and wizards to his cause.

 

As an aside, it kind of reminds me of the Expanded Universe Star Wars trivia - that Palpatine performed Dark Side rituals to cloud the Jedi's vision and manipulate those around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, King Mark said:

an asian woman being a snake and that was deemed offensive because it was somekind of negative stereotype of asian woman

 

These are the same kind of people who say this kind of nonsense.

 

and this:

 

Quote

Tolkien existed in, absorbed and reproduced the colonialist worldview of his day[...]I don't think it occured to him to question the implications of making the dark-skinned races of Men side with Sauron.[...]Tolkien described his Orcs as corruptions of the human-form: "quat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned with wide mouths, in fact, degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) the least-lovely Mongol types." Nice...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people who always have a fuss over inane bullshit like race and gender and ethnicity in fantasy films and other media, I always have to say that ironically they're the people drawing connections to those things where no mal-intent was ever given.

 

Are we seriously to believe that Rowling etc. were ignorant of the ethnicity of Nagini, or intentionally giving the finger to Asians? 

 

I never knew Harry Potter, or Fantastic Beasts were so culturally and ethnically controversial...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is if you give in to those pressure groups film studios  will try to avoid the slightest controversy by fear of "social media backlash" and films will suffer a lot as a result and we'll have the same boring shit reviewed by committees and lawyers and far removed from the director's or author's  original vision.

 

Sony  is even starting to censor videogames by fear certain topics or situations  might bring backlash.

 

I dunno, if you go too extreme in political correctness everything goes to shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, King Mark said:

The problem is if you give in to those pressure groups film studios  will try to avoid the slightest controversy by fear of "social media backlash" and films will suffer a lot as a result and we'll have the same boring shit reviewed by committees and lawyers and far removed from the director's or author's  original vision.

 

Sony  is even starting to censor videogames by fear certain topics or situations  might bring backlash.

 

I dunno, if you go too extreme in political correctness everything goes to shit.

 

Hello MCU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowling is so powerful and beloved and her franchise so huge that there's little chance of any of the studio heads challenging her. At the end of the day, those who pander to this sensitive crowd, the PC-brigade, end up losing something substantial in the process, whether that be the integrity to say 'look, we're going to do this our way', or the viewership of millions of people.

 

Doctor Who is the latest example, but whilst I don't agree the BBC are pushing an agenda with the new female Doctor, it's undeniable it has stirred quite a commotion with staple fans of thd show...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Arpy said:

I don't agree the BBC are pushing an agenda with the new female Doctor, it's undeniable it has stirred quite a commotion with staple fans of thd show...

 

Yeah, its not a hyper-masculine role, so it can be played by a woman all the same.

 

Try a female James Bond, however...

 

Although to be fair, I generally don't have a problem with stirring up the gender and/or ethnicity of the main character in a film/series. Protagonists aren't characters that you expect to represent the average man or woman. They're exceptional by virtue of the fact that they are the protagonists of their stories.

 

Its more when there's an attempt to mimic real-world demographics through the entirety of the cast. Its not that its an evil scheme or anything, but it seems an incredibly limiting casting criteria.

 

When it just applies to the gender ratios, that's one thing, but when you also start throwing ethnicities into the mix, than you end of with endless numbers of groups and sub-groups that need "representation" within your cast, which is just not at all practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a leading character happens to be a female, and they have a role that amounts to more than just an icon for gender equality, than I can easily accept it. I feel that there are many great female characters on screen today, and there are also many great male characters. Any feeling of pushed agendas will ultimately lessen the effectiveness of the film. Sometimes you have to ask, "Is this movie here to be a movie, or to make a culture statement that's already talked about enough, possibly too much, in society."

 

Not sure who people are trying to please; the fans of the movie, or the leaders of a social movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the assumption is that: a) a more diverse cast more closely reflect the real world, and so "grounds" the film in reality all the more; b) the more diverse the cast is, the easier it is for people of different identity groups to identify with them.

 

Assumption (a) kind of disregards genre: for instance, it makes sense that the cast of an action film will be mostly comprised of men, and that the cast of a romance film will be predominantly female - and NOT the other way around. Assumption (b) has more basis in reality, although its hardly too much to ask the audience to sympathize with the characters based on their personality and predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this today out of sheer curiosity.

 

Its fine (just fine), and whatever problems it has are: a) no different than those of films like The Chamber of Secrets (i.e. a non-filmic structure and thrust) and b) not at all the fault of the director, David Yates, who is on fine form here. He directs the actors well (Depp is fine in this), and knows where to place the camera and when and how to move the camera. He does what he can with the edit to present this clunky screenplay in as lean and energetic a form as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first two Harry Potter films essentially don't have a screenplay. They're simply abridged versions of their namesake novels.

 

This is kind of the same. How much it bothers you in each film depends on you, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The first two Harry Potter films essentially don't have a screenplay. They're simply abridged versions of their namesake novels.

 

This is kind of the same. How much it bothers you in each film depends on you, really.

 

I disagree, but yet. Harry Potter 1 and 2 are very well-done. CoG is horridly done. Not Directing, btw, I think Yates did fine. But the problems lie at the very beginning of the process with the writing. I actually didn't have structure issues really. My main issues have to do with characters and the ridiculous retcons and references to the rest of the canon for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

ridiculous retcons and references

 

Yes, that's very much a script issue, and it was eye-roll inducing.

 

2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Harry Potter 1 and 2 are very well-done

 

That's your nostalgia talking.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chen G. said:

 

Yes, that's very much a script issue, and it was eye-roll inducing.

 

Why did we need McGonagall there? As far as I can tell. We did not.

 

Why did we need this convoluted insight into the Lestrange family tree? We did not. I would've much rathered get to know Leta more and also sure, eventually see how the Lestranges become who we see in Harry Potter...but this weird lineage story in this film did nothing of that sort.

 

I could go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

But could you give examples of why HP1 and 2 don't work for you?

 

I'm curious about this as well. I don't see problems with them structurally. Honestly, they appear to follow a 3-act structure closer than Azkaban does (there's nothing wrong with Azkaban btw. It just feels like it has two act threes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The three-act structure (which itself is not obligatory - many great films eschew it) does imply a certain proportion. There are a lot of films with long first acts, but when the "first act" takes well over a third of your film's runtime, you can't in good conscience say that the film has a three-act structure just because some of the plot-points happen to serve the same function as a pretty diagram says they should.

 

28 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

But could you give examples of why HP1 and 2 don't work for you?

 

Basically the first two-thirds of the first film have no conflict to motivate them. It works until after the first scene or two in Hogwartz, because there's mystery in the way in which the Wizarding World is revealed to Harry. But after a while it gets a bit tedious, if still charming enough.

 

Chamber of Secrets is more to-the-point, but winning in a snail's race doesn't make you quick; and where in the first film every setpiece does at least set-up something, in the second one there are lots of redundant stuff (all of this is from memory - I haven't watched the film in a long while, and I have no desire to change that) and its a longer film overall.

 

To speak to another issue:

 

28 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Why did we need this convoluted insight into the Lestrange family tree?

 

The issue isn't just the insight itself, but the point along the film's running time in which its revealed. You don't make huge exposition dumps in the finale of your film: you certainly can make them in the finale of your book, because its the sort of thing that books absorb well.

 

it happens in Crimes of Grindelwald, and it happens in Chamber of Secrets. The former at least has a much, much better director, a leaner edit, and more action.

 

I should add, I'm not comparing to say one is better or worst than the other. They're in the same series, but the early Harry Potter films are very different beasts to this latest film, to the point that trying to rank them is really moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Basically the first two-thirds of the first film have no conflict to motivate them. It works until after the first scene or two in Hogwartz, because there's mystery in the way in which the Wizarding World is revealed to Harry. But after a while it gets a bit tedious, if still charming enough.

 

Chamber of Secrets is more to-the-point, but winning in a snail's race doesn't make you quick; and where in the first film every setpiece does at least set-up something, in the second one there are lots of redundant stuff (all of this is from memory - I haven't watched the film in a long while, and I have no desire to change that) and its a longer film overall.

 

Hmm. I think we have different viewpoints here. I don't find either film tedious at all. Chamber of Secrets especially. Of course, this varies from film to film. For reason in the first two Potters, it works. But things like Batman V Superman and Crimes of Grindelwald I find extremely guilty of being tedious / boring. It's funny. Some of the issues in Crimes of Grindelwald I feel could've been solved with certain extra scenes while shortening others, so in a way I find the leaner editing part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Some of the issues in Crimes of Grindelwald I feel could've been solved with certain extra scenes while shortening others, so in a way I find the leaner editing part of the problem.

 

Also a fair point, but its much more in the right direction with regards to editing than the Columbus' Harry Potter films. It also has a stronger opening (very important!), and more action through its narrative.

 

I actually find the Superman v Batman comparison quite apt, from the point of view of the screenplay. That is,  in the sense that it was hard to understand what the hell was going on. But, unlike that film, in this film the craft (not least among which is James Newton Howard's work) was in the very least mildly interesting to watch until things started to come together.

 

I'm not saying its anything to write home about, but its hardly the trainwreck the internet is making it out to be: its  fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Also a fair point, but its much more in the right direction with regards to editing than the Columbus' Harry Potter films. It also has a stronger opening (very important!), and more action through its narrative.

 

Oh... I actually hated the Crimes of Grindelwald opening. Too much CGI, felt very confusing, and overall just fell way flat for me. I thought almost everything could've been better in that opening. The concept is fine, but I should've been on the edge of my seat...and I just wasn't. It didn't feel like there was enough sound, not enough music, etc. And there were times I couldn't tell what was happening. When the opening logo come on, instead and feeling exhilarated I felt like...Wait, what just happened?

 

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I actually find the Superman v Batman comparison quite apt, from the point of view of the screenplay. That is,  in the sense that it was hard to understand what the hell was going on. But, unlike that film, in this film the craft (not least among which is James Newton Howard's work) was mildly interesting to watch untill things started to come together.

 

Oh yeah totally agree here. Batman V Superman is one of the lowest films on my list. So this was far more interesting and enjoyable by a long shot.

 

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I'm not saying its something to write home about, but its hardly the trainwreck the internet is making it out to be: its fine.

 

Yeah I'll be honest, from a straightup filmmaking perspective I'd probably agree. It's fine. Not good, but fine. As a Harry Potter fan who's been to midnight book and film releases, theorized, etc. it's quite a trainwreck. I can honestly say I don't know what the heck J.K. Rowling was thinking through 70% of this movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

I disagree, but yet. Harry Potter 1 and 2 are very well-done. CoG is horridly done. Not Directing, btw, I think Yates did fine. But the problems lie at the very beginning of the process with the writing. I actually didn't have structure issues really. My main issues have to do with characters and the ridiculous retcons and references to the rest of the canon for no reason.

 

I agree. Both Harry Potter 1 and 2 though not that interested in plot are atleast full of incident. Something or the other is constantly happening and then happening is interesting. 

 

CoG is boring because nothing really interesting is happening for the first 80% of the movie. Atleast nothing vaguely interesting or mysterious. It really is a tiresome slog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went for the Niffler statue last time but there doesn’t seem to be anything like that this time so the regular Blu-ray will do me. Looking forward to watching it again as part of a double bill 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...