Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Is Fantastic Beasts the Better Call Saul of the Harry Potter universe?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Better call Daniel, Emma, Rupert and the gang.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Breaking Dan.

[Arpy 4,145]

1 hour ago, TSMefford said:

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.

 

I agree with all of this! 

 

I think it's just difficult for Rowling to sift through a great deal of convoluted history and backstory. When they introduce Grindelwald in CoG, he doesn't do anything particularly evil, nor does his character appear to be threatening. They should've gone all-out villain and had him kill hundreds of people, make him more frightening.  

59 minutes ago, Thekthithm said:

Is Fantastic Beasts the Better Call Saul of the Harry Potter universe?

Dumbledore is Walt to Harry's Jesse.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Harry, we need to cook!

[mstrox 6,647]

Comparing Divergent to Harry Potter is apples to oranges for one reason.

 

 

It’ll take a lot more than lukewarm box office for Warner Bros to yeet the Potterverse

[Arpy 4,145]

Divergent was already killed by The Hunger Games @mstrox back in the Young Adult War of yore.

[Edmilson 7,393]

I used Divergent as an example of a franchise that ended without a satisfactory ending on movie theaters because the box office have plummeted. 

 

And I'm not the first person to do so. Actually, I've copied that idea from Scott Mendelson, a box office pundit and movie critic on Forbes, who have already done the same comparison on a few occasions after the disappointing reception of Crimes of Grindelwald.

[Edmilson 7,393]

Quote

The newest shooting start for Fantastic Beasts 3 has been revealed by star Dan Fogler, who revisits No-Maj baker Jacob Kowalski under returning screenwriter and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and director David Yates. Originally planned for a July shooting start before filming was pushed back to late autumn, Fantastic Beasts 3 will now head in front of cameras in early 2020. According to a January report, studio Warner Bros. approved the delay to give the Crimes of Grindelwald sequel more prep time. In April, Warner Bros. shifted its release date from November 20, 2020 to November 12, 2021.

 

“We haven’t started filming yet. We start in February,” Fogler said onstage at LeakyCon 2019 Boston. “Last we heard, J.K. … she’s been writing furiously, everyone was really happy with what she submitted, and we’re all just waiting for the new script. And that’s where we’re at.”

 

https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/10/19/fantastic-beasts-3-shooting-start-revealed-by-star-dan-fogler-february-2020/

[Bilbo 3,709]

The third instalment of the Fantastic Beasts series has been greenlit, with production confirmed to start in Spring 2020. Here is everything you need to know so far.

Fancy another Fantastic Beasts film? Well, it’s our pleasure to announce that pre-production on the third chapter is officially underway. Here are some new details, including the cast, the production team, and a rather special new location.

Many of the characters you know and love from the first two Fantastic Beasts films will be back for the next adventure in a cast led by Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore and Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald along with Ezra Miller (Credence/Aurelius Dumbledore), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski) and Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein).

Comedian and actor Jessica Williams, who was featured briefly in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, will have a bigger role in this film. Stay tuned to learn more about her character, Professor Eulalie 'Lally' Hicks, a teacher at Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the American equivalent of Hogwarts.

The film will once again be directed by David Yates and will reunite producers David Heyman, J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves, Lionel Wigram and Tim Lewis, along with executive producers Neil Blair, Danny Cohen, Josh Berger and Courtenay Valenti. The screenplay will be written by J.K. Rowling and Steve Kloves.

As with the first two films, the third will take us to new continents, exploring wizarding cultures across the globe. The first Fantastic Beasts film introduced us to American wizarding life in 1927 New York, the second took us to Paris, and we can now reveal that the third film will officially be visiting... Rio de Janeiro, Brazil!

This location-reveal follows on from J.K. Rowling’s mysterious Twitter header last year and confirms that she was indeed referring to Brazil as one of the main destinations in the third Fantastic Beasts.

The as yet un-named third instalment of Fantastic Beasts will start production in Spring 2020. The film will release on November 12, 2021. As always, keep visiting WizardingWorld.com for more updates as we get them.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Kloves co-writing now, interesting....

[toothless 963]

4 minutes ago, mrbellamy said:

Kloves co-writing now, interesting....

Best of both world 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I didn't see the second one and I won't be seeing this one.  At this point, dropping Yates is the only way I could be interested.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/the-third-fantastic-beasts-film-confirms-new-details-including-cast-members-and-location

 

This is public admission of defeat from Rowling. Of course she wanted to be a screenwriter and the relative failure of Grindlewald means that her solo screenwriting career is probably at an end. Or it will atleast get more scrutiny.

 

This is a suits decesion. WB absolutely mandated Kloves in all likelihood to greenlight FB3. I think the verdict was clear - the reviews all panned the script. I think everything else was there - the design work remains exquisite, the score is outstanding, the actors are all good, the direction is competent. What tripped them up in part 2 is the horrible script.

 

It was Rowling getting complacent that she delivered a solo screenwriting hit with an original screenplay with FB1.

 

But you have to always remember that you cannot take the audience's attention for granted. The audience is smart. Honor them. Give them something good. Don't half-ass it.

Marvel movies do this consistently, that is why people come again and again.

 

Kloves is a good sign. Rowling is of course a good writer, no question about it. But screenplays are in some ways a more challenging medium.

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

51 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I didn't see the second one and I won't be seeing this one.  At this point, dropping Yates is the only way I could be interested.

Cool story bro

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Cool story bro

 

I'm going to write JK Rowling a letter and title it "Fantastic Directors and Where to Find Their Agents"  

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I'm going to write JK Rowling a letter and title it "Fantastic Directors and Where to Find Their Agents"  

It will have to be strongly worded. You’re at nothing unless it’s strongly worded 

[Chen G. 3,944]

It’s beyond me why people blame a none-writing director for the plotting of his films. It’s like blaming Eastwood or Scott for the same thing in their movies.

 

David Yates knows how to direct a movie. It’s the writing here that sucks.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm not blaming him for the plotting I'm blaming him for being a dull and un-imaginative director.  Even if you like him, seven films in one franchise is just too many for a single director.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It’s beyond me why people blame a none-writing director for the plotting of his films. It’s like blaming Eastwood or Scott for the same thing in their movies.

 

David Yates knows how to direct a movie. It’s the writing here that sucks.

 

And Rowling was also the Producer. So she essentially had the power to hire the director. 

 

Yates is the hired hand here. He had to film the script the "star writer" wrote. There was little he could do.

 

Given what he had, he did a decent job.

[Chen G. 3,944]

My thoughts exactly. Crimes of Grindlewald is actually an impressively-directed movie, I thought.

 

Screenplay’s a mess, though.

 

7 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Even if you like him, seven films in one franchise is just too many for a single director.

 

There I agree, though.

[Arpy 4,145]

Going to Brazil is at least closer to my vision for the series of Newt and Co. finding beasts in exotic locales. I wonder if they can take this film in a different direction that doesn't revolve around Grindelwald - give that plot a bit of a rest.

[Chen G. 3,944]

4 hours ago, Arpy said:

I wonder if they can take this film in a different direction that doesn't revolve around Grindelwald - give that plot a bit of a rest.

 

But isn't that the true thrust of this series?

[Arpy 4,145]

22 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

But isn't that the true thrust of this series?

Yes, but it's taking away from the 'Fantastic Beasts' angle. There was one beast in Crimes of Grindelwald and it wasn't even the reason Newt was there in the first place. 

[Chen G. 3,944]

It seems pretty clear to me that, regardless of the title, these five films are going to be about Grindelwald’s rise to power and eventual defeat.

[publicist 4,643]

14 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

The audience is smart. Honor them. Give them something good. Don't half-ass it.

Marvel movies do this consistently, that is why people come again and again.

 

Haha.

[Arpy 4,145]

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It seems pretty clear to me that, regardless of the title, these five films are going to be about Grindelwald’s rise to power and eventual defeat.

Yes, but five films of it? I think we need some fun diversion from the grim reality of the Grindelwald plot.

[crumbs 14,301]

16 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Yes, but five films of it? I think we need some fun diversion from the grim reality of the Grindelwald plot.

 

The main problem here is that Rowling is just repeating the same story already told in the Harry Potter series. A dictator's rise to power, mirroring fascist leaders from our own history, in the magic world.

 

The key difference being that audiences actually cared about the cast of characters in the Harry Potter universe, care of some excellent writing and directing in the earlier films that established why we should relate to these kids in this otherwise foreign universe (peaking in the superbly directed Prisoner of Azkaban).

 

Nobody gives a shit about Bland Scarblandington, the most uninteresting one-note protagonist one could possibly conceive for a so-called "magical" universe brimming with "fantastic beasts." Surrounded by a cohort of equally beige, monotonous, personality-challenged statues pervading the frame, stilted objects David Yates considers "characters." You might as well fill the screen with mannequins because they have about as much range once Yates has finished sucking out any presence these otherwise talented performers have in the hands of capable directors.

[Chen G. 3,944]

Again you’re blaming Yates for characterization which falls primarily on the script, which he never had a hand in writing.

 

I like the characters in the second film well-enough. I think Yates draws good performances for his cast, as he always has. It’s the story that’s bordering on the incoherent, and characters can only be as engaging as the story in which they are set.

 

As for repeating the same story: we didn’t see it in Harry Potter quite like we do here, so I find this a rather stock criticism.

 

20 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Yes, but five films of it? I think we need some fun diversion from the grim reality of the Grindelwald plot.

 

We’ve only got three films to go, and it’s not like they were particularly long up to this point. I don’t know a film series where the central plot thread is abandoned for a whole film in sake of some “fun diversion.”

[Arpy 4,145]

3 minutes ago, crumbs said:

The key difference being that audiences actually cared about the cast of characters in the Harry Potter universe, care of some excellent writing and directing in the earlier films that established why we should relate to these kids in this otherwise foreign universe (peaking in the superbly directed Prisoner of Azkaban).

Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire had the kind of narrative diversion I'm looking for in this FB series. Apart from the latter parts of GoF, they were Voldemort-lite giving us some time for the characters to grow and be put through new scenarios and subplots. 

 

 

 

[crumbs 14,301]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Again you’re blaming Yates for characterization which falls primarily on the script, which he never had a hand in writing.

 

Does the script state that all characters should just stand idly in frame? Does the script state that all characters need to be dressed in the same dull, grey, beige clothes? Does the script state that all the camerawork needs to be washed out and dull, with very little dynamic movement or visual interest? People just move from one black/grey/brown set to another. They either sit in a room or stand in a room. They move to another room and stand some more. These films are relentlessly dull and stale in their camera use, it's a huge part of the reason they aren't resonating with viewers (especially for a so-called "magical" universe; Yates direction feels like a Jane Austen film adaptation for the Hallmark channel).

 

The problems with these films go far beyond the terrible screenwriting; stop using the script as an excuse for David Yates' total lack of inspiration as a director. A fresh set of eyes is perfectly capable of fixing most of these issues. We heard ad nauseum that the reason his Potter films looked and felt stale was because it reflected the Wizarding World having the life sucked out of it by Voldemort. So why on earth do these films look and feel the same as his Potter films from the beginning, before Grindelwald is even a factor?

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, the tone (both in narrative and visual aesthetic) are whack in these films. I think there needed to be a gradual shift into the darkness.

One problem I had in the first film was that the anachronism of Newt's world isn't substantially different from anything else in the film - it didn't feel magical. It was shouting LOOKY LOOKY, MAGIC! 

 

Not to forget, New York is like Nolan's Gotham in these films,and Paris looks like Burton's Gotham.

 

[crumbs 14,301]

The title alone conjures images of a grand adventure through exotic locales hunting down rare, colourful creatures. The reality of these films couldn't be more different. Brooding, deathly serious, miserably tone-deaf, thoroughly unfunny attempts at humour, and a "colour" palette that ranges from grey to beige. Not even close to the type of imagery or story the title inspires in your imagination.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I guess Rowling prefers these films as dark and disturbing.

[Arpy 4,145]

25 minutes ago, crumbs said:

The title alone conjures images of a grand adventure through exotic locales hunting down rare, colourful creatures. The reality of these films couldn't be more different. Brooding, deathly serious, miserably tone-deaf, thoroughly unfunny attempts at humour, and a "colour" palette that ranges from grey to beige. Not even close to the type of imagery or story the title inspires in your imagination.

I have a feeling Rowling went with Yates based on their working relationship on Potter, but it really needed someone who could add a bit of pizzazz to the series before the darker tones Yates established with his Potter films.  

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

I don't know what you guys are looking at. To me the films have great production and costume design. They are quite elegantly rendered.

 

And you don't see color saturation in almost any films these days. Hollywood does color saturation for animated films only. 

[bollemanneke 3,337]

17 hours ago, Bilbo said:

It will have to be strongly worded. You’re at nothing unless it’s strongly worded 

He's a survivor, he knows how the world works, trust me.

 

Having said that, I'm really enjoying reading the discussion about Yates being a terrible director from a visual point of view. Quite interesting.

[Arpy 4,145]

I love Half-Blood Prince, I think there's some stunning work on that film which was Yates. I just don't feel the spark of life and energy from the direction or script with the Beasts films. It's not as much about Yates being a poor choice of director, rather I'd have liked a fresh start with another director.

[Holko 9,499]

wow.

[Arpy 4,145]

I've always had a soft spot HBP.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

HBP is certainly Yates' best.

[Holko 9,499]

It's the only one of the 8 I don't even have on DVD in the attic. Any given frame makes me want to puke. The script makes all the wrong choices about which parts need focusing on. Everyone underacts every beat. I have never rewatched it but I saw a YT clip of Ron after the love potion thing in the hospital wing and the blocking and "direction" is deplorable.

 

I remember even liking the stupid PC game more, it was at least kooky and somewhat self-aware, and it had goddamn colour to it, more than one per scene.

[Arpy 4,145]

The cinematography is some of the best since Azkaban, the framing and composition are all really well done. I do think the murky look was taken too far in places.

 

The only sin the film commits is removing some key scenes of Voldemort's history and memory sequences which are some of my favourite parts of the book.

[Holko 9,499]

I think the single redeeming factor I can think of is casting Jim Broadbent as Slughorn.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

12 minutes ago, Holko said:

It's the only one of the 8 I don't even have on DVD in the attic. Any given frame makes me want to puke. The script makes all the wrong choices about which parts need focusing on. Everyone underacts every beat. I have never rewatched it but I saw a YT clip of Ron after the love potion thing in the hospital wing and the blocking and "direction" is deplorable.

 

I remember even liking the stupid PC game more, it was at least kooky and somewhat self-aware, and it had goddamn colour to it, more than one per scene.

Yeah, now that you mention it, it does have serious flaws...

 

And don't forget the game also has amazing music!

[Edmilson 7,393]

TBH, I prefer Deathly Hallows Part 1 over Half Blood Prince, but that Oscar nomination was certainly well deserved.

[mstrox 6,647]

Half Blood Prince was my second favorite HP movie (after Azkaban)!

[Pieter Boelen 740]

Top bad Rowling didn't quite succeed in the script writing business.

Sometimes authors CAN write good scripts.

C.S. Forester's "Captain Horatio Hornblower R.N." seemed like a pretty darn great adaption of his books.

And he did that himself.

 

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

And you don't see color saturation in almost any films these days. Hollywood does color saturation for animated films only. 

Modern Movie Syndrome.

Really, it sucks. It isn't even realistic, like people claim is the reason for it.

I believe instead it makes it easier for CGI to blend in.

Convincing CGI in bright locations is more difficult to do than in the dark.

[Jay 37,289]

4 hours ago, crumbs said:

The main problem here is that Rowling is just repeating the same story already told in the Harry Potter series. A dictator's rise to power, mirroring fascist leaders from our own history, in the magic world.

 

Hey, that's a great point I hadn't really thought about before.  That is a big reason why these films aren't really satisfying.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

If we're taking it as a given that she will do more stuff in the Potter universe, I'd be interested in a series (either books, movies, whatever) that told the story of the four founders of Hogwarts.  I guess it's like the Potter equivalent of Star Wars doing the Old Republic era.