Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bilbo

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Holko said:

I would've preferred to keep closer to the book in making Hogwarts the bubble where they can still be carefree kids,

 

But that's very much in the film: it is a bubble, but one that the audience and the characters know can burst at any time. That doesn't mean that life doesn't go on, hence the interjections of levity.

 

We've had the previous films to be cheery. Now is the time to be more meat-on-the-bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, if you read the whole thing you'd know I was still taking about the colour. Why does bad things happening at the end and things happening outside of the bubble have to mean a goddamn quidditch practice, a lunch, or anything like that has to look like a funeral?

 

The meat on HBP's bone was the character study of Voldemort, which was left out of the movie because talk be boring. Kissy kissy and flashy fire be engaging! General audiences become happy and give we cash!

(I know 8 or so backstory flashbacks and dissecting them afterwards would be gurelling as hell and kill all pacing, but it's not like they tried hard, just left the majority out.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the muted color around the students' daily lives goes to show their ephemeral nature: its not going to last.

 

The flashbacks were used appropriately: Anything more would have been overkill, both narrativelly and pacing-wise.

 

There's something to be said for the film managing to maintain an air of danger without a central antagonist: reminds me of Hitchcock or vintage M. Night Shaymalan. Over-reliance on Voldemort would have tarnished that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Arpy said:

I don't want to downplay the role of adapting a book into film, because I understand it's a monumental process, but Yates came into a series where the characters, world, cast and crew, design etc. was already setup and did little to add any creative flair or style. 

 

 I think he did a good job of pulling the ending threads together, but my biggest disappointment is that we didn't get to see that vision change over the course of the last four Potter films, and now into Fantastic Beasts. From OotP to FB1 it's a gloomy, dark, morose, magic-less affair. I think it deserves a new creative spark to inject some much needed levity and magic into the series.

 

I disagree. Making a big deal out of every magical thing that happens in that world just isn't practical...or necessarily good story telling. In fact after the wonder of all the magical stuff was very well established by the second film, I found most of stop and look how cool this magical biddley bop is to be sort of annoying and distracting. This is best illustrated in one particularly cringe worthy moment when Harry stares in wonder at a magic tent and says "I love magic" that I think is awful.

 

Rowling's books, as fond as I am of them, are plot heavy, exposition laden affairs that have a tendency to repeat themselves. It's a trick bit of magic to turn all that into a coherent, entertaining film, while pleasing hard core book readers and casual movie goers at the same time. I think Yates pulled this off more often than he didn't (though his films are far from perfect).

 

I get the complaints about the desaturated look (though I don't mind it), but I'm not sure which director(s) people think would have been substantially better at helming the four films Yates did.

 

20 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Since when is an author the best judge of how their work should be adapted?  They rarely are if you ask me.

 

In general, I agree.  However Rowling has proven to have pretty good instincts when it comes to these films. She wisely shot down Spielberg, an American Harry Potter, and an animated adaption. She was reportedly very active in voicing her opinions and suggestions on casting, and no matter what your complaints about the Potter films, no one can say they're not (mostly) very well casted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowling did choose Kloves based on their mutual preference of Hermione over Ron and gladly enabled him to devolve Ron into dumb comic relief and make Hermione pitch perfect, starting with the first movie already.

 

The core casting for the most part is definitely one of the best things about the movies. Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are now completely inseparable from their characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they did very well to have the Harry Potter films as good as they are. I think people forget about many awful films have been made of children’s books. Even while the Harry Potter films were being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

In general, I agree.  However Rowling has proven to have pretty good instincts when it comes to these films. She wisely shot down Spielberg, an American Harry Potter, and an animated adaption.

 

Rowling didn't "shoot down" Spielberg. Spielberg turned down Potter. He didn't consider the project challenging enough.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20061212093829/http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/1091358

https://web.archive.org/web/20071123181415/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/034/034089p1.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20060418011429/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rubbishbin_view.cfm?id=8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

Directors can come up with all kinds of weird stuff when they're first visualizing a project. Lord knows how many times their vision changes after time or conversations with other creatives.

 

Spielberg in particular notoriously butchers source material...he would have been all wrong for Harry Potter. His ideas for the franchise read like something The Onion could have written.

 

And the "Potter isn't challenging enough for genius Spielberg" is sort of an insulting joke. Adapting those books proved incredibly challenging. And when Spielberg finally did return to adapting a children's book, the result was a mediocre flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spielberg rarely writes his films, though.

 

What matters in terms of fidelty (or percieved fidelty) to the source material is the screenwriter's work, although of course the development of the script is dependant on the interaction with the director and producers, too.

Share this post


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

Spielberg rarely writes his films, though.

 

What matters in terms of fidelty (or percieved fidelty) to the source material is the screenwriter's work, although of course the development of the script is dependant on the interaction with the director and producers, too.

 

Not at all. A director like Spielberg decides the direction he wants a project to take, and it's the screenwriters job to get that on the page. It was Spielberg's idea to combine several of the books, Spielberg's idea to make the film animated, and Spielberg's idea to cast Haley Joel Osment. That's all on him, and its those ideas that Warner and Rowling weren't comfortable with, even if he was offered the project.

 

Just as it was Spielberg's decision to combine several of the TinTin stories and make them animated. 

 

As @Bilbo said, thank God Spielberg's Harry Potter didn't come to pass. And his comments about how easy it would be for him to do, and how it was just like shooting fish in a barrel and a guaranteed billion in the bank were not only wrong, but arrogant. I don't think Spielberg's animated American Potter would have made the money his protégé's did.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

I disagree. Making a big deal out of every magical thing that happens in that world just isn't practical...or necessarily good story telling. In fact after the wonder of all the magical stuff was very well established by the second film, I found most of stop and look how cool this magical biddley bop is to be sort of annoying and distracting. This is best illustrated in one particularly cringe worthy moment when Harry stares in wonder at a magic tent and says "I love magic" that I think is awful.

 

I think you missed my second post that specifically said that when I referred to the 'magic' of the series being absent, I'm not referring to literal examples of magic spells, but instead, the magic that can be found in the warmth of the film, the soul behind the characters, the scenes that evoke some feeling - and I'm not saying Yates' films were devoid of that either. 

 

And I agree that Yates did a tremendous job of pulling the franchise together in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arpy said:

warmth of the film, the soul behind the characters, the scenes that evoke some feeling.

 

I don't think the characters are any less compelling under Yates' helm. The narrative is less "warm" but that's because of the nature of the story: it starts warm, but it gradually stops being that and becomes something more confronting and dark. That's good storytelling because there's a sense of escalation there.

 

That a story is a downer doesn't mean its a lesser story. Case in point:

 

3 hours ago, Alex said:

David Yates is an uninspiring, safe option at best. That much is obvious. Bring me Cuáron.

 

Not obvious in the slightest. He's a good filmmaker, and he has come through on at least two of the very best Harry Potter films.

 

Are there better filmmakers, like Cuáron? Sure. But let's not forget that Cuáron's masterpiece is the dark-as-hell Children of Men, with a color palette that's just a notch above black-and-white. So if tone and color palette are your gripes with Yates, than...

Share this post


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

David Yates is an uninspiring, safe option at best. That much is obvious. 

Bring me Cuáron or Del Toro... heck even Tim Burton!

 

Well I suppose the idea of bringing in a different auteur director for each film is an interesting one, but not I'm convinced it would deliver the results people expect.  There's the chance you get something good, ala Cuáron's film...there's also the chance that you get a mess, or get a director who's more interested in his or her pet vision than fidelity to the source material. I guess if you had Del Toro, Burton, Gilliam and Iñárritu direct the final four films you might have ended up with something interesting, but IMO it's equally likely you'd get four films that looked and felt nothing alike, sacrificed continuity, and perhaps even key plot and character details. And I think there's a really good chance that at least two of those films would have flat out sucked, because that's just how the odds work when you roll the dice with directors like that....who work best when given free reign.

 

And it's not as if the books, particularly the latter ones, are groundbreaking works of individual style.  If you want to be faithful to the source material, having one competent director who as the faith of the author makes a lot of sense. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t worry that much about the plot holes or continuity anyway because JKR is writing all of them (she’s already retconned Dumbledore being DADA teacher before he taught transfiguration).

 

I just think that with 5 films that aren’t going to be linked to the degree that the original books were (the second film doesn’t even look like it’s going to focus as much on Newt). It’s the perfect opportunity to bring in different directors.

 

I’m critical of Yates because he didn’t really do that much. He didn’t add to or enhance the source material. As I said, he’s just a safe pair of hands who will produce a nice but unspectacular film.

 

 He also brought a TV composer who was way out of his depth into a blockbuster franchise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alex said:

I don’t worry that much about the plot holes or continuity anyway because JKR is writing all of them (she’s already retconned Dumbledore being DADA teacher before he taught transfiguration).

 

I just think that with 5 films that aren’t going to be linked to the degree that the original books were (the second film doesn’t even look like it’s going to focus as much on Newt). It’s the perfect opportunity to bring in different directors.

 

I’m critical of Yates because he didn’t really do that much. He didn’t add to or enhance the source material. As I said, he’s just a safe pair of hands who will produce a nice but unspectacular film.

 

 He also brought a TV composer who was way out of his depth into a blockbuster franchise!

 

Why do you say it isn’t going to focus on Newt? 

 

Dumbledore won’t have nearly as many scenes as some people seem to think. 

 

Newt is is very much the main character in this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bilbo said:

 

Why do you say it isn’t going to focus on Newt? 

 

Dumbledore won’t have nearly as many scenes as some people seem to think. 

 

Newt is is very much the main character in this 

 

I agree he’ll be a main character, but maybe not as much as in the first one. You don’t just hire Jude Law and Johnny Depp unless they’re gonna have ample screen time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Alex said:

 

I agree he’ll be a main character, but maybe not as much as in the first one. You don’t just hire Jude Law and Johnny Depp unless they’re gonna have ample screen time. 

 

I dunno, look at the cast of the Harry Potter films. You’d hardly say Richard Harris and Alan Rickman were the focus of Philosopher’s Stone would you?

 

Depp is the big bad of the series so he’s going to get loads of screen time without it being a detriment to Newt and it’s already established that Dumbledore doesn’t really confront Grindelwald until their famous duel which will surely be the end of the series.

Share this post


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

 

I dunno, look at the cast of the Harry Potter films. You’d hardly say Richard Harris and Alan Rickman were the focus of Philosopher’s Stone would you?

 

Wait, Philosopher’s Stone had a focus?!😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 1:08 PM, Bilbo said:

 

I dunno, look at the cast of the Harry Potter films. You’d hardly say Richard Harris and Alan Rickman were the focus of Philosopher’s Stone would you?

 

Depp is the big bad of the series so he’s going to get loads of screen time without it being a detriment to Newt and it’s already established that Dumbledore doesn’t really confront Grindelwald until their famous duel which will surely be the end of the series.

When Newt dies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, through interviews with Jude Law and other sources, Dumbledore has a role in Crimes of Grindelwald, but it's minimal, he probably has more involvement in the next three films. Obviously they're hyping it up with the marketing as to his role in the film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arpy said:

As far as I'm aware, through interviews with Jude Law and other sources, Dumbledore has a role in Crimes of Grindelwald, but it's minimal, he probably has more involvement in the next three films. Obviously they're hyping it up with the marketing as to his role in the film. 

 

The film will end with Dumbledore being handed his wand on top of some remote island mountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 2:14 PM, Holko said:

Rowling did choose Kloves based on their mutual preference of Hermione over Ron and gladly enabled him to devolve Ron into dumb comic relief and make Hermione pitch perfect, starting with the first movie already.

 

The core casting for the most part is definitely one of the best things about the movies. Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are now completely inseparable from their characters.

 

Rowling's turning against Ron is one of the sadder parts of her annoying post-Potter revisionism. 

 

Couldn't agree more about the casting. Pity about Richard Harris though, I really didn't enjoy Gambon's Dumbledore at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with Harris is that he was 10-20 years too old for the role. He gets across the distance, sweet Grandpaness and quirkyness, and he does kinda work for 1 and 2, but I just can't picture him pacing around in his room like a bumblebee (which is Rowling's main idea about Dumby) or acting out iconic book moments like jumping up from his chair with a victorious glint in his eye when he learns Voldemort used Harry's blood, or obviously duelling Voldemort in 5. The less said about post-Azkaban Gambon, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alex said:

A perfect Dumbledore would have been a Gambon/Harris hybrid. Gambon’s energy + Harris’ warmth 

 

Writers and directors who actually understood the character wouldn't have been too shabby, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

Pity about Richard Harris though, I really didn't enjoy Gambon's Dumbledore at all.

 

I don't care for Richard Harris in that role. To be fair to him, there's very little of Dumberldore in the first two entries, so its not like he had anything to show his prowess with.

 

I do think Gambon is a bit too hysterical under Newell's direction, but otherwise I think he's fantastic in that role.

 

The quality of a performance is dependent on the director as much as the actor. So a great actor (Richard Harris) with a director who's very bad at pulling a good performance out of his actors (Chris Columbus) and/or with insufficient time to dial-in the performance accordingly (not enough rehearsals and/or takes), still amounts to a very "meh" performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holko said:

 

Writers and directors who actually understood the character wouldn't have been too shabby, either.

 

Also would have helped if Gambon himself had bothered reading the books!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't bother me that he didn't read the books...lots of actors on HP and LOTR for example have said they didn't read the books.

 

What would have been helpful, however, is that Gambon had made at least some attempt to understand the character, or put any effort at all into playing him beyond just managing to show up sober and read the lines.

 

That said, I don't blame him for the hysterical and panicky Dumbledore of GOF....that's all on Newel.

 

Also, it would have been nice if they didn't make most of his robes look like muumuus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×