Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[bollemanneke 3,342]

And you're surprised I'm no longer taking it seriously? Where does video game McGonagall fit in here?

[Smaug The Iron 512]

I don't know and I really do not care. The only thing I care about is that book Canon is on thing and movie Canon is another thing (video game Canon Is a Third thing). 

[Arpy 4,145]

So what you're saying @bollemanneke is that all of the books are meaningless now because McGonagall's age was shifted in the FB films? 

 

The little pieces of Trivia JKR posts on twitter/pottermore don't impinge on the narrative in any way. When she announced Dumbledore was gay *gasp* it wasn't some bid for more attention it was a response to a question, and the answer hasn't ruined the characters or stories, it's enhanced them by way of giving them more depth. 

 

[Edmilson 7,433]

Oh, who cares, these Fantastic Beasts movies are the most expensive Potterverse fanfics ever created. 

 

They're as well written and plotted as something a teen girl that spends her day on Twitter would come up with.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Yes it was, it was nothing more than her wanting attention. She had seven books to write about him being gay and to tell us that Hermione was black. But no, let's wait till the hype is over and then regenerate it!

[Arpy 4,145]

Oh I guess Dumbledore needed to be stereotypically gay, with pronounced feminine traits?

 

[mrbellamy 6,278]

I will still see the new Beasts movies because I’m just curious about wizardy things from Rowling even if it sucks, but I don’t think it’s worth parsing what does and doesn’t negatively affect the canon itself anymore. I did used to enjoy the trivia from interviews and things because they were at least consistent but now I only really take her as an authority on what went into the actual creation of the books at the time. I’ll peek at whatever else but expect to ignore it in the long run.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

1 hour ago, Arpy said:

Oh I guess Dumbledore needed to be stereotypically gay, with pronounced feminine traits?

 

No, absolutely not. She once said something about there not being room in the books for that, which makes it even more ridiculous because of the whole Grindelwald/Dumbledore stuff. Same with Hermione, we get seven descriptions about her bushy hair, why not include the simple five letter word, black? Wouldn't that have been amazing?

[Smaug The Iron 512]

19 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Same with Hermione, we get seven descriptions about her bushy hair, why not include the simple five letter word, black? Wouldn't that have been amazing?

Dose it matter? In The Curse Child she is black yes but it is a play not the books. You can read the books and she is white, you can read it again she is Asien, read it a Third time and she is Latin. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, Smaug the iron said:

You do know that FB2 is a prequel?

 

More of a spinoff than a direct prequel, I would say.

[Alex 2,835]

The guy who plays Jacob has lost a ridiculous amount of weight, so now JK will have to create a magician weight loss potion for the series

[bollemanneke 3,342]

They can just say he lost weight because he lost Queenie.

[Edmilson 7,433]

Jacob's arc finished on the first movie. He has no business moving forward. What a Muggle can do in amidst the battle between two powerful wizards? But, of course, since the actor has so much charisma when playing him, they had to include him somehow.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

8 hours ago, Arpy said:

The little pieces of Trivia JKR posts on twitter/pottermore don't impinge on the narrative in any way. 

 

They don't. The books remain the books. The films remains the films.

 

It impinges on her credibility though as an artist.

 

But most people are able to mark the difference between the artist and the art.

[Arpy 4,145]

8 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

No, absolutely not. She once said something about there not being room in the books for that, which makes it even more ridiculous because of the whole Grindelwald/Dumbledore stuff. Same with Hermione, we get seven descriptions about her bushy hair, why not include the simple five letter word, black? Wouldn't that have been amazing?

Because most times the colour of one's skin is secondary to one's character or irelevant altogether? Can't believe I needed to type that.

 

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

They don't. The books remain the books. The films remains the films.

 

It impinges on her credibility though as an artist.

 

But most people are able to mark the difference between the artist and the art.

How? How has it exactly done anything to her credibility as an artist? You just seem to have people like Bolle who are engaged in a faux outrage over nothing, NOTHING. If you agreed with me it doesn't impinge on the books or films, then how does that affect her credibility?

 

As a writer, I would expect the freedom to make any small sidenotes as I please and not expect an over-entitled twitter mob to harass me for it. 

It's not even an argument of making the distinction between the art and the artist, it's accepting these trivialities and moving on.

 

I'm seriously worried people like @bollemanneke lay awake at night, tossing and turning over how Hermione could be black when JK didn't specify beyond doubt she was. JK's message was one made to console and reassure young readers that they have the freedom to envision the character as sharing similar traits to them. This type of pedantic literalism is why we can't move past our racist, bigoted, xenophobic past anymore.

 

 

[Alex 2,835]

Hermione being black doesn’t bother me as much as Cursed Chile actually existing in the first place

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

36 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Because most times the colour of one's skin is secondary to one's character or irelevant altogether? Can't believe I needed to type that.

 

How? How has it exactly done anything to her credibility as an artist? You just seem to have people like Bolle who are engaged in a faux outrage over nothing, NOTHING. If you agreed with me it doesn't impinge on the books or films, then how does that affect her credibility?

 

As a writer, I would expect the freedom to make any small sidenotes as I please and not expect an over-entitled twitter mob to harass me for it. 

It's not even an argument of making the distinction between the art and the artist, it's accepting these trivialities and moving on.

 

I'm seriously worried people like @bollemanneke lay awake at night, tossing and turning over how Hermione could be black when JK didn't specify beyond doubt she was. JK's message was one made to console and reassure young readers that they have the freedom to envision the character as sharing similar traits to them. This type of pedantic literalism is why we can't move past our racist, bigoted, xenophobic past anymore.

 

 

 

I see Rowling now as a flagrant opportunist trying to disingenuously win woke points. She's insinuating she's woker than she is and I personally find that off-putting. All of the really progressive things she wants to be celebrated for where cheap tweets or throwaway trivia dropped on a blog rather than anything included in the main narrative.

 

It's like saying Tolkein telling you - I created one of the most important and popular trans characters in history. People go what? how? why? Really? And Tolkein goes yes really - Aragorn was trans. Now celebrate me. People - why the fuck not put it in the book if you want to win points for that?

 

It is incredibly fraudulent for people in positions of power to win points by empty pandering. And I wouldn't say this only of Rowling, I just generally find it awful.

 

[Arpy 4,145]

I don't buy your argument, it's easy to think that's what she's doing - 'winning woke points' - but do you think she needs to do that after all this time? The Potter series has been a phenomenon across the world for almost two decades now, polls and readership figures have shown her audience were already incredibly diverse. Just to reiterate, what exactly has she posted that is an abuse of her power, or the trust of the audience, or are you saying you take issue with the sexuality of a character, even by your own admission that they don't affect the books?

 

It's sad to see this pocket of anti-progressive sentimentality here of all places.

 

[Alex 2,835]

Rowling tries to act woke now because her books are filled with stereotypes haha.

 

She’s also a TERF, which rubs people up the wrong way.

[Arpy 4,145]

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Rowling's ideological spoutings, she's said some stupid things, I'm defending her right as an artist to write whatever the fuck she wants. The condition has always been that you don't have to read it, you don't have to read pottermore or follow her on twitter, but there's some weird mentality being pushed here that somehow you guys are being forced to read it and like it or else Rowling will send real Death Eaters to your house. 

[Alex 2,835]

Basically I feel like what massive Star Wars fans feel about George Lucas.

[Arpy 4,145]

You mean those who still bitch and moan about how he ruined their childhood?

[Alex 2,835]

The FB series is my prequels, basically.

 

I still love the books though. I wish there were FB books (not the textbook).

[Arpy 4,145]

I like the prequels for what they are, where they were flawed but essential to the Star Wars saga. FB however has always felt peripheral and optional. 

[Holko 9,519]

1 hour ago, Arpy said:

essential to the Star Wars saga

[Arpy 4,145]

I'm not going to beat around the bush, I think they're important. I'm not an OT purist sycophant who who thinks those original three films are all you need. They're surprisingly hollow films, especially ANH.

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 hours ago, Arpy said:

I like the prequels for what they are, where they were flawed but essential to the Star Wars saga. FB however has always felt peripheral and optional. 

 

Right, which is why I like to think of Fantastic Beasts as a spinoff rather than a direct prequel. As I understand the timeline, by the time these films conclude, Voldemort will have only just graduated Hogwarts, right?

 

Also, whenever I'm dissecting prequels I like to think: "Well, if I were a new audience seeing this series for the first time starting with this prequel, how will that experience be?" and - within those parameters - Fantastic Beasts doesn't work as a prequel, because Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone MUST to be the first Harry Potter film people see: the whole effect of the first 90 minutes of that film is reliant upon the novelty of the wizarding world.

 

The Star Wars prequels have their issues, too, in this regard. Namely, spoiling the twist of Episode V at least three films in advance. I'd also argue that The Phantom Menace isn't "essential to the Star Wars saga." You can start with Attack of the Clones and barely miss a beat.

[publicist 4,643]

Saw the latest Beasts on Sky's Potter playlist (partly). Say what you will about Columbus' grandfatherly storybook approach (which can be pretty obnoxious when there's no british prize thespian on-screen), it's still heavens above this huddled mess. People regularly pay (paid) 12€-14€ for *that* stuff in cinemas? 

[Alex 2,835]

Newt/Jacob/Tina and Dumbledore/Grindelwald should really have completely different movies. The “Fantastic Beasts” have become peripheral.

[Smaug The Iron 512]

37 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Right, which is why I like to think of Fantastic Beasts as a spinoff rather than a direct prequel. As I understand the timeline, by the time these films conclude, Voldemort will have only just graduated Hogwarts, right?

Yes if FB5 ends with Dumbledore defeating Grindelwald it will take place in 1945, so Tom Riddle should be about 18 years old. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Is Voldemort at least supposed to pick-up from Grindelwald? They seem to share a similar ideology.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

9 hours ago, Arpy said:

I don't buy your argument, it's easy to think that's what she's doing - 'winning woke points' - but do you think she needs to do that after all this time? The Potter series has been a phenomenon across the world for almost two decades now, polls and readership figures have shown her audience were already incredibly diverse. Just to reiterate, what exactly has she posted that is an abuse of her power, or the trust of the audience, or are you saying you take issue with the sexuality of a character, even by your own admission that they don't affect the books?

 

It's sad to see this pocket of anti-progressive sentimentality here of all places.

 

Don’t call me anti progressive she is anti progressive. 
 

that’s the point people are making here. She doesn’t need to do this pandering shit. Yes here we are.

[Arpy 4,145]

She's not pandering, though.

Again, you agreed with me all her 'Extra-Potter' material doesn't affect the reading of the books or films...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Newt/Jacob/Tina and Dumbledore/Grindelwald should really have completely different movies. The “Fantastic Beasts” have become peripheral.

They always were, partly because the side stories are just much more interesting than a bumbling freak trying to catch animals.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

2 hours ago, Arpy said:

She's not pandering, though.

Again, you agreed with me all her 'Extra-Potter' material doesn't affect the reading of the books or films...

 

It doesn't. Same way my opinion of Woody Allen's movies or Roman Polanksi's movies does not change.

 

But my opinion of her has changed.

[Arpy 4,145]

It should've been Newt and Jacob tracking down beasts in magical exotic locations, not dreary, dark cities like New York and Paris. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Arpy said:

It should've been Newt and Jacob tracking down beasts

 

What's the point of making multiple entries off of such a premise? Clearly, Rowling had the Grindelwald plot in mind from the beginning, and used the "Fantastic Beasts" title as just that... a title.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

I have no quarrel with the first movie or the title or the premise of this series.

 

I actually think Fantastic beasts 1 might be the best Wizarding World movie. It is the only 1 which completely stands on its own merits.

 

The second part had enormous faults though. But Part 3 can redeem the series yet I think.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I actually think Fantastic beasts 1 might be the best Wizarding World movie. It is the only 1 which completely stands on its own merits.

I could get behind that.

 

Though I do have a soft spot for PS and CoS as well.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

And I could get behind THAT.

[Jay 37,346]

 

[Alex 2,835]

What even is the status with Fantastic Beasts 3 at the moment? I know Steve Kloves is on board. Is JNH confirmed?

After CoG, I’m not that enthusiastic about the sequels, but I’ll still go and see it because I’m a sucker. I really want it to be good, honestly.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Yeah, someone told me JNH waas confirmed, I think, but don't take my word for it. He's the main reason I'm still interested in this franchise right now.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

I liked TCOG.

JNH is confirmed. I read it, somewhere.

[TSMefford 1,509]

On 4/13/2020 at 10:22 AM, TheUlyssesian said:

I have no quarrel with the first movie or the title or the premise of this series.

 

I actually think Fantastic beasts 1 might be the best Wizarding World movie. It is the only 1 which completely stands on its own merits.

 

I don't think it's the best, but it's certainly up there. It's crazy because I regard 1 as one of the best of the series...and 2 as one of the worst. I also hope that the series can be evened out, but I think...as with Last Jedi and Star Wars, the series has ventured in a different direction than I had hoped, so we'll see.

 

EDIT: I'm still planning on seeing the third film just to be clear.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Where? What's the source of JNH being confirmed?

 

He's not confirmed until the movie is shot basically. Which looks like won't be for a while.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

1 minute ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Where? What's the source of JNH being confirmed?

The anonymous kind, chief 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Depp sacked from the series. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

This series is doomed.

[Jay 37,346]

Huh.  That's interesting.