Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[TSMefford 1,509]

10 hours ago, Smeltington said:

Prequelitis. Surprisingly hard to avoid. Star Wars, LotR, HP, it finds them all eventually.

 

Very true. Keep it simple, stupid!

[Chen G. 3,944]

and yet Fantastic Beasts isn’t a traditional prequel: it’s more of a spin-off, really.

[Smeltington 1,436]

Yeah, and that was pretty refreshing, but then the second film came along and just wanted to steer the whole thing over into being the most prequely prequel it could be. Just lol at thinking people needed to hear the origin of Nagini.

[Chen G. 3,944]

Its a generally messy story, regardless of being a prequel or a spinoff or whatever.

 

Reads like JK Rowling's stream-of-consciousness.

[mstrox 6,647]

I have some confidence in Rowling's writing ability that she's building to something - that many of the disparate elements will take on some meaning plotwise or thematically over the next three movies or whatever it is.  It worked out pretty well in the Potter books, from what I remember (not having read them since the day after Deathly Hallows was released).

 

The last-minute swerve in The Desolation of Grindelwald was pretty dumb, but so was part 1's Scooby Doo ending and I think that turned out well enough in part 2, so I'll tune in to see what she's come up with in the next one.  I'll consistently defend Part 2 as being fun.

[Chen G. 3,944]

2 hours ago, mstrox said:

I'll consistently defend Part 2 as being fun.

 

I thought it was an example of a director bringing his A-game to a B-grade script.

 

So yeah, I'm game to at least see what they're up to in part three. Seems a bit harsh to write off a series of film based on one bad entry.

[TSMefford 1,509]

8 hours ago, mstrox said:

I'll consistently defend Part 2 as being fun.

 

Is it fun? I found it depressing as hell. What was fun about it? (Not trying to be snarky by the way, I'm just legitimately wondering what parts were fun.)

 

[Alex 2,833]

Crimes of Grindelwald is basically this scene from The Great Muppet Caper:

 

Miss Piggy: “Why are you telling me all this?”

 

Lady Holiday: “It’s plot exposition, it has to go somewhere.”

[mstrox 6,647]

2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

 

Is it fun? I found it depressing as hell. What was fun about it? (Not trying to be snarky by the way, I'm just legitimately wondering what parts were fun.)

 

Magical stuff happened.  Weird stuff went on.  There was a snake lady, a horney housekeeper, a gonzo alchemist guy with a goofy house.  The people had to escape from some sort of magic stronghold or something.  Why wouldn’t that stuff be fun

[Matt C 452]

On 11/13/2020 at 8:36 AM, Smeltington said:

Yeah, and that was pretty refreshing, but then the second film came along and just wanted to steer the whole thing over into being the most prequely prequel it could be. Just lol at thinking people needed to hear the origin of Nagini.

 

It wastes Claudia Kim's talents. I was expecting her to play a powerful witch in the Ministry or a Hogwarts professor.

[TSMefford 1,509]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:05 PM, mstrox said:

Magical stuff happened.  Weird stuff went on.  There was a snake lady, a horney housekeeper, a gonzo alchemist guy with a goofy house.  The people had to escape from some sort of magic stronghold or something.  Why wouldn’t that stuff be fun

 

Sure those moments are fun...maybe? I found most of those super cringe if I'm being honest. But those small things like that don't make a whole movie fun to me. 

 

Especially when on the bigger side of things you have

Spoiler

• Newt and Tina not on good terms because of a stupidly ridiculous misunderstanding after a lot of sweet development in the first film.
• Queenie magic-drugging Jacob into marrying her essentially, again, after some sweet development from the first film. 
• A boring as hell, completely irrelevant, and convoluted, subplot about a characters lineage that ended up with basically no for sure answers, and involves a story of a baby swap on a ship at sea where one of the babies dies? What is that doing in a Potter film and what the hell does it have to do with Grindelwald, Newt, or anything? I saw the film and I couldn't tell you.
• Introducing and killing Leta Lestrange in one film.

 

The only things I truly had fun with were the shoehorned in creatures.

 

To be clear, I don't need everything to be happy go lucky fun times or constant action. I love plenty of slow films, depressing films, and some that are both. Fantastic Beasts though sets up this great adventure feel that I loved and Crimes of Grindelwald is...more of a drama about family ties, times of war, and tragedy. All that is fine if it makes sense with the plot and for the characters...but I really don't think it did. A lot of that stuff hardly involved our actual main characters. Plus, Fantastic Beasts manages to have this fun adventure AND the darker aspects without one dragging the other down. Not a perfect film of course, but the first one is what I'd actually call fun.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

It’s so funny because I actually found the second one to be more fun than the first. However the writing was pretty bad compared to the first screenplay which I liked.

 

I’m a little less generous than Chen (I'd downgrade to "B game and C/ D grade") but basically on his side that I liked a lot of what Yates was doing in #2. One big part of it for me was I felt he let the music sing out a lot more but I also just felt the portrayal of magic was so much more colorful and inventive than even his Potters. Compared to the first one which I felt lacked much energy and I just kept feeling like there was a more fun movie in there from kind of an interesting script (Yates did a very nice job with the ending of #1, though, basically the Thunderbird’s rainstorm to credits.) Whereas the second one I kept thinking “If only the writing were better!” 

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

Second movie has no sense of proportion in storytelling. It basically focuses on what is essentially the backstory of the love interest of a supporting character! Because that is what Leta's entire's story is. And it isn't obvious why that needed such detail if she was going to die anyways.

 

Imagine reading a Harry Potter book where half the book was Dean Thomas' girlfriend's backstory. You would go, um what?

 

 

[Chen G. 3,944]

3 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

I'd downgrade to "B game and C/ D grade"

 

Well, I did say "his A-game"...

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Haha fair

[TSMefford 1,509]

10 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

I also just felt the portrayal of magic was so much more colorful and inventive than even his Potters. Compared to the first one which I felt lacked much energy and I just kept feeling like there was a more fun movie in there from kind of an interesting script (Yates did a very nice job with the ending of #1, though, basically the Thunderbird’s rainstorm to credits.) Whereas the second one I kept thinking “If only the writing were better!” 

 

See I can actually agree on that to some extent. I do think the creatures and the magic was done well (although some spells seem as though they would've been useful in the Potter films which take place much later in time...so it kind of creates a plot hole, but whatever). I particularly liked the scene with Newt tracking Tina, but it's still simply not enough for me to like the film. 

 

I found the first film far more fun. It was simple: Catch the escaped beasts. You get fun characters and creatures and a fun "quest" adventure type format. I find that far more enjoyable as a whole than the handful of bits we get in 2. Even the opening escape sequence I found rather boring. I knew that it should feel heart stopping, but somehow it felt slow and a little silly at times.

 

Idk. The second film just did very little for me.

10 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Second movie has no sense of proportion in storytelling. It basically focuses on what is essentially the backstory of the love interest of a supporting character! Because that is what Leta's entire's story is. And it isn't obvious why that needed such detail if she was going to die anyways.

 

Imagine reading a Harry Potter book where half the book was Dean Thomas' girlfriend's backstory. You would go, um what?

 

Precisely. In a film series with already plenty of vibrant main characters I wanted to know more about, instead we got a bunch of new characters who were less interesting, disrupting the story and shifting a lot of the focus from our established characters. Which, could work maybe if it feels relevant to the story, but I have no idea why we needed to know the info we got. It doesn't seem relevant in the slightest.

[crumbs 14,304]

3 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Precisely. In a film series with already plenty of vibrant main characters I wanted to know more about, instead we got a bunch of new characters who were less interesting, disrupting the story and shifting a lot of the focus from our established characters. Which, could work maybe if it feels relevant to the story, but I have no idea why we needed to know the info we got. It doesn't seem relevant in the slightest.

 

Good summation of the major flaw in that second film.

 

It only gets worse with Yates' sleep-inducing direction, the lifeless visuals, the horrible exposition dumps and meandering plotting.

 

Rowling might be a lot of things, but screenwriter she ain't.

 

13 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Second movie has no sense of proportion in storytelling. It basically focuses on what is essentially the backstory of the love interest of a supporting character! Because that is what Leta's entire's story is. And it isn't obvious why that needed such detail if she was going to die anyways.

 

Also this.

 

The story has no forward momentum. It's a collection of disparate scenes with no narrative thrust. One new character after another with vague and unclear motivations; their relevance to established events/characters unexplained.

 

The former film's "protagonist" suffers an identity crisis of Phantom Menace/Hobbit 2 & 3 proportions. By the time the credits roll (especially after the "shocking reveal"),  moviegoers walked out shrugging their shoulders, wondering what the point of anything was (with no reason to care about the significance of that final reveal).

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

7 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

Good summation of the major flaw in that second film.

 

It only gets worse with Yates' sleep-inducing direction, the lifeless visuals, the horrible exposition dumps and meandering plotting.

 

Rowling might be a lot of things, but screenwriter she ain't.

 

 

Also this.

 

The story has no forward momentum. It's a collection of disparate scenes with no narrative thrust. One new character after another with vague and unclear motivations; their relevance to established events/characters unexplained.

 

The former film's "protagonist" suffers an identity crisis of Phantom Menace/Hobbit 2 & 3 proportions. By the time the credits roll (especially after the "shocking reveal"),  moviegoers walked out shrugging their shoulders, wondering what the point of anything was (with no reason to care about the significance of that final reveal).

 

What are you referring to as the shocking reveal? 

Spoiler

That Queenie switched sides?

 

[mstrox 6,647]

Spoiler

Presumably the reveal that the one character is Dumbledore's brother.

 

[toothless 963]

3 hours ago, mstrox said:

  Hide contents

Presumably the reveal that the one character is Dumbledore's brother.

 

Do people really believe this? I sure don't.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

6 hours ago, mstrox said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Presumably the reveal that the one character is Dumbledore's brother.

 

 

Shows you how impactful this reveal was in that I did not even remember it and had to google the film's summary to read about it.

 

And my reaction is again - so what?

 

Dumbledore's a side character in this film. And Erza Miller was a supporting character in a subplot in the last film.

 

Why do I give a fuck if they are related?

 

How does that affect my main characters - Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob?

 

Seriously did Rowling had any idea what was she even writing here? You have all these mysterious family connections and paternity secrets of all these side characters who appear on the screen for 10 minutes. Is it any wonder that WB stepped in and asked Rowling to partner with Steve Kloves on the screenplay for the 3rd film?

[Edmilson 7,394]

The script of Craptastic Beasts 2 is probably one of the worst scripts for a high budget movie ever made. It's simply non-sensical. Maybe if Rowling writed it like a novel and then asked for a professional screenwriter to adapt for a movie it wouldn't be so terrible.

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 hours ago, toothless said:

Do people really believe this? I sure don't.

 

I don't either, which makes the reveal even more silly.

 

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

The script of Craptastic Beasts 2 is probably one of the worst scripts for a high budget movie ever made. It's simply non-sensical. Maybe if Rowling writed it like a novel and then asked for a professional screenwriter to adapt for a movie it wouldn't be so terrible.

 

It's not good, but definitely not the worst I've seen. I do wonder how much better it would've been had she teamed up with Kloves originally. It really needs another couple passes.

[Arpy 4,145]

5 hours ago, toothless said:

Do people really believe this? I sure don't.

What reason do we have to believe it's not true, after everything in those movies? Maybe Grindelwald is manipulating him...

 

Just to be clear, I thought the reveal was monumentally awful, and when Credence blasts the mountain I laughed so hard. It was stupid.

 

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

2 minutes ago, Arpy said:

What reason do we have to believe it's not true, after everything in those movies? Maybe Grindelwald is manipulating him...

 

Just to be clear, I thought the reveal was monumentally awful, and when Credence blasts the mountain I laughed so hard. It was stupid.

 

Yeah I think Grindelwald is lying to him. We have no real reason to trust him, plus it doesn't mesh with existing canon well at all. Just doesn't make any sense. 

[Chen G. 3,944]

18 hours ago, Arpy said:

What reason do we have to believe it's not true, after everything in those movies?

 

More importantly, how would it play out for it to turn out to NOT be true? *Paging The Rise of Skywalker*

 

Its the sort of thing where, once its out there, it had better be true. There's something to be said for sticking the act.

 

20 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

so what?

 

Dumbledore's a side character in this film.

 

I thought he was reasonably prominent in the film, and of course he'll have to become even more prominent as it moves closer to the final confrontation with Grindelwald.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

Mads Mikkelsen cast.

https://www.thewrap.com/mads-mikkelsen-will-play-gellert-grindelwald-in-fantastic-beasts-3/

[Jay 37,314]

It's amazing how often an early rumor ends up being real

[crumbs 14,304]

I guess agents leak that sort of stuff to generate hype for their client and possibly increase their price. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

This is true. Apparently Pattinson being up for Batman was leaked by his own team.

[TSMefford 1,509]

Cool. Interested to see what he'll bring to the role when I eventually get around to watching it. Personally, I think he'll be more menacing than Depp.

[Arpy 4,145]

More suave, too.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I liked Depp in the role but this is an upgrade I think! 

[crumbs 14,304]

This is a big upgrade, even if I still have zero interest in this franchise. 

[Arpy 4,145]

They need to turn things around for the next film, make some major improvements. They should also give us some Dumbledore solo scenes - something akin to Gandalf's role in LotR and the Hobbit. 

[crumbs 14,304]

The next film basically needs to be what Azkaban was to Chamber. 

 

The odds of that happening with Yates at the helm is nill. He has no range as a director, and little of the creative spark needed to breathe life into this corpse of a franchise. 

[Edmilson 7,394]

I don't know why they didn't went with Mads since the beginning of the franchise, he's perfect for the role.

[Jay 37,314]

Mads Mikkelsen on His Version of Grindelwald

[Drew 590]

On 9/12/2013 at 11:54 AM, Matt C said:

As a fan, I'm kinda mixed on this. I'm glad JKR is writing the screenplay[...]

 

Little did we know that JKR would be a horrible screenwriter.

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 hours ago, Drew said:

 

Little did we know that JKR would be a horrible screenwriter.

 

While I do think the first film is imperfect, for some reason her screenplay works FAR better in it than in CoG for me. I enjoyed the first so much more, and was so distracted by the awful writing in two. 

 

But yes, I would agree ultimately with you. XD

[Edmilson 7,394]

The writing on the first movie is okay, I guess, specially considering it was her first script ever.

 

But the writing on Crimes of Grindelwald is just atrocious. It might be one of the worst scripts ever written for a high budget movie. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

The writing on the first movie is okay, I guess, specially considering it was her first script ever.

 

But the writing on Crimes of Grindelwald is just atrocious. It might be one of the worst scripts ever written for a high budget movie. 

 

Agreed.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

This is good news! I always imagined Grindelwald after hearing about him and briefly seeing him in the books and movies as a Mads Mikkelsen type, so this will probably be way more authentic to me.

 

First Ralph Fiennes, now Mads Mikkelsen - the trend of great villainous actors continues!

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, DarthDementous said:

This is good news! I always imagined Grindelwald after hearing about him and briefly seeing him in the books and movies as a Mads Mikkelsen type, so this will probably be way more authentic to me.

 

Definitely. Same here.

[Jay 37,314]

Mads Mikkelsen Discusses Replacing Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts 3

[crocodile 7,988]

It's such a shame this really great versatile actor is being wasted on all those villain roles in Hollywood. 

 

Karol

[Jay 37,314]

I don't really know if I follow that logic.  He's definitely been doing villain rules for Hollywood AND continuing to do interesting work elsewhere.

 

Have you seen Another Round yet?

[crocodile 7,988]

What I meant is that to a mainstream audience he is only known for villainous roles. 

 

Karol

[Jay 37,314]

Oh, yea I guess so

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

14 hours ago, crocodile said:

What I meant is that to a mainstream audience he is only known for villainous roles.

He's kind of really nice in Rogue One but except that part I see your point.