Jump to content

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series


His Royal Noelness
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is literally completely unsurprising "news".  It was absolutely expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic Beasts would be right down his alley but I see no reason to suggest he'd have any interest in doing it. Bar one of the films totally flops (and let's face it, they won't) then Yates will do the trilogy. 

 

I dont mind. Of the four Potter films he did the only one I don't like is OotP and even at that I can still enjoy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine WB at least mentioned the first Beasts to Cuaron after Gravity's success. I think he's fond of the books and would be interested in working directly with Rowling, and he's said Azkaban was the "sweetest" filmmaking experience he'd ever had. I think he would have been tempted but probably has his own ideas, and may want a break from VFX after Gravity. But he has a knack for this stuff and he seems to enjoy doing it.

 

I don't think David Yates is the most exciting filmmaker on the planet, but he has everything in his corner to continue except for a bunch of random people on the Internet who don't like his approach and that's unavoidable. Plus at this point no director knows more about Rowling's material or her creative process than he does, so of course she's going to want him back. If he loves it so much, more power to him, there's no reason for him to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Yates teases a Potter character role in the sequel.

 

"There is a mention of some characters that we know and love from previous movies, but we only talk about them fleetingly," Yates told Reuters. "In the next movie, part two, we'll get to meet one of them in a significant way. He's much younger than he used to be, but he'll be coming back."

 

Gotta be Dumbledore, right? Maybe Ollivander.

 

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 6:50 AM, alextrombone94 said:

He was offered the film and he hadn't read them, but then he read them and accepted it, no?

 

Yeah. Some of the actors went without reading them (notably both Richard Harris and Michael Gambon) but all the directors watched the films and read the books either before or after getting the gig.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha yeah, no way. At most maybe the first one.

 

I wonder how many of them actually read the whole series. Rickman and Fiennes might have done, or close to it. I know Jason Isaacs is a big fan. Of course I assume all the kids read everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2016 at 11:41 AM, Jay said:

It is literally completely unsurprising "news".  It was absolutely expected.

 

Especially since Yates revealing Rowling had already written a second Beast script and had ideas for a third one.

 

I tell you, when she's in her writing phases, she goes full speed ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Why is this thread full of David Yates haters and Potter ignorants bashing the later films and overcompensating by crafting these elaborate, stupid statements about how 'un-magical' his films are, and trying to shove the series in the 'childrens' category. 

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen, and you have the audacity to call Potter childish? Compare the first book to Matilda? (I snorted at that part.) Call the film's "childlike entertainment" (excuse me, sir, Deathly Hallows Part 1 would like to speak with you, and plus, how is Harry Potter, out of all the childish marvel films and the crappy YA material released each year, deserving of the 'childlike entertainment' title? Uh, buh bye,) and lie and exaggerate and say the film's are full of kiddie dialogue and campy acting (in Deathly Hallows Part 1 no less? Show me where. Bullshit. The Harry Potter films are so praised because, unlike most blockbusters, they retain a significant modicum of maturity and lyricism.) 

 

Rowling writes a lot of dark stuff and all I see is people complaining that she wrote a lot of dark stuff and that material was adapted accordingly. Sorry it punched your pretty idealistic teeth out. "But no, it's not that I can't deal with darkness", you'll say. "It's that it needs to have humor as well"...that sort of proves my point. If it's a bleak film "it's childish, irrelevant, Harry Potter is stupid anyway, who cares?"....rigggghttt...because we have to trivialize and delegitimize that which we don't understand or that which scares us. 

 

To delegitimize Rowling's themes of death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression, etc, is just so unbelievably disrespectful. Seriously, just because everyone in these forums is biased to films John Williams works on, you want to twist the "gets darker as it goes along" narrative of the Potter stories in order to heap disproportionate praise on Williams for being above those simple, pop cultural peasants who made the incredibly gritty, dark later films, yet his scores are the least complex or creative. 

 

The Wizarding World brand is an entertainment brand marketed to teens and adults. It's a mature, dramatic story. So whatever sensationalistic comments you want to make about how far beneath you it is, the fact that you people will happily consume Star Wars (a brand far more directly marketed at children than the Wizarding World,) just proves that you have no high ground to stand out. Your shouting from the lower level of culture. I can't hear you, sorry trolls. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

Why is this thread full of David Yates haters and Potter ignorants bashing the later films and overcompensating by crafting these elaborate, stupid statements about how 'un-magical' his films are, and trying to shove the series in the 'childrens' category. 

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen, and you have the audacity to call Potter childish? Compare the first book to Matilda? (I snorted at that part.) Call the film's "childlike entertainment" (excuse me, sir, Deathly Hallows Part 1 would like to speak with you, and plus, how is Harry Potter, out of all the childish marvel films and the crappy YA material released each year, deserving of the 'childlike entertainment' title? Uh, buh bye,) and lie and exaggerate and say the film's are full of kiddie dialogue and campy acting (in Deathly Hallows Part 1 no less? Show me where. Bullshit. The Harry Potter films are so praised because, unlike most blockbusters, they retain a significant modicum of maturity and lyricism.) 

 

Rowling writes a lot of dark stuff and all I see is people complaining that she wrote a lot of dark stuff and that material was adapted accordingly. Sorry it punched your pretty idealistic teeth out. "But no, it's not that I can't deal with darkness", you'll say. "It's that it needs to have humor as well"...that sort of proves my point. If it's a bleak film "it's childish, irrelevant, Harry Potter is stupid anyway, who cares?"....rigggghttt...because we have to trivialize and delegitimize that which we don't understand or that which scares us. 

 

To delegitimize Rowling's themes of death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression, etc, is just so unbelievably disrespectful. Seriously, just because everyone in these forums is biased to films John Williams works on, you want to twist the "gets darker as it goes along" narrative of the Potter stories in order to heap disproportionate praise on Williams for being above those simple, pop cultural peasants who made the incredibly gritty, dark later films, yet his scores are the least complex or creative. 

 

The Wizarding World brand is an entertainment brand marketed to teens and adults. It's a mature, dramatic story. So whatever sensationalistic comments you want to make about how far beneath you it is, the fact that you people will happily consume Star Wars (a brand far more directly marketed at children than the Wizarding World,) just proves that you have no high ground to stand out. Your shouting from the lower level of culture. I can't hear you, sorry trolls. 

 

 

Indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

Why is this thread full of David Yates haters and Potter ignorants bashing the later films and overcompensating by crafting these elaborate, stupid statements about how 'un-magical' his films are, and trying to shove the series in the 'childrens' category. 

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen, and you have the audacity to call Potter childish? Compare the first book to Matilda? (I snorted at that part.) Call the film's "childlike entertainment" (excuse me, sir, Deathly Hallows Part 1 would like to speak with you, and plus, how is Harry Potter, out of all the childish marvel films and the crappy YA material released each year, deserving of the 'childlike entertainment' title? Uh, buh bye,) and lie and exaggerate and say the film's are full of kiddie dialogue and campy acting (in Deathly Hallows Part 1 no less? Show me where. Bullshit. The Harry Potter films are so praised because, unlike most blockbusters, they retain a significant modicum of maturity and lyricism.) 

 

Rowling writes a lot of dark stuff and all I see is people complaining that she wrote a lot of dark stuff and that material was adapted accordingly. Sorry it punched your pretty idealistic teeth out. "But no, it's not that I can't deal with darkness", you'll say. "It's that it needs to have humor as well"...that sort of proves my point. If it's a bleak film "it's childish, irrelevant, Harry Potter is stupid anyway, who cares?"....rigggghttt...because we have to trivialize and delegitimize that which we don't understand or that which scares us. 

 

To delegitimize Rowling's themes of death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression, etc, is just so unbelievably disrespectful. Seriously, just because everyone in these forums is biased to films John Williams works on, you want to twist the "gets darker as it goes along" narrative of the Potter stories in order to heap disproportionate praise on Williams for being above those simple, pop cultural peasants who made the incredibly gritty, dark later films, yet his scores are the least complex or creative. 

 

The Wizarding World brand is an entertainment brand marketed to teens and adults. It's a mature, dramatic story. So whatever sensationalistic comments you want to make about how far beneath you it is, the fact that you people will happily consume Star Wars (a brand far more directly marketed at children than the Wizarding World,) just proves that you have no high ground to stand out. Your shouting from the lower level of culture. I can't hear you, sorry trolls. 

 

You know, there are now many decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

Why is this thread full of David Yates haters and Potter ignorants bashing the later films and overcompensating by crafting these elaborate, stupid statements about how 'un-magical' his films are, and trying to shove the series in the 'childrens' category. 

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen, and you have the audacity to call Potter childish? Compare the first book to Matilda? (I snorted at that part.) Call the film's "childlike entertainment" (excuse me, sir, Deathly Hallows Part 1 would like to speak with you, and plus, how is Harry Potter, out of all the childish marvel films and the crappy YA material released each year, deserving of the 'childlike entertainment' title? Uh, buh bye,) and lie and exaggerate and say the film's are full of kiddie dialogue and campy acting (in Deathly Hallows Part 1 no less? Show me where. Bullshit. The Harry Potter films are so praised because, unlike most blockbusters, they retain a significant modicum of maturity and lyricism.) 

 

Rowling writes a lot of dark stuff and all I see is people complaining that she wrote a lot of dark stuff and that material was adapted accordingly. Sorry it punched your pretty idealistic teeth out. "But no, it's not that I can't deal with darkness", you'll say. "It's that it needs to have humor as well"...that sort of proves my point. If it's a bleak film "it's childish, irrelevant, Harry Potter is stupid anyway, who cares?"....rigggghttt...because we have to trivialize and delegitimize that which we don't understand or that which scares us. 

 

To delegitimize Rowling's themes of death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression, etc, is just so unbelievably disrespectful. Seriously, just because everyone in these forums is biased to films John Williams works on, you want to twist the "gets darker as it goes along" narrative of the Potter stories in order to heap disproportionate praise on Williams for being above those simple, pop cultural peasants who made the incredibly gritty, dark later films, yet his scores are the least complex or creative. 

 

The Wizarding World brand is an entertainment brand marketed to teens and adults. It's a mature, dramatic story. So whatever sensationalistic comments you want to make about how far beneath you it is, the fact that you people will happily consume Star Wars (a brand far more directly marketed at children than the Wizarding World,) just proves that you have no high ground to stand out. Your shouting from the lower level of culture. I can't hear you, sorry trolls. 

 

 

It's not that deep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

2. DAVID YATES IS AN INCOMPETENT DIRECTOR. There I said it. Like it or not, he botched the entire storyline and made narrative mistakes the others didn't. You Eitherl eave things out or in, not a messy mixture.

 

Part of that fault should fall to Mark Day, the editor for all of Yates's HP films. Day was given way too much freedom in making meaningless cuts that made the plot muddled and confusing. Especially DH Pt. 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

But that makes Yates even more stupid, he's supposed to check these things right?

 

I'm sure he did; Mark Day says he works with Yates very closely. The problem isn't necessarily that they cut too much - it's that they cut out the wrong scenes. For DH Pt. 1, instead of removing the inconsequential scene where Hermione finds the Deathly Hallows symbol on a tombstone, they cut out the important one that explains what that damn mirror is. Instead of taking away the incredibly silly sequence where Nagini disguises itself as an old lady, they removed the part that explains why Death Eaters come immediately to the Lovegood house.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.