Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But is it any good?

[Bilbo 3,709]

It's easily the best film of the year. Maybe even of all time. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

5 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

 

Which brings me to the movie's biggest shortcoming - Eddie Redmayne. Dear god he's hideous. You can't have done a good job when the audience wishes the lead character had ended up on the cutting room floor. I found him absolutely insufferable and annoying and the scenes where he was by himself were unbearable. Luckily there are always better supporting characters around to save the scenes.

 

 

Yes! There is another!

[Brónach 1,302]

Would Matt Smith have been a better choice in the end?

 

And another director.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

2 minutes ago, Brónach said:

Would Matt Smith have been a better choice in the end?

 

And another director.

 

No. Smith looks like a foot. 

 

Redmayne is perfect for a character that says people find him annoying. 

 

Job done! 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Sam Mendes, with McAvoy as the lead!

McAvoy could make a decent Dumbledore I'd put him third behind Harris and McGreggor in my wish list. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[bollemanneke 3,342]

...

[Disco Stu 15,495]

26 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

 

No. Smith looks like a foot. 

 

Redmayne is perfect for a character that says people find him annoying. 

 

Job done! 

 

Annoying <> insufferable

 

At this point I'm considering a long con where I move to Hollywood and climb the corporate ladder until I'm in a position to kill Redmayne's career and rescind his undeserved Oscar.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Redmayne was fine. Depp seemed miscast.

[mrbellamy 6,278]

On 11/23/2016 at 1:02 AM, TheUlyssesian said:

Saw this too. I rather liked it. There are of course a lot of shortcomings. But the general film overall comes from a good place. As far as mercenary cash grabs go, this is one of the better ones. I am most struck by the writing - the dialog is not very good and the plotting is not super-tight, but it is something else - it is ambitious which by itself qualifies as something to celebrate. It's ambitious in the sense that for a first film in a franchise, and something not based on pre-existing material (this is for all purposes an original screenplay basically), it has rather multiple things going on. 

 

My major complaints with many blockbusters these days are how banal they are plotting wise. Doctor Strange's plot is rubbish basically - the most tedious unimaginative origin story you can imagine howevermuch you dress it in trippy visuals. 

 

This film is atypical in its multitude of criss-crossing subplots and characters which was a welcome change. This was also not a star driven film at all. It was a screenplay first and then it was cast and filmed. MOST franchise films these days are cast first and then the script is written or is heavily re-written to suit the cast. Not so here. There are no obvious star turns. And some of the supporting players turn in rather charming performances.

 

Which brings me to the movie's biggest shortcoming - Eddie Redmayne. Dear god he's hideous. You can't have done a good job when the audience wishes the lead character had ended up on the cutting room floor. I found him absolutely insufferable and annoying and the scenes where he was by himself were unbearable. Luckily there are always better supporting characters around to save the scenes.

 

This is exactly the same problem in the Harry Potter books which has a rogue's gallery of fantastic characters but a middling lead character. I absolutely think Rowling will greatly benefit if she gets a co-writer. The strength is her plotting. And a co-writer who help tighten things up a bit, hide the seams and punch up the dialog and make the pace more like a dramatic movie. If nothing else it will be another pair of eyes on the script before it is filmed and this surely needed that. It often plays like a first draft.

 

But a good first draft nonetheless. There is definitely some story-telling invention here. Yates work though is strictly standard issue though he does manage to craft some distinctive scenes. I really wish some other director even got a crack at this material. ANYONE. Let's change up things a bit. If we can get an outrageous jaw-dropping out of the box choice for president selected by 60 million people, surely a few warner bros execs can make a less safe choice for director of this material.

 

Agree with a lot of this. It's not really a great movie (even in a thoroughly crowdpleasing way like TFA) but I just like seeing this sensibility in action/adventure. DC is often too gloomy and poker-faced to really connect much with me, Marvel too meta, sarcastic, and posturing. The stakes in this movie are ultimately more intimate...the main character's defining quality is that he takes care of endangered animals and his most visibly angry and emotional moment is when someone threatens to hurt the poor things. There's a prolonged life-and-death scenario in the second act for the protagonists where one of them is nearly executed in an eerily simple white room. The "sequel-bait" cliffhanger is merely a sweet romantic note in a bakery that would have still been the right ending if it were a standalone. Even the big, dull destructive VFX showdown is at least somewhat tempered with a quiet interaction in a subway where the main character reaches out to the troubled not-quite-a-villain. The action/suspense setpieces don't necessarily go on forever compared to current trends and they often make room for a few sweet or comedic interactions. The music is often colorful and melodic, including action material like the escape from the jail cells. And compare the characterization of literally any female in a recent superhero movie to Queenie's charming enthusiasm and sexual independence. Or the introduction of Tina as a kind of mousy gal with mustard on her face. All four protagonists also get moments of agency to move the plot along.

 

A lot of this is actually pretty standard -- even cliche -- and yet still less vapid to me than the usual $200m enterprise.

[Will 2,215]

14 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

Kathleen Kennedy or someone has categorically said that ONLY Ford will play Indy. The series might continue but with a different character.

 

Huh. Many they're going the animated direction! ("No one is playing him, it's animated, I didn't lie! - KK) 

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

6 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

 

Agree with a lot of this. It's not really a great movie (even in a thoroughly crowdpleasing way like TFA) but I just like seeing this sensibility in action/adventure. DC is often too gloomy and poker-faced to really connect much with me, Marvel too meta, sarcastic, and posturing. The stakes in this movie are ultimately more intimate...the main character's defining quality is that he takes care of endangered animals and his most visibly angry and emotional moment is when someone threatens to hurt the poor things. There's a prolonged life-and-death scenario in the second act for the protagonists where one of them is nearly executed in an eerily simple white room. The "sequel-bait" cliffhanger is merely a sweet romantic note in a bakery that would have still been the right ending if it were a standalone. Even the big, dull destructive VFX showdown is at least somewhat tempered with a quiet interaction in a subway where the main character reaches out to the troubled not-quite-a-villain. The action/suspense setpieces don't necessarily go on forever compared to current trends and they often make room for a few sweet or comedic interactions. The music is often colorful and melodic, including action material like the escape from the jail cells. And compare the characterization of literally any female in a recent superhero movie to Queenie's charming enthusiasm and sexual independence. Or the introduction of Tina as a kind of mousy gal with mustard on her face. All four protagonists also get moments of agency to move the plot along.

 

This is actually pretty standard stuff and yet still less vapid to me than the usual $200m enterprise.

 

This is a great summary. Saw the film the other night. It really hits its heights in the smaller moments, in the gestures and looks between characters. I loved Tina and Queenie - two very, very different women, but strong and emotional in their own ways (and that strength is drawn from that emotion, which is even better).

 

I had a bit of trouble following some of it to be honest and missed a few lines of dialogue, but I'll put that down to having a head cold and being in a small cinema with quiet sound, as well as the unusually numerous plot strands and characters. It honestly plays out exactly like the other HP films in that it seems to be a truncated version of a much more detailed story. I wonder what JKR's first drafts were like? I really enjoyed some of the ideas she came up with, I just wish they were communicated in a bit more of a cinematic way. 

Spoiler

The Obscurus plotline was a bit clumsily introduced, though it turned out to be one of the more intriguing additions to the universe (and has huge implications for the Dumbledore's backstory)

 

Trying not to think how much more interesting it would've been if they managed to get Cuaron on board instead of Yates, but as it stands it was a competent but flawed vessel for a great story by JKR. Her screenwriting has a lot of room for improvement, but for a first go it was pretty impressive.

[mrbellamy 6,278]

Yeah, obviously a different director wouldn't have fixed all the screenplay problems, but I think some of its issues could have been solved for a more consistently engaging movie. The constant jumping around between subplots could have been a lot more gracefully handled by Yates and his editor, for example. I remember a handful of times where they were simply hard cutting between the sequences and I felt like I wanted some sort of smoother visual transition because it was getting repetitive just switching back and forth.

 

Definitely a few moments in the screenplay that I thought "This really is a fabulous idea that could have been done better." Some of the staging in the speakeasy, I think, would be a nitpick, everything about that design was brilliant and I remember feeling like Yates didn't give me enough geography there. And your spoiler as well, those were some pretty cool situations that I didn't think were terribly effective onscreen.

 

But I think Yates pretty much nailed the last 10-15 minutes, starting with the rainstorm. My main worry about the movie was whether or not it could get me to care about new characters and I honestly love the quartet. I didn't really care much about any of the supporting characters like the President, Graves, Credence...actually Mary Lou was pretty interesting, especially because of Morton, but there wasn't really enough there to get a handle on her. The less said about the Jon Voight plot the better. But I was always entertained by the main four, I found them all incredibly sweet. Very simple and easily definable personality traits but played to the hilt and balanced with a lot of surprising little vulnerabilities. Dan Fogler and Katherine Waterston really moved me at the end.

[Arpy 4,145]

Capturing Grindelwald seemed like a mistake to me. Capturing him (as Graves) served only to have a surprise reveal of his true identity, where it would seem more likely that Grindelwald would've outsmarted the Aurors and escaped. Not only that, but it also felt like it was a "thing" for Newt to accomplish in order to save the day. It really made Grindelwald seem a little less powerful.

 

I am excited to see Depp's performance in the next films though.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Saw the film yesterday.

 

It was meh...but fun. And for me less cringeworthy than the HP films.

 

One of the worse things i dislike from harry potter is the stupid vocabulary 'muggles' etc.

 

I'm glad the american mages are lot like the british... alongside they word no-maj, they use 'no mages' alot which sounds much better and not a ' i want to create an artificial language in my books' thing.

 

I dont like that most of the creatures in the film have strange names...and they throw then as if they were common knowledge...couldnt they have used variations of the countless mythological beasts that already exist?

 

 

The score was a plus. I didnt expected a return (more or less) of the Williams sound after what we got in half of the HP films.

[Bilbo 3,709]

3 minutes ago, Luke Skywalker said:

Saw the film yesterday.

 

It was meh...but fun. And for me less cringeworthy than the HP films.

 

One of the worse things i dislike from harry potter is the stupid vocabulary 'muggles' etc.

 

I'm glad the american mages are lot like the british... alongside they word no-maj, they use 'no mages' alot which sounds much better and not a ' i want to create an artificial language in my books' thing.

 

I dont like that most of the creatures in the film have strange names...and they throw then as if they were common knowledge...couldnt they have used variations of the countless mythological beasts that already exist?

 

 

The score was a plus. I didnt expected a return (more or less) of the Williams sound after what we got in half of the HP films.

 

Im disappointed. Not a single comment on anatomy. 

 

The Thunderbird's second set of "wings" passed you by? Really? 

[Arpy 4,145]

6 minutes ago, Luke Skywalker said:

One of the worse things i dislike from harry potter is the stupid vocabulary 'muggles' etc.

 

I'm glad the american mages are lot like the british... alongside they word no-maj, they use 'no mages' alot which sounds much better and not a ' i want to create an artificial language in my books' thing.

 

I dont like that most of the creatures in the film have strange names...and they throw then as if they were common knowledge...couldnt they have used variations of the countless mythological beasts that already exist?

 

You do know that the names are from J.K. Rowling, the producers didn't invent them for the film. Why use mythological creatures from other literature, when the author can use her own creations from the fictional/tie-in book she wrote to accompany the series?

[Bilbo 3,709]

9 minutes ago, RPurton said:

You do know that the names are from J.K. Rowling, the producers didn't invent them for the film. Why use mythological creatures from other literature, when the author can use her own creations from the fictional/tie-in book she wrote to accompany the series?

 

And in fairness JKR used a good mixture of her own inventions as well as mythological beats (red caps, Hippogriphs, Sphinxes etc.) throughout the series. 

 

The world needs more Nifflers 

Thunderbirds and Grindylows are both mythological brats and we're featured in FB.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

OK its just that i dint knew what they were talking about with those creatures. Thunderbird sounds great. But most of the words sound like 'muggle', forced inventions...

 

And i think thunderbird was not used at all in the film..because i thought it was an overgrown phoenix... Now i know why there was always rain when it appeared on screen...

 

With mythological beasts... i dont care much about anatomy, i only complain if the desing is not what i like (ie Smaug).

 

and anyway ;):

 

Microraptor gui:

 

 

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I can't help it. Johnny Depp's freaky blonde haircut just kept reminding me of this guy:

[Brónach 1,302]

1 hour ago, Luke Skywalker said:

 

I'm glad the american mages are lot like the british... alongside they word no-maj, they use 'no mages' alot which sounds much better and not a ' i want to create an artificial language in my books' thing.

 

I thought it was just derived from "mug". That's not "I want to have an artificial language in my books".

[Bilbo 3,709]

Totally unreasonable for a separate society to have their own slang.

[Tom 4,653]

46 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

Totally unreasonable for a separate society to have their own slang.

I'd rather the whole thing be in Esperanto. 

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

2 hours ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

Totally unreasonable for a separate society to have their own slang.

It doesnt sound slang

 

It sounds like childish invented words.

 

 

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Uh... Because it's not supposed to be for adults?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

2 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Uh... Because it's not supposed to be for adults?

Neither are other fantasy series and most of them do not feature this kind of vocabulary to design races, species and the likes.

 

And are the latest books so- child oriented?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed! These are childrens films

[Bilbo 3,709]

How is Muggle any worse than Hobbit?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 minute ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

How is Muggle and worse than Hobbit?

 

And what?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Why is Nomaj ridiculous while creating your own fake languages isn't?

[Bilbo 3,709]

4 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

You're going down a dangerous path, buddy!

They're both perfectly cromulent words. 

4 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

You're going down a dangerous path, buddy!

They're both perfectly cromulent words. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

2 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

They're both perfectly cromulent words. 

 

Tolkien was a linguist: each and every one of the words he created had a meaning, a purpose, a reason!

 

Rowling comes up with random words popping up in her mind as she's preparing dinner!

 

"Hey, "muggle". Sounds fun! That will do!"

[Bilbo 3,709]

But Hobbit was just a word he made up on the spot though. It's not a word from bus languages. It's just a word he thought fitted the characters. Same as muggle. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

But... But... That's the only one! Plus, he actually came up with an etymology for that word later on!

 

Quote

Tolkien etymologized the name hobbit as the regular Modern English outcome of a hypothetical Old English *hol-bytla "hole builder". Within the linguistic fiction of The Lord of the Rings, the English etymology of Old English hol-bytlan

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_(word)

 

What's the etymology for muggle?

 

Quote

Etymology 1

Origin unknown. First known to come into usage in New Orleans in the mid-1920s.

Noun

muggle ‎(plural muggles)

1. (in singular or plural, dated) A marijuana cigarette; a joint.

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/muggle

[bollemanneke 3,342]

But to be fair, fair miss Rowling doesn't calle everything/everyone fair and doesn't compare a woman's voice to trickling water. What is more, one does not have to invest a great quantity of one's time to comprehend what the creature's words signify. One can read her texts without asking oneself why such stilted language is being forced upon the reader.

[Bilbo 3,709]

That's why I only said Muggle and not another one of his words. Whatever he did after the fact doesn't matter. 

 

It was a sur of the moment meaningless word that he liked the sound of.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Yes, that again. If we're comparing LOTR to HP, I really ahve to say that I think Tolkien is a TERRIBLE writer. He might have created an entire world, but whenever I try to read his stupid books I feel like a five-year-old in five seconds. Rowling can be witty and her words just... flow better.

[Brónach 1,302]

I never quite understand the criticism of Tolkien's prose.

 

As for muggle, it's fine.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

Oh my.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

20 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Yes, that again. If we're comparing LOTR to HP, I really ahve to say that I think Tolkien is a TERRIBLE writer. He might have created an entire world, but whenever I try to read his stupid books I feel like a five-year-old in five seconds. Rowling can be witty and her words just... flow better.

 

I forgot, did you read it in English or Dutch?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

First entirely in Dutch which was sort of okay. Then in Engish which was terrible.

[Incanus 5,714]

13 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Inky! Will you just stand idly by while your favourite writer is being criticized to the core by some bolleshitter?

Yes.

 

There is nothing to be gained from trying to turn his head. He is lost.