Jump to content

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series


His Royal Noelness
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Holko said:

Not nearly as miserably as 4, 6 and 8. And they certainly made a lot more of an effort to make it into a movie than 1 and 2, basically just collections of book scenes without much flow - by now I think Azkaban is the only HP movie I really really like.

 

This is where I'm at at this point, although the original film really does a great job of worldbuilding.

 

Yavar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

although the original film really does a great job of worldbuilding

With lots of heavy lifting done by JW, of course ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

A novel is a novel. A film is a film. A film is not a novel

 


Thanks for clearing that up! 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

 

This is where I'm at at this point, although the original film really does a great job of worldbuilding.

 

Yavar

For all the criticism against Chris Columbus his vision of Hogwarts was spot on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

For all the criticism against Chris Columbus his vision of Hogwarts was spot on. 

I dunno, it looks very clean and straight and simple to me. Lots of straight empty corridors, the paintings and ghosts just act nice if they're present at all. The stairs are just pivoting 90 degrees and that's it. Very little of the book Hogwarts' kookiness and personality, tapestries, suits of armor, secret passages, stairs that lead somewhere else on a Thursday, portraits going over to visit another portrait for a party, Peeves causing trouble... Cuarón's Hogwarts has a lot more life like that to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I’m not a huge fan of the first two films, but Columbus got the look, and most importantly the casting, right which set the template for all the other films.

 

And I think his fealty to the books, while cumbersome at times, established legitimacy for Harry Potter as cinema and that foundation gave the directors who followed more freedom and credibility to stray from the written word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crumbs said:

The ultimate problem with this franchise is very simple: why should I care? I don't relate to these stilted, dull characters.

 

I actually loved the characters which is why I like the first film so much. I think Queenie, Tina and Jacob are 3 outstanding characters. I really liked them. And I cared about them.  Newt I am indifferent to. He's a weird. And annoying. But the other 3 make up for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I can't remember quite where I stopped reading Harry Potter, but I'm sure it was prior (or somewhere during) Phoenix. So I'm not comparing it to a book: I'm just looking at the movie as a movie (as one should).

I agree with you on that point. However here the movie focused (from what I remember of the book) on the most uninterresting parts of the story which result in a poor screenplay. I don't see how Phoenix is a good movie. The visual effects are frankly ugly, the photography is way too dark giving and pale making some scene looking very ugly. It's the Potter movie where the actors are the worst (after DH pt.1)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it’s still overall an entertaining read, Order of the Phoenix is just too long and meandering. Hundreds of pages pass where not much happens or Rowling digresses into silly subplots. She clearly had reached the point where she was powerful enough to overrule her editor. Which is a pity because a good editor is exactly what that book needed.

 

There’s a reason the longest book easily became the shortest movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Order of the Phoenix since I read it for the first time, at age 10. I don't care how "long and meandering" it is, I just loved to spend time with the characters as they faced challenges. 

 

On the other hand, I re-read Goblet of Fire about 2 years ago, and that was a little boring and very convoluted book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

On the other hand, I re-read Goblet of Fire about 2 years ago, and that was a little boring and very convoluted book.

Interesting. Goblet of Fire was my favourite book and the biggest dissapointment as a movie. First film with no Williams score, and so much interesting stuff left out.

As a film I probably like most the two Deadly Hallows. But PoA was probably the movie where I was missing the least from the book.

The whole film series feels quote uneven from beginning two end. The two Last movies (7+8) saved it a little bit for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Interesting. Goblet of Fire was my favourite book and the biggest dissapointment as a movie. First film with no Williams score, and so much interesting stuff left out.

 


👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

I love Order of the Phoenix since I read it for the first time, at age 10. I don't care how "long and meandering" it is, I just loved to spend time with the characters as they faced challenges. 

 

On the other hand, I re-read Goblet of Fire about 2 years ago, and that was a little boring and very convoluted book.

 

Goblet of Fire has a dazzling plot and is undoubtedly the most ambitious plot Rowling attempted in the the Potter series. It has literally a dozen subplots braided together and a lot going on every single scene.

 

It would definitely have been the most difficult to adapt to a single movie and they really simplified the plot there. If any movie had to be split into 2 it should have been that one.

 

But then again, I think you couldn't possibly have done such a complex plot in movies. It might best been served by a mini series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, May the Force be with You said:

I don't see how Phoenix is a good movie. The visual effects are frankly ugly, the photography is way too dark giving and pale making some scene looking very ugly. It's the Potter movie where the actors are the worst (after DH pt.1)

 

I'm not looking at the moment at the individual components: I'm looking at the end result.

 

It is the Potter film I find most moving. That's ALL that matters. Cinematography, acting, editing are all subservient to the end-result that you should find the piece not only captivating but affecting. That is the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I love Order of the Phoenix since I read it for the first time, at age 10. I don't care how "long and meandering" it is, I just loved to spend time with the characters as they faced challenges. 

 

On the other hand, I re-read Goblet of Fire about 2 years ago, and that was a little boring and very convoluted book.

I cupped you for the Order comments but I hold GOF above all books in the series. It is so good. Its moral compass sets the tone for the rest of the series. Its a superior book better than any grrm dreck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Order of the Phoenix is almost certainly my least favorite of the non-Columbus Potter movies (although Goblet of Fire is easily my least favorite of the books).

 

In spite of that, I’ve never had a problem with Yates and I actually liked both Beasts movies well enough - they’re fun!  I benefit, I guess, by having no super strong connection to the books, movies, or wizard universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never get tired of POA. Every time I watch it I spot something new. 
 

I think the worst thing JKR did was move away from the Fantastic Beasts part. Newt is the least important character in these films where he is supposedly the lead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

And he makes an absolutely terrible protagonist -- especially with Redmayne's tedious, awkward performance.

 

It was bad enough in film #1, then they Bilbo'd him in the sequel.

 

This series has an identity crisis and I don't think WB, nor Yates, nor Rowling herself, have a clear vision for what the franchise is meant to be.

Weren't WB the original idiots who thought the beasts were gonna be the best thing ever? If Rowlinng had just refused and wanted to focus on Grindelwald only, would they have accepted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are multiple problems with the Fantastic Beast franchise, but the most important of all, is that there doesn't seem to be any real need for its existence. 

It's a typical product of studios/producers/authors not knowing when to end something, and wanting to milk the cow as much as possible. 

But the fanbase is to blame as well: fans always want more, more sequels, more spin-offs. 

As Dumbledore says in one of the books, humans tend to want things that are worst for them. 

 

I always defend an artist when he/she decides that it's time for a series to end. And I'm really glad that Rowling never decided to write an 8th Harry Potter book at least!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, crumbs said:

It was bad enough in film #1, then they Bilbo'd him in the sequel.

 

Bilbo'd? Explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, oierem said:

There are multiple problems with the Fantastic Beast franchise, but the most important of all, is that there doesn't seem to be any real need for its existence. 

It's a typical product of studios/producers/authors not knowing when to end something, and wanting to milk the cow as much as possible. 

But the fanbase is to blame as well: fans always want more, more sequels, more spin-offs. 

As Dumbledore says in one of the books, humans tend to want things that are worst for them. 

 

I always defend an artist when he/she decides that it's time for a series to end. And I'm really glad that Rowling never decided to write an 8th Harry Potter book at least!

No, instead we got Cursed Child...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Bilbo'd? Explain.

 

He means in that he's no longer the focus of the film.

 

I don't see the issue. Did people really want five films (or three, or whatever) of magic Zoology? I'm fine with this series being about Grindlewald and his war with Dumbeldore. That is NOT the issue.

 

The issue here is simply the script to Fantastic Beasts 2. Its just very hard to follow, much less invest in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Then why on earth introduce the series with a Magic Zoologist as the protagonist and title the franchise, "Fantastic Beasts"?

 

Because JK Rowling wanted the reveal of Grindelwald to be a twist ending. Not my favourite choice, but so be it.

 

I never put much stock in what movies are called: to me, titles are more an aspect of marketing than they are necessarily a statement about the nature of the film: the point of titles is a point of branding. They're meant to sound inviting.

 

Rather, I let the movie itself tell me what it wants to be. Fantastic Beasts 2 is confused about what it wants to be, but then its a movie that's confused about just about eveything in it. If anything, the focus on the war that's coming is one of the things about which the movie is the least confused.

 

The issue here isn't Grindelwald. The issue is the lack of coherence in the script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I never put much stock in what movies are called: to me, titles are more an aspect of marketing than they are necessarily a statement about the nature of the film: the point of titles is a point of branding. They're meant to sound inviting.

 

Sure, titles are meant to sound inviting, but they also shouldn't mislead audiences about the film's content. Don't name the movie something evocative of a grand adventure film, hunting down mysterious magical creatures, then make an incredibly dour period film focusing on politics in the magic world and a fascist's rise to power (a story we already saw in 8 Potter films, mind you).

 

You hear a pitch-perfect title like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and it says everything you need to know about the film. It doesn't even need the Indiana Jones prefix.

 

But as echoed above, the stupid title is just one of many, many, many issues with this franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

...or like making a film called The Hobbit based on a book called The Hobbit (which is about a Hobbit) and not making said film about the eponymous Hobbit.

 

Yes, exactly! :P

 

Although I was quite wedded to my dinosaur/WWII analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

...or like making a film called The Hobbit based on a book called The Hobbit (which is about a Hobbit) and not making said film about the eponymous Hobbit.


It was clearly communicated in the opening few minutes that the movies WON’T be focusing on Bilbo.

 

The Two Towers is also much more about Aragorn than Frodo. The Last Jedi is more about Luke than Rey.

 

As long as the intention is communicated clearly, I’ll just roll with it. I could barely follow Fantastic Beasts 2, but I did realize very early on that it was building towards the war with Grindelwald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great example of how films are not what the titles say they are about: the titular “Lord of the Rings” is Sauron...

 

Its the first act of the film whose job it is to determine what the film is about: not the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

A great example of how films are not what the titles say they are about: the titular “Lord of the Rings” is Sauron...

 

....uhh....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, crumbs said:

You hear a pitch-perfect title like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and it says everything you need to know about the film.

 

To be fair, apparently a lot of people thought the "lost Ark" was referring to Noah's Ark.

 

Then again, its possible that Tolkien's "Arkenstone" was meant to represent the Ark of the Covenant, with the Lonely Mountain representing the Temple Mount.  Forever tying The Hobbit and Raiders together.

 

Connect the dots people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its the first act of the film whose job it is to determine what the film is about: not the title.

 

From Dusk 'till Dawn has entered the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.