Jump to content

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series


His Royal Noelness
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yates gets a lot of blame but I don't think Steve Kloves was such a great writer either. There's a bit in the Half Blood Prince screenplay where he changed Snape's line from the book "Don't call me a coward" to "Don't ever associate that word with my name again." Like what in the actual fuck man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never figured out how to make wand battles very interesting. Dumbledore vs Voldemort, Harry vs Voldemort. Standing in one place...

You didn't like the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in OOTP? I kinda dug it. I really felt the intensity and thought it was neat when they cast ridiculous magic like a fire dragon and a tidal wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never figured out how to make wand battles very interesting. Dumbledore vs Voldemort, Harry vs Voldemort. Standing in one place...

You didn't like the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in OOTP? I kinda dug it. I really felt the intensity and thought it was neat when they cast ridiculous magic like a fire dragon and a tidal wave.

No, you're right, that is a cool one. I guess I was just thinking of the beginning where they're standing with the magic beam of light between them. They took that from GOF and then kept relying on it later, they do it a few times in Part 2, Harry/Voldemort do it a bunch. It's not that exciting, there's nowhere to go with it. At least in OOTP it sent loads of debris flying everywhere, but you do pretty much have to have spirits start coming out of the middle to make it interesting, or you just quit and switch to fire dragons and tidal waves. And the wand battles earlier in the Ministry were just characters shooting sparks at each other and making people fall backwards. Not much variety going on.

I mean, Patronuses always look neat, the shield charm around Hogwarts in Part 2 was cool, but the only little bit of combat magic that I remember was where Kingsley did like some time reverse charm, froze a guy and then sent him back. They could have used more stuff like that, not just knocking people out but adding little effects. I felt like whenever people took out their wands it always ended up like this:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yates gets a lot of blame but I don't think Steve Kloves was such a great writer either. There's a bit in the Half Blood Prince screenplay where he changed Snape's line from the book "Don't call me a coward" to "Don't ever associate that word with my name again." Like what in the actual fuck man.

I wish Michael Goldenberg had worked on more Potter films other than OOTP, like GOF and HBP. He knew how to condense and find the core of the story better, without OOC line changes like Kloves did.

But then he did a horrible job on Green Lantern, so I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He failed to make the audience understand the gravity and complications of the prophecy. He completely botched Harry and Kreacher's relationship (tell me, why does Harry hate him in film 7?) He left out Mrs Weasley's boggart. He left out Cho and Harry's date. He messed up Snape's worst memory. Need I continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film 3 only needs a few extra lines of dialogue to bring in the important aspects of the book that were left out.

Film 4 onward are missing entire key scenes, and they more actively changed things (and characters) instead of just leaving stuff out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way? I know that the stag thing wasn't explained, but other than that?

It left out too much vital information that would have helped make a lot of things clearer not only in this film, but the later ones as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. 3 too.

It's a good film, but as an adaptation, it fails.

Huh? As film adaptations, the first two sucked because of their slavishly literal devotion to the source material. The third film finally felt like its own independent work free from the shackles of adherring to every last word-for-word detail. It was a true film adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, a good adaptation retains all the major plot elements and information that are found in the book. In that regard, the first two were the best adaptations. But there were not particularly remarkable films.

POA, on the other hand, was not a particularly good adaptation, but was a good film.

The following films were not really good adaptations nor good films. They were... OK, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should things be simplified? What annoyed me most about Deathly Hallows was that the plot was made so incredibly simple. The result of that was a totally pointless Kings's Cross scene where Dumbledore seemed more drunk than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should things be simplified? What annoyed me most about Deathly Hallows was that the plot was made so incredibly simple. The result of that was a totally pointless Kings's Cross scene where Dumbledore seemed more drunk than anything else.

Because at its heart, essentially it's about "Harry has to beat Voldemort or else the world will go to shit". It needs to be stripped bare or else each film would run longer than The Cure for Insomnia.

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.