TerwillikerInst

I know this is is sarcasm but it's also exactly why this movie is getting great test scores. There is no hidden card up this movie's sleeve which will blow everyone away. The movie is getting great test scores (and will probably do well) because like No Way Home and Ghostbusters: Afterlife it's less of an actual movie than a dispensing machine for moments where the audience cheers because they recognize something from a much better movie.

I mean, the statue obviously wasn't the actual reason. It's just a handy excuse. If the finale hadn't revolved around it as a crucial location, I bet you they would have told them to remove all Green Goblin's violence or some other obviously impossible challenge they could never have met. It was basically just a way of telling them to piss off that still left the door open for potential future movies.

That's a good point. I think there's also the problem that any director who brought a truly fresh new perspective would have to work against the uphill battle of Rowling and the fanbase. Let's not forget that up until a few years ago, much of the fanbase hated Cuaron and Azkaban. Not only was it a completely different tonal and visual departure from the previous two films, but also made some very extensive cuts and changes to the book.

Her" talent" for names consists of looking up alternate words for the physical or character traits associated with the character and then choosing one or two. Often at random, and with no thought for their cultural background. Lest we forget what went down when she tried to tackle topics like Skinwalkers/Japanese/the entire continent of Africa, etc. In no way was Nagani ever portrayed or even hinted to be, a Korean lady that knew Dumbledore, up until that second FB movie.

It's blowing my mind seeing the hoops people are jumping through to defend Rowling and this movie. "Oh well, do most movies make money?" "How can you define a success, anyway" etc etc And I don't even mean her politics. I mean her talents as a screenwriter, full stop. There was hype for this franchise. I was there. A lot of that hype wasn't just about it being a stealth Harry Potter prequel. People wanted to see more lighthearted magic adventures set in famous international locales involving cute animal creatures. Each movie has increasingly ditched this aspect in order to focus on the political system of the Wizarding World in the mid 30s. I refuse to believe that this was the plan form the beginning, despite what she says. If it was, why was New Scamander (and his creatures) set up as the main focal point of the first movie only so the next two would struggle to work him into a Dumbledore/Grindlewald narrative? Why did she have Credence character blow up in a heartbreaking way at the end of the first one from a disease that makes you blow up in a heartbreaking way only to bring him back in the second, all better? And look. There's nothing wrong with making it all up as you go along. What annoys me is that she and her stans keep trying to pretend that this was always her plan all along. I refuse to believe she is that believe that she aways planned for Nagani to be a Korean woman, or Dumbledore to be gay, or that his brother was a baby who was switched with the that of Leta Lestrange's brother who was also on the same ship, learning this due to Leta Lestrange's half brother wanting revenge for his mother being raped by... etc

I do think it's funny that the same people on film twitter who complain about movies not doing practical effects anymore are usually the exact same people who look at this and complain that MI and No Time To Die, cost too much money. You don't get effects and locations on the scale of these films, without throwing down some serious cash.

Main problem with this Joker is that the design is a bit "try hard" and the performance is very Ledger-esque. If we do have to have the Joker again, it would be nice to move away from the grimy, gritty look we've been getting since Ledger and instead go back to the more classic elegantly suited and coiffed version. Also, and this is just a personal thing, why do we keep getting serious actors cast as the Joker and not a comedian. That might be a nice change. So yes, I am saying my ideal Joker would be Paul F. Tompkins.

That's the thing, this franchise would've been a money printing machine if it had just been about Newt getting into whacky hijinks with cute fantasy animals in famous cities with his American pals. One of the reasons why the first movie did so well was because general audiences loved the cute premise and the promise of Harry Potter-like escapades but in 1920s New York. Trust me, a lot of the friends and family back in my home town (none of whom are film affiliated) decided to go see the first one because the animals looked "really cute". They did not show up for the second. What people did NOT want, was a two hour blockbuster devoted to explaining weird bits of Harry Potter lore that barely even appeared in the movies. If you're going to fan service it has to be about shit people know and care about. And now we have this movie, which might be fine, but is them just giving up in real time by essentially making a Dumbledore prequel with lots of overt Harry Potter callbacks. A smarter move but still creatively bankrupt. I hope Radcliffe makes them pay through the nose when they try to do that Cursed Child movie.

The film actually did pretty well considering everything it was up against. But yeah, you're right. I am going to outright state that if a third comes along, it will have closer to an Orient Express sized budget ($55 million) versus this one's $90 million.

Behind the scenes picture of Roger Allam as Robert Maxwell. https://twitter.com/jonsbaird/status/1386389877021757446/

I have to assume this was partially due to COVID. A lot of VFX houses had to stop in the middle working on films and then weeks/months later, transition to remote working. I have to imagine that played a role in why some of the non-moving chroma key backgrounds (usually the easiest stuff to get right with CG) looked so off.

Weirdly the CG didn't bother as much here as it did in Orient Express (despite it looking much MUCH faker). It's so heavily stylised and vibrant that it reminds me of the matte paintings and backdrops of golden age Hollywood. Albeit using 21st century tech. Plus, the fact that they built things like the boat and the Abu Simbel exterior full size (actually 2x size in the latter case), shows they weren't just using it a lazy excuse to not do anything practically (unlike SOME Disney franchise movies, ahem). And it kind of makes sense that they didn't really want to film on location given that 1978 film's production infamously damaged several historic sites. That being said, the first half of the script desperately needed a punch up.

Yeah, from what I heard pretty much everything in the movie tested pretty ok (barring some of the gruesome violence and gags). And so did the characters, except for Harris Dickinson as Fiennes' son, which is a problem as he's the main one. So my guess is that these reshoots were done to beef up the parts of the supporting players and possibly give the Dickinson character more of a personality.

Yeah, like I'll freely admit its not perfect but overall it does pretty much everything that made the first one so popular but for some reason, everyone decided to hate those elements. I totally understand if the constant violence, casual sexism, and bleak mean-spirited sense of humour didn't appeal to new fans, but the people who liked the first one getting up in arms about it in Golden Circle really baffled me. It's not like those elements weren't in the first one too.

I don't know. How well did Blade Runner 2049 do again? I've forgotten. Anyway, that was not the point I was making. I didn't bring either of those two movies, or their box office, up. Also, John Carter is very much *not* a colourful saturated sci-fi movie, lol. It's arguably even browner than Dune.

I've got to hand it to Denis and his team, I never thought it would be possible, and I'm shocked that any filmmaker has managed to do it, but I'll say it. I'm straight up impressed. I mean, this is just remarkably drab looking. Amazing. Well done. I don't know how you can take the incredibly weird and eccentric world of Dune and make it look like a semi-expensive live-action Halo commercial from 2011, but my God. They've pulled it off. They've really brought the sheer diversity of the worlds and costumes to life. Browns, greys, brown-greys, greyish-browns, it's all here, baby!

I would personally argue that they were likely more of a hook than the relatively obscure Harry Potter lore stuff, at least when it came to the friends and relatives I have who aren't movie buffs and only go to the cinema once in a while. I'm not suggesting that it was only the magical creature angle, but rather that and a combination of other factors like the more lighthearted angle, less of a need to be familiar with deep-cut Potter continuity, and antics in magical 1920s New York. Again, just going off my experience in the cinemas, most of the audience, especially the kids, really loved all the cool stuff with the magical suitcase and the animals causing mayhem. Lots of laughter, oohs and ahs etc. But whenever it cut to the Credence and Grindlewald stuff, it became dead silent and I could literally hear people shifting aimlessly in their seats waiting for the fun stuff to come back on screen. Plus, Crimes of Grindelwald's whole campaign was way more Potter centric and look how that turned out. If they want to tell the Dumbledore and Grindlewald story, fine. But by crowbarring Newt and the Fantastic Beasts into these it, they are simply harming both story strands. imo.

The reason the first movie made over $800 million was because it was sold as "comic misadventures with cute fantasy animals set loose in 1920s New York City". Jumanji meets Harry Potter meets the Jazz era. The fact that JK and WB seem to acting like the bit everybody actually got hyped for was the grim dark pointless backstory centred around a piece of Harry Potter lore, is mind boggling to me. Imagine if each sequel had just been the fun adventures of Newt and pals in new cities all around the world meeting fantastic new creatures, that's a frigging money printing machine. It's a horrific miscalculation made worse by the fact that they've doubled and tripled down on the backstory stuff, even though they are well aware that nobody actually wants it. And I know they're well aware of this because they keep calling these movies Fantastic Beasts and shoving Newt, the creatures, and exotic locales in, because that's what the audience actually likes.

The problem with all these movies is that they are running on fumes. It's all the same people doing all the same stuff they've been doing for the last two decades. It's tired at this point and WB refuses to do the only sensible thing which is hire some new creative talent who aren't afraid to take massive risks and then let them go to town. The only real shot in the arm this franchise has had was back in 2004 when they hired Cuaron, who radically departed from both the books and the first two films and tried to make an actual movie. And even if you don't like Azkaban, it's frankly very telling that it instantly became the movie all the subsequent instalments tried to copy in both tone and visuals. Largely because it has actual substance and weight to it.

If the offer is still open, I'd love to be spoiled as well, please.

Putting out a pristine HD copy no doubt cut into sales badly, especially when the movie simply isn't a huge spectacle event film. Still, a fairly decent showing overall for the film despite this. Now why the budget so high, when this is exactly the kind of goofy crime film they could easily make for less than $35 million, is anyone's guess.

Ah, so this is how they'll be keeping him on board to do multiple Batman projects.

I find it deeply funny that you probably couldn't even make a movie like the 2005 Burton flick anymore, because it wasn't intended as a franchise starter and had basically 0 visual, musical, or tonal connections to the 1971 film. That's how far we've fallen people. lol

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if a movie shoots in real locations, uses practical sets, or shoots on a greenscreen. There have been many great (and great-looking) movies that have each used these techniques, both together and separately. The only thing that ultimately matters is directorial/producorial intent and skill, there's no "magic bullet" technical explanation about how a film is made that explains it other than that. Flat and dull movies come from flat and dull people. Hell, the two MCU movies that get the most consistent phrase for their cinematography (Thor: Ragnarok and Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2) were shot primarily in front of green screens. But crucially, they were shot by people who were attempting an interesting visual style. It's the same reason why so many of the MCU's film scores are so bland. It's not because they use "temp music" or whatever (95% of movie scores, both good and bad, do it too) it's because it was either made by people who didn't care and or people who wanted it that way.