Jump to content
CJohn

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald | 16 NOV 2018 | NO SPOILERS | Trailer Page 89

Recommended Posts

Sounds like it’s ‘fans only’ which is music to my ears. If it’s convoluted and full of threads that prey on knowledge of this world - ie, like you need to have done your homework - then that’s fine by me. They’ve earnt it! I want something that’s interesting and not so formulaic. 

 

However, if letting Rowling loose ends up causing mixed results at the box office then this will be the last one we get without any interference from upstairs. Fanboys - enjoy this whilst you can as JJ could well and truly be getting a call from Warners on Monday morning*

 

*joke 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

However, if letting Rowling loose ends up causing mixed results at the box office then this will be the last one we get without any interference from upstairs. Fanboys - enjoy this whilst you can as JJ could well and truly be getting a call from Warners on Monday morning*

 

*joke 

Double edged sword for me. The interference from upstairs could genuinely help out, but also fuck things up. And I'm a big proponent of letting filmmakers tell the story they want in the way they want to tell it.

Edited by Lucas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucas said:

Double edged sword for me. The interference from upstairs could genuinely help out, but also fuck things up. And I'm a big proponent of letting filmmakers tell the story they want in the way they want to tell it.

Can’t comment until I’ve seen it, but you can bet they’ll want some course correction. Of course, Rowling has all kinds of power and probably has it brokered in its either her way or they don’t get a movie. Not sure what the deal was that was made, but I’m pretty sure it will massively favour her calling the shots. 

 

Anyway, this will do gangbusters internationally this weekend.  I’ll be amazed if this winds up less than $700 million worldwide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Ay .5 up from the last one for you then!

It's funny in a way because the first one is undoubtedly more coherent and succeeds in its attempt to be a stand alone film, but it didn't engage me nearly as much as this one. When I watched the first one I thought it was... just fine: Enjoyable, but not particularly memorable.

Crimes of Grindelwald, on the other hand, left me with higher highs and lower lows. That makes for a memorable experience, if not the strongest overall impression. 

Edited by TheBigYawn
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheBigYawn said:

It's funny in a way because the first one is undoubtedly more coherent and succeeds in its attempt to be a stand alone film

It oddly feels like Rowling had more of a handle of how screenplays are written in the first one than she did with this. This could've made a killer novel right up there with the Harry Potter ones.

 

Quote

Crimes of Grindelwald, on the other hand, left me with higher highs and lower lows. That makes for a memorable experience, if not the strongest overall impression. 

Yeah, The Last Jedi. Higher highs and lower lows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q: Do you create as much detail beyond what we see in the Fantastic Beasts films as you did for the Harry Potter books?

A: Warner Bros had optioned the rights to the Fantastic Beasts years previously, so I knew that it might one day become a movie, but the only discussions we’d ever had about it were quite vague.

 Seems like WB may have had plans to make FB films for a while, but initially it seems they planned to do it on their own with little involvement from Rowling. But since Rowling has all these ideas in her head they asked to to come along and write the scripts for them.

 

  https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/latest-answers-to-frequently-asked-questions/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lucas said:

It oddly feels like Rowling had more of a handle of how screenplays are written in the first one than she did with this. This could've made a killer novel right up there with the Harry Potter ones.

We know Steve Kloves helped her a bit last time, but the question is if she got any input from him on CoG. 

 

I agree it would probably be a better novel in which she would have had more breathing room to explore everything in detail and delve deeper into all the characters. It's inevitably going to feel a bit rushed when you try to pack so much content into 2 hours. I could see Yates and Day scratching their heads as they edited it together trying to find the right rhythm and pacing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I obviously haven’t seen this movie, but I do have to wonder what it is that makes critics hate movies like this, while also loving something as painfully boring as Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Some of the complaints I’ve seen about this movie are that it tries too hard to shoot for fan service that it forgets to tell a compelling story, and while that does sound like a reasonable complaint, it also sums up Rogue One just about perfectly. Why exactly does Star Wars get a pass for that kind of stuff (and no, I’m not suggesting that Disney pays off their critics)? 

There's a massive difference between the fan service in Rogue One and in this. 

 

Rogue One's retconning of the Death Star weakness isn't something that had to be done, but they did so by making it about a father deciding to take a stand against evil, and it logically makes sense. Additionally, we get that the rogue leader designation is a tribute to the characters that died to get the Death Star plans to the rebels. It's all answering questions that didn't need to be answered, but they're done in a way that expands the universe and adds extra meaning to them. In my opinion, this stuff all stands on its own as well.

 

Comparatively, Fantastic Beasts 2's retcons and fan service-y moments either contradict the existing lore entirely, or at best require an additional movie (or 3) to explain away these inconsistencies. And no, I'm not just talking about Nagini. And some of the retcons are just straight up lazy, like single sentence lines to justify why certain characters from the first Fantastic Beasts are still in this one.

 

I think when people see this thing, most are gonna see it for what it is: a sequel that is trying to build a Hollywood Franchise with a capital F while the filmmakers haphazardly tie it to series that people actually care about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think demographic wise this movie will be more popular among the younger crowd, those currently in their 20's to early 30's, those who grew up alongside the Potter films/books as they came out. The people most obsessed with the Wizarding world tend to be on the younger side anyway, at least in my experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Biggestgeekever said:

There's a massive difference between the fan service in Rogue One and in this. 

 

Rogue One's retconning of the Death Star weakness isn't something that had to be done, but they did so by making it about a father deciding to take a stand against evil, and it logically makes sense. Additionally, we get that the rogue leader designation is a tribute to the characters that died to get the Death Star plans to the rebels. It's all answering questions that didn't need to be answered, but they're done in a way that expands the universe and adds extra meaning to them. In my opinion, this stuff all stands on its own as well.

 

Comparatively, Fantastic Beasts 2's retcons and fan service-y moments either contradict the existing lore entirely, or at best require an additional movie (or 3) to explain away these inconsistencies. And no, I'm not just talking about Nagini. And some of the retcons are just straight up lazy, like single sentence lines to justify why certain characters from the first Fantastic Beasts are still in this one.

 

I think when people see this thing, most are gonna see it for what it is: a sequel that is trying to build a Hollywood Franchise with a capital F while the filmmakers haphazardly tie it to series that people actually care about.

Not only did RO address stuff that didn’t need to be addressed, but I don’t see how it even succeeded in expanding the universe in any meaningful way. 

 

Trying to address plot holes doesn’t make the lore of something more compelling, especially when it involves a character as utterly boring as Jyn Erso. Also, how exactly would you justify that scene at the end with Darth Vader as anything other than hollow fan service? What was the narrative significance of that scene? Where was the tension in it? Were we supposed to be rooting for Darth Vader, despite the fact that he’s the antagonist? Every time I hear people praise that scene, it seems to be for no reason other than (to quote RLM) “I clapped when I saw it!”

 

Besides, the Beauty and the Beast remake also tried addressing the plot holes from the old animated film while also trying to make the characters more complex, but to people like me, that film still ultimately felt like a hollow rehash that was completely inferior to the old film in virtually every conceivable way.

Edited by WittyUsername
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is certain however: David Yates has become really comfortable directing these movies. Even if the movie bombs I don't think they should fire him. There is a flashback scene near the end that moved me greatly which ends on a hauntingly effective image.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Biggestgeekever said:

There's a massive difference between the fan service in Rogue One and in this. 

 

Rogue One's retconning of the Death Star weakness isn't something that had to be done, but they did so by making it about a father deciding to take a stand against evil, and it logically makes sense. Additionally, we get that the rogue leader designation is a tribute to the characters that died to get the Death Star plans to the rebels. It's all answering questions that didn't need to be answered, but they're done in a way that expands the universe and adds extra meaning to them. In my opinion, this stuff all stands on its own as well.

 

Comparatively, Fantastic Beasts 2's retcons and fan service-y moments either contradict the existing lore entirely, or at best require an additional movie (or 3) to explain away these inconsistencies. And no, I'm not just talking about Nagini. And some of the retcons are just straight up lazy, like single sentence lines to justify why certain characters from the first Fantastic Beasts are still in this one.

 

I think when people see this thing, most are gonna see it for what it is: a sequel that is trying to build a Hollywood Franchise with a capital F while the filmmakers haphazardly tie it to series that people actually care about.

I'm genuinely curious what the retcons in FB2 were that could possibly break the existing lore that actually matter or the lazy retcons to explain something away. I was looking for these in the movie and couldn't find anything that would severely contradict what came before. Like Rogue One, most of the ones that would come close to anything "retcon-y" serve an actual emotional or thematic purpose. You can't pick and choose between what's done for themes and what isn't depending on the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheBigYawn said:

One thing is certain however: David Yates has become really comfortable directing these movies. Even if the movie bombs I don't think they should fire him. There is a flashback scene near the end that moved me greatly which ends on a hauntingly effective image.  

I've been a bigger fan of the dude's work on these films than most (hell, it took 6 movies for him to make one that I'd consider to be my least favorite of the lot) and even I have to say this had some of his best work in all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheBigYawn said:

One thing is certain however: David Yates has become really comfortable directing these movies. Even if the movie bombs I don't think they should fire him. There is a flashback scene near the end that moved me greatly which ends on a hauntingly effective image.  

 

No surprise boring old David Yates is getting comfortable directing these movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lucas said:

I'm genuinely curious what the retcons in FB2 were that could possibly break the existing lore that actually matter or the lazy retcons to explain something away. I was looking for these in the movie and couldn't find anything that would severely contradict what came before. Like Rogue One, most of the ones that would come close to anything "retcon-y" serve an actual emotional or thematic purpose. You can't pick and choose between what's done for themes and what isn't depending on the movie. 

I didn’t find any either. I guess a certain “M” character is in it, that technically goes against canon. Trying not to spoil for those who haven’t seen it. Nagini isn’t a retcon, more that there was no backstory for her. The “J” retcon isn’t because it’s mentioned in the first film what the stuff does. Gave “D” a legit reason to not fight “G” before he could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Not only did RO address stuff that didn’t need to be addressed, but I don’t see how it even succeeded in expanding the universe in any meaningful way. 

 

Trying to address plot holes doesn’t make the lore of something more compelling, especially when it involves a character as utterly boring as Jyn Erso. Also, how exactly would you justify that scene at the end with Darth Vader as anything other than hollow fan service? What was the narrative significance of that scene? Where was the tension in it? Were we supposed to be rooting for Darth Vader, despite the fact that he’s the antagonist? Every time I hear people praise that scene, it seems to be for no reason other than (to quote RLM) “I clapped when I saw it!”

 

Besides, the Beauty and the Beast remake also tried addressing the plot holes from the old animated film while also trying to make the characters more complex, but to people like me, that film still ultimately felt like a hollow rehash that was completely inferior to the old film in virtually every conceivable way.

I'm glad you bought that up, because Fantastic Beasts 2 does something pretty similar with a character from the lore. The difference is I found what this character was doing to be borderline incomprehensible, an action sequence with a threat that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Vader's rampage is satisfying because it delivers on seeing an incredibly dangerous villain go on a killing spree, it shows exactly why he's a force to be reckoned with.

8 minutes ago, Lucas said:

I'm genuinely curious what the retcons in FB2 were that could possibly break the existing lore that actually matter or the lazy retcons to explain something away. I was looking for these in the movie and couldn't find anything that would severely contradict what came before. Like Rogue One, most of the ones that would come close to anything "retcon-y" serve an actual emotional or thematic purpose. You can't pick and choose between what's done for themes and what isn't depending on the movie. 

Well, there's one huge one right at the end of the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slytherus said:

I didn’t find any either. I guess a certain “M” character is in it, that technically goes against canon. Trying not to spoil for those who haven’t seen it. Nagini isn’t a retcon, more that there was no backstory for her. The “J” retcon isn’t because it’s mentioned in the first film what the stuff does. Gave “D” a legit reason to not fight “G” before he could.

 

For the mods: If I shouldn't even use the spoiler tag already, do remove it if you wish.

For everyone else who hasn't seen it: probably stay away from reading it.

Spoiler

McGonagall's inclusion is... utterly, and frustratingly ridiculous for anyone to complain about. If that bitch was truly born in 1935 as the wiki states, then she would've been 46 in the opening scene of The Philosopher's Stone, there is no fucking way 66 (at the time) year old Maggie Smith was intended to be 46 in that scene and 56 in the rest of the movie. At no point did I get the feeling in any way that she was meant to be this age in the books either. It always seemed like she was just a bit younger than Dumbledore. Considering they got that information from book 5, I'd blame book 5 over sticking to that "canon". Otherwise, keep the canons separate (like I do for the most part) and movie McGonagall is way older. Fucking hell, Maggie Smith is older than McGonagall according to that wiki.

 

Nagini yeah, not a retcon. I thought she was very underused. A premise like that for a character is interesting so I hope it goes somewhere (probably will).

 

Jacob's not a retcon naturally, I saw that reasoning coming even while watching the credits for the first film in the theater back in 2016. It's literally in the dialogue and then later seeing him smile to Queenie.

 

I was actually kind of disappointed in Dumbledore being given an actual reason because I was thinking "oh this is brilliant, everyone in the movie is guided by love and the wish for settling down at some place they can call home. It makes them do reckless things and they start losing their way... except for Dumbledore who deliberately keeps himself out of the way from getting close to the one he loves because he's smart enough to know what could happen." My thoughts during the movie still sort of work, but now there's also a literal reason for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, we do have a spoiler thread if y'all wanna get more in-depth in these discussions :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, aabattery said:

FYI, we do have a spoiler thread if y'all wanna get more in-depth in these discussions :)

Been hoping for more people to pop in there but it's been dead ever since I saw the movie :rant:.

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   1 member



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.