FB: CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD: WHAT WENT WRONG?

[Rebeccas]

Newt Scamander. I'm sorry but he just doesn't cut it as a lead hero. Especially when his emotional investment in the main conflict is like a -5.

[TheBigYawn]

Just now, Rebeccas said:

Newt Scamander. I'm sorry but he just doesn't cut it as a lead hero. Especially when his emotional investment in the main conflict is like a -5.

At least he has now "chosen his side" by the end of the movie. 

[Rebeccas]

Also if they needed a younger character as the lead as opposed to middle aged Dumbledore/ Grindelwald then why not Credence? Makes way more sense!

[TheBigYawn]

As for "what went wrong", I don't think there is one simple answer to the question, but IMHO Rowling has a good story that just needed more tweaking in the way it was told. There are too many characters and subplots and the exposition is sometimes delivered clumsily.

 

However personally I really liked it. I'd rather rewatch Crimes of Grindelwald than the first one, which I honestly find a bit dull in parts (mainly the capture of the creatures). 

Edited December 12, 2018 by TheBigYawn

[TheManFromBeyond]

First FB did fine box office, critically and fan reception wise. So it wasn't the problem.

 

The problems were simple: Movie didn't look interesting, trailers showed nothing to get you excited beyond "WHOA DUMBLEDORE". Then the film itself wasn't really good, audiences didn't want to go back. Then more films like Ralph Breaks The Internet and Creed II came out that got better responses from audiences, and, well that's that.

 

If FB3 could get some good marketing and get a good response from audiences and critics, then this series could have more life in it.

 

[TheBigYawn]

Just now, TheManFromBeyond said:

The problems were simple: Movie didn't look interesting, trailers showed nothing to get you excited beyond "WHOA DUMBLEDORE".

Well, I found the trailers much more exciting than any of the promo material for FB 1. 

[TheBigYawn]

7 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

Also if they needed a younger character as the lead as opposed to middle aged Dumbledore/ Grindelwald then why not Credence? Makes way more sense!

You could go that route, but it could easily become far too drab. Newt is a fun character with all his creatures and innovative solutions to conflicts.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by TheBigYawn

[Rebeccas]

13 minutes ago, TheBigYawn said:

You could go that route, but it could easily become far too drab. Newt is a fun character with all his creatures and innovative solutions to conflicts.  

That's why comic relief is usually a supporting character though.

[Lucas]

2 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

That's why comic relief is usually a supporting character though.

That's why Kowalski is a supporting character lol.

[Rebeccas]

If the movies were just about finding creatures and stuff, then fine, but if they're really going for a big Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald thing... having a lead character who barely has enough of an opinion to choose a side over metaphorical Nazis is not great!

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rebeccas

[JGAR4LIFE]

I just feel like while the first film was fine, it should’ve just been left just at that, no sequels. A similar tactic to Rogue One; a one off story in a large universe. Dumbledore/Grindelwald should’ve been it’s own story with maybe Newt thrown in there to connect the films.

[clockwork]

The problem here is that Dumbledore can't/wont directly fight Grindelwald until 1945, so for now Dumbledore is just playing a big game of chess against Grindelwald. They're both maneuvering/manipulating people to do their bidding until the time comes for them to handle business themselves. Rowling seems to want this to be a story that takes us all around the world, so the characters we follow should reflect that. Time to leave Hogwarts behind a bit and follow a protagonist from Africa, Asia, somewhere unfamiliar. Slowly tie them into the main conflict of this series and we can really get somewhere. 

[Crainy]

On 12/7/2018 at 12:23 AM, The Futurist said:

I already explained it.

It s the George Lucas syndrome all over again.

 

Like Lucas was the Father of Star Wars, Rowling is the Mother of the wizarding world and for this movie, nobody and I mean nobody, from Warner biggest suits to the director and the intern who brings her cofee can contradict her on her creation, in any shape of form, she has the final say on eveything.

I get that what you wrote is an opinion that gets shoved down peoples throats at every corner of the internet and that people feel clever when saying it (which is more important to alot of people than ACTUALLY thinking), but the "George Lucas" syndrome doesnt really apply here.

 

Rowling is a book author, not a filmmaker. For the most part she always had complete control over her franchise, especially after the first few books were a success. And most definitely when the movies were getting made. The reason that this entry in the Potter Universe presumably isnt that big of a success has other reasons.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Crainy

[Hatebox]

Actually ended up seeing this due to a family outing. It's totally unforgiving of those who, like me, hadn't seen the first, which is something the Potter films were a lot better at. Really, though, it's just a goddamn mess. Also, try as he might, Eddie Redmayne's character is just a flatline. 

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

It's so true that winning covers everything.

 

One of the difficult things in FB2 is that almost all of the criticisms of it could be accurately levelled at Rowling's previous work, but the good stuff and more importantly the popularity has covered it.

 

But her flagrant preference for some of her own creations over others really got magnified here. 

 

In the same way that it was clear she never really cared about Lupin (this is just one example of many) and he was just a conduit to get to Sirius - the character she liked; here we have Leta  being treated as a vaguely expendable character despite how interesting she could be, while Credence is given editorial neon lights glaring out "This character is amazing" at all turns. Equally, compared to how much time is given to the perspective of Newt, she has no interest in Queenie and just treats her character traits as permeable despite fans of the first film loving her. 

 

It's always been there, but not doing as well highlights it.

 

I also think that the backdoor links to the main series didn't help perspectives on the film. I know I personally was sold on a non-aligned movie series set in the Harry Potter world: not a direct prequel series. I think this shift has not been remarked upon enough, perhaps because those who discuss movies all the time just assumed that was naturally where the series was going to be headed: but don't forge that essentially the marketing of the first movie has now been rendered a pretty unequivocal lie.

[ShouldIBeHere]

This movies should have been the story of Grindelwald and Dumbledore from the get go. People are not interested enough in Newt & Company. Instead of making the prequel-moments the centerpieces they feel cramped in and almost like a second narrative when they are the most appealing part of the franchise.

 

[a2k]

FB2 won't make it to top 3 November 2018 doms.

 

5 films crossed/will cross 125 dom,

 

11/02 BR 51 ow, 176 cume on way to 190+

11/09 Grinch 68 ow, 227 cume on way to 260+

11/16 FB2 62 ow, 147 cume on way to 160+

11/21 WIR2 56/85 ow, 144 cume on way for 190+

11.21 Creed2 36/56 ow, 99 cume on way to 120+

 

Edit :And October had Venom, ASIB and Halloween doing 160-215. FB2 could beat Halloween for #6 but it's out of top 5 Fall 2018 doms.

Edited December 14, 2018 by a2k

[Gazer365]

Does anybody else on the internet understand that "Fantastic Beasts" is one of those double meaning titles that refers to both people and the creatures?  This whole series is revolving around the Dumbledore v Grindelwald conflict, but like somebody said above both of these characters (mostly) work through other people to achieve their goals.

 

It seems to me that Rowling has/is setting Newt up to be the reluctant hero who gets swept up into a grander plot. I think Newt is a decent character and Eddie Redmayne is a good actor, but nothing of consequence really happens to him and he has experienced little character growth in these two movies thus far.  We know that Dumbledore is the one to defeat Grindelwald in the end so Newt will certainly get sidelined in one of these upcoming films, something definitely needs to happen for sure.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Gazer365

[TheBigYawn]

3 hours ago, Gazer365 said:

We know that Dumbledore is the one to defeat Grindelwald in the end so Newt will certainly get sidelined in one of these upcoming films, something definitely needs to happen for sure.

Let's just pretend for a moment that the first Fantastic Beasts movie represents the more or less self-contained storytelling of the first four HP books and movies; it works pretty well as a stand alone film. Then the setup nature of Crimes of Grindelwald is the OotP of the Harry Potter series establishing prophecies and the like and building towards something bigger for future instalments (Harry vs Voldemort/Dumbledore vs Grindelwald). The next one should be another setup movie like HBP, but at times lighter and more comedic. Yates' early claims about the third movie support this argument. However, following the tradition of HP, it should still end with a major death or loss. Finally the fourth and fifth will basically be one long (and dark) story split into two movies culminating with a big fight.

 

This prediction of mine is nonsense obviously, but my point is: I genuinely do think the rather slow burn structure of Crimes of Grindelwald mirrors the storytelling of the later HP books and movies to a certain degree. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by TheBigYawn