Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore | April 15, 2022 | Final Trailer on Page 75

[Noctis]

2 hours ago, MrPink said:

So is Katherine Waterston not in it at all? What's the story reason anyhow

 

She had long covid so she is in two scenes.

 

It is explained that she's Head Auror of MACUSA.

[Noctis]

Quote

Q:And you got to portray one of its most powerful Dark wizards, Gellert Grindelwald. How did you approach that?

MADS MIKKELSEN:
Stepping into the shoes of one of the Wizarding World’s greatest wizards… Well, as an actor, I assume that Grindelwald has taken it for granted since he was quite young. Obviously, he is at the same level as Dumbledore—equal powers, equal goals of leaving the world a better place, but by different means. So, I approached it like that: as a man who thinks he has virtue on his side, just as Dumbledore believes he does.

 

Perfect response.

[Noctis]

Quote

Q:More than any previous film, this film delves into the relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore, and how, in a way, what brought them together, ultimately tore them apart. Can you talk about that aspect of their relationship?

MADS MIKKELSEN:
We touch upon it in this film. It does seem as if they started out as very, very talented wizards who united at a young age because they knew that they were more talented than anyone else. I also have a line in the film, I will be paraphrasing it, but Grindelwald does say to Dumbledore, that, “It was you who said that we could reshape the world.” And that has probably been a dream, a mutual dream within the two of them to reshape the world. And then, down the line, something happened, and their paths split, probably because the means of reshaping the world were quite different from Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

 

[Noctis]

Bit of a spoiler, BUT DAMN.

 

Q:Grindelwald also has someone else in his circle, Queenie, who clearly is having some doubts about what’s going on. So, why does he trust her…or does he trust her?

MADS MIKKELSEN:
Oh, Grindelwald doesn’t trust her at all. But there’s something about Queenie—she can read other people’s minds, but she’s also a very bad liar at the same time. So, Grindelwald has a hunch he can trust her to the degree that she can’t lie straight to his face. And then, as was said before, both Dumbledore and Grindelwald have this tendency to manipulate people around them. The difference is that Grindelwald doesn’t mind people around him that could be dangerous for him. He finds it interesting. It’s a little game. Life becomes more interesting when you have people around you that might turn on you. It keeps him on his toes.

[clockwork]

5 hours ago, grim22 said:

 

Newt realized he had zero chemistry with her and decided to cut his losses despite canon saying they ended up together. It will be explained as them having written the books together but as platonic friends

I'm more inclined to blame the writing instead of just solely the actors, they weren't exactly in too many well written scenes together. Its funny because I've seen Eddie Redmayne and Katherine Waterston in interviews together and they actually have a good repour, it's just the writing and directing hasn't helped to show that on screen.

 

Quote

On a slightly more serious note - has Eddie Redmayne ever had any chemistry with any of his co-stars? Even in Theory of Everything, they feel like friends than lovers. Closest is probably Les Miserables, but that may be more to do with the 2 actresses doing the heavy lifting.

 

I think most people liked him and Dan Fogler together during the first Fantastic Beasts movie. I also think it was kinda the point that him and Felicity Jones characters in The Theory of Everything weren't great lovers because apparently it was kinda like that between Stephen Hawking and his wife in real life.

[Brainbug]

Am i the only one who would watch an entire trilogy consisting of Newt searching for Blast-Ended Skrewts?

[TheBigYawn]

Continuing on my rewatch, I think CoG actually has a lot of style in its directing (well except it's too messy in the circus action scenes making it hard to follow the action). But a scene where the style suits the material perfectly is when Queenie is looking for Jacob in the rain, utilizing sound and close ups to get into her head. Not to mention that haunting overhead shot of an umbrella approaching her.

 

Overall the film has engaging ideas and concepts, it's fast-paced, the music is atmospheric, but it's just far too muddled and overcomplicated for its own good. I even contemplated cutting out a couple of characters and scenes while watching it, if it would have affected the narrative at all? If they can fix that for SoD and simplify the storytelling a bit while keeping up the stylistic choices, I think it can be quite enjoyable. It should be akin to Spider-Man: No Way Home (and I'm saying this as someone who did not enjoy the second one, nor much of a Marvel fan in general); it had a complicated premise told in a simple, understandable way with a real emotional core. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by TheBigYawn

[Noiret Jak]

 

A lot of new footage, and beasts : Wyvern , Manticores , Nifflers, Fawkes .. 

I love the manticore's dance at 1.14 😍

Edited March 25, 2022 by Noiret Jak

[DAJK]

So... this is 3 hours long? According to the website for my local it’s listed as 2h 52min.

[Felipe]

7 minutes ago, DAJK said:

So... this is 3 hours long? According to the website for my local it’s listed as 2h 52min.

2h22 actually

[clockwork]

13 minutes ago, DAJK said:

So... this is 3 hours long? According to the website for my local it’s listed as 2h 52min.

That has to be wrong. I've heard/read nothing about this being more than about 2 hours and 10 minutes, which is around the runtime of the previous 2 movies. The leak script also read as a 120 something minute movie as well.

 

Quote

2h22 actually

Aren't the credits counted as part of the runtime of a movie? So in actuality the movie itself is likely around 2hrs and 8 minutes before the credits roll.

Edited March 25, 2022 by clockwork

[Noiret Jak]

9 minutes ago, clockwork said:

That has to be wrong. I've heard/read nothing about this being more than about 2 hours and 10 minutes, which is around the runtime of the previous 2 movies. The leak script also read as a 120 something minute movie as well.

 

Aren't the credits counted as part of the runtime of a movie? So in actuality the movie itself is likely around 2hrs and 8 minutes before the credits roll.

 

The Crimes of Grindelwald had a duration of 2h14 minutes including 8 minutes of credits, so 2h06 of film.

If here it is the same we will have a film with credit of 2h22 and a film of 2h14.

[TerwillikerInst]

4 hours ago, Brainbug said:

Am i the only one who would watch an entire trilogy consisting of Newt searching for Blast-Ended Skrewts?

 

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. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by TerwillikerInst

[dudalb]

Last thing this film needed was for Putin to get involved....

[grim22]

 

 

[WittyUsername]

For what it’s worth, Rowling rejected Putin’s defense of her and said that she stands with Ukraine. 

[CJohn]

This franchise is cursed.

[dudalb]

6 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

For what it’s worth, Rowling rejected Putin’s defense of her and said that she stands with Ukraine. 

Lots of jokes about this already.

"Dobby want free Ukraine".

[Noctis]

 

She has donated £1m to Ukraine.

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, Noctis said:

 

She has donated £1m to Ukraine.

RUssian ban on Rowling's books coming up.