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

[Menor the Destroyer]

1 minute ago, Noctis said:

Let's say they go for one more film to depict the final epic war between Dumbledore and Grindelwald...should it still be a part of the FB series or just its standalone film?

Focus it on Dumbledore and Grindelwald but still bring in Newt in a supporting role. 

[WeThrones]

I mean people who want one more movie they want it for Dumbledore and Grindelwald, not to see what happens with Newt. That says what they shoud do. 

[Noctis]

I think one film is enough...just have the big epic war and name the film whatever it is but without the Fantastic Beasts. Market it as a standalone film...but then again, how could you really hide that it is part of Fantastic Beasts when Newt, Tina, Lally, Theseus, etc all return?

[TheBigYawn]

13 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:

Spoiler

I was also generally disappointed by Credence in the film, as you said it makes all the focus on him in CoG seem kinda pointless. 

 

Spoiler

Yes, Grindelwald said he was the only entity that could destroy Dumbledore, but he was no match at all for Dumbledore. But on a positive note they did set up Credence's sacrifice at the end (although he was saved by both his father and uncle) considering Dumbledore at one point said that it was too late to save Credence's life, but not too late for him to save them. That was rather well done in spirit of the Harry Potter themes from the original series, in addition to the mysterious way the blood pact broke. The explanation afterwards was vaguely logical in a way that reminded me of how Rowling explained Priori Incantatem in Goblet of fire. 

 

[Noctis]

@AJG why did you keep saying that it starting at 83% with 50 reviews on RT as bad? There are 1000+ verified audience voters, and it's gone up to 85%.

[Menor the Destroyer]

9 minutes ago, TheBigYawn said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Spoiler

I don't know, I didn't like the way the blood pact was destroyed either. It seems like a pointless pact if it gets destroyed when they start fighting, even though the entire purpose of the pact is to stop them from fighting. 

 

[WeThrones]

22 minutes ago, Noctis said:

I think one film is enough...just have the big epic war and name the film whatever it is but without the Fantastic Beasts. Market it as a standalone film...but then again, how could you really hide that it is part of Fantastic Beasts when Newt, Tina, Lally, Theseus, etc all return?

I don't think they need to hide it. Just to make it clear that Dumbledore is now the main character officially. 

[TheBigYawn]

5 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:

  Hide contents

Spoiler

I don't know, I didn't like the way the blood pact was destroyed either. It seems like a pointless pact if it gets destroyed when they start fighting, even though the entire purpose of the pact is to stop them from fighting. 

 

 

 

Spoiler

This could be just my interpretation, but I read the intention of making the blood pact in the first place to prevent one of them from attacking/betraying the other, if one of them should have a change of heart. When their spells clashed together, however, it seems to me the blood pact "sensed" mutual betrayal from both parts, as in the loyalty bond they once shared when creating the pact finally got broken for good. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought that aligned somewhat with the "he sought to kill, I sought to protect" explanation Dumbledore gave that shifted the balance of the pact to break. It couldn't stop them both from fighting if they attacked simultaneously, I suppose, so instead it broke. 

 

[TheBigYawn]

3 minutes ago, WeThrones said:

I don't think they need to hide it. Just to make it clear that Dumbledore is now the main character officially. 

 

Agreed. And make that VERY clear. Newt is a fun side character to make the world richer with all his beasts, but they should not clutter the main plot. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by TheBigYawn

[WeThrones]

The fact is Newt had nothing to do with this war against Grindelwald. They tried to give him some motivation with the death of Leta in CoG but I am not sure that played an important part in this movie.

 

He is basically helping Dumbledore. That's it. Story reason was because Dumbledore can't move against Grindelwald but that problem was resolved with this movie.

 

 

[ThomasNicole]

43 minutes ago, Noctis said:

@AJG why did you keep saying that it starting at 83% with 50 reviews on RT as bad? There are 1000+ verified audience voters, and it's gone up to 85%.

Because it is. 

 

For a blockbuster anything below 90% is bad, especially during OW which always have fans inflating scores. It have a very good chance to drop to 80% or less in the next weeks. 

 

But at this point it doesn't really matter. We have Cinemascore now and it's very bad, so this is it.

 

Warner needs to change this crew, Yates shouldn't be directing this franchise for nearly 2 decades, JK shouldn't be writing because she doesn't know how to write screenplays etc. 

 

Critics ultimately doesn't matter commercially, but this is the second movie in a row that audiences simply didn't liked very much. If they decided to keep this franchise going on, changes must be made, a third bad received movie would be a disaster.

[Menor the Destroyer]

30 minutes ago, TheBigYawn said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This could be just my interpretation, but I read the intention of making the blood pact in the first place to prevent one of them from attacking/betraying the other, if one of them should have a change of heart. When their spells clashed together, however, it seems to me the blood pact "sensed" mutual betrayal from both parts, as in the loyalty bond they once shared when creating the pact finally got broken for good. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought that aligned somewhat with the "he sought to kill, I sought to protect" explanation Dumbledore gave that shifted the balance of the pact to break. It couldn't stop them both from fighting if they attacked simultaneously, I suppose, so instead it broke. 

 

Spoiler

I guess it can work, it just felt really anticlimactic to me. Of course it had to be broken but I thought there would be more buildup and development for such an important story event. 

 

[Noctis]

Aside from Kama, is Leta addressed in this movie?

[Menor the Destroyer]

25 minutes ago, WeThrones said:

The fact is Newt had nothing to do with this war against Grindelwald. They tried to give him some motivation with the death of Leta in CoG but I am not sure that played an important part in this movie.

 

He is basically helping Dumbledore. That's it. Story reason was because Dumbledore can't move against Grindelwald but that problem was resolved with this movie.

 

 

Yeah, the fact that Leta's death played such a small role in this was weird considering how important she was to both Newt and Theseus. 

 

That said, I generally think that Newt's arc of "guy who just wants to do his thing off to the side is forced to take up arms" is a pretty compelling one on paper, it's just been lost with all of the other stuff going on in this series. 

[Felipe]

15 minutes ago, Noctis said:

Aside from Kama, is Leta addressed in this movie?

Spoiler

I think Dumbledore mentioned her death too.

 

[Felipe]

16 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:

Yeah, the fact that Leta's death played such a small role in this was weird considering how important she was to both Newt and Theseus. 

 

That said, I generally think that Newt's arc of "guy who just wants to do his thing off to the side is forced to take up arms" is a pretty compelling one on paper, it's just been lost with all of the other stuff going on in this series. 

Spoiler

It's easy to miss, but Newt no longer asks Dumbledore questions. He follows him blindly, even if it jeopardizes what he holds most dear (his creatures). He chose his side and did everything he could to help. It's subtle, but it's there.

 

[dudalb]

I don't find any of the arguments for why Warners should make a fourth film to be convincing given Dumbledore looks like it wiil be a failure at the box office.. Guess it's the first stage of griving:Denial.

Warners will almost certainly take the WW ina new direction if they decide to go ahead instead of taking a break. or maybe both.

[WeThrones]

What failure in this new era even means? Best case scenario for this movie was $500M and even that wasn't enough to break even.

 

 

[dudalb]

27 minutes ago, WeThrones said:

What failure in this new era even means? Best case scenario for this movie was $500M and even that wasn't enough to break even.

 

 

Losing a lot of money is a failure, in any era.

[WeThrones]

But almost all their movies are losing money now.

 

Production of this movie started before pandemic, they already tried to reduce cost, but COVID and Depp ruined that.

 

They knew they wouldn't break even. I don't believe they were that delusional to expect more than $500M when just 5 movies earned that.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by WeThrones