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

[TheDarkKnightOfSteel]

WB is a company. At the end of the day all they care about is making money and that beautiful green arrow besides their name in the stock market. They won't break ties with JKR. Maybe she will after this.

 

And these actors are a company as well. Or maybe a brand. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a talk with Rowling before making their statements. Watson spent Halloween  with her.

 

In any case, all these years I though HP had the most loyal fandom. Never would have thought that this is what would divide them one day.

[lorddemaxus]

WB didn't mention this movie at all during yesterday's release date changes announcement. I'm wondering if they are geniunely contemplating on whether or not to go ahead with this movie. I really don't see this reaching the Nov date with less than a year of post-production.

Edited June 13, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[clockwork]

8 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

WB didn't mention this movie at all during yesterday's release date changes announcement. I'm wondering if they are geniunely contemplating on whether or not to go ahead with this movie. I really don't see this reaching the Nov date with less than a year of post-production.

Another possibility is they might just put this franchise on hold and go back to the drawing board to try and fix it. Cancelling it will certainly be a another black mark on their record since they foolishly announced they wanted to do 5 movies a while back, and going forward with this third movie attempting to continue plot threads that weren't well received in the previous one could end in an underperformance at best or a flop at worst if it went to theaters. There is a possibility they just end up doing a soft reboot that shifts focus, try to make a fun adventure story that has little connection to the previous movie (especially TCOG). 

[Macleod]

8 hours ago, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

WB is a company. At the end of the day all they care about is making money and that beautiful green arrow besides their name in the stock market. They won't break ties with JKR. Maybe she will after this.

 

And these actors are a company as well. Or maybe a brand. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a talk with Rowling before making their statements. Watson spent Halloween  with her.

Explains why Watson's comment was so "diplomatic" and interchangeable, and thus really meaningless in terms of words. 

[Macleod]

6 hours ago, clockwork said:

Another possibility is they might just put this franchise on hold and go back to the drawing board to try and fix it. Cancelling it will certainly be a another black mark on their record since they foolishly announced they wanted to do 5 movies a while back, and going forward with this third movie attempting to continue plot threads that weren't well received in the previous one could end in an underperformance at best or a flop at worst if it went to theaters. There is a possibility they just end up doing a soft reboot that shifts focus, try to make a fun adventure story that has little connection to the previous movie (especially TCOG). 

Anything's possible, but yes -- studios rarely announce that they're actually "canceling" movies in development.  You just...stop hearing about them.  Obviously if this one happens at all, massive changes are afoot.  But my bet is now that it won't happen at all... I think the only thing Potter-related that WB will ultimately shoot in the next few years, if anything at all, will be an 'Old Harry' follow-up. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Macleod

[clockwork]

45 minutes ago, Macleod said:

Studios rarely announce that they're actually "canceling" movies in development.  You just...stop hearing about them.  Obviously if this one happens at all, massive changes are afoot. 

 Yeah, I don't remember the last time Warner Brothers came out and explicitly cancelled a movie or franchise.

 

45 minutes ago, Macleod said:

I think the only thing Potter-related that WB will ultimately shoot in the next few years, if anything at all, will be an 'Old Harry' follow-up. 

Even if they were to do this I bet they wouldn't want Rowling involved much if at all. I imagine somebody at WB is really considering how much its worth keeping her around in the long run. Star Wars can survive without George Lucas and even when he was in control he wasn't the main one coming up with every piece of content in the universe, he let other people be involved and create their own stories within that galaxy. I think this world has much potential beyond what Rowling started with, let other creators chip in and expand it.

Edited June 13, 2020 by clockwork

[Napoleon]

According to Variety, shooting did start before the shutdown:

Quote

Despite the poor reception and performance of “Crimes of Grindelwald,” and the 2019 departure of Warner Bros. chief Kevin Tsujihara — a major champion of the series at the studio — the third “Fantastic Beasts” installment began filming in Iceland in March, with Depp still aboard, and “Harry Potter” screenwriter Steve Kloves joining Rowling on screenwriting duties. But the COVID-19 pandemic promptly shut down production just as soon as it had started.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-fantastic-beasts-harry-potter-1234630008/

 

 

If this is accurate could WB still be able to cancel the movie?

[Gazer365]

5 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

According to Variety, shooting did start before the shutdown:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-fantastic-beasts-harry-potter-1234630008/

 

 

If this is accurate could WB still be able to cancel the movie?

 Shooting was barely just about to start right before everything shut down, so nothing has been filmed at all really. I imagine some pre-production was done but has barely been utilized at all so they could cancel the movie, or return in a year or two and rework the story to move in a different direction.

[Macleod]

On 6/13/2020 at 3:19 PM, Napoleon said:

According to Variety, shooting did start before the shutdown:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-fantastic-beasts-harry-potter-1234630008/

 

 

If this is accurate could WB still be able to cancel the movie?

There's never an obligation to complete a movie once you've started from the studio's perspective.  They can cancel it anytime they want.  For bond insurers/financiers, they might have clauses that entitle them to get paid... but it really will be up to Warner Bros., how much it is all worth to them to continue...or scrap. 

[dudalb]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 12:19 PM, Napoleon said:

According to Variety, shooting did start before the shutdown:

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-fantastic-beasts-harry-potter-1234630008/

 

 

If this is accurate could WB still be able to cancel the movie?

Legally WB can cancel a movie at any time. It a question of do they want to eat the costs or not.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Legally WB can cancel a movie at any time. It a question of do they want to eat the costs or not.

Not sure about that.

 

Take Dwayne Johnson Red Notice, when Universal walked out the movie was not cancelled, they had the ability to sell it around.

 

In the past those movies were made under a first look deal I think, they could not look around for an other financer-distributor before pitching the script to WB that were able to say yes first.

 

Considering how strong as a position Rowling had in 2013 when negotiating this deal and how protective of the movie/property she has been historically, it would not surprise me if :

WB cannot do a movie she does not approve

Can start make them elsewhere if WB walk out of them (a bit like Marvel win back the Spider adaptation right the moment Sony stop making large budget Spider Man movies but in even better term).

 

[Barnack]

21 hours ago, Macleod said:

There's never an obligation to complete a movie once you've started from the studio's perspective.  They can cancel it anytime they want. 

I am not sure how much of this hold up in general (in general movies are not made but the studio), they often have the legal obligation to distribute and to pay for production, before the movie start production.

 

You can still cancel (legal obligation are only that), specially if you have deep pocket:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50369484#:~:text=Woody Allen settles %2468m lawsuit with Amazon over movie deal,-10 November 2019&text=Amazon argued that his comments,case against him in 1992. Or if your partner require to keep a good name with you or the industry, they will often not go to court, big player disrespect clear contract close all the time.

 

Potter could be different and more like disney, it is a very rare non-disney modern case of a movie all financed by WB without much partnering going on, but with immensely powerful producers.

 

But in the more generic case, studio obligation when very powerful people are attached to a project probably often look like this:

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/RISKMGMT/Margie Salcido/Kate/Acq-to be entered/Columbia -American Hustle- Fully-Executed.pdf

 

If the movie follow an accepted script, fit inside a pre-determined run time, with an accepted main element crew/cast, made in a budget rande, is delivered within the date, pass a required MPAA level, the money put in advanced in a fiduciary will be transferred to pay the debt the production incurred and will be distributed to the amount of theater before date X, outside a force majeure event or "else". Section 13 describe event that cause a Default that liberate them of their obligation.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Barnack

[Titan Man]

Lol, have people gone completely insane these days? WB is not cancelling a major franchise for their studio and firing their golden goose over a Twitter mob's daily harassment of someone they disagree with. You can disagree with a person without having a need to burn them and their work out of existence, you know? And I don't think what she said is such an unpopular opinion among the general public. I have issues with Rowling, but it concerns her support of conservative economic policies over the last couple of years even though she, when she was at her rock bottom, benefited from many social programs the Tories are trying to cut. I don't care about her opinion on a multilayered topic for which there is no correct or scientific answer. I would understand the outrage if she was offensive or deeply disrespectful, but she really wasn't. People should just grow up and understand that there are people with different opinions and just move on with their lives without burning books...

[WittyUsername]

30 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

Lol, have people gone completely insane these days? WB is not cancelling a major franchise for their studio and firing their golden goose over a Twitter mob's daily harassment of someone they disagree with. You can disagree with a person without having a need to burn them and their work out of existence, you know? And I don't think what she said is such an unpopular opinion among the general public. I have issues with Rowling, but it concerns her support of conservative economic policies over the last couple of years even though she, when she was at her rock bottom, benefited from many social programs the Tories are trying to cut. I don't care about her opinion on a multilayered topic for which there is no correct or scientific answer. I would understand the outrage if she was offensive or deeply disrespectful, but she really wasn't. People should just grow up and understand that there are people with different opinions and just move on with their lives without burning books...

It seems like people are mad at J.K. Rowling about this because of her self-proclaimed status as a feminist and activist. A person like Ricky Gervais has said worse things about transgender people, but he’s still doing pretty well, which I guess is because he’s built his career off of being edgy and offensive, so people expect that from him. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

41 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

Lol, have people gone completely insane these days? WB is not cancelling a major franchise for their studio and firing their golden goose over a Twitter mob's daily harassment of someone they disagree with. You can disagree with a person without having a need to burn them and their work out of existence, you know? And I don't think what she said is such an unpopular opinion among the general public. I have issues with Rowling, but it concerns her support of conservative economic policies over the last couple of years even though she, when she was at her rock bottom, benefited from many social programs the Tories are trying to cut. I don't care about her opinion on a multilayered topic for which there is no correct or scientific answer. I would understand the outrage if she was offensive or deeply disrespectful, but she really wasn't. People should just grow up and understand that there are people with different opinions and just move on with their lives without burning books...

Of course WB wouldn't cancel Fantastic Beasts movies only because of JKR's thoughts on transgender issues. WB would move on from Fantastic Beasts if they felt there was no saving the downward trajectory of an expensive franchise (especially when no one knows how movie attendance will be for the next year or two), or wanted to dump JKR as a screenwriter because many of the issues that fans have had with the movies so far have come down to the scripts. It's not like FB3 wasn't having issues and holdups even before this latest controversy, and Covid...

Edited June 15, 2020 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[Menor the Destroyer]

39 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

Lol, have people gone completely insane these days? WB is not cancelling a major franchise for their studio and firing their golden goose over a Twitter mob's daily harassment of someone they disagree with. You can disagree with a person without having a need to burn them and their work out of existence, you know? And I don't think what she said is such an unpopular opinion among the general public. I have issues with Rowling, but it concerns her support of conservative economic policies over the last couple of years even though she, when she was at her rock bottom, benefited from many social programs the Tories are trying to cut. I don't care about her opinion on a multilayered topic for which there is no correct or scientific answer. I would understand the outrage if she was offensive or deeply disrespectful, but she really wasn't. People should just grow up and understand that there are people with different opinions and just move on with their lives without burning books...

Just because you deem an issue irrelevant doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to do so. 

[Titan Man]

7 minutes ago, Menor said:

Just because you deem an issue irrelevant doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to do so. 

Where have you read the word "irrelevant" in my post? I specifically wrote the opposite, I said it was multilayered and complicated. Why are people feeling obliged to write an opinion about something they didn't even bother reading? It's not that long of a post, give it another try, you'll get there... I guess it's just easier for you to spin the story and call me transphobic or whatever without addressing the substance of my post.

[Titan Man]

20 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

It seems like people are mad at J.K. Rowling about this because of her self-proclaimed status as a feminist and activist. A person like Ricky Gervais has said worse things about transgender people, but he’s still doing pretty well, which I guess is because he’s built his career off of being edgy and offensive, so people expect that from him. 

Well, you can be an activist in one field and not give a shit about other things. I think the same outrage would be reserved for other people who are not J.K.
As I said, I'm not a big fan of her politics, but she has a right to voice her opinion without getting harassed online for it.

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

Not sure about that.

 

Take Dwayne Johnson Red Notice, when Universal walked out the movie was not cancelled, they had the ability to sell it around.

 

In the past those movies were made under a first look deal I think, they could not look around for an other financer-distributor before pitching the script to WB that were able to say yes first.

 

Considering how strong as a position Rowling had in 2013 when negotiating this deal and how protective of the movie/property she has been historically, it would not surprise me if :

WB cannot do a movie she does not approve

Can start make them elsewhere if WB walk out of them (a bit like Marvel win back the Spider adaptation right the moment Sony stop making large budget Spider Man movies but in even better term).

 

I think you are missing the point. 

WB can cancel a film at just about any point legally, in reality it's very difficult from a economic standpoint to do so.

1 hour ago, Titan Man said:

Lol, have people gone completely insane these days? WB is not cancelling a major franchise for their studio and firing their golden goose over a Twitter mob's daily harassment of someone they disagree with. You can disagree with a person without having a need to burn them and their work out of existence, you know? And I don't think what she said is such an unpopular opinion among the general public. I have issues with Rowling, but it concerns her support of conservative economic policies over the last couple of years even though she, when she was at her rock bottom, benefited from many social programs the Tories are trying to cut. I don't care about her opinion on a multilayered topic for which there is no correct or scientific answer. I would understand the outrage if she was offensive or deeply disrespectful, but she really wasn't. People should just grow up and understand that there are people with different opinions and just move on with their lives without burning books...

Question is is the goose that golden given the underperformance of the last film in the franchise.

If the last film had been a huge hit,we would not even be having this discussion.

I think the franchise was having problems before Rowling's comments;she just made things worse.

Edited June 15, 2020 by dudalb

[Menor the Destroyer]

1 hour ago, Titan Man said:

Where have you read the word "irrelevant" in my post? I specifically wrote the opposite, I said it was multilayered and complicated. Why are people feeling obliged to write an opinion about something they didn't even bother reading? It's not that long of a post, give it another try, you'll get there... I guess it's just easier for you to spin the story and call me transphobic or whatever without addressing the substance of my post.

I didn't word it well, but what I meant was that people have plenty of reason and right to be offended by her comments even if you consider her opinion irrelevant. Her most recent post was full of dogwhistles and junk statistics. And I never said you were transphobic so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.