Fantastic Beasts 3

TheIrishGrover

Wow, that is poor. And it's not like that can blame a crowded release timetable or pandemic.

I enjoyed the Potter movies more and more as they went on. I mean, they wouldn't be in my favourites but I enjoyed them. The leads were engaging. There was an interesting (of derivative and predictable) sorry arc that did not pander to is initial core audience of kids. I was fun for all the family.

However these always just came across as a case of "Well, we paid a LOT of money for the rights. We are going to make as many damn movies/series/games/other as we can"

I only saw the first in its entirety and about 2/3 of the second one before getting bored.

The leads character was not nearly as likeable as the main leads in Potter (I know this was intentional but it was an odd choice).

The overall time of the movies (at least the first two) was odd. Too dull for kids and scattershot for adults. No coherent flow from start to finish. Just tenuous reasons to go from one magical setpiece/creature to another.

How can you plan to make five movies without a plan? Compare the long but well structured Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Their extended versions even longer but somehow making some storylines tighter (Faramir/Boromir/Denethor scene). They had years to tweak and prune as they shopped it around to studios. Then look at the board Hobbit trilogy. Should have been just one movie. Yep mid-length movies TOPS but instead we got a bloated, indulgent trilogy almost as long as the original.

TLDR: Strange tone. Bloated and poorly planned series based on minimal material.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119035510#Comment_119035510

I came very late to the Potter movies, only watching any of them after Deathly Hallows Pt 2 was already well in the rearview; never bought into the hype for the books so was somewhat put off by all that breathless hype. Now though the series is an automatic choice at Christmas, with the economy of the story part of the charm of it all ... while broadly speaking the series persists now as something of an industry outlier: a significant series that allowed its directors to put their own approximate stamp on things - with Alfonso Cuarón's stint on Prisoner of Azkaban being the most distinct. The first two movies remain a total, godawful chore to watch mind you, but the rest all felt like different beasts within the same overall story.

The problem here, as far as I read it, is JK Rowling herself: the controversy of her opinions aside, like George Lucas she's kind of holding back her own franchise - and is the worst choice to adapt any of it as a result. Outside of the films she has brought ridicule for weird canon announcements on Twitter like how Wizards shít on the floor and magic it away; but Warners allowing her to write the screenplays for Fantastic Beasts has been an awful idea. There's plenty of salt about her talent as a novelist, but she clearly can't write a screenplay worth a damn - and it takes some doing to even miss the miss the mark of your own film's title or premise. As you say, too dull for kids, too incoherent for adults.

TheIrishGrover

I didn't know that Rowling was involved in the writing of the screenplay. TBH, as long as her beliefs are not thrust upon the story, I really don't care about her opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you agree with them or not. (But there is no doubt this took the sheen off the whole Potterverse).

However, yeah, sometimes the originator is not the best person to continue a story. Especially if moving from one medium to another. I know this is not an adaptation as there is no source novel (Tangential novels and various posts/spin-off "technical" publishings but no full-on novels) but there is a hell of a difference between writing novels and writing/adapting screenplays. Novels can be much more complex narratively than a movie. Even a series of movies. This is not that old "Books are better than movies/movies are better than books" chestnut. I love movies, I love reading. But I treat them as entirely different entities. I am not too precious about adaptation. As a matter of fact I find that very interesting. When reading a book (Especially if I know it is going to be adapted) I often think "How would they include this in the movie?" In Lord of The Rings for example I wondered how they would treat the Ents. Great on paper but could have looked silly and boring on screen for those who have not read the books "OK, I can deal with elves and dwarves and stuff. But walking/talking trees? I'm outahere". Or thinking about gender-swapping a role. If it is done for narrative purposes (Say for example, to differentiate one originally male buff warrior character from another similar buff warrior character) then I'm OK with this. The books have time to explain how these seemingly similar characters are quite different, but a movie has a MUCH more condensed time window to differentiate them. Same with merging characters. Having two minor characters performing one function each may work on paper. Wouldn't work in 2/5 hour movie.

So yeah, BIG difference between writing a novel and writing a screenplay. Of course it can be done. (Neil Gaiman does both and I believe he was even involved with the westernisation adaptation/translation of Princess Mononoke) but not everyone can or should do it. I had not heard about those weird posting such as taking a shìt. Bizzare.

And some people can come up with great story ideas and simply be terrible writers. Case in point, Lucas. Good ideas but TERRIBLE writer of dialogue. (I know it's not dialogue but I always remember, even as a kid when the original Star Wars trilogy was coming out, thinking that, as cool as the name "Luke Skywalker" was, it was a bit convenient that it was THAT cool. Remember wondering would the movies have had the same impact if he was called Brian O'Sulivan 😀).

So yeah WAAAAY TLDR: Just 'cos you created something or wrote the book, doesn't mean you are the best person to adapt/continue the story.

jo187

Agree with everyone. Overall a bizzare series.

A ok first one that laid the ground work and established Newt. Then a second one that just did it's own thing and pushed Newt in the background and this boring dull dud to end it all.

David yates have to take some of the blame. The films looks so drab. Thought after the second one they bring in some fresh blood but probably at JK request Yates is back. Despite having the same writer and director for three of the films they still ended up unconnected and a mess.

If the cursed child does happen hopefully Yates will not be directing it.

~Rebel~

I found it somewhat ok, but mostly just in comparison to the second which was absolutely atrocious. This was still only a 5/10 or so for me though... way too long, and large chunks of it were pointless and just there to have something happening. There was maybe the basis for a decent 90 or 100 minute movie in there, instead of a baggy and messy 143 minutes.

Also not sure about the merits of leaving the selection of your political leadership up to the whims of magical baby dear.

The whole 'Fantastic Beasts' concept is to the direct detriment of the series, as they feel the need to shoe-horn in all these creatures instead of just telling the actual story they're trying to tell.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119194161#Comment_119194161

The obsession with hiring David Yates, had been bizarre. His style kinda suited the back half of Potter, when things were getting serious and chaotic, but the man clearly doesn't have an ounce of sparkle or whimsy in his repertoire; Fantastic Beasts looking drab and often boring, everything very unimaginative. Which is kind of criminal in a series about magic. I wonder is Yates best friends with Rowling or something.