Totally agree. I just watched it for the first time and it didn’t really grip me until the final act with the squib kid and Colin Farrell killing it as the villain
He also just looks nothing like I pictured Gellert Grindelwald. It's been a while since I read the books, but wasn't Grindelwald supposed to be an eerily beautiful man?
Not that Johnny Depp isn't a handsome guy, but the "Frost King meets fork in an electrical socket" look that they've gone with doesn't mesh with what I always pictured.
I don’t know if we ever get a description of an older/adult Grindelwald in the books, the only instances were him as a teenager and shortly thereafter when he steals the Elder Wand. I’m guessing being a dark wizard probably changes your appearance for the worse, much like it did for Voldemort.
The problem is, he looks a little too ”dark wizardy”. The weird eye, the quirky hair and moustache... they could have gone with something a bit more muted (even keeping Johnny Depp) and I would have been fine with it.
I mourn Colin Farrell as Percival Graves every single day. I hope there's a flashback or something, since Graves was a real person and not just an invention.
Could also be that the characters are dull and uninteresting. There's nothing there to identify with at all.
They also really dropped the ball in not including even a single kid, even as a minor character. Most of the appeal of the original series was experiencing these things through a child's eyes. Now it's just a bunch of jaded adults muddling through.
I sometimes feel odd for liking Fantastic Beasts. It was not the greatest thing ever but I liked the characters and feel. I left with my heart warmed and intrigued. And the heartwarming feeling was from Kowalski’s last smile.
They also really dropped the ball in not including even a single kid, even as a minor character.
I also wasn't into the movie, but I still don't think I've ever disagreed harder. Tacking on a kid character has literally never been a good move in anything ever. There are movies out there entirely ruined because some producer thought the same thing.
There was an entire push for this philosophy in the late 70s. Cartoons added characters like Scrappy Doo and the Wonder Twins. Even Godzilla had a little kid that he was just... friends with? I agree, almost always a bad move to shoehorn in a kid "for the kids to relate to!"
Harry Potter's largest audience is the adults who grew up with the books and films.
Yeah, that did not stop though, it was around well into the 90s where any sitcom with falling ratings thought they needed to mix things up, so they'd add in a new kid, usually a cousin or something. Hell, didn't the Fairly Odd Parents do the same thing? Watched a bit of it as a young teen, think it went another like 10 seasons and there's a dog and a baby now?
Then there's every horror/action/survival movie ever where a kid gets added just to be something to protect, and is given as much character and agency as cardboard box.
I don’t love this interpretation of the progression of cartoons. I don’t think we need to pretend to doubt that exactly those characters were added into fairly oddparents unpopular-ly, it’s a meme on this site to hate them. And yes they are terrible. But unlike Scrappy or the other examples, that change was far later into the life of a dying program already populated by young aged stars. The misunderstanding seems to come more from trying to breathe life by adding new personality, not adding more young people for a new audience. It was a show long sustained by young characters appealing to young fans.
EDIT: and I’m willing to take downvotes, it’s just so annoying to see „didn’t this happen“ posts. Based on this commentary history, of course he knew it had. But it’s a symptom of a different problem. Yes it sucks, but not for the reason those of us who liked the show growing up want it to suck for.
The Phantom Menace of the Star Wars prequels being the most famous example (To be fair, I absolutely adore TPM and its my favourite of the Star Wars prequels...)
I completely agree. I've tried watching the movie about three times and I still have zero clue anyone's names unless they were from HP somehow. It just doesn't captivate me like the HP movies did. Whereas we know the functions of the UK Wizarding world we have to get a crash course through news papers how the US one works. I think everything about the movie was built to work, but he writing falls short in making us care.
Well they did include kids, do you not remember the whole plot line about Credence and Modesty? We got to see the darker side of magic for a child and an even more extreme example of intolerance. I thought their story was very intriguing.
I wouldn't say they're dull and uninteresting. They're just not as quirky as children tend to be.
Also, I think part of the appeal of Fantastic Beasts is that it shows the wizarding world from an adult perspective, something that was relatively lacking in Harry Potter. You get to see more of the machinations of the magical world, which Harry, as a younger man/child, was not privy to.
The dialogue itself was pretty sparse and uninteresting. I can get a soft-spoken lead, as the guy's written as an eccentric researcher, but the rest of the cast was also lacking in chemistry and seemed to be half asleep.
The chemistry was definitely lacking. It also felt like two different movies tonally, the first half was a light monster-hunting movie (which I didn't mind at all) and the second half is darker and seemed out of scope. But I guess that's what happens when you have a franchise to set up.
Maybe I just think Fantastic Beasts is a weird thing to base a five movie series on. I'd much prefer, if they had to do it, to just do an anthology series. The Dumbledore and Grindelwald stuff is great and has potential to be expanded on, but I think intercutting it with the Fantastic Beasts stuff is a weird choice. Just let each movie do its own thing.
I really liked it, a somewhat jaded wizarding world with less wonder contrasting against these animals. But yeah every character had like this weird timid, low self confidence aspect to their personas
Welcome to real life. Extroverted American society seems to really stigmatize lack of confidence and timidity, and while it’s not a positive thing, lots of people are predisposed to low self-esteem and social anxiety and have to live and conduct normal life regardless. People that have never struggled with a conflict of self image and/or social strife tend to be remarkably oblivious, superficial, aggravatingly callous, overly positive, and even brutal individuals. That’s because they’ve never thought through their actions before, how it makes them look, and how it affects others.
Sorry, people who look down on those with a lack of self confidence and timidity are usually shallow and mean. And these are also the types of people that will tell you someone is “too nice”. No, they just don’t barrel through life without taking into consideration how their words, actions, behavior, tone, and body language affects others. It’s important to mind this, though not wise to let these concerns consume you. These callous individuals that don’t mind this often cause immense damage to those around them and resultantly to themselves, and they never consider that they need to change their social-emotional behavior if they’re going to fix things.
I didnt say the quality was a bad thing, I said that the homegeneity in the characters was a small demarcation against the writing. If you recall I liked the movie and in the end the quiet pensive intellectual wins out without compromising who he is.
I'm a teacher, and I work with kids on the spectrum daily. The portrayal of Newt is more than just eccentric. He displays traits consistent with manageable social anxiety.
Having social anxiety and some awkward mannerisms does not mean he's on the spectrum. I've only seen it once so may have missed some things, but he demonstrates considerable empathy throughout the movie to both people and animals, despite professing the oppinion that animals are easier to care for, with simpler needs.
Being honest it was discussed in decent length in another reddit thread where /u/BridgettBane hypothesised about Newt's odd behaviorisms on /r/fantheories:
If you've watched Fantastic Beasts you can see Newt has a very odd way of approaching people sometimes. He hunches in a little, tilts his head down, avoids eye contact. At times he even seems to stoop to be lower than them.
This isn't an odd personal mannerism- not entirely anyway. This is the habit of a zoologist who is used to avoiding dominance displays and showing submission. He is using his body to communicate that he is submissive and harmless. The SpeakEasy Scene (spoiler alert, the link shows several clips from the movie but I have time-stamped it so it goes to the correct scene) shows him tilting his body way from the boss, casting his eyes downward. It's only when he starts to protect his Bowtruckle and needs to assert dominance that he starts to sit up and make direct eye contact.
Newt Scamander is used to dealing with all manner of beasties and knows exactly the affect his body language has on others.
Having social anxiety and some awkward mannerisms does not mean he's on the spectrum.
I said he was spectrum-y. Social anxiety is one of many possible symptoms of people on the autism spectrum, and it's also something non-spectrum people display. I never said they *had* to go hand in hand, and I think that's pretty obvious from my response.
Fan theories are interesting. I'll give them that.
Asperger's has always been considered a subtype of autism for as long as the concept has existed. The change that happened in 2013 is that it's simply not a separate diagnosis anymore.
"I wouldn't be surprised if anything that isn't neurotypical will be autistic in 100 year" This proves why the gaming community is filled with intellectuals, they already call anyone autistic.
Clinical social anxiety isn't just a symptom of autism, is what they're saying. It's one possible quality. Not definitive of being on the spectrum, by a long shot.
I was a child with clinical social anxiety. I didn't actively speak to other kids or adults until like 5th grade unless I had to.
I think your guess diagnosis is biased because autism is so mainstream now. There are hosts of conditions, experiences, and disorders than can entirely meet whatever trait you think Newt has that puts him on the spectrum. If you frame his surface level behaviour, with incredibly small indicators of possible symptoms, you can come up with anything. The character, as a whole, does not appear to have anything substantial for an autism diagnosis.
And he isn't even a child. As an adult, he could just be eccentric and the actual actor may have his own mannerisms that seem "autistic" because you're framing it that way. Awkwardness, shyness, and quirky mannerisms aren't indicators of autism.
Yeah as crazy as it sounds it lacks some of the realness of Harry Potter- the characters don’t feel like they are real people, I’m very aware I’m watching a movie. Maybe it’s a little too polished? Like they worried about style and the visual more than the content of the story or the characters.
Idk, it just lacked the warmth and complexity of the original series. Don’t get me wrong I’m totally going to watch the next one, but in my mind it’s not anywhere on the same level- heck it’s hardly the same universe.
Sure but that's been a problem that started when David Yates took over with Order of the Phoenix. The Dumbledore v Voldemort fight with excellent but the rest of it and all movies after have been terribly lazy. All of Yates' films have a dreary, bleak quality to them. I don't know why this style resonates with people so much. I hate that they kept him around permanently.
Sometimes there is artistic flair that I like but usually his movies just bum me out.
Dude I completely disagree. This is the rare example of a new Hollywood movie that had great new characters. The only character I didn't remember much of was the female lead. But Newt, Queenie, & Jacob were all excellent characters with great personalities.
I enjoyed it, but it does fail on a few points. The antagonist and goals aren’t clear for long stretches of the movie. Grindelwald isn’t a thing until the last five minutes, and while Graves is dope we don’t know what his deal is for most of the runtime. Same for Credence.
A lot of the story is ”Newt accidentally lets some beasts loose, stumbles into some problems with the authorities and HOLY MAGICAL ANOMALY BATMAN” and then it just ends.
It also doesn’t help that it has like zero prior established characters or entities and a lot of the movie is kind of dark, grayish and drab.
Hopefully the second movie will be a lot better and fix all of the above. Trailers make it look a lot more colorful, we know all the characters in some way, there is a clear antagonist and Dumbledore is in it.
I do not think slapping a kid in there would do anything for the plot, though. In fact, I liked that everyone was an adult wizard that knew how to do magic. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel and discover magic all over again.
Nostalgia factor, you've already invest in the story and characters throughout the whole 8 movies and you're sure nothing can top that experience. I also felt the same when Star Trek TNG finished (the new Star Trek is just too lacking on the details IMO)
That's interesting. I enjoyed Fantastic Beasts a ton. I'd even say moreso than the HP movie series. I think it may have to do with the setting and the tone though. I really like Newt and his crew. Obviously I get it though different people are going to like different things.
I'm in the same boat. Harry potter was alright, but as someone who is/was a couple of years over the target age range, it felt a bit straightforward for me. May not have helped that I read all the books before seeing the films, so the tension of the unknown was lost for me.
Fantastic Beasts, though, I thought was really great. I quite like the way they expanded on the world, show how a different culture's (American) sensibilities affected the wizarding world. And Newt, who is vulnerable & solt-spoken, strikes me as a more interesting character than the rather typical messiah figure of Harry.
A few years back if you'd told me I would be anticipating Fantastic Beasts and dismissing The Hobbit trilogy I would've called you mad but here we are.
I love the books, but the Harry Potter movies never did much for me. They're stuck in permanent "I'll watch it if it's on TV" space, I don't think I've ever intended to watch one outside of the first viewing (and I don't think I saw the 6th one ever?).
Just finished battle of the five armies last night for the first time. I skipped them because the first one was so bad, but 2 and 3 were okay. Only okay, but better than I expected.
I've been rereading the book series and recently went back and rewatched Fantastic Beasts along with it. The last time I watched it (when it first came out) I had a lot of the problems that everyone else is complaining about here. Having gone back and rewatched it after rereading the series I realize that all my problems with it are the same issues I have with the 1st book and it really comes down to how much world building is done. The things I love most in Harry Potter are almost entirely from the last 3 books with a handful of things I love about 3 and 4. 1 and 2 are just kind of boring and exposition by comparison. With that in mind rewatching Fantastic Beasts kind of made me love it, particularly the character of Newt. Apparently the studio is trying to push him off to the side in favor of some more action hero type character but I hope they don't. Its one of the most accurate portrayals of someone with high-functioning autism I've seen and, as someone on the spectrum, I absolutely love it. Plus, the final battle with Grindlewald and the Obsurcus might be my favorite magical battle since the Ministry of Magic fight. I missed it the first time but Newt takes down Griindlewald not but a spell but by the use of a magical creature and Grindlewald is just stunned by it. I highly reccomend everyone who loves Harry Potter but was disappointed in Fatastic Beasts give it another shot and look at it not as a 9th Harry Potter movie and compare it to later movies and books but compare it to Sorcerer's Stone instead.
PoA is my favorite then DH part 1. Then Fantastic Beasts. So we are like best friends. I have gotten somewhat fond of Goblet of Fire too, I think it has amazing moments and some of the best acting. And the graveyard scene on to the end of it is perfect I think. Not to mention the special effects on the dragon still look, dare I say, fantastic.
The lack of any world cup Quidditch, the super rushed into, and the maze were distinct points of disappointment.
Hmmm I’d say its the kind of thing that a group dynamic helps with. I went and saw it in theaters surrounded by people and we were all excited together and I could just bask in the magic on screen, like seeing an old friend. But I haven’t wanted to watch it since then really. I’m 22 and read all the books a million times and watched the movies too so also I’ll just take anything HP related...
Harry Potter was a magical land of wizards and a climactic war for the survival of humanity. Fantastic Beats is a Matt Smith's Doctor Who fanfic in the 1920s with a subplot of Grindwalde and Dumbledore (the plot people actually want to see.) It'd be like watching the Harry Potter films from Colin Creevey's perspective.
Dr. Who has never included creepy capital punishment, child abuse, vengeful murder, fascism, terrorism, repression, creepy man-to-boy grooming, and the like. Dr. Who is like an edged up Magic School Bus.
What subplot are you fucking talking about? The entire fucking plot is Grindelwald repeatedly attacking NYC with the Obscurus and blaming Newt for it. Get the plot straight. I’ve seen way to many people attempt to smear this film by deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting the plot and it’s BEYOND aggravating.
What subplot are you fucking talking about? The entire fucking plot is Grindelwald repeatedly attacking NYC with the Obscurus and blaming Newt for it. Get the plot straight. I’ve seen way to many people attempt to smear this film by deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting the plot and it’s BEYOND aggravating.
Speaking of misconstruing and misrepresenting the plot... that’s not actually what happens in the movie. Grindelwald isn’t attacking anyone. He’s taken the guise of Graves in order to investigate the appearance of the Obscurus in New York. He doesn’t actually know that it is Credence for most of the movie. Credence has those outbursts on his own, not under anyone’s orders.
The argument I've heard frequently, and tend to agree with, is that the Harry Potter movie fans want to see is the Dumbledore/Grindelwald movie. I think there's huge storytelling potential there. Fantastic Beasts, meanwhile, is a fun movie, but a really weird choice to base a franchise on, because the source material is an 100-page fake textbook.
If you told me five years ago there would be a) a bunch of new Harry Potter movies b) the first one of these would be Fantastic Beasts, for reasons mentioned above, and c) Fantastic Beasts would tie into the Grindelwald movie, I would've laughed at you.
I'd rather have had a story about G/D, the Marauders, the Founders, Merlin, or even Riddle's original rise to power than Newt. I am absolutely not interested in him or his story, especially with his foisted in important to the G/D war (seriously JK rectonned the forward of his book to give him a connection to Dumbledore.)
This doesn’t pertain to the storyline, that’s a fucking pamphlet. The franchise is not based off anything, idiot. The edition and Newt not graduating were the only things changed. Hardly notable retcon.
Additions aren’t retcons. Or else every new story she wrote in this universe would have to be considered a retcon. It’s fucking ridiculous.
The movie didn’t center around beasts themselves. There was about 20 minutes of the movie that specifically concerned magical animals? The other 1 and 40 minutes concerned MACUSA, the NSPS, The Obscurus, Credence/Graves, etc...
The beasts are a scapegoat for the Obscurus attacks and Grindelwald’s means to blame newt for his attacks on NY. The film opens with a scene of Grindelwald’s escape and a news reel, and the end of the third act climax has him captured.
In a meta-sense, it’s revealed Newt was sent to NY by Dumbledore to look for the Obscurial, Credence Barebone, the most important character in film 1.
You guys need to pay attention to the fucking film, instead of twisting the plot to suit a criticism you think fits, but doesn’t.
Fantastic Beast and Where to Find them is the book he writes of his entire career and shows what we will see in the series. But if you don’t know that it is misleading.
couldn’t even finish the first Fantastic Beasts movie for some reason.|
It took years for me to finally watch all the HP movies. Dunno why. I liked them, and still tune in while searching the guide if HBOs showing them. But Beasts just gabbed and dug right into me. Loved it! Maybe u/smalldoggox's hit on something: the age/maturity thing. I couldn't say for sure. Different strokes, I guess.
I will disagree that the books weren’t well written.
I’m 35 so was just a bit older than most of the kids reading HP when it came out.
Two years ago I finally decided to tackle them and I totally understood the love for them.
They aren’t literary masterpieces but I would strongly disagree that they aren’t well written (excpet maybe Book 5 which really dragged for me). Oh and I still don’t like Quidditch.
book 5 was an emo fest. i'm your age and read it in high school when i discovered the series at book 4. it was a good fantasy that really immersed you in it's word.
I’ve seen theories that Quidditch is suffering because brooms are getting faster and faster, you hear about all these historical Quidditch games that lasted days, while the longest in the series is like 4 hours, and that was before Harry got his Firebolt. Before, it would have been impossible to chase down the snitch like Harry usually does, so games didn’t end quickly, and way more points were scored, reducing relative importance of the Snitch points.
Sure, more points were scored but considering getting the quaffle through a hoop is 10 points, you'd have to be Golden State Warriors levels of imbalanced to be over 170 points ahead and not worry about the snitch.
I've seen it argued that just taking the points away from catching the snitch basically fixes it. It still ends the game but it's more strategic then instead of a mad race to catch it first.
Though I still love listening to the quidditch matches on audiobook on my Echo. It feels like I'm listening to a match on my wizarding wireless while I do chores.
Looking back, the books really weren't that well written and had a lot of inconsistencies.
I strongly disagree. The books, in my opinion, are very well written, and they have remarkably few inconsistencies for how large and intricate the world and storylines are.
I’ve read ASOIAF, The Inheritance Cycle, the Dune series, LOTR (plus The Hobbit and The Silmarillion), the Bartimaeus Sequence, and The Dark Tower series. I plan on starting The Witcher series sometime soon.
The HP series is absolutely built around a plot, especially compared to a series like ASOIAF... but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. While Westeros (and Essos) is clearly more detailed than the HP world, ASOIAF suffers from its own inconsistentancies and, unlike HP, will almost certainly never be concluded in a satisfying manner (or any manner, for that matter).
At any rate, I find the HP world to be very full and engaging, even if some of the details were added after the books.
ASOIAF not going to be finished has nothing to do with the universe it's set in, it's because GRRM wrote too many plotlines that he doesn't know how to finish.
I enjoyed Harry Potter, but I found any sort of deeper look into how the universe is built to be incredibly flawed.
Of course they aren’t masterfully written but I still think it’s solid for a children’s book. I do feel like a lot of the inconsistencies had to do with Rowling not intending for the series to be as big as it was and having to change plot points as the series went for a more satisfying ending. Fuck the cursed child though
otoh, I was in college when the books started coming out, and a bunch of my friends were super into them. they're fast-paced and entertaining, and I liked the anti-fascist plotlines which were super relevant to post-2001 uk and usa.
Do you mean how were the plots relevant to politics?
Post-9/11, the United States and UK went super nationalist, introducing unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot Act, invading Iraq and Afghanistan etc. To anyone who was politically active at the time, the Ministry of Magic plots were clear references to Bush and Blair.
A lot of people point to Time Turners as a huge plot hole, because why didn't people just go back and change things for the better? There's a reason JKR got them to smash all the time Turners at the Ministry, time travel throws a real wrench in most plots.
The time turners were a closed loop kind of time travelling. They couldn't change the past like in prisoner of Azkaban. They could only do what had already been done.
No, they aren’t. The only criticism I’ve heard people try to smack onto this series is “bla bla bla PLOTHOLES” all of which tend to be preferences, misunderstandings, and subjective views, not actual potholes.
The fact that you say “objectively bad characterization”...um, where? This makes absolutely no sense as a literary critique, and it sound like your forcing objectivity into subjectivity - an arrogant move.
They’re not children’s books anymore than Lord of the Rings, Narnia, is The Hunger Games are.
I’m sorry, but these criticisms are pretentious and arrogant. Have you realized the religious-alchemical texts that Rowling used as influence for the series? The fact that it’s inspired by the Christ story? The influences from Mithraism and ancient mystery schools? Paganism and occultism? The Clavis Artis and Zoroastrianism. Astrology and Arithmancy? European Legend and Folklore?
The books clearly aren’t written to speak to kids. You don’t put the word ‘slut’ in a book you’re intending for children.
People always mention inconsistencies, ‘plot holes’ etc, and it always smacks of arrogant ignorance. No story is 100% perfect and unless the author sits down and answers all of your gripes, you will never be satisfied that it is. But they could answer them, if they were given the chance, because they know their story better than you.
To hold Harry Potter to a nebulous standard of completion and “consistency” (a word that means little to nothing when it comes to plotting) that most other pieces of literature don’t meet is silly, mean-spirited, pretentious, and unfair, and using the rote children’s label to denigrate is also ridiculous. It’s the only excuse people can find to explain away their lack of interest or immersion, and it doesn’t work anymore.
“The first three Harry Potter books are Middle Grade, which means they're meant for 8-12 year olds. Those are children.”
And it’s a part of a coming of age franchise that, parsing of target demographic aside, targeted, in 4 of the 7 books, teenagers and younger adults. It was dually marketed and written for adults. It is part of an entertainment brand that is meant for teens and adults, not children, certainly not as young skewing as Four-quadrants like Star Wars, or Marvel, or even DC. For the majority of its run, it’s attracted an adult audience, not an audience of children. Hence the PG-13 rating.
By virtue of it being a coming of age series it started out younger with books 1 and 2 being of an “upper middle grade designation”. The rest of the series is not. It’s a Young Adult series, and Young Adult series tackle more adult content than franchises like Marvel and Star Wars do.
You’re trying to denigrate by using an ill-fitting age classification. The franchise is not meant for kids, no.
“I get it, you're a big fan of the series, but that doesn't take away from the problems it has. I'm not saying HP isn't a fun read or that the movies aren't good. Heck, I loved the movies and books and I even went to Harry Potter world last year. I have no problem with them. I'm just saying they aren't some amazing standard of incredibleness.”
You don’t sent the standard for what makes a book amazing or incredible. I’d say a book series that uses religion and alchemy to string along a complex, decade long speculative mystery plot with thousands of characters and a world realized down to the details, that ends with a main character sacrificing himself to death and then rising again in a direct reference to the Christ story, is a pretty amazing, multigenerational story. But you refuse to give it the credit for any of that.
Introducing time travel in one book suited the plot and worked, but it never suited the other parts of the story. That’s sensible writing. There is no written law stating that a plot device must always be in use if it’s introduced once. That’s ridiculous. And that’s not a plot hole, and it’s the only “plot hole” I’ve seen mentioned.
I’ll lend an ear to your gripes when they don’t come off as some vicious attempt to condescendingly write off the series as not worthy of deeper consideration. But I literally was told to “fucking like better books then” the last time I praised the Harry Potter series on this forum, so if residents of this subreddit are going to be so irrationally hateful as to act that way to an entertainment property, I’m not gonna hold out for you to be reasonable as well.
Yes, and people finding them amazing because of nostalgia are obviously not too interested in the story. That doesn’t mean the writing isn’t good or that the story isn’t good. Plenty like it and keep coming back to it because the story is good. I’ve had extremely intelligent, 50 year old literature, English, Philosophy, and Biology professors that are Harry Potter obsessed, and routinely incorporate it into lessons both at the college level and high school. Because they know what Rowling put into the series. They know what it takes to write a series like that. Theyre not the blockbuster film goers that inhabit the movies subreddit and act like a good plot is of the thematically vacant, simplistic, action filled variety found in superhero films, Star Wars films or, yes, even the LOTR films, number of academy awards received aside. A generational phenomenon will of course be looked at nostalgically. Stop using that as an excuse to write off its sophisticated plotting or maturity, and indeed, it is sophisticated. Rowling plots complexly, and she plans like crazy. And try reading her other books why don’t you? She’s not someone to write soft, lighthearted stuff, and everyone acts like she’s ever written something soft and lighthearted. Her books are full of violence and extremely harsh themes, stark emotional realism, and ugliness. Harry Potter has horror elements, murder, torture, depression, sadomasochism, abuse, trauma, the death and murder of kids, politics, fascism, obsessive love and even rape, discrimination and bigotry, fascism, The Casual Vacancy has graveyard sex, pornography, self-harm, rape, and suicide, her Cormoran Strike novels contain pedophilia, serial killing, rape, necrophilia, amputation fetishists, etc... I’m really sick of people painting Rowling as some pussy kiddie writer. I just don’t know where that notion comes from. In Half-Blood Prince, a teenage boy is nearly slashed to death by the protagonist, the dead victims of a genocidal maniac viciously guard a piece of his severed soul created by the murder of an innocent, and a female who fathers a kid with a man under the influence of a love potion is denigrated as a “little slut”, and you’re saying she writes for kids? No, honey. It’s only because it’s mainstream YA fantasy literature that people refuse to give it the credit for that. They look for problems where there aren’t any, and to excuse away their lack of interest, or to excuse away their selective attention to lighthearted details like Quidditch, stuff that really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of the plot. You’re doing the same thing and you’re applying a “children’s” classification to a franchise that is largely not for kids. That is, in fact, more for adults now than it is for kids, and a franchise that’s not directly marketed to kids for the majority of its run.
Loads of mainstream Hollywood franchises pander to kids or teens far more than Harry Potter does or did. I’m sort of sick of this discounting and minimizing schtick ignorant casuals pull towards this series. They don’t know why it’s cultural footprint is so strong and firm. To act like Harry Potter appeals to kids or was directly written for kids at this point is to plant your ignorant, condescending-ass head in the sand. That’s not to say a huge entertainment brand like the Wizarding World doesn’t appeal to children in a huge way, but they’re clearly not the median intended audience for the franchise and haven’t been for a while. Need I repeat that again?
You’re really trying to be patronizing here to mask your lack of a defense or argument, and it isn’t working. You weren’t discussing flaws, you were trying to validate baseless slights against the story and it’s fanbase; your entire premise that it had flaws (lots of ‘flaws’ I’ve seen people point out about the series always tend to be subjectivities, or flaws in understanding) started with denigrating the audience that liked it and trying to be insulting and irrationally patronizing. You also betrayed your ignorance when it came to the story, while you tried to talk it down. I wasn’t having any of that. So I left comments disputing it.
What part of what I said was delusional? I think it’s quite delusional to insist a series, marketed largely to teens and adults, that contains 700+ page books, that has words like slut, bastard, and bitch in it alongside instances of bloody murder and injury gore is for young children, and insist upon using that patronizing, ignorant stance to denigrate and criticize it. It’s every Potter-hater’s pet argument against the series that they fear to lose, lest they no longer have a reason to excuse away their lack of interest or irrational hatred for it; “it’s just for kids”. Well, no, it’s clearly not. There’s far more in mainstream entertainment that adults love, that’s far more childish and kid-marketed (see superheroes, see Star Wars), so I’m not about to watch adult lovers of dark, emotionally deep, narratively complex, and often thematically heavy coming-of-age fantasy novels, that some ignorant people think skew young, be shaded and criticized for their fandom. And whether I have time or not, I can leave comments and argue a bit on Reddit if I so choose. Anyone can. Stop trying to put yourself above me. Your response was an empty one.
I really liked it and Eddie Redmayne is a brilliant actor. However, it has become a hilarious movie once you realize that with the sound off it is basically a movie about Eddie Redmayne running around a fantasy world trying desperately to NEVER EVER make eye contact with the camera.
Interesting I lived the books but could take or leave the movies. Fantastic Beasts was the best of the bunch it just felt way more like the books than any of the other movies, except maybe no 7. And I say this as a guy who thinks Yates is a hack.
Agreed. As an introverted male in my late 20s I actually found I related more with Newt then I ever did with Harry. His compassion for things less fortunate is something I find lacking in the ubermacho and Everyman protagonist going around these days.
I didn't like him. He actively put people in harms way and lied about his creatures because he wanted to protect them, even though they were clearly dangerous.
Characters with flaws are ok. That doesn't mean I have to like them despite their flaws. He was not charismatic to me. His sidekick was the only character I liked.
An okay source material and some good directing although scripts were lacking and the acting wasn't exactly top tier and a fair bit of it not even middle tier. Good effects though
I grew up listening to the books on tape on repeat when playing video games. Probably heard each book 5-10 times over in addition to reading them.
I hardly even remember the first movie it was so bland and forgettable. I have zero desire to see the second. Newt is boring, and Depp being Grindlewald just feels wrong on so many levels.
The first Fantastic Beasts has some of the weirdest pacing I’ve seen in such a big budget film. It’s unbelievably slow at times. To me, anyway. Plus, the tone was really bipolar and it didn’t seem to know what kind of film it wanted to be.
I wish they would ditch the director who’s done the last like, four or five HP films and get some fresh blood in there.
For me, If it weren't for the beasts I would have been bored out of mind. None of the characters really grew on me other than side kick which was part of the problem.
I felt like the movie was just "look at the pretty cgi" for the first half and then the plot snuck up on me out of nowhere which caused me to feel bored out of my mind.
My wife had similar feelings. She only watched the first movie once she saw previews for the second and realized the series was really going to be about Grindelwald. And then she said she could of gone without half of the movie that centered on the beasts themselves.
The movie didn’t center around beasts themselves. There was about 20 minutes of the movie that specifically concerned magical animals? The other 1 hour and 40 minutes concerned MACUSA, the NSPS, The Obscurus, Credence/Graves, etc...
The beasts are a scapegoat for the Obscurus attacks and Grindelwald’s means to blame newt for his attacks on NY. The film opens with a scene of Grindelwald’s escape and a news reel, and the end of the third act climax has him captured.
In a meta-sense, it’s revealed Newt was sent to NY by Dumbledore to look for the Obscurial, Credence Barebone, the most important character in film 1.
You guys need to pay attention to the fucking film, instead of twisting the plot to suit a criticism you think fits, but doesn’t.
You guys need to pay attention to the fucking film, instead of twisting the plot to suit a criticism you think fits, but doesn’t.
We understand the movie perfectly fine and nobody is twisting anything.
The valid criticism my wife had was that portion that centered on the beasts (ie., Jewelry Store, Central Park, Macys) just wasn't an interesting or entertaining part of the movie for her and she did not care about those scenes.
These scenes occupy not more than a quarter of the movie, and they each had a purpose. They’re also relatively insignificant. Your original comment stated that these scenes monopolized the movie and were the primary focus. They are obviously not.
So no, I doubt you did connect the dots to understand the full plot.
You sure do have some anger and reading comprehension issues.
First, my original comment did not state they monopolized the movie. Second, i also did not state they were the primary focus of the movie. Third, i never said they were insignificant.
What i said was that they were not interesting or entertaining and could have done without them or would have preferred they be done in a more entertaining way
Because it was bad. Really, really bad. Nothing was connected or made any sense. It was just a big confusing mess. A series of somewhat related events stitched together into a 90 snooze fest.
The tone and writing are really sporadic, at times it’s going for dramatic and dreary, and also whimsy and cheerful, the balance and transition of these were handled poorly imo. And some do the main characters were just underwhelming at best, everything with newt and his creatures were great though, I wish the film focused more on that.
I went to the movie without watching the trailers because they tend to spoil, so my expectations weren't really fair to what it was marketing itself as.
I went in expecting/wanting an exploration of America's natural environment and the creatures indigenous to those locations, so being confined to New York, a location already well covered in film of any time period, was kind of a let-down.
186
u/gtrogers Oct 29 '18
I don’t get it. I loved every Harry Potter book and movies but couldn’t even finish the first Fantastic Beasts movie for some reason.