Why didn't people go see "Fantastic Beasts"?
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't speak for "people", but I never saw any of the Potter's in the cinema (I do have the collection on Blu-ray, and rate it very highly from Azkaban on. one of the best film franchises ever seen, frankly, in terms of tonal cohesion, world building, characters [minus The [Boy-not-Girl] Ginger One] and so on), so even though I like the look of Fantastic Beasts I never intended to go see it.
I'll rent it, at least (every source I trust/pay attention to really enjoyed it), but I doubt I'll buy it.
Not overly keen on Eddie Redmayne as an actor, and I'm not keen on the American setting. Or the word no-madge/no-mag/no-maj. Oh, and Johnny Depp's in it, and fuck Johnny Depp. That guy needs to be forcibly stopped from ever acting again...
I'll rent it, at least (every source I trust/pay attention to really enjoyed it), but I doubt I'll buy it.
Not overly keen on Eddie Redmayne as an actor, and I'm not keen on the American setting. Or the word no-madge/no-mag/no-maj. Oh, and Johnny Depp's in it, and fuck Johnny Depp. That guy needs to be forcibly stopped from ever acting again...
Wasn't Cursed Child received very well? I'd guess if they adapted that there'd be more buzz about it than Fantastic Beasts, Where Are They - They're Probably In The Case.Wrex Brogan said:
For the same reason people didn't go see King Arthur.
They're pretentious twats who can't be bothered to see movies unless they're already denoted to be "teh artz" by the great priests of whatever movie reviewer.
They're pretentious twats who can't be bothered to see movies unless they're already denoted to be "teh artz" by the great priests of whatever movie reviewer.
I went to see it with my friend and we both throughly enjoyed it, although the movie wasn't on my ''must watch'' list.
What i liked the most was more exposition of the wizarding world: Yes HP cast were loveable and and the British setting made for a charming background BUT i wouldn't bring myself to watch another one. Also if you want continuation go read Cursed Child, the story was never meant to be a prequel but a fresh standalone start for a new adventure.
New Setting ? Hell Yes!
New Characters? Awesome!
New Story in HP Universe ? Yes please.
Knowing that FBWFD is being set up for multiple sequels already from the start ? Ehh....
I guess that's where this ''cash-grab'' feeling comes , which almost made me miss the movie it at the theatre.
JK Rowlings ''Updates'' on Pottermore aren't great either, as it comes off as a low effort attempt to keep HP hype still going.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is awesome and i would love to see more of it, but maybe wait a moment before telling us how many sequels are already in the works ? (Looking at you James Cameron).
Also diminishing interest in a franchise is.. just that. I get it, 8 movies (or/and 7 books) about wizarding adventures can be stale after a while, and its been a 6 year gap between HP8 and FBWFD so people just lost their enthusiasm.
In conclusion: Go see the movie, it's better than it seems!
What i liked the most was more exposition of the wizarding world: Yes HP cast were loveable and and the British setting made for a charming background BUT i wouldn't bring myself to watch another one. Also if you want continuation go read Cursed Child, the story was never meant to be a prequel but a fresh standalone start for a new adventure.
New Setting ? Hell Yes!
New Characters? Awesome!
New Story in HP Universe ? Yes please.
Knowing that FBWFD is being set up for multiple sequels already from the start ? Ehh....
I guess that's where this ''cash-grab'' feeling comes , which almost made me miss the movie it at the theatre.
JK Rowlings ''Updates'' on Pottermore aren't great either, as it comes off as a low effort attempt to keep HP hype still going.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is awesome and i would love to see more of it, but maybe wait a moment before telling us how many sequels are already in the works ? (Looking at you James Cameron).
Also diminishing interest in a franchise is.. just that. I get it, 8 movies (or/and 7 books) about wizarding adventures can be stale after a while, and its been a 6 year gap between HP8 and FBWFD so people just lost their enthusiasm.
In conclusion: Go see the movie, it's better than it seems!
Not much of a fan to begin with. Never read the books, saw all the films for the first time in a marathon over New years a few years ago and found them overall okay. Don't really have any urge to see them again, read the books or see anything else in the potterverse.
Wife went to see the film and said it was merely okay.
Wife went to see the film and said it was merely okay.
I LOVE this movie.Marter said:
However I must say I stop watching the other Harry Potter movies after the 4th one.
For the same reason I didn't go to any HP movie past Goblet of Fire, because the built in audience is no longer 12
1) It was quite boring.
The creatures were fun but only for a couple of minutes each and there was far fewer fun ideas than the main series. The characters were dull (except the muggle comic relief character who's fun but can't be driving the plot) and the story felt like it would have worked better as a TV series. Monster of the week type thing with a small group of wizards containing magical creature incidents from muggles. Not original but a tried a tested formula with a Potterverse formular and plenty of opportunity to build season long bad-wizard arcs as well.
2) It was a fairly naked cash-in.
I have no idea how the other 4 films are going to work but Johnny Depp does not inspire me with confidence as the main villain. In the cinema pretty much everyone laughed when we was revealed. His stupid white moustache and grumpy facial expression aren't menacing at all, they just look daft. I was half expected him to request parley. Colin Farrell looked and acted a hell of a lot better as a villain.
3) Harry Potter has definitely passed its peak as the cultural phenomenon.
I'm the right age to have been deeply into the books and I didn't really care. Young Dumbledore might manage to change my mind but at the moment I have no plans to watch any of the rest of these films.
4) The setting meant that most of the intersting Potterverse stuff wasn't in it.
The books never really did much to make anyone interested in the wizarding world outside the UK. Plus, whoever made the decision to replace a fun and very recognisable word like "muggle" with something that sounds like a 1st draft place holder like "no-mag" needs to fuck right off.
The creatures were fun but only for a couple of minutes each and there was far fewer fun ideas than the main series. The characters were dull (except the muggle comic relief character who's fun but can't be driving the plot) and the story felt like it would have worked better as a TV series. Monster of the week type thing with a small group of wizards containing magical creature incidents from muggles. Not original but a tried a tested formula with a Potterverse formular and plenty of opportunity to build season long bad-wizard arcs as well.
2) It was a fairly naked cash-in.
I have no idea how the other 4 films are going to work but Johnny Depp does not inspire me with confidence as the main villain. In the cinema pretty much everyone laughed when we was revealed. His stupid white moustache and grumpy facial expression aren't menacing at all, they just look daft. I was half expected him to request parley. Colin Farrell looked and acted a hell of a lot better as a villain.
3) Harry Potter has definitely passed its peak as the cultural phenomenon.
I'm the right age to have been deeply into the books and I didn't really care. Young Dumbledore might manage to change my mind but at the moment I have no plans to watch any of the rest of these films.
4) The setting meant that most of the intersting Potterverse stuff wasn't in it.
The books never really did much to make anyone interested in the wizarding world outside the UK. Plus, whoever made the decision to replace a fun and very recognisable word like "muggle" with something that sounds like a 1st draft place holder like "no-mag" needs to fuck right off.
Just not interested in a movie series based on a fictional textbook in a fictional book series that I gave up on before Rowling reveals the big surprises of Snape was really a good guy who crushed hard on Harry's mom (saw that coming early on), Voldermort dies (kind of a guaranteed thing), and Harry's a Horacrux (not really a shocker).
Seemed like it would be a bit americanised, also seemed like it wouldn't capture the atmosphere/ feeling of the Harry Potter series given it was a spin-off. Finally saw it and both of these turned out to be accurate imo. It wasn't a bad film as such but it wasn't good enough to live up to the franchise it's part of.
...I mean, so are Transformer movies, but they're not exactly the highest quality films for writing eitherDarth Rosenberg said:
More seriously, I just... don't find any of the stuff JK has added onto the harry potter series post-Hallows any good. Maybe it floats the boat of everyone else, but for me it's just feels like she's trying really hard to keep it all afloat when it really should've pulled into port a few years ago. To me the Cursed Child just felt like bad fanfiction rather than an actual story.
Ah well. It did make her a billionare, so it's not like I can really fault her for keeping the franchise going.
I never actually heard anyone talk about Cursed Child, so when the book dropped it just seemed to, well, drop. Even if some reviewers had decent things to say about it, I feel the need to chime in about my biggest gripe with the story, as I haven't had the chance to do so as no one has talked about it. The entire story is built around time travel, and they completely changed the rules of time travel. In the main line books, time travel was fixed as can be seen in Azkaban. Anything that happened in that book from time travel was already baked in, with all the actions performed while traveling back in time happening before anyone even decides to travel back, if you understand what I mean by that. It worked basically on a predetermined path, that Harry was supposed to travel back. As he put it when telling Hermione, he knew that he could stop all the dementors because he had already done it, and had seen himself do it. It was why all the people saying "well why didn't they just travel back in time to kill Voldemort?" Well because Voldemort was still alive, therefore if anyone tried they would have failed.Darth Rosenberg said:
Now in Cursed Child they changed the rules to be closer to something like Back to the Future with history rewriting itself. Even if the play is written well and the characters are well developed, I cannot get past this because it's such a glaring hole in the story.
I don't know if you read the book or saw the play, or if you enjoyed it or not, you just happened to be the first person to ever bring it up and me get a chance to rail on that book, so I'm sorry for the rant, but thank you for the opportunity to do so.
I would classify myself as a HP lover but I never saw "Fantastic Beasts" initially in theaters because I didn't care for some prequel trying to milk the franchise. Why should I care about Newt and his dumb beasts or whatever else was going on when none of it matters in the end? Of course, I later saw it on Blu-Ray and was glad I never paid to see it, what an awful movie and a terrible start for a new franchise. It also confirmed what I longed suspected, the world logic of Harry Potter breaks apart once you take it out of the modern schoolyard setting. You expect me to believe that in 1920's America that Wizarding society is the complete opposite socially as Muggle society? By that I mean women are allowed to be in positions of power and are no discriminated against and neither are minorities, especially black people. You're telling me the Wizarding President in America is a black women? in 1920's America?
Nah, go fuck yourself movie. I actually feel insulted by such a white-washing history of what was a terrible time in America for minorities and women. Now, obviously nothing says that Wizarding society can't be more accepting of these things than Muggle society but this doesn't make sense on further examination and also leads to some horrifying conclusions. Again, it all goes back to my point about the world of HP breaking apart when you take it out of the modern schoolyard setting. You see, all of our Muggle history is the same in the universe of HP, it's just that behind all of that Wizards and Witches lived in the background in their own hidden society. Of course, what this means is that the Wizarding community did nothing as Slavery occurred. Did wizards own slaves too? They did nothing as the Native Americans were massacred and driven off their lands. They did nothing during the American Civil War. They did nothing during WWI when millions upon millions of Muggle died in the meat grinder of the Western Front. They did nothing when six millions Jews were rounded up and executed during WWII. They continue to do nothing as Muggles die of (for them) easily curable diseases such as Cancer, AIDS/HIV, MS, and you get the point.
In the HP novels you don't question these things because it is, at the end of the day, a children's story and the modern schoolyard setting doesn't require these questions to be answered. However, once you remove the story out of this setting and place it in a very real time in history centered around full-grown adults and not children these questions crop up again and require an answer. Fantastic Beats has no answers but instead tries to pretend these things never happened and that is just wrong.
Also, fuck Johhny Depp as Grindelwald. Can we just pretend that Colin Farrell is the real Grindelwald, please?
EDIT:
I also don't care to look into the "Cursed Child," the premise just seems dumb to me and again feels like a milking of the franchise than an actual continuation of the universe.
Nah, go fuck yourself movie. I actually feel insulted by such a white-washing history of what was a terrible time in America for minorities and women. Now, obviously nothing says that Wizarding society can't be more accepting of these things than Muggle society but this doesn't make sense on further examination and also leads to some horrifying conclusions. Again, it all goes back to my point about the world of HP breaking apart when you take it out of the modern schoolyard setting. You see, all of our Muggle history is the same in the universe of HP, it's just that behind all of that Wizards and Witches lived in the background in their own hidden society. Of course, what this means is that the Wizarding community did nothing as Slavery occurred. Did wizards own slaves too? They did nothing as the Native Americans were massacred and driven off their lands. They did nothing during the American Civil War. They did nothing during WWI when millions upon millions of Muggle died in the meat grinder of the Western Front. They did nothing when six millions Jews were rounded up and executed during WWII. They continue to do nothing as Muggles die of (for them) easily curable diseases such as Cancer, AIDS/HIV, MS, and you get the point.
In the HP novels you don't question these things because it is, at the end of the day, a children's story and the modern schoolyard setting doesn't require these questions to be answered. However, once you remove the story out of this setting and place it in a very real time in history centered around full-grown adults and not children these questions crop up again and require an answer. Fantastic Beats has no answers but instead tries to pretend these things never happened and that is just wrong.
Also, fuck Johhny Depp as Grindelwald. Can we just pretend that Colin Farrell is the real Grindelwald, please?
EDIT:
I also don't care to look into the "Cursed Child," the premise just seems dumb to me and again feels like a milking of the franchise than an actual continuation of the universe.
Because harry potter was getting tired out, even towards the end of the original series if you ask me, splitting the later movie into 2 parts certainly didn't help. By the time it was all said and done i think burnout was running pretty rampant, so this after-the-fact series is gonna make a lot of eyes roll.
Um, at the risk of pointing out the obvious: no book.
Yeah, I know they ended up making a fake textbook, but it wasn't a story, let alone this story. When Sorcerer's Stone came out, the Harry Potter books were in full swing. The first HP book was published in 1997, the first movie came out in 2001. The tons and tons of people who loved the books came out to see the movies, and kept coming out to see the movies, even after the books themselves were technically finished- to see how they would portray characters and events, and to say goodbye to the world they had half-inhabited and the characters they'd loved.
Deathly Hallows (book) came out 2007; final installment of the movie was 2011. FB waited until 2016. That's five years for people's Potter-mania to dampen.
Not that they haven't tried. There's Pottermore, and the Universal Studios theme area (quite fun, really); there's the play, whose script I'll admit I read, and which seems to have done all right.
And then, Fantastic Beasts. I think for all of that, it did reasonably well. But, while it's the same world, it's also an entirely unfamiliar bunch of characters to most people. (I'm not going to bet that there isn't some scraps of lore about at least Newt tucked away in some sub-index or Pottermore, and I don't particularly want to get lambasted for failing to bring it up.)
Well, I enjoyed it. But it doesn't exactly bear long consideration. The most likable character in the thing is the Mugg- sorry, "No-Maj" (guck), the forgetfulness rain at the end is awfully convenient (and conveniently ignores that at least one prominent person has died by magic), and as Honest Trailers points out, Newt is lying through his teeth about his creatures not being dangerous.
I'm glad it did all right. I think there's a better than decent chance that it could improve as it goes along. But I'm not entirely astonished it didn't do as well as getting to see the characters from the beloved books (gosh! golly!) appear on screen.
Yeah, I know they ended up making a fake textbook, but it wasn't a story, let alone this story. When Sorcerer's Stone came out, the Harry Potter books were in full swing. The first HP book was published in 1997, the first movie came out in 2001. The tons and tons of people who loved the books came out to see the movies, and kept coming out to see the movies, even after the books themselves were technically finished- to see how they would portray characters and events, and to say goodbye to the world they had half-inhabited and the characters they'd loved.
Deathly Hallows (book) came out 2007; final installment of the movie was 2011. FB waited until 2016. That's five years for people's Potter-mania to dampen.
Not that they haven't tried. There's Pottermore, and the Universal Studios theme area (quite fun, really); there's the play, whose script I'll admit I read, and which seems to have done all right.
And then, Fantastic Beasts. I think for all of that, it did reasonably well. But, while it's the same world, it's also an entirely unfamiliar bunch of characters to most people. (I'm not going to bet that there isn't some scraps of lore about at least Newt tucked away in some sub-index or Pottermore, and I don't particularly want to get lambasted for failing to bring it up.)
Well, I enjoyed it. But it doesn't exactly bear long consideration. The most likable character in the thing is the Mugg- sorry, "No-Maj" (guck), the forgetfulness rain at the end is awfully convenient (and conveniently ignores that at least one prominent person has died by magic), and as Honest Trailers points out, Newt is lying through his teeth about his creatures not being dangerous.
I'm glad it did all right. I think there's a better than decent chance that it could improve as it goes along. But I'm not entirely astonished it didn't do as well as getting to see the characters from the beloved books (gosh! golly!) appear on screen.
I didn't see it in theaters. I really saw it as WB frantically trying to prop up a franchise because they no longer have a "tentpole" franchise in their IP. The DCEU is foundering, Harry Potter and LOTR are over, and any more Lego Batman is going to be really stretching that idea pretty thin. They're flailing around trying to find ANYTHING that works. They are rebooting Police Academy... they are THAT desperate.
I watched it, but i wouldn't have if my mom hadn't suggested we go see it. It was a lot better than the reviews had lead me to believe, but it still remains a rather shameless attempt at starting an entirely new franchise based off a fictional textbook inside of a fantasy universe
I grew up with Harry Potter. I was 9 when the first one came out, and I loved that it was about a kid who was about my age, in my country, who grew up alongside me, albeit somewhat slower. I wasn't so fussed about the films, mostly due to not wanting them to spoil my experiences with the story, how I imagined the characters and whatnot.
I did go to see the new film, but not because of any real desire. I only went because some mates were going and they were driving and there was a promise of dinner and a beer too. I enjoyed it, but oddly didn't associate it with the Harry Potter universe at all. The only links it had seemed somewhat forced (mentioning hogwarts etc) except for some of the creatures, of course.
Harry Potter to me was all about the private wizarding world that ran alongside ours. It was cleverly hidden, and mostly kept out of muggle eyes. It made it believable. Also, as you grew with Harry you saw how magic can be limited, how people's power and ability differed and the creative ways it would be used to solve tasks. There was none of that in the new movie. Everyone could dissaperate at will (the books describe how difficult this is, and that you need a license to do it) and the main character, who seemed to be of a completely average wizard ability, could fix an entire destroyed floor of a building as nonchalant as he seemed as though that was the most basic of tasks. The magic just seemed to be point a wand and the desired effect would happen. There was none of the lore from the books, and the understanding of the magic involved. It was just an action flick with a vague Potterverse tinge.
Finally, I will admit that I was entirely put off by the setting. Europe, with all it's centuries of history, was a great setting for Harry Potter. Ghosts from all eras knocking about. Ancient castles and old quaint, eccentric buildings are a perfect setting for a magic world. A tonne of wizards living in the centre of New York, however, didn't appeal in the same way.
I did go to see the new film, but not because of any real desire. I only went because some mates were going and they were driving and there was a promise of dinner and a beer too. I enjoyed it, but oddly didn't associate it with the Harry Potter universe at all. The only links it had seemed somewhat forced (mentioning hogwarts etc) except for some of the creatures, of course.
Harry Potter to me was all about the private wizarding world that ran alongside ours. It was cleverly hidden, and mostly kept out of muggle eyes. It made it believable. Also, as you grew with Harry you saw how magic can be limited, how people's power and ability differed and the creative ways it would be used to solve tasks. There was none of that in the new movie. Everyone could dissaperate at will (the books describe how difficult this is, and that you need a license to do it) and the main character, who seemed to be of a completely average wizard ability, could fix an entire destroyed floor of a building as nonchalant as he seemed as though that was the most basic of tasks. The magic just seemed to be point a wand and the desired effect would happen. There was none of the lore from the books, and the understanding of the magic involved. It was just an action flick with a vague Potterverse tinge.
Finally, I will admit that I was entirely put off by the setting. Europe, with all it's centuries of history, was a great setting for Harry Potter. Ghosts from all eras knocking about. Ancient castles and old quaint, eccentric buildings are a perfect setting for a magic world. A tonne of wizards living in the centre of New York, however, didn't appeal in the same way.
Because it was a new setting, with new characters and no (or minimal) contact with the world of Harry Potter. In fact, you would have to actively do some research to find out it was connected at all (read it online, watch trailers), the name alone did nothing to inform people; and many of those that knew felt like it was a cheap knockoff to keep the ball rolling despite not having any emotional connection with the source material...