Cursed Child is a product of its medium. Watching the play was a decent experience. Reading it as a script sold as a sequel is not. Without the spectacle of watching Dementors fly around and people cast spells IRL, it's a big stupid piece of shit.
That being said, I think it could have been much better as a standalone theatre piece with no nostalgia bait or Broadway-budgeted spectacle. Just make it a really raw and stripped down play about Harry Potter growing up and being disappointed by life. Maybe he and Hermione have an affair (it felt like Cursed Child wanted to go in that direction). I think that a brutally honest Mamet style stage play where Harry Ron and discuss what life is like after peaking in High School made for a hundred seat black box would be an interesting route to go. And it would have been the perfect time to do it, too. Harry Potter is the ultimate Millennial protagonist, and exploring his life as a series of disappointments after getting off to an overly promising start would be an interesting theatre premise. Especially for the New York theatre scene, where everyone in this current generation of performers turned up hoping for something incredible and instead got Mrs Doubtfire the musical and covid
There are a lot of fan plays that attempt this. None of them are good, but I still believe it would work with the right writer. A writer who is probably not JK Rowling.
Correct. What made this franchise a hit was it's extremely comfy magical boarding school setting. Very few people cared about the lore or fighting magic Hitler nonsense and it's near universally agreed the first four books/movies (where lore was minimal and magic Hitler virtually nonexistent) were far and away the best parts of the franchise. And even still, the dimbfricks with the IP couldn't deliver a strictly school based story.
It's too late now. Even if the morons did figure out that everyone wants to see Hogwarts and they did try to put out a comfy slice of life seven season tv series about OC characters, they'd kill any possibility of soul by filling Hogwarts with nogs, troons, and girlbosses. And even then, there's a 0.0% chance they'd be unable to stop themselves making the focus around Neo-Death Eaters that are just expies of American right wingers that the diverse cast effortlessly beats in time for Kwanza.
technically he's Wizard Satan #1 on account of these movies being prequels
First movie was actually really good, but it fell off pretty hard 2bh. Seems like about fantastic beasts and newt scamander and more about le heckin hitlerino wizard even though we already got hitler lite with voldemort. If it was an adventure series with a unique villain in each entry that wouldve been much better imo
This. Make "Animal Planet c. 2004 but with magic and a quirky Brit and a bad guy I guess but he just wants to frick with newt/the animals and there's no major consquences even if he wins" and watch the money roll in. How hard is that?
Also obviously need newt to meet hagrid at some point, they can do some animal trades and then hagrid and/or the animal that was traded comes in to save the day at a critical moment
>Movie 1 News goes to West Canada to stop evil magical animal poachers who are killing things for magic horns or something >Movie 2, Newt and friends go to Africa to save a dragon and some more magical animals and maybe prevent a major drought or natural disaster in the process >Movie 3, Newt and friends go to Chicago to prevent some magical animal that is due to awake for the first time in thousands of years from destroying the city and revealing the wizarding world
technically he's Wizard Satan #1 on account of these movies being prequels
[...]
This. Make "Animal Planet c. 2004 but with magic and a quirky Brit and a bad guy I guess but he just wants to frick with newt/the animals and there's no major consquences even if he wins" and watch the money roll in. How hard is that?
I think the problem is that such concept would require expensive cgi to throw in
nice looking magical beasts on screen every movies.
Then, they derailed that plan so they can just bring in some nostalgia characters from the original series and turn it into a political thriller that is cheaper to make (since it involves people talking most of the time without cgi magic shit)
>what went wrong?
No plan for the trilogy, the movies change tone all the time going from a fun family movie with magic animals to making sure WWII happens to a worldwide rigged election that's doubly rigged. The protagonist is barely the main character in one and arguably two movies.
Because he made the last few Harry Potter movies which made a ton of money so the studio assumes he can produce the same results with this without realizing those movies made money because it was the culmination of a decades long franchise
they could have made an Indiana Jones like series where Newt travels around the world searching for mythical creatures instead we got unnecessary Grindelwald-Dumbledore lore building
first is better than all potter movies except prisoner of azkaban
second is watchable but the script is absolutely bonkers
third is unwatchable, complete crap
Ridiculously hot, but her Wikipedia reads like someone wrote absolute nonsense about unbelievably posh people. Like, these don’t even sound like real names:
Poppy Corby-Tuech was born to Michel Corby-Tuech of Veneux-les-Sablons, France, and Catherine, daughter of Lieutenant-Colonel Gillachrist Campbell, of Harleston, Norfolk, late of the Royal Artillery. Her father was of French Algerian and Alsace German origin; her mother descends from Sholto Douglas, 19th Earl of Morton, the Lords Belhaven and Stenton, and Earls of Albemarle.[1][2] She grew up speaking French, but after her father's death when she was nine years old, she returned to Norfolk in England with her mother. She however "retains a French passport, a close relationship with her paternal grandparents and some other continental habits. 'I like black coffee, I always count in French, I dream in French a lot. I’m learning to drive at the moment and road rage sounds pretty damn good in French. I’m picking that up from my grandmother.'"[3]
First movie was actually really good, but it fell off pretty hard 2bh. Seems like about fantastic beasts and newt scamander and more about le heckin hitlerino wizard even though we already got hitler lite with voldemort. If it was an adventure series with a unique villain in each entry that wouldve been much better imo
I love the first film and I absolutely hate the sequel. It's like Fear of the Walking Dead, it died because when the initial success wasn't fast enough or whatever, they decide to skinwalk something completely different in it.
First Fantastic Beasts was absolutely kino not only with the Fantastic Beasts content, but the 1920s New York setting and characters that fan loves -- and they all got push aside and character assassinated in the sequels. Queenie is a flapper who likes pink, but she's NOT stupid, the reason she likes Jacob so much in the first place is because she can read everybody's mind constantly, and Jacob's thoughts are nice, and he's okay with her reading his mind.
Salem's Society actually mirrored a real group...and real attention to details that the preaching woman is not doing what she preached, she's dressed fashionably while her kids are in unfitted clothes. She's speaking with men alone, etc., she's the Evil Hypocrite.
[...]
Salem's Society actually mirrored a real group...and real attention to details that the preaching woman is not doing what she preached, she's dressed fashionably while her kids are in unfitted clothes. She's speaking with men alone, etc., she's the Evil Hypocrite.
Traffic was everywhere in the opening scene to remind you that they have cars now, but not good laws to protect pedestrians yet. There are those who drive and are driven and those like Jacob who carries suitcases walking to work.
[...]
Traffic was everywhere in the opening scene to remind you that they have cars now, but not good laws to protect pedestrians yet. There are those who drive and are driven and those like Jacob who carries suitcases walking to work.
Character Establishing moment: Tina is single-minded, focus on the child abuser she's tracking because she's a good cop who wants to be able to do something. Jacob is polite and folksy. Contrast this to the fricking train scene in the 3rd FB film where they just dumped a bunch of forgettable characters on us.
[...]
Character Establishing moment: Tina is single-minded, focus on the child abuser she's tracking because she's a good cop who wants to be able to do something. Jacob is polite and folksy. Contrast this to the fricking train scene in the 3rd FB film where they just dumped a bunch of forgettable characters on us.
I think that characters just become forgettable when the main-cast goes about the 3-to-4. Dawn of the Dead (1978) had four main cast: Peter, Roger, Stephen, Frannie -- the remake had Michael, Anna, Ving Rhames, Gunshop Andy -- and way too many canon fodder pretending to be relevant characters that took up precious screen time. Audience won't sit still for longer than around 2 hours, and in 2 hours, every new character you add to the main cast takes away from the others.
[...]
I think that characters just become forgettable when the main-cast goes about the 3-to-4. Dawn of the Dead (1978) had four main cast: Peter, Roger, Stephen, Frannie -- the remake had Michael, Anna, Ving Rhames, Gunshop Andy -- and way too many canon fodder pretending to be relevant characters that took up precious screen time. Audience won't sit still for longer than around 2 hours, and in 2 hours, every new character you add to the main cast takes away from the others.
imo they could have done a way better job showing her mistreating those kids
She didn't seem nearly evil enough to induce an Obscurus
>She didn't seem nearly evil enough to induce an Obscurus
She made him take off his own belt so she could beat him with it. She was running a cult where she uses the children to get money and attention while neglecting their needs.
[...]
[...] >She didn't seem nearly evil enough to induce an Obscurus
She made him take off his own belt so she could beat him with it. She was running a cult where she uses the children to get money and attention while neglecting their needs.
The attention to details really pleases my inner autist -- tram in the background! The setting feels real, the way the camera moves around to show what's around the characters, it's like we are looking through a doorway to 1920s New York with magic as oppose to lines read on a soundstage. The bank felt like a real place, a building next to the train overhead, surrounded by apartments, and up the steps where people beg for coin or haggle for attention, inside with the ornate metal framework separating the bank tellers from the customers.
[...]
The attention to details really pleases my inner autist -- tram in the background! The setting feels real, the way the camera moves around to show what's around the characters, it's like we are looking through a doorway to 1920s New York with magic as oppose to lines read on a soundstage. The bank felt like a real place, a building next to the train overhead, surrounded by apartments, and up the steps where people beg for coin or haggle for attention, inside with the ornate metal framework separating the bank tellers from the customers.
It bothers me when someone is entering a shop, and there are trees in front of the shop window, but when they are inside the store, the view outside is definitely different, or they are show entering a one storey building, and the interior scene have them going upstairs... This didn't happen in the first FB movie, the setting is probably mappable.
[...]
It bothers me when someone is entering a shop, and there are trees in front of the shop window, but when they are inside the store, the view outside is definitely different, or they are show entering a one storey building, and the interior scene have them going upstairs... This didn't happen in the first FB movie, the setting is probably mappable.
I'll be interested to know how they did the bank scene, the set, which were actually built and which are CGI?
liked the first one, second one was a little underwhelming but kinda good, third one was shit, it could work if it were a trilogy, i dont have the hype to watch anymore of that crap.
They needed to bring back the original cast in the first one. Literally all they had to do and they blew it. It's a shame because harry potter is so cozy and it's sad to see they made such a blunder after it
It takes place like 70-80 years before Harry Potter though, it would have been too forced. They did a young dumbledoor played by Jude Law though and that was honestly so cool but I’m a Jude Law simp
>We're going to make amovie about agut who studies magical creatures >But instead of it being about that, they're generic prequels with the butt pirate version of Voldemort >and we'll bring back David Yates for god knows what reason
they wrapped an entire movies around tricking people with a bird picking their leader
this was after they made the most confusing fricking goddamn mess of a backstory to a third rate character no one ever gave a shit about and requires detailed charts to grasp
Fans across the globe >Massively in love with Hogwarts, the magical society, magic classes, learning about the lore of the wizarding world and fantasy magic wizard school
The Makers of the movies >Massively in love with drab, dreary boring gray skies, drama and crying with as little magical stuff happening as humanly possible and never ever want the movies to take place near Hogwarts or even pretend it exists at all
>“Harry, did I ever tell you about my secret nephew Aurelius? He was an illegitimate half-muggle love child whom my family was ashamed of, so my mother (his grandmother) sailed to the United States with him as a baby, instead of his father or mother. When the ship started to sink (because it was the Titanic), an unrelated half-black daughter of a rapist mind control wizard switched him out with her half-brother (whose mother was consensual, and also white). The rapist wizard didn't care about the daughter, but he did love his son, and he was afraid that the daughter’s mother's son would be angry that his mother was mind control raped and kill the baby instead of the rapist, so he sent the son he loved across the sea (on the Titanic) to be raised in an orphanage by a muggle who hated magic instead of protecting him himself. Anyway, both babies just happened to be magic, so the daughter switched them so she could have a less annoying brother. My mother thought that her grandson was still on the Titanic, and felt so strongly about this secret shame child that she’d tried to abandon in America that she tried to swim down and rescue him and drowned instead of just using magic while the rape daughter watched and did nothing to inform her that her real son was already safe. She then gave my nephew to a French half-elf servant who served the mother, and after the mother was raped and died in childbirth, that meant she had to continue serving the rapist, who thought he was the real son, and delivered him to the orphanage. My nephew was then raised as a muggle who didn't know how to control his magic, destroyed half of New York, had sex with Voldemort's pet snake, got into goth fashion, killed Bambi, and joined a cult ruled by a gay wizard Nazi whom I sodomized. By the way, don’t ask why they used a muggle boat instead of apparating or flying across the ocean. They were all good friends, except the rapist mind control wizard” he said calmly.
I really wonder just why this whole convoluted backstory was even in the movie in the first place. What was the point of adding in all the fake rape baby switched with the real rape baby on the titanic shit at all? Did it add anything?
I really wonder just why this whole convoluted backstory was even in the movie in the first place. What was the point of adding in all the fake rape baby switched with the real rape baby on the titanic shit at all? Did it add anything?
Better question is how in the frick did this whole thing make it into the final film.
No script writer looked over this in the screenplay and asked questions or mentioned how this is confusing to audiences
No WB suits viewing screenings ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
No Test Audience member ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
>No script writer looked over this in the screenplay and asked questions or mentioned how this is confusing to audiences
Because all of them were probably morons who got told they HAVE to have a mystery plot in their show so they shoehorned it in
>No WB suits viewing screenings ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
They probably thought >"We're not going to understand it, it's not for us, but it will make billions because people love harry potter so we don't really care what the plot is"
This movie came out in the peak of "it doesn't have to be good or make sense people love nostalgia"
>No Test Audience member ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
They probably did but WB is definitely not wasting more money on reshoots and rewrites when they know it's going to make money regardless.
I couldn't for the life of me follow what the frick was supposed to be going on with the backstory to this kid and even reading it here it still makes absolutely no sense.
it's actually an allegory for the cycle of abuse and grooming of lgbtqfolk
"magic" is "sucking dick"
"Obscurus" is "being normal"
he's normal until he is groomed by Grindelwald, who neutralizes the Obscurus (normality) to unleash the magic (homosexualry) onto other people, and he proceeds to attack them with it
thus continuing the cycle
then he literally dies of magic AIDS at the end (and no I'm not kidding)
I liked the first one but didn't see either of the sequels because I didn't really care about any of the characters, and "The bad guy is not... le dead" isn't enough of a hook.
>hey, you know that series for kids about magic kids at magic school? >we're doing one about adults >in the past >doing political stuff >with very little magic >and the main character is autistic
I forgot there even was a third until one anon shared a webm in this then I remembered ezra's homosexual character. Wish I still didnt remember that shit movie
It's crazy that Ezra is still out walking around free. He has as much accusations that Trump and Biden have. but trannies are sadly blinded due to being in the same community and defend him
Very telling that Momoa defended Ezra Miller but didn't say a word to defend Henry Cavill
5 months ago
Anonymous
Now you see some of it
5 months ago
Anonymous
telling that he probably groomed and raped ezra as a minor? since Momoa has known Ezra since he was 14, through ezra being courted by zoe kravitz who started dating ezra when he was 14 and she was 18.
kravitz was also in fantastic beasts. all three work for Warner Brothers for the lesser or better part of the last decade
there's an entire weird pedo sex ring operating within warner brothers, prove me wrong
5 months ago
Anonymous
Prolly goes a lil deeper/wider just on the fact they ostracize others in spite of the success they'd get but close enough.
5 months ago
Anonymous
When did Cahill need defending?
5 months ago
Anonymous
A woman spoke against him, that is enough
5 months ago
Anonymous
Gasp
5 months ago
Anonymous
A woman spoke against him, that is enough
He literally lost his show. Where he was the lead, because the female writers said he was difficult
5 months ago
Anonymous
He was the one that dropped out because the show was shit.
The b***h writers hated him but knew he carried the show.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Does anyone have an explanation for that video of mamoa groping a very young girl in front of several people and a camera?
He didn't, he was being shaken down by dirty lying Indians he tried to help pursuant to that pipeline protest.
5 months ago
Anonymous
wait really? thanks I didn't know that, I will modulate my opinion like a rational person instead of tripling down in indignation about disorderly conduct and trespassing while sucking off rolling stone like the hypocritical cuck I was
All they had to do was make a cozy movie set in the wizarding world. instead they made a convuluted woke mess literally no one enjoys. Between this and Star Wars I seriously hope companies stop winging billion dollar trilogies and actually plan them out.
It should've just been about Newt going around to places with creatures and doing his own shit without much connection to the rest of the franchise. Not Dumbledore's prequel story
Queenie and Jacob are the two most redeemable things about this franchise. I don't really care about Tina though. She was boring. I'd go so far as to say that Jacob Kowalski is one of Rowling's best characters.
I don't know, maybe it's just the actors. They both really elevate that first movie. Queenie kind of falls off in the second two because she's written poorly, but Dan Fogler is consistently great. That and I just like old timey New York City stock characters. It's just a really kino film setting.
>I'd go so far as to say that Jacob Kowalski is one of Rowling's best characters.
What is it about fat middle aged factory workers that brings out the best in Rowling as a writer?
WB. Unfortunately, Harry Potter lives at Warner Brothers, and Warner Brother's mission statement is to take the most lucrative IPs in history and find new and embarrassing ways to make them fail. They're real trailblazers over there. It took a while, but now it seems every other studio is aping their formula.
I never actually thought that I would experience the end of blockbuster cinema in my lifetime, but here we are. Star Wars is shit, Marvel is shit, DCEU is shit, Harry Potter is shit. Everything sucks now. It's kind of exciting.
The Dumbledore Grindelwald duel is briefly mentioned in a couple sentences in the books. It didn't need 5 movies of explanation. Also the Titanic baby switcheroo is probably the stupidest think Rowling has come up with.
>only wizards and witches in proper robes are Hogwarts students >everybody else is in muggle clothes at all times, even Hogwarts professors, even pureblood wizards who supposedly hate muggles >none of the wizards or witches dressing as muggles have funny mismatched clothing which was typical in the HP books
Nice consistency Rowling. Pic related, it's actually Dumbledore surrounded by 3 ministry wizards in Hogwarts (which they somehow aparated into), not that you could tell.
the first one was fine. I watched half of the second and dropped it. the incredible mismanagement of this whole thing is hilarious. wasn't it supposed to be like 5 fricking movies? did the 3rd one end conclusively or did they just leave the plot unfinished and fricked off?
Probably tarred and feathered by the Depp/Heard fiasco. Also this was when Rowling was waging her twitter genocide on trannies. Never watched them so I have no idea what i'm talking about probably.
Never even heard of it. looks like a Harry Potter knockoff
harry Potter prequel
No Hogwarts. A sequel with Harry's kids would have made a jillion dollars.
>A sequel with Harry's kids would have made a jillion dollars.
But the actual sequel is legit stupid. Harry's kids going back in time with Voldemort's secret daughter.
Yea but they don't go to Hogwarts right? The actual school with classes and teachers and whatnot has to be a main feature.
It’s not really. It was not done in the correct medium. It would be far more palatable as a book or even a movie.
This presupposes that the sequel is an actual sequel and not a drug induced fever dream made by homosexual theatre persons
Cursed Child is a product of its medium. Watching the play was a decent experience. Reading it as a script sold as a sequel is not. Without the spectacle of watching Dementors fly around and people cast spells IRL, it's a big stupid piece of shit.
That being said, I think it could have been much better as a standalone theatre piece with no nostalgia bait or Broadway-budgeted spectacle. Just make it a really raw and stripped down play about Harry Potter growing up and being disappointed by life. Maybe he and Hermione have an affair (it felt like Cursed Child wanted to go in that direction). I think that a brutally honest Mamet style stage play where Harry Ron and discuss what life is like after peaking in High School made for a hundred seat black box would be an interesting route to go. And it would have been the perfect time to do it, too. Harry Potter is the ultimate Millennial protagonist, and exploring his life as a series of disappointments after getting off to an overly promising start would be an interesting theatre premise. Especially for the New York theatre scene, where everyone in this current generation of performers turned up hoping for something incredible and instead got Mrs Doubtfire the musical and covid
There are a lot of fan plays that attempt this. None of them are good, but I still believe it would work with the right writer. A writer who is probably not JK Rowling.
good post, anon.
wtf
frick that I wanted a prequel with the good guys getting mowed down and everything looking bleak until harry's birth.
Correct. What made this franchise a hit was it's extremely comfy magical boarding school setting. Very few people cared about the lore or fighting magic Hitler nonsense and it's near universally agreed the first four books/movies (where lore was minimal and magic Hitler virtually nonexistent) were far and away the best parts of the franchise. And even still, the dimbfricks with the IP couldn't deliver a strictly school based story.
It's too late now. Even if the morons did figure out that everyone wants to see Hogwarts and they did try to put out a comfy slice of life seven season tv series about OC characters, they'd kill any possibility of soul by filling Hogwarts with nogs, troons, and girlbosses. And even then, there's a 0.0% chance they'd be unable to stop themselves making the focus around Neo-Death Eaters that are just expies of American right wingers that the diverse cast effortlessly beats in time for Kwanza.
Same issue with Star Wars: people care more about the original characters than the world it's set in than they want to admit.
>fantastic beasts and wh- nah just kidding its about dumbledore taking wiener, enjoy!
That's what went wrong. Glad you asked.
why cant they just make a movie where a guy does some fun magic and maybe fights a greedy jerk at the end.
Instead of Wizard Satan #2
this
technically he's Wizard Satan #1 on account of these movies being prequels
This. Make "Animal Planet c. 2004 but with magic and a quirky Brit and a bad guy I guess but he just wants to frick with newt/the animals and there's no major consquences even if he wins" and watch the money roll in. How hard is that?
Also obviously need newt to meet hagrid at some point, they can do some animal trades and then hagrid and/or the animal that was traded comes in to save the day at a critical moment
Seems pretty easy enough
>Movie 1 News goes to West Canada to stop evil magical animal poachers who are killing things for magic horns or something
>Movie 2, Newt and friends go to Africa to save a dragon and some more magical animals and maybe prevent a major drought or natural disaster in the process
>Movie 3, Newt and friends go to Chicago to prevent some magical animal that is due to awake for the first time in thousands of years from destroying the city and revealing the wizarding world
It is so simple yet Hollywood is so lazy.
Rowling is the problem not Hollywood
I think the problem is that such concept would require expensive cgi to throw in
nice looking magical beasts on screen every movies.
Then, they derailed that plan so they can just bring in some nostalgia characters from the original series and turn it into a political thriller that is cheaper to make (since it involves people talking most of the time without cgi magic shit)
>what went wrong?
No plan for the trilogy, the movies change tone all the time going from a fun family movie with magic animals to making sure WWII happens to a worldwide rigged election that's doubly rigged. The protagonist is barely the main character in one and arguably two movies.
These.
JK Rowling is not a good screenwriter, and they used that director who loves making things grey.
Why are they so dedicated to that one director anyway? He makes wizard school look like the most boring fricking place in existence
They are dedicated because he is boring. Boring, reliable, on budget, on time, no risks, no art.
Because he made the last few Harry Potter movies which made a ton of money so the studio assumes he can produce the same results with this without realizing those movies made money because it was the culmination of a decades long franchise
>the most boring fricking place in existence
Yeah, he makes it look pretty dull
they could have made an Indiana Jones like series where Newt travels around the world searching for mythical creatures instead we got unnecessary Grindelwald-Dumbledore lore building
This. Only “fantastical beasts” are the occasional pokemon that Newt captures/releases
first is better than all potter movies except prisoner of azkaban
second is watchable but the script is absolutely bonkers
third is unwatchable, complete crap
>first is better than all potter movies except prisoner of azkaban
the first was total shit. it's worse than all the potter flicks
>grindelwald wants to fight the muggles and prevent the holocaust
>he's the bad guy
jesus rowling
Kek
He couldn't care less but used that as leverage
Not enough of this girl
Ridiculously hot, but her Wikipedia reads like someone wrote absolute nonsense about unbelievably posh people. Like, these don’t even sound like real names:
Poppy Corby-Tuech was born to Michel Corby-Tuech of Veneux-les-Sablons, France, and Catherine, daughter of Lieutenant-Colonel Gillachrist Campbell, of Harleston, Norfolk, late of the Royal Artillery. Her father was of French Algerian and Alsace German origin; her mother descends from Sholto Douglas, 19th Earl of Morton, the Lords Belhaven and Stenton, and Earls of Albemarle.[1][2] She grew up speaking French, but after her father's death when she was nine years old, she returned to Norfolk in England with her mother. She however "retains a French passport, a close relationship with her paternal grandparents and some other continental habits. 'I like black coffee, I always count in French, I dream in French a lot. I’m learning to drive at the moment and road rage sounds pretty damn good in French. I’m picking that up from my grandmother.'"[3]
>Poppy Corby-Tuech
Dommy mommy.
First movie was actually really good, but it fell off pretty hard 2bh. Seems like about fantastic beasts and newt scamander and more about le heckin hitlerino wizard even though we already got hitler lite with voldemort. If it was an adventure series with a unique villain in each entry that wouldve been much better imo
I love the first film and I absolutely hate the sequel. It's like Fear of the Walking Dead, it died because when the initial success wasn't fast enough or whatever, they decide to skinwalk something completely different in it.
First Fantastic Beasts was absolutely kino not only with the Fantastic Beasts content, but the 1920s New York setting and characters that fan loves -- and they all got push aside and character assassinated in the sequels. Queenie is a flapper who likes pink, but she's NOT stupid, the reason she likes Jacob so much in the first place is because she can read everybody's mind constantly, and Jacob's thoughts are nice, and he's okay with her reading his mind.
I heard that the 20s New York landscape included buildings that was there then but torn down since, the details was amazing.
Salem's Society actually mirrored a real group...and real attention to details that the preaching woman is not doing what she preached, she's dressed fashionably while her kids are in unfitted clothes. She's speaking with men alone, etc., she's the Evil Hypocrite.
imo they could have done a way better job showing her mistreating those kids
She didn't seem nearly evil enough to induce an Obscurus
Traffic was everywhere in the opening scene to remind you that they have cars now, but not good laws to protect pedestrians yet. There are those who drive and are driven and those like Jacob who carries suitcases walking to work.
Character Establishing moment: Tina is single-minded, focus on the child abuser she's tracking because she's a good cop who wants to be able to do something. Jacob is polite and folksy. Contrast this to the fricking train scene in the 3rd FB film where they just dumped a bunch of forgettable characters on us.
I think that characters just become forgettable when the main-cast goes about the 3-to-4. Dawn of the Dead (1978) had four main cast: Peter, Roger, Stephen, Frannie -- the remake had Michael, Anna, Ving Rhames, Gunshop Andy -- and way too many canon fodder pretending to be relevant characters that took up precious screen time. Audience won't sit still for longer than around 2 hours, and in 2 hours, every new character you add to the main cast takes away from the others.
>She didn't seem nearly evil enough to induce an Obscurus
She made him take off his own belt so she could beat him with it. She was running a cult where she uses the children to get money and attention while neglecting their needs.
Plus he was groomed by Grindelwald
if that's all it takes my dad summoned a bunch of those growing up
The attention to details really pleases my inner autist -- tram in the background! The setting feels real, the way the camera moves around to show what's around the characters, it's like we are looking through a doorway to 1920s New York with magic as oppose to lines read on a soundstage. The bank felt like a real place, a building next to the train overhead, surrounded by apartments, and up the steps where people beg for coin or haggle for attention, inside with the ornate metal framework separating the bank tellers from the customers.
It bothers me when someone is entering a shop, and there are trees in front of the shop window, but when they are inside the store, the view outside is definitely different, or they are show entering a one storey building, and the interior scene have them going upstairs... This didn't happen in the first FB movie, the setting is probably mappable.
I'll be interested to know how they did the bank scene, the set, which were actually built and which are CGI?
I'm going to track down the 1st FB DVD, and then forget that sequels exist.
1st movie was good.
So fricking onions its unreal
liked the first one, second one was a little underwhelming but kinda good, third one was shit, it could work if it were a trilogy, i dont have the hype to watch anymore of that crap.
Boring slop.
Mogged by all the HP films.
the problem isnt that it was writen by a woman, the problem is that it was directed by that woman and she isnt good on either
they made 3 of those?
Yes. The third came out last year and flopped leading to WB rebooting Harry Potter as a Max show.
They needed to bring back the original cast in the first one. Literally all they had to do and they blew it. It's a shame because harry potter is so cozy and it's sad to see they made such a blunder after it
It takes place like 70-80 years before Harry Potter though, it would have been too forced. They did a young dumbledoor played by Jude Law though and that was honestly so cool but I’m a Jude Law simp
>We're going to make amovie about agut who studies magical creatures
>But instead of it being about that, they're generic prequels with the butt pirate version of Voldemort
>and we'll bring back David Yates for god knows what reason
lead is gay
Dumbasses b***hed about the second movie.
> take movie about interesting character in magic new york
> make two sequels about gay wizards in europe
wow, real head scratcher
they wrapped an entire movies around tricking people with a bird picking their leader
this was after they made the most confusing fricking goddamn mess of a backstory to a third rate character no one ever gave a shit about and requires detailed charts to grasp
Yeah the 2nd and especially 3rd are simultaneously convoluted and mind-numbingly stupid
Fans across the globe
>Massively in love with Hogwarts, the magical society, magic classes, learning about the lore of the wizarding world and fantasy magic wizard school
The Makers of the movies
>Massively in love with drab, dreary boring gray skies, drama and crying with as little magical stuff happening as humanly possible and never ever want the movies to take place near Hogwarts or even pretend it exists at all
there is kind of a disconnect here
Making the movies about Grindelwald and Dumbledore instead of just having fun magical animal adventures.
There are 3 films???
Yes see
David Yates aesthetic (worst looking HP movies).
Millenial woke shit writing.
>“Harry, did I ever tell you about my secret nephew Aurelius? He was an illegitimate half-muggle love child whom my family was ashamed of, so my mother (his grandmother) sailed to the United States with him as a baby, instead of his father or mother. When the ship started to sink (because it was the Titanic), an unrelated half-black daughter of a rapist mind control wizard switched him out with her half-brother (whose mother was consensual, and also white). The rapist wizard didn't care about the daughter, but he did love his son, and he was afraid that the daughter’s mother's son would be angry that his mother was mind control raped and kill the baby instead of the rapist, so he sent the son he loved across the sea (on the Titanic) to be raised in an orphanage by a muggle who hated magic instead of protecting him himself. Anyway, both babies just happened to be magic, so the daughter switched them so she could have a less annoying brother. My mother thought that her grandson was still on the Titanic, and felt so strongly about this secret shame child that she’d tried to abandon in America that she tried to swim down and rescue him and drowned instead of just using magic while the rape daughter watched and did nothing to inform her that her real son was already safe. She then gave my nephew to a French half-elf servant who served the mother, and after the mother was raped and died in childbirth, that meant she had to continue serving the rapist, who thought he was the real son, and delivered him to the orphanage. My nephew was then raised as a muggle who didn't know how to control his magic, destroyed half of New York, had sex with Voldemort's pet snake, got into goth fashion, killed Bambi, and joined a cult ruled by a gay wizard Nazi whom I sodomized. By the way, don’t ask why they used a muggle boat instead of apparating or flying across the ocean. They were all good friends, except the rapist mind control wizard” he said calmly.
he bellowed calmly
I really wonder just why this whole convoluted backstory was even in the movie in the first place. What was the point of adding in all the fake rape baby switched with the real rape baby on the titanic shit at all? Did it add anything?
Better question is how in the frick did this whole thing make it into the final film.
No script writer looked over this in the screenplay and asked questions or mentioned how this is confusing to audiences
No WB suits viewing screenings ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
No Test Audience member ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
>No script writer looked over this in the screenplay and asked questions or mentioned how this is confusing to audiences
Because all of them were probably morons who got told they HAVE to have a mystery plot in their show so they shoehorned it in
>No WB suits viewing screenings ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
They probably thought
>"We're not going to understand it, it's not for us, but it will make billions because people love harry potter so we don't really care what the plot is"
This movie came out in the peak of "it doesn't have to be good or make sense people love nostalgia"
>No Test Audience member ever once raised a hand and said this is weird and confusing
They probably did but WB is definitely not wasting more money on reshoots and rewrites when they know it's going to make money regardless.
Woah.
I couldn't for the life of me follow what the frick was supposed to be going on with the backstory to this kid and even reading it here it still makes absolutely no sense.
it's actually an allegory for the cycle of abuse and grooming of lgbtqfolk
"magic" is "sucking dick"
"Obscurus" is "being normal"
he's normal until he is groomed by Grindelwald, who neutralizes the Obscurus (normality) to unleash the magic (homosexualry) onto other people, and he proceeds to attack them with it
thus continuing the cycle
then he literally dies of magic AIDS at the end (and no I'm not kidding)
Tl;dr?
I wouldn't have stretched my legs at all. I would've asked them to stretch their legs calmly, and that's what nobody deh'd.
the transphobe author is box office poison
Loved the first one. 2nd was was horrendous. Didn't see the 3rd
The 3rd was actually not bad, you should watch it
It got hated on because of Rowling & Ezra but was much better than the 2nd
Harry Potter was always a garbage-tier franchise, you are just old enough now to see it for what it is.
I liked the first one but didn't see either of the sequels because I didn't really care about any of the characters, and "The bad guy is not... le dead" isn't enough of a hook.
>hey, you know that series for kids about magic kids at magic school?
>we're doing one about adults
>in the past
>doing political stuff
>with very little magic
>and the main character is autistic
i think the main actor looks t0o plain and boring and that look of bewilderment he always has is annoying.
False advertising. Should have been magic Ace Ventura.
I forgot there even was a third until one anon shared a webm in this then I remembered ezra's homosexual character. Wish I still didnt remember that shit movie
It's crazy that Ezra is still out walking around free. He has as much accusations that Trump and Biden have. but trannies are sadly blinded due to being in the same community and defend him
The fact he is still in the DCU and not cavill speaks volumes on lotta things wrong with the world.
>The fact he is still in the DCU
After the Flash flopped and they reshot the ending to be him stuck in a different universe I doubt we'll be seeing him again in the new DCU
even so, the likes of jason momoa, peter safran, and grant morrison have been defending him acting like he did nothing wrong
True
Very telling that Momoa defended Ezra Miller but didn't say a word to defend Henry Cavill
Now you see some of it
telling that he probably groomed and raped ezra as a minor? since Momoa has known Ezra since he was 14, through ezra being courted by zoe kravitz who started dating ezra when he was 14 and she was 18.
kravitz was also in fantastic beasts. all three work for Warner Brothers for the lesser or better part of the last decade
there's an entire weird pedo sex ring operating within warner brothers, prove me wrong
Prolly goes a lil deeper/wider just on the fact they ostracize others in spite of the success they'd get but close enough.
When did Cahill need defending?
A woman spoke against him, that is enough
Gasp
He literally lost his show. Where he was the lead, because the female writers said he was difficult
He was the one that dropped out because the show was shit.
The b***h writers hated him but knew he carried the show.
Does anyone have an explanation for that video of mamoa groping a very young girl in front of several people and a camera?
He didn't, he was being shaken down by dirty lying Indians he tried to help pursuant to that pipeline protest.
wait really? thanks I didn't know that, I will modulate my opinion like a rational person instead of tripling down in indignation about disorderly conduct and trespassing while sucking off rolling stone like the hypocritical cuck I was
All they had to do was make a cozy movie set in the wizarding world. instead they made a convuluted woke mess literally no one enjoys. Between this and Star Wars I seriously hope companies stop winging billion dollar trilogies and actually plan them out.
Hermione was black. What the frick is this moronic illustration?
Early Harry Potter and related media was very comfy. Series went to shit when Yates took charge.
I would have legit preferred an animated movie in that "zany" cartoon style on the covers then the live action stuff.
I'm going to watch these movies for the first time. Wish me luck.
God speed. Watched the 3rd for the first time tonight and it was fricking awful.
Right now the biggest challenge is finding a version of the 3rd movie that doesn't have korean hardsubs.
Okay I've watched 2 of the movies and I can understand why people don't care for them.
bad choice of lead and they should have got a new director
>fantastic beast
Still using the same title for the sequels that has nothing to do with the plot
It should've just been about Newt going around to places with creatures and doing his own shit without much connection to the rest of the franchise. Not Dumbledore's prequel story
It should have been one or the other. I would prefer a simple trilogy about Dumbledore's early life, personally. But what we got was neither.
The beasts werent particulary fantastic
Cool it with the antisemitism. The Goldstein sisters are witches, not beasts.
Queenie and Jacob are the two most redeemable things about this franchise. I don't really care about Tina though. She was boring. I'd go so far as to say that Jacob Kowalski is one of Rowling's best characters.
I don't know, maybe it's just the actors. They both really elevate that first movie. Queenie kind of falls off in the second two because she's written poorly, but Dan Fogler is consistently great. That and I just like old timey New York City stock characters. It's just a really kino film setting.
>I'd go so far as to say that Jacob Kowalski is one of Rowling's best characters.
What is it about fat middle aged factory workers that brings out the best in Rowling as a writer?
She wants to imagine one that doesn't beat her every night.
WB. Unfortunately, Harry Potter lives at Warner Brothers, and Warner Brother's mission statement is to take the most lucrative IPs in history and find new and embarrassing ways to make them fail. They're real trailblazers over there. It took a while, but now it seems every other studio is aping their formula.
I never actually thought that I would experience the end of blockbuster cinema in my lifetime, but here we are. Star Wars is shit, Marvel is shit, DCEU is shit, Harry Potter is shit. Everything sucks now. It's kind of exciting.
I know what went right
why does everyone act so weird around that motherfricker?
They have a mythical aura, maybe they really are magic.
I want to be just like them
Same
It doesn't know what it wants to be. The plot has no direction and Newt is the only good character.
The Dumbledore Grindelwald duel is briefly mentioned in a couple sentences in the books. It didn't need 5 movies of explanation. Also the Titanic baby switcheroo is probably the stupidest think Rowling has come up with.
They didn't keep Colin Farrel as Grindelwald.
The studio shitting their pants and replacing johnny depp
>only wizards and witches in proper robes are Hogwarts students
>everybody else is in muggle clothes at all times, even Hogwarts professors, even pureblood wizards who supposedly hate muggles
>none of the wizards or witches dressing as muggles have funny mismatched clothing which was typical in the HP books
Nice consistency Rowling. Pic related, it's actually Dumbledore surrounded by 3 ministry wizards in Hogwarts (which they somehow aparated into), not that you could tell.
they fumbled the bag HARD w the 2nd one
the first one was fine. I watched half of the second and dropped it. the incredible mismanagement of this whole thing is hilarious. wasn't it supposed to be like 5 fricking movies? did the 3rd one end conclusively or did they just leave the plot unfinished and fricked off?
kinda both, it ended in a way that they could just leave it there, like open-ended
The MC.
Dogshit character.
the entire cast is shit except for that girl
they went backwards in storytelling
NEVER go backwards
ALWAYS go forward
no gay bestiality, not enough lgbtqwtfbbq gay trans beasts animals lel
Probably tarred and feathered by the Depp/Heard fiasco. Also this was when Rowling was waging her twitter genocide on trannies. Never watched them so I have no idea what i'm talking about probably.
David Yates.
Hold up there's three of these fricking things? Since when?