Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It felt more like an adaptation of Doctor Who than anything else. Honestly, other than to serve the plot, it really made no sense why Newt (Eddie) was even in New York. Yes, there was the bit about him intending to head off to Arizona but once in the city, he pretty much headed off to find trouble just like the Doctor does. In fact, Eddie Redmayne pretty much aped Matt Smith the whole way through. I was surprised when he pulled out a wand instead of a sonic screwdriver.
The new goblins or whatever they are literally look like they were plucked out of World of Warcraft instead of Harry Potter. In an odd way, I liked them better than the latex masks Harry Potter used. But they really did look like World of Warcraft goblins.
The visuals of prohibition New York were pretty well done but that was about it for what I liked. In the end, none of the characters really made me like them. I didn't even care when they did the Scooby-do ending with the villain. Even the "sad goodbye" got no feels at all.
kronk wrote: In the Harry Potter scale, it is just ahead of movie 2 and 3, which are bottom of my list. 7b-7a-6-5-4-1-Beasts-2-3.
I don't know what I was expecting, but I felt "Meh" when I left. Got my money's worth. That's it.
Is there a reason your preference of the films develops along the same lines of emma Watson?
Do basically, is this doctor who in Manhattan? I actually do remember having a conversation with someone when the last book came out saying how Hollywood only has the right to the names of the films, not the name Harry Potter, so they couldn't make a Harry Potter based in America. I guess they found a way in the end.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Then you are likely to enjoy it more than I did and I'm happy that suits you. Unfortunately, it didn't for me. I have a feeling I would have enjoyed Doctor Strange or The Arrival more. Live and learn, I suppose.
I thought that it was a pretty enjoyable, if at times nonsensical, movie. I think my favourite aspect was the creativeness with the creation of the various fantastic beasts. I also think that the supplementary cast of Farrell, Dan Fogel, Alison Sudol (who looks stunning) and Ezra Miller were far more captivating than Redmayne and Waterston.
Saw it earlier, really enjoyed it. I did feel a lot of background work was missing with this compared to the earlier films, but that could just be because those have the books to fill in the blanks and this doesn't, so it just seems a little less developed. Aside from that, great film.
Visuals were fantastic, at times they really captured the sense of awe the series has always been good at, performances and writing for the characters were likewise excellent, Redmayne was a lot more engaging than I thought he'd be and the supporting cast were consistently good.
The final twist I don't think was particularly necessary or worthwhile, it wouldn't have detracted in any way if it wasn't there, but other than that I think the story worked, it didn't feel haphazard or rushed and the pacing was good. I think the first act was probably my favourite part, it was definitely the most fun portion of the movie.
In all, it's probably not quite as good as the last few Potters, but they had a lot more to go on in terms of the previous films and the books themselves, and I definitely think this series will reach the same heights given time. As with all things Potter, don't think about it too hard and you should find something to enjoy.
Have to say that the kids really enjoyed it. Anything that can keep an 8 year old in his seat and watching through the 'scary' bits gets a thumbs up.
Spoiler:
Though I did spend the last act trying to work out when the elder wand fits into the timeline and the sequence of events in the film.
I'd assume
Spoiler:
Grindlewald is pursuing it at this point, but doesn't have it yet, as he does have the Hallows symbol on the charm he gives to Credence. Word is the later films are going to shift focus from Newt's adventuring to Grindlewald's rise to power, so I expect the Wand will be a major plot point in one of the sequels, especially once Dumbledore is introduced as well and they're both going after it, that's a whole movie in itself.
2016/11/28 06:24:16
Subject: Re:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
if they would be exposed that there would be a war
Spoiler:
I think it's an aspect of the American version of the setting, the American muggles/nomajes seem a lot more aware that magic is a real thing, and are a lot more actively hostile towards it, hence people like the Salem Society group. That's something that doesn't really come across in the 21st century English Potterverse, where it's all entirely secret to all but a few. That could be a function of time as much as geography, but the attitudes are definitely very different on both sides, even the Wizards are forbidden to interact at all with muggles whereas in later 20th century England in the setting, Half-bloods are not at all uncommon.
It's a shame really that the film is a prequel with an established future, as an ending where everyone did find out about the magical world would have made for a very interesting sequel indeed. But alas these films are forced into not having any real consequences, so it's magic bird memory potion time!
kronk wrote: In the Harry Potter scale, it is just ahead of movie 2 and 3, which are bottom of my list. 7b-7a-6-5-4-1-Beasts-2-3.
I don't know what I was expecting, but I felt "Meh" when I left. Got my money's worth. That's it.
Is there a reason your preference of the films develops along the same lines of emma Watson?
Heh. Development.
Anyway, it's probably due to a mix of:
1. Actors becoming better actors over time. Watch the first few movies again. Rupert Grint, while a cute kid, was a horribly child actor. Radcliff wasn't much better in those first few movies.
2. The movies, like the books, become more "adult" as the series progressed. The darker themes are more appealing and interesting than the more "fairy tale" feel of book 1 and 2.
3. The director for the 3rd movie was horrible. Completely left off Lupin explaining to Harry who Padfoot, Moonie, Wormtail, and Prongs were, among other horrible choices.
Breotan wrote: Eddie Redmayne pretty much aped Matt Smith the whole way through. I was surprised when he pulled out a wand instead of a sonic screwdriver.
I liked the bit where he magic'd himself a Matt Smith-esque bow tie before he went into the speakeasy.
3. The director for the 3rd movie was horrible. Completely left off Lupin explaining to Harry who Padfoot, Moonie, Wormtail, and Prongs were, among other horrible choices.
Was that really Alfonso Cuarón's fault? I mean, things like that being left out would be the fault of Steve Kloves (screenwriter) or Steven Welsberg (the editor), I would have thought.
It was darker than I expected. I liked the parts with the actual creatures but frankly wanted Mayer Lansky to machine gun all the witches with Tommy Guns.
When the big finale started I had this sudden daydream of King Kong appearing and squashing all the witches like bugs.
Note: I have never read a Harry Potter book and only saw the first movie and the last movie with the kids. The wife made me shut up during the film because I was calling in imaginary air strikes on all of them...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/05 12:31:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. I do like New Who and this film reminded me of that. In fact it felt like a little bit of a love letter!
I went in with wifey, nephew and niece, without expectations and had a good time. I can see how people wanting a Harry Potter prequel would be disappointed.
Tangentially, has JK Rowling guest written a Doctor Who episode yet?
At first, I was unimpressed. Like the OP it felt like a Dr. Who spin-off.
However, as I thought a bit more about some of the themes of Modernity vs the Natural World, Authorities willing to do anything to maintain stability, and repressing of rage until it overflows into dangerous political carnage, well.... the whole thing suddenly felt a lot more timely and interesting.
Also, there were some nice little barbs at Americans too.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Even if it left me thinking "Man, wizards can rebuild a large part of New York in less than an hour in the 30's. Feels like wizardry has regressed by the Potter era."
Essentially it was interesting seeing what actual grown-up mature wizards could do but in doing so takes a bit away from the Potter era since it makes them all feel like bumbling children.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Id be interested to see the rise of Dumbledore, grimdelwald and others.
History that was pretty big part of the Voldemort quest.
And also a insight into other characters.
Could be good done right.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
Kilkrazy wrote: I went tonight and liked it. Not a 5/5 film, there was something a bit lacking that I can't put my finger on, but a 4/5.
Saw the film last night with my wife and feel similarly. I couldn't get into the movie as much as I was hoping to.
Spoiler:
I didn't care for Newt or Tina as characters and only really enjoyed the subplot of Jacob and Queenie's attraction to one another (and the social ramifications for when the eventually become a couple should make for some interesting story telling).
Spoiler:
The beasts were neat, but ultimately didn't hold my attention or add much to the movie in my opinion. And my gripe with all of the HP Universe movies is the non-human creatures look so blatantly like CGI that it shatters my immersion. From Firenze the Centaur in the Potter films to the feathered serpent in Beasts, the non-humans tend to look soulless and clearly engineered rather than actual creatures. Seeing what can be done with a CGI lion in Life of Pi, the creatures in this movie should have looked more realistic in my opinion. I can forgive some of the earlier films (though Firenze really looks like gak, even by 2003 standards) due to their age, the fakey creature aesthetic was carried throughout the HP series and seems to be alive and well in this new series.
Other gripes:
The "hunt" for Newt's missing beasts felt as unimportant as the final showdown with Credence. All in all I just felt like I was watching one faux challenge after another.
The threat of humans to the wizards seemed overblown, and I would have liked more time spent on why the wizards were in hiding rather than manipulating the muggle world from the shadows (like their British counterparts). I know muggles outnumber witches and wizards, but numbers alone don't explain why such powerful beings are cowering in fear.
Large chunks of New York are obliterated and no one dies. The only muggle death mentioned was the aspiring politician and that put the entire wizarding world in a panic. If the movie is going to explore dark themes it shouldn't pull punches. When buildings are ravaged by forces so strong that they blow apart, there should be some collateral damage. Not having many consequences from the extreme magical powers being unleashed on New York removed all tension from the events and made me not care about the outcomes. Seeing the destroyed sections of New York being restored effortlessly while the muggles were treated to a rain version of the Men-in-Black Neuralyzer further reduced the stakes of the movie's events.
It sounds like I didn't like the movie, but that isn't the case. It was fun, but predictable and didn't go far enough in my opinion on establishing the new world the series will explore. I did enjoy the aesthetics of the movie, especially 1920's New York. Seeing how wizarding is done in North America was interesting and I'd like to know more. There is definitely potential for better films in this series and I liked the Johnny Depp reveal at the end. I avoided most press about the movie and so his appearance was a genuine surprise. Looking forward to seeing him as the big baddie.
The beasts were neat, but ultimately didn't hold my attention or add much to the movie in my opinion. And my gripe with all of the HP Universe movies is the non-human creatures look so blatantly like CGI that it shatters my immersion. From Firenze the Centaur in the Potter films to the feathered serpent in Beasts, the non-humans tend to look soulless and clearly engineered rather than actual creatures. Seeing what can be done with a CGI lion in Life of Pi, the creatures in this movie should have looked more realistic in my opinion. I can forgive some of the earlier films (though Firenze really looks like gak, even by 2003 standards) due to their age, the fakey creature aesthetic was carried throughout the HP series and seems to be alive and well in this new series.
I think that the HP movies in general have a problem with wanting to make everything dramatic and outlandish, and spectacular as possible, and not worrying about making it look real. This applies to more than the beasts- look at stuff like apparation, or Harry's last battle with Voldemort. With beasts, this seems to translate into exotic designs (6-winged birds, etc.), while neglecting the textures and movements that make animals actually look alive.
The beasts were neat, but ultimately didn't hold my attention or add much to the movie in my opinion. And my gripe with all of the HP Universe movies is the non-human creatures look so blatantly like CGI that it shatters my immersion. From Firenze the Centaur in the Potter films to the feathered serpent in Beasts, the non-humans tend to look soulless and clearly engineered rather than actual creatures. Seeing what can be done with a CGI lion in Life of Pi, the creatures in this movie should have looked more realistic in my opinion. I can forgive some of the earlier films (though Firenze really looks like gak, even by 2003 standards) due to their age, the fakey creature aesthetic was carried throughout the HP series and seems to be alive and well in this new series.
I think that the HP movies in general have a problem with wanting to make everything dramatic and outlandish, and spectacular as possible, and not worrying about making it look real. This applies to more than the beasts- look at stuff like apparation, or Harry's last battle with Voldemort. With beasts, this seems to translate into exotic designs (6-winged birds, etc.), while neglecting the textures and movements that make animals actually look alive.
I could support that explanation re: dramatic vs. realistic.
With things like the folding reality effect of apparation, or even the wizarding duels with their neon-colored bolts of liquid-energy, I can give all of that a pass because it is magic. It should look unnatural or extraordinary. But I want my creatures to look realistic, I guess. Even if they are mythical creatures.
This is a long-running grievance of mine with these movies, though. I've never thought the non-magical characters or creatures looked up to snuff for a franchise that had the budgets to do incredible visuals (and pulled off great visuals in other aspects of the movies). From Dobby to the aforementioned Firenze, and all of the goblins, centaurs, giants (ugh, the giants were AWFUL) and elves we have seen since, all have looked like junk in my opinion. The exceptions being the practical effects versions played by human actors, like Warwick Davis, those at least looked like they existed in the world and weren't added through digital effects.
Development.
