New Harry Potter films coming, starting with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

[Brian G Turner]

News that JK Rowling is writing a film screenplay for Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-beasts-to-be-at-least-a-trilogy-9798338.html

The news also includes multiple spin-off films, with the first set at least 70 years before the first Harry Potter book.

 

[Boaz]

Not to be completely negative...

I felt the themes of fidelity, friendship, choosing your path, rejecting villainy, living in the moment (and not in the past), sacrifice, and redemption were what carried Harry Potter. Sure, the world was fun and quirky, but that is not enough to make a movie in my opinion. FBAWTFT is a textbook. Unless it is filled with many short stories of bravery, adventure, and fighting evil, then I assume it will only be about the effects. I hope Ms. Rowling plays to her strength of writing strong themes.

 

[dragon wizard byfire]

The book is a textbook the movie is about the author of the textbook (Newt Scamander) and his adventures with fantastic beasts.

 

[Boaz]

Ah... thanks.

So the first movie will be.... Newt Scamander and the Phoenix of the Order?

 

[AGraceMartin]

I think it totally depends upon the screenplay. If the character is well developed and there is some kind of substantial plot, it could be a good movie. If it is relying on the coattails of Harry Potter then it will probably flop.

 

[Boaz]

A friend has begun playing Middle-earth: Shadows of Mordor. It takes place sometime in the 2,000-1,000 years before The Lord of the Rings. It is gorgeous. The nemesis system seems waaaaay cool. But... it's not Tolkien. Tolkien's estate sold the rights for someone to write a story in Middle-earth. And that rubs me the wrong way....

Did the writer(s) do this because of a burning passion for art? Did the story make so much sense to the Tolkien estate and family that they all shouted, "Hallelujah! We've found J.R.R's replacement after all these years!"

Wasn't there enough source material in The Silmarillion or in any of the early or unfinished stories for a dozen games?

As a big fan of G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, I'm amazed at how much a better job that J.K. Rowling did of managing her burgeoning empire. Martin is a good writer, but I'd guess he's a poor administrator... and that is not to be critical of him. He pursued his ambitions of writing... and all of a sudden it became a billion dollar industry. He'd never prepared himself to manage something like that... And in my uninformed opinion, while it may be tons of fun for him to see his creation take life as board games, video games, card games, calendars, swords, tv shows, comics, cookbooks, atlases, and music it must threaten to bury him under paperwork and time constraints. I know Martin is a slow and meticulous writer... that's fine. I'll wait as long as it takes. It does not really bother me that his management time eats into his creative time... it's that the stress of management will kill his passion for creativity... and lessen his enjoyment of life.

It seems that Rowling's series kept on going despite it's own massive popularity. For Pete's sake, there's a theme park!!!!!

So does Rowling have a real story to tell or is this just going to be something about the Wizarding World?

 

[devilsgrin]

A friend has begun playing Middle-earth: Shadows of Mordor. It takes place sometime in the 2,000-1,000 years before The Lord of the Rings. It is gorgeous. The nemesis system seems waaaaay cool. But... it's not Tolkien. Tolkien's estate sold the rights for someone to write a story in Middle-earth. And that rubs me the wrong way....

Did the writer(s) do this because of a burning passion for art? Did the story make so much sense to the Tolkien estate and family that they all shouted, "Hallelujah! We've found J.R.R's replacement after all these years!"

Wasn't there enough source material in The Silmarillion or in any of the early or unfinished stories for a dozen games?

As a big fan of G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, I'm amazed at how much a better job that J.K. Rowling did of managing her burgeoning empire. Martin is a good writer, but I'd guess he's a poor administrator... and that is not to be critical of him. He pursued his ambitions of writing... and all of a sudden it became a billion dollar industry. He'd never prepared himself to manage something like that... And in my uninformed opinion, while it may be tons of fun for him to see his creation take life as board games, video games, card games, calendars, swords, tv shows, comics, cookbooks, atlases, and music it must threaten to bury him under paperwork and time constraints. I know Martin is a slow and meticulous writer... that's fine. I'll wait as long as it takes. It does not really bother me that his management time eats into his creative time... it's that the stress of management will kill his passion for creativity... and lessen his enjoyment of life.

It seems that Rowling's series kept on going despite it's own massive popularity. For Pete's sake, there's a theme park!!!!!

So does Rowling have a real story to tell or is this just going to be something about the Wizarding World?

not to nit-pick but Shadow of Mordor is set between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings...not 1000 or more years before events.
I like it, its a more realistic take of the overly cotton-wooled Middle Earth.
Otherwise i tend to agree with you, FBAWTFT does seem like a bit of a cash generator. And seems likely to dilute the specialness of the Harry Potter series.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

I don't really mind world building oriented stories and films as long as they have a good story to tie it in. I'm hoping JK will manage it for I'd hate to be disappointed.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And here's the latest trailer:

 

[zmunkz]

Looks better than I expected.

 

[JoanDrake]

A friend has begun playing Middle-earth: Shadows of Mordor. It takes place sometime in the 2,000-1,000 years before The Lord of the Rings. It is gorgeous. The nemesis system seems waaaaay cool. But... it's not Tolkien. Tolkien's estate sold the rights for someone to write a story in Middle-earth. And that rubs me the wrong way....

Did the writer(s) do this because of a burning passion for art? Did the story make so much sense to the Tolkien estate and family that they all shouted, "Hallelujah! We've found J.R.R's replacement after all these years!"

Wasn't there enough source material in The Silmarillion or in any of the early or unfinished stories for a dozen games?

As a big fan of G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, I'm amazed at how much a better job that J.K. Rowling did of managing her burgeoning empire. Martin is a good writer, but I'd guess he's a poor administrator... and that is not to be critical of him. He pursued his ambitions of writing... and all of a sudden it became a billion dollar industry. He'd never prepared himself to manage something like that... And in my uninformed opinion, while it may be tons of fun for him to see his creation take life as board games, video games, card games, calendars, swords, tv shows, comics, cookbooks, atlases, and music it must threaten to bury him under paperwork and time constraints. I know Martin is a slow and meticulous writer... that's fine. I'll wait as long as it takes. It does not really bother me that his management time eats into his creative time... it's that the stress of management will kill his passion for creativity... and lessen his enjoyment of life.

It seems that Rowling's series kept on going despite it's own massive popularity. For Pete's sake, there's a theme park!!!!!

So does Rowling have a real story to tell or is this just going to be something about the Wizarding World?

The major difference between Rowling and just about any other author whose books became major movies recently is that Rowling's books were publishing phenomena before they became movies. Rowling, in any negotiations with moviemakers therefore, came to the table holding all the cards. This is, IMO, the major reason she is much richer than Stephen King off 7 books and movies than he has become off over a hundred or than George Martin has garnered from ASoIaF along with several years of other TV works besides. A lot of the popularity of these authors is due to the movies, in Rowling's case the movies depend on her.

Her continued success, however, is a case of the movies and that's why it seems to keep going. The success of most other author's works are a good deal more collaborations between themselves and a large marketing staff than they like to let on. (though I found this out, in fact, from Stephen King's writings on authorship and the Bachman Books.) In Rowling's case her initial fame was largely due to her own artistry, and it is only later that the marketing gurus have stepped in to keep the ball rolling.

And that may be why she seems to be pushing the story a little far. She is very much like an actress who has been in an extremely popular work and thus become typecast. Whenever we see her name on something from now on we are going to look for Harry, Hermione and Dumbledore, she is going to have to live down this expectation with a lot of effort and talent on her part and it will still take time; until she does is it any wonder that she wants to preserve her present popularity among her millions of fans as much as she can?

 

[Brian G Turner]

And the final trailer, in case anyone missed it:

 

[Willow Beck]

Can't believe there's going to be FIVE of these films though!? FIVE. Eee!

 

[Steven Sorrels]

It seems to revolve around some of the back story behind the wizard Dumbledore became famous for defeating (Gellert Grindlewald) and an exploration of American magic, which is less dependent on wands and based, at least in part, on Native American mythology and beliefs. I, for one, am excited to see where it goes.

 

[Dave]

I'm I the only one to have seen this? It's been out for a while. I thought it was good. Maybe 4 stars rather than 5. It is Harry Potter for Adults. You don't need to know anything about Harry Potter to watch it, but it is in the same universe so it would certainly help your full understanding if you did. It is funny, exciting, sad, and full of fantastic special effects and creatures. I thought it was good family entertainment, but the young kids in my cinema seemed to be bored by some parts.

I think that setting it in 1924 and in New York is a clever way to make it separate from Harry Potter, and it works in my opinion. There are contrasts and you get to see the US Congress of Magic, the equivalent of the British Ministry of Magic. Americans call Muggles, No-Majs, and for a twist a No-Maj has a main role in the story. The main character is Newt Scamander played by Eddie Redmayne and he is a collector and sort of ecologist of rare magical beasts. He is writing the book already mentioned and has just been around the world. Other Wizards don't think magical beasts are that important and generally just kill them, but he saves them. He went to Hogwarts but was thought of as a little odd and a loner and was expelled for letting some animal escape. His teacher, Dumbledore, spoke up for him. He is in America to release a creature that he freed from captivity in Africa. And in America there is a scare about the Wizard, Gellert Grindleward. American Wizards are more underground than in Britain, due to the Salem Witch Trials. They are not allowed to marry or to have relations with No-Majs.The other two characters are a disgraced Auror, Tina Goldstein and her sister, Queenie.

Too tell you any more would be spoiling it, but it is a self-contained story without any cliff-hanger at the end, though with many possibilities for the sequels.

 

[The Big Peat]

I saw it and was quite unimpressed by what felt like a weak and overbloated story; it tried to do too much and skimped on important details as a result.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Thought it started well, and generally was pretty decent until it got near the end.

There were various problems with the ending:

1. It relied too heavily on CGI to provide the conflict, not the characters
2. The overall message was too Orwellian
3. Serious deus ex machina

The first problem is a mixed one - it's hard to be fantastical without relying on special effects.

The second I don't know whether was a flaw or intended as a comment on American values. The message was that anything deemed unwelcome can be executed or erased. Hence why it was fine to kill a disturbed child, then wipe everybody's memories.

The third simply irritated - New York is damaged, but - magic! And so everything is fixed. Yet, New York is a city - that means lots of people indoors, especially when raining. So I can't see how putting forgetfulness in the rain was somehow able to solve everything.

Eddie Redmayne was superb, as expected. The female lead just kind of got dragged around and lacked chemistry. If they were performing in separate studios that might explain something of it.

Overall, interesting for much of the time, but too much of the appeal was based on nostalgic New York, cute animals, and ended in a way that didn't seem satisfying.

 

[The Big Peat]

You know, the problem of everyone who saw that through the window and never got rained on never even occurred to me Also, like, how much memory did it remove? Like, three days? Is there some poor guy in New York who got engaged to his woman two days before, woman gets a train out of town day before it goes down, he gets rained on, she calls up and he can't remember he's engaged? Harry Potter magic is the worst.

I didn't even get that as a message. I didn't even get a message tbh. Not that I'm disagreeing with what you took from it Brian, just I never even go that far. Will be interesting to see what develops.

The first point though (answering in reverse here) - I think its a question of proportion. Even in a movie like this, being all fantastical all the time will kill the story, no matter how you do it. I got the impression that the people writing the movie didn't care and that it was aimed at a young-ish audience happy to go "Ooh! Ahh!" rather than stare at the story.

 

[Boneman]

Watched this again recently. First time round I kinda liked it, for the spectacle, but didn't like Eddie Redmayne's head-ducking-diffident-Englishman (I think he was told to play Hugh Grant as a young man...). Second time around he really annoyed me, to the point it spoiled my enjoyment of the film. Yes, i agree wit Big Peat - this was aimed at youngish audience (I'm very old and grumpy...)

 

[steffthecat]

I was disappointed in the "Fantastic Beasts" film. I thought it was kind of slow.