• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Fantastic Beasts 3 has been officially greenlit, and will be set in Rio de Janeiro

StCoop said:
I dunno. Try asking any woman who's been beaten up by her husband.
Click to expand...
How bout beaten husbands? Came out in trial that she hit him a number of times ...

It was a crapshow of a marrage on both sides. Should have divorced and called it a day, but she decided to air the dirty laundry.
But she didn't get blacklisted.. Unfair really.
 
That was definitely better than the previous film, but it also felt like it basically left us with a reset of nearly everything the previous film put into motion without any new direction. TCoG was a huge mess but it ended with a lot of elements to be resolved, and TSoD resolved them. There's nothing left for two films to do, and no reason to avoid doing them any longer. I'm still at a loss at what this series is about. At this point I simultaneously look forward to these films because I enjoy and want to see the characters again, but am exceedingly tired of the dull plotting and dread each installment's meandering away from the more interesting plot threads.

There was an interesting kernel here with the reverse-heist plot, but it mostly fizzles. I'm not even sure why GW just stood there and let them reveal his plot, or why it mattered that they did. He'd already won. The other candidates felt like a major plot element of the novel that was cut for the film adaptation (so far all three films feel like adaptations of books we aren't getting), and the only insight we get is that the eventual winner is at least a minimally-decent human being because she finite'd the cruciatus curse that was on Jacob.

Why was she equally suitable as Dumbledore? How was Dumbledore more suitable than Newt and Jacob (with Jacob clearly being the one that was foreshadowed)? Honestly, the fact that Dumbledore was chosen at all really puts a dampened perspective on this Fantastic Beast's abilities. One of the major character threads through both series in the franchise is that Dumbledore is a great man, doing good, but he is not a good man. It's nice to know his soul is pure, but if his is then a lot of the other folks present must also be sufficiently pure. It was a weird moment that didn't serve anything, at least so far; even in the context of the greater franchise it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, as it had been stated that later in life Dumbledore has been offered leadership and denied it more than once due to seeing himself as unworthy even as others around him believe otherwise.

I could go on, but to be honest it hardly seems worth asking all of the questions that feel unanswered not for the sake of later installments but simply because this long-running movie was already stuffed and just ran out of time. I did get a sense that a lot of what was going on here was an attempt to right the ship, and in a many ways it accomplished that, but it also left me feeling like it didn't have time to say anything of its own.
 
I don't think it's yet been mentioned around here, but Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said on an investor call two weeks ago that "We’re going to focus on franchises... We haven’t done a Harry Potter in 15 years."

Now, one could focus on the objective error of Deathly Hallows Pt. II coming out only 11 years ago, but more immediately, that sounds like a pretty clear indication that he's not interested in humoring Rowling's Beasts experiment any further. That said, unless they can rope Radcliffe and the others back in, which seems unlikely, I don't see how they could plausibly make more movies with Harry Potter the character. I don't think the fandom would stand for a new actor/cast, though I could be wrong. Nor do I think the general moviegoing public, already turned off by Rowling's up-her-own-rear labyrinthine plotting in Beasts, would be much interested in a Cursed Child adaptation specifically without the original cast at least.

All in all, given that Beasts has tainted the franchise's mythos, I think WB's best move would be to adapt the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy game. The next movie should primarily take place at Hogwarts, because I'm not at all sure the franchise can ever thrive outside that setting, and going further back in time (say, to the 19th century) would be a good way to clean the slate. Start with new teenage characters, not children, don't do any more prequel table-setting, and for Pete's sake, bring some damned color back to the visuals. (AFAIK, the franchise hasn't depicted a single sunny day since that Hippogriff lesson back in Azkaban.)
 
I don't see Radcliffe, Grint and Watson coming back at this point. None of them need the money or the career boost, and the time travel aspect of Cursed Child would be just too weird with Rickman and Coltrane now both gone. (If it was animated with soundalike actors, mayyyybe you could get away with it, but in live-action with de-aged/deepfaked actors all over the place....:ack:)
 
Set Harth said:
why does he keep doing this
Click to expand...
Zaslav? He may be a moneygrubbing boor, but he's not entirely wrong. The Batman more than tripled its budget, and Joker and Aquaman both made over a billion dollars, so it's indeed baffling that, five years after Cavill's well-received performance in Justice League, there isn't a Superman movie filming yet. Nor should it be taking five full years to release that Aquaman sequel.


Nightowl1701 said:
the time travel aspect of Cursed Child would be just too weird with Rickman and Coltrane now both gone.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow, not knowing all that much about the play, I hadn't even thought of that. I guess one advantage of the trio actors most likely not coming back is they'd have an excuse to recast everyone, but I'm not at all sure audiences would want that. If they were dead set on making more movies featuring the trio, but had to recast them, they'd be better off ignoring Cursed Child and making a different story altogether.

But a Hogwarts Legacy movie is still a better idea.
 
I have to admit, with all the controversy around JK Rowling right now, and the less than warm reception of Crimes of Grindlewald and Secrets of Dumbledore, I was a little shocked he was talking about focusing on the Wizarding World so much right now. I still enjoy the franchise, but I would think all of that would lead to the opposite response. When the last two movies in a franchise were poorly received and thousands or millions of people, including past stars from the franchise, hated the creator, you'd think the first reaction would be to distance themselves from it, not to double down on more of it.
 
^ A) Most global audiences are almost certainly unaware of said controversy, or not too bothered by it if they are. Rowling's antics certainly aren't helping, but they're not the reason the Beasts series has run aground - it's run aground because she's a bad film writer and film series showrunner, producing bad movies.

B) If he's got any sense at all, Zaslav will want Rowling's involvement in the next Wizarding World phase to be minimal - say, a shared story credit at most - and it's not unreasonable to suppose that that, along with more appealing movies, might be enough to blunt the ill effects of those antics.
 
Gaith said:
^ A) Most global audiences are almost certainly unaware of said controversy, or not too bothered by it if they are. Rowling's antics certainly aren't helping, but they're not the reason the Beasts series has run aground - it's run aground because she's a bad film writer and film series showrunner, producing bad movies.

B) If he's got any sense at all, Zaslav will want Rowling's involvement in the next Wizarding World phase to be minimal - say, a shared story credit at most - and it's not unreasonable to suppose that that, along with more appealing movies, might be enough to blunt the ill effects of those antics.
Click to expand...
All of that's a fair point (if...ugh and gross and of course that's all true) but that said, certain actors, particularly Radcliff, Watson, and Grint have made their opinions very clear about Rowling's transphobia (and not some "controversy") and there's no way they would return.

Sure, all new material with new characters is possible, but as you said, Fantastic Beasts as gone over very poorly due to bad writing and dumb story direction (If only they stuck to the basic premise of Fantastic Beasts...what a silly notion, I know!).
 
Gaith said:
All in all, given that Beasts has tainted the franchise's mythos,
Click to expand...

Not for me. I adored the first movie, fell asleep somewhere around the middle of the second and didn't wake up till the credits, and never saw the third. I'm good thanks.
 
I loved the first Fantastic Beasts, and I loved the idea that it focused on a minor character and his friends. Then the second one tried to do too much and it lost its way, limiting the time with the more important characters, including Newt, and the result felt fairly unfocused. No idea on the 3rd one, but it sounds like it's more of the same problems the second one had. You know, if they really want to do more Harry Potter movies, set them at some of the different magic schools throughout the world. It's not called the Magical Wizarding World for nothing. The books mentioned some of the other schools, and it would be interesting to see how they differ.
 
I completely agree. I would have loved a trilogy (or more) focused around Newt's adventures. It would have been better if each movie were a stand alone story with the core cast. It could have filled in background about the world without having to go into details about the Potter characters. And I bet more people would have seen them.
 
^ Yeah, I mean, I thought that's what the franchise's premise was, at least that's what the marketing with the first movie led me to believe. Then the second movie introduced too many characters and reduced his role in his own movie series and I was like, wait what?? The second movie introduced enough plot points to induce whiplash. I thought the beauty of the first movie was that it stayed fairly simple in its execution, and it gave me a similar magical feeling that the Harry Potter movies did. I think they fumbled it pretty badly with the following movies. While seeing an early Dumbledore has been interesting, I'm not sure what it added to the franchise that wasn't already done in the Harry Potter movies.
 
I honestly don't really remember much about the second one, other than the fact that I liked more than most other people seem to. I actually started to watch the third on HBO Max last week, but then realized I remembered absolutely nothing about the second, and turned it off and watched something else instead. I do plan on rewatching the second and watching giving third another go sometime soon.
 
JD said:
I honestly don't really remember much about the second one, other than the fact that I liked more than most other people seem to. I actually started to watch the third on HBO Max last week, but then realized I remembered absolutely nothing about the second, and turned it off and watched something else instead. I do plan on rewatching the second and watching giving third another go sometime soon.
Click to expand...

That's basically what's stopping me from watching the third one. Hardly remember anything from the second, and everytime I think I should rewatch it, Im like nah....
 
The Hogwarts Legacy game is getting great reviews. Could it lead to a movie? As I said before, the Wizarding World movie franchise should go back to Hogwarts, and go back far enough in time to wipe the slate clean of all the Grindelwald/Voldemort nonsense, and an adaptation of the game would do both.
 
Gaith said:
The Hogwarts Legacy game is getting great reviews. Could it lead to a movie? As I said before, the Wizarding World movie franchise should go back to Hogwarts, and go back far enough in time to wipe the slate clean of all the Grindelwald/Voldemort nonsense, and an adaptation of the game would do both.
Click to expand...

Make a show about the founding years of Hogwarts. Season 1 is all four house founders coming together, season 1 ends with Hogwarts being established.
Season 2 several years later.
Season 3 several decades later.
Season 4 several centuries later.
Season 5 with Dumbledore as a professor there, no forshadowing of anything, events from Fantastic Beasts are only vaguely mentioned. End the final episode with Dumbledore sitting in his office, hearing the door open. We see someone walking in, without seeing a face. Just the idea that it's a child. Final line...
"Ah, Tom.... so glad you've arrived at Hogwarts." Roll end credits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top