Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets Of Dumbledore

[HIM820 1,755]

I enjoyed the movie more than the last two, but I have to say I have no faith in Warner Bros and how they handle big IPs. I don’t know how the initial contract went but at this point Rowling no longer has to be involved. She did her initial job good and set up an expansive world steeped in history. Now her horrible opinions and personal life are eclipsing the fun of the story. There are incredibly talented writers that could think of cool stories to tell within this world. It’s not hard to cross check with the history and parameters she set up to still have a cohesive franchise. 

[elijahfan 24,880]

29 minutes ago, pachinko said:

Are we watching the same movie?

Low-key convinced some critics haven't seen the movie(s) at all.

[elijahfan 24,880]

9 minutes ago, HIM820 said:

I enjoyed the movie more than the last two, but I have to say I have no faith in Warner Bros and how they handle big IPs. I don’t know how the initial contract went but at this point Rowling no longer has to be involved. She did her initial job good and set up an expansive world steeped in history. Now her horrible opinions and personal life are eclipsing the fun of the story. There are incredibly talented writers that could think of cool stories to tell within this world. It’s not hard to cross check with the history and parameters she set up to still have a cohesive franchise. 

I get where you're coming from, but it's still pretty great for these stories to be made by the woman who originated this universe in spite of all the drama. But in the long run, you're right, that would be nice to get stories from other writers - especially since Rowling herself hasn't always been the best cross-checker of her own œuvre  And I still can't believe she put her stamp of approval on Cursed Child.

[Popo 3,724]

11 hours ago, elijahfan said:

I actually disagree with this criticism and am not sure where this is coming from. The whole plot literally revolves around a magical beast. And it can't all be about that, otherwise it's not a movie you need but a zoo.

i feel it's just a cheap plot device to tie newt scamander to the whole grindelwald plot for the last two movies. they should just drop the whole fantastic beast line tagline and focus the movie on grindelwald.

[elijahfan 24,880]

5 hours ago, Popo said:

i feel it's just a cheap plot device to tie newt scamander to the whole grindelwald plot for the last two movies. they should just drop the whole fantastic beast line tagline and focus the movie on grindelwald.

I hear you, but in the end, why shouldn’t Newt be involved in the Grindelwald story? Nothing in the original series suggests this didn’t happen, so I don’t have any issue with this.

[Popo 3,724]

6 hours ago, elijahfan said:

I hear you, but in the end, why shouldn’t Newt be involved in the Grindelwald story? Nothing in the original series suggests this didn’t happen, so I don’t have any issue with this.

I'm fine if Newt wants to help Albus out, he already seems like an overly eager puppy wanting to please. I'd rather they focus on the Grindelwald war less the magical beast portion because it's the more interesting part of the story rather than the 1000 reasons newt is interlinked to Grindelwald's next plot.

[elijahfan 24,880]

2 hours ago, Popo said:

I'm fine if Newt wants to help Albus out, he already seems like an overly eager puppy wanting to please. I'd rather they focus on the Grindelwald war less the magical beast portion because it's the more interesting part of the story rather than the 1000 reasons newt is interlinked to Grindelwald's next plot.

So earlier you seemed to be complaining about the lack of magical beasts, and now you want to get rid of them altogether? Feels like you really can't be satisfied