>Half of the fantastical beasts weren't based on any

>which is better

>>79201349
>why

File: troll.jpg (1MB, 1578x2842px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1578x2842px

That is what you get when you spin off one of dullest franchises in history. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>79201323
So you would prefer fanservice to originality? Let me guess, you LOVED Star Wars VII

Grindelwald was also a letdown...

>>79201713
I don't want them to copy the beasts from HP, I wanted to see other mythical beasts from history that weren't just stupid abominations

File: happy jewish new year.gif (215KB, 591x380px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 591x380px

nothing pleases some people.

>>79201800
Tbh I regret making this thread

>>79201775
I would have preferred if Colin Farrel was his own character, like a US lackey of Grindewald.

>>79201840
I'm just not sure what you expected from this Pokémon spinoff.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>79201323
Nigga the beasts are all lifted straight from the Fantastic Beasts book, which came out years and years before this film and has been canon in the HP universe since forever. Rowling doesn't like using real world mythical creatures, and when she does, she alters them (basilisks are more like chickens than giant snakes irl). Most of the creatures in HP are her own inventions.

Your complaint is retarded. That having said, Grindelwald sucked dick and I wish Johnny Depp would retire. Graves was a top tier villain.

They aren't mythological beasts; they are fantastic ones you cuck.

the other half were based on Pokémon https://youtu.be/MIvUp_wNYss

Fantastic Beasts is the perfect example of the modern Hollywood movie. It casts the hit Hollywood star of the minute and it's loosely connected to a wildly successful franchise. This movie was made for the sole purpose of making money. There is no other reason. Rowling, Yates, the actors, everyone... all in it for the money.

It's easy to imagine the pre-production meetings... You know, that cute tree in Guardians of the Galaxy was really popular among audiences, let's have one of those. And people really liked that dive bar with lots of goofy creatures and fun music in Star Wars, let's have one of those too. It's frustrating when I hear people call this film imaginative. There's a reason all the fantastic beasts look so cute. Because toys.

Yet again we see Eddie Redmayne overact, taking the role of "autistic British wizard" to a level not needed. There was no chemistry between any of the actors, which made for awkward moments throughout the whole 2+ hours runtime. The relationship between Colin Ferrell and Ezra Miller especially seems unintentionally predatory.

There are two completely separate plots that are sloppily connected. One of the plots is pushed so hard and is used only to create a franchise of this thing. If they focused on only the fantastic beasts instead of the bizarre possessed horror aspect with a cheap twist, the film might not have been half bad.

In the end, yet again, almost a whole city gets destroyed in the climax. By now it is beyond tiring and by my count that is how FOUR big budget movies have ended in 2016. And by what, a fucking dark cloud. The whole film, each and every scene, is predictable, features terrible CGI, obvious blue screen, lifeless sound stages, and is riddled with plot holes

File: dcdebb09c9cac056_MCDFABE_EC040_H.jpg (679KB, 2048x1507px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2048x1507px

>>79201684
>>79202982
Always makes me feel good to see both pastas in a FBAWTFT thread.

Now we just need some more Newtposting.

>>79202906
Came here to say this.

>>79202795
>Most of the creatures in HP are her own inventions

>giant spider
a spider

>hippogriff
a griffin

>giant 3 headed dog
Cerberus

>man turns into wolf
werewolf

>basilisk
just a jormungandr with medusa like powers

>dragon


Yeah but all the good ones are basically carbon copies.

>>79202982
Wew... I agree

>>79203072
Thestral... I guess

>>79203072
Ok if you're going to nitpick like that:

>Thunderbird
actual mythical creature

>Occamy
closer to mythical descriptions of basilisks than Rowling's actual basilisk

>Niffler
literally a platypus

>Erumpent
Mokele-mbembe (huge herbivorous African cryptid that can also go underwater)

>Demiguise
Any number of monkey like creatures in Eastern mythology

>Diricrawl
literally a dodo

Happy now?

>>79203478
But it's not a nitpick, is it now? Her own creation means something she thought of in her head. I'm not expecting her to come up with brand new, original mythical creatures, because that's difficult for anyone to do. But the ones in Harry Potter are really just the same but with a different name.

>Demiguise
>Erumpent

These are the most "origina" listed so far. But don't kid yourself.

>>79203653
I still don't understand. So you actually don't want her to have original creatures?

>tfw no kelpie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelpie

this one wouldve been rad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_(folklore)

>>79203765
Newt would have to subdue it with a cucumber, right? I'm all for Redmayne handling phallic objects tbqh

File: wJXooXl.jpg (102KB, 630x820px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 630x820px

>>79201684
Oh look, he posted it again.

>>79203700
his point is that they're not her own inventions

that is it

>>79201775
That's fair. Carry on.

File: 1460143753392.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>79201323
This film looked like slapstick Looney Toons with whacky cartoon animals, how did they fuck it up so bad?