Fuck you I liked it. For a prequel/spin-off it's much better

>>87181696
You and I both know you thought it's shit and you're just saying this to start a thread.

>>87181837
No, I genuinely enjoy it and I want to discuss Fantastic Beasts for once instead of Harry Potter. I didn't expect to like it but I ended up really enjoying the setting, characters, story, world-building and general set-up for the sequels.
Yet it's like I'm the only one because it never gets discussed on here, instead people endlessly discuss the Harry Potter films without a single mention of Fantastic Beasts.

File: Harry_Potter_and_the_Cursed_Child_Special_Rehearsal_Edition_Book_Cover.jpg (28KB, 257x388px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 257x388px

>>87181696
At least there was no fucking time travel

>>87181696
>>87182377
This is odd, did you just watch this because it's come out on Sky cinema?

Anyway OP, I agree with the first post, the film was shockingly dull, and confused in what it was fumblingly trying to convey

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

Tldr: Utter shit

File: books.jpg (43KB, 436x619px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 436x619px

Something something die was cast blablabla dullest franchise etc.

>The books were good or something.
NO!

The writing is bad or whatever blablabla epic pasta.

>>87181696
Everyone liked that movie what the hell are you on about?

>>87182571
No, I watched it in the cinema when it came out.

>the film was shockingly dull, and confused in what it was fumblingly trying to convey
It was a bit all over the place, sure. But I liked that the original premise of "magic creatures on the loose in New York" was quickly subverted by a more compelling plot that will continue on in the next films. I went in expecting an uninteresting by-the-books adventure, but was pleasantly surprised by what it turned out to be.

>>87182691
Most of the posts in this thread seem to have a different opinion. I liked it a lot, from beginning to end, and think that an attempt to make more Harry Potter Universe films could've ended up much, much worse than what we got.

>>87182589
to add to this:
>Second Salemers
has got to be the single most uninspired, chosen by committee piece of shit name for a group of antagonists I've ever seen. Why not call them Salemists or fucking Salem Revivalists or something?
Not to mention the whole religious indoctrination angle was lazy as fuck. They didn't want to offend anybody at all so made them as ambiguously pseudo-Christian as possible, which completely destroyed any nuance or interest they might have held.

The fight with the black cloud at the end was laughable

>>87181696
Couldn't even finish it. Was boring as fuck senpai.

I watched all the previous movies and read the books but this movie was just insufferable.

Thought it was solid entertainment and a good way to expand the Wizarding World franchise. I know a lot of Potter fans who loved it. Don't know why /tv/ is full of busy Potter threads all the time with presumably fans of the movies and books, yet you never hear a positive view on Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

I think they shot themselves in the foot with the title, which could have easily worked as a single film, but now that they're doing 5(?) it seems silly.

Seeing as it looks like they're going to focus on the rise of Grindelwald and Dumbledore's efforts to bring him down I don't see how these fantastic beasts will have anything to do with that plot. I read that they will use different sub titles for the other ones but how does that even work?
>Fantastic Beasts and the Rise of Grindelwald
>Fantastic Beats and the League of Dumbledore
Shitty examples I know but you get my point.

>>87182589
It's all marketing man. They wanted it to be successful so obviously they're going to look at what works and what doesn't.
As for the casting, people forget that Harry Potter was full of insanely popular actors, so the Redmayne/Coling Farrell/Johnny Depp argument doesn't really apply

>>87181696
Its worse than every HP film but you're right.

>>87181696
>>87185524
Yeah, it doesn't top HP but compared to most cash-grab prequels at least it isn't utter shit.

>>87184750
Having Newt Scamander as the protagonist when you're making a franchise about Grindlewald and Dumbledore was a stupid idea and I can see no way for him to stay relevant once they introduce young Dumbledore.

File: katherine waterston_stevejobsmettieostrowski2-1600x900-c-default.jpg (204KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1600x900px

>>87181696
I liked it, watching the universe without the kiddie/teen stuff was pretty interesting.

>>87186090
The cast all being experienced adult actors really helped it for me, and because it was aimed at those who grew up with Harry Potter (and are thus older now themselves) gave them leeway to go a bit darker (beating children with a belt, origins of Obscurials)

Yeah i quite liked it too, soundtrack was good and all

>>87187300
I don't even remember the soundtrack, was there anything as memorable as Hedwig's Theme?

>>87182508
This has got to be the most misleading book title of all time.

>>87182571
This is exactly what has happened

I liked it, the only thing I didn't like was the fact the fat baker guy never remembered that woman. Kinda sad for him.

I also like it for continuing to make money on the HP brand, I'm sure JK Rowling will one day surrender and make a series about Harry Potter and Co's kids going to Hogwarts and having adventures.

>>87188395
All the main cast is back in the sequel so I'm sure the baker character will remember somehow.

>I also like it for continuing to make money on the HP brand
I mainly agree with that, I want to see the brand alive and popular for many years to come. A couple years ago Warner Bros erected a special department focused on keeping the franchise alive through various means, and as long as they maintain good quality I'm all for that. Cursed Child was irredeemable shit but I don't think they had anything to do with that, but Fantastic Beasts was great so I have high hopes for the future. It could go the way of Star Wars, where they release films all the time, expanding the universe and lore.

>a series about Harry Potter and Co's kids going to Hogwarts and having adventures.
This is the only thing I disagree with, I have very little interest in seeing the next generation. I'd much rather they stick to loosely-connected prequels like The Marauders at Hogwarts, or original stories set in different settings. Showing all the different magic schools in detail for example.

>>87182631
>Great Gatsby
>God-tier

stupid redditor

>>87182631
ayn rand should be shit tier

>>87181696
It was good to see some of the creatures that were in the books but cut from the original movies realized onscreen, stuff like Nifflers, Bowtruckles and to a lesser extent the Erumpent. I just hope they show a Blast-Ended Skrewt later on

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE FUCKING PASTA

>>87181696

>1920s
>mudblood interaction is tabooed
>interracial couple exists

fuck this fucking shit

>>87189364
I'm sure it was here, did it get deleted?

>>87189364
Here, are you blind? >>87182631

>>87189919
Was there an interracial couple? The only black person I remember was the magical president lady and there wasn't any romantic interest there I think. And even so, wizards have different morals man. You're fucked if both your parents aren't wizards, but they don't seem likely to care about interracial stuff as long as you have magic in you.

>>87181696
It was decent but they really should've kept Colin Farrell as the villain instead of morphing him into zany Johnny Depp

>>87190804
So much this. They could have made Grindelwald into a really interesting character but now we're getting four more movies with Depp's signature oddball persona as the big bad.

>>87181696
why did he take a ship to america if he can just apparate anywhere in the world?

>>87191074
You need to know the place you're apparating to, or at least have visited there first. Also it's been established that a lot of wizards don't bother with apparition since one mistake could literally tear your body in two, so most wizards travel by broom or flu powder.
Flying from the UK to New York on a broom could easily get you spotted by a muggle at some point, and the flu network is regulated and I hardly think the US would allow any old foreign wizard to roll out of a random fireplace without knowing who they are and what their business is.

>>87182631
>Tolkein
>Shit tier
Why don't you go stretch your legs?

>>87181696
Replacing Colin Farrell as the main villain with Johnny Depp was such a fucking dumb mistake.

>>87191613
I'll have to see how Johnny Depp does as Grindelwald because we only got 10 seconds and one line out of him, but Farrell was definitely a much more compelling villain

I thought it was okay
the sisters were real cuties
johnny depp out of nowhere was funny as fuck
the setting was comfy
tubby mudblood was genuinely likable

File: 647365499536.jpg (198KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1200x800px

>>87192469
I'd ready about Johnny Depp's casting beforehand but I'd have loved to be surprised. As for the fat baker guy I was genuinely surprised how good he turned out to be. From trailers and stuff I thought he'd be a generic fat comic relief type but yeah he was actually really likable.

>the sisters were real cuties
They were. I particularly liked Tina but I've never found anyone on /tv/ who agreed that she's ridiculously cute.

The main character guy is a qt

but it opens a whole new plothole by making shit up, why didn't harry become an obcurial? also did that bitch donate her cut of the movie proceeds to charity or keep it for herself despite it being a cash in on a book she wrote for charity?

File: Hagridandolympe.jpg (165KB, 1200x754px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x754px

when will they ever learn

>>87181696
The main protagonist's homo face made me stop watching after the first 15 minutes

am i a bigot?

>>87181696
This was boring af, but was a great flick to watch with my parents last time I visited them.

>>87181696

I liked it. I enjoyed it the way I did the Harry Potter booms themselves which I could not say about the other movies because I don't think they're good adaptations.

The characters were all great. Especially Kowalski (and the pairing of him with Eddie Remayne made for a great comedic dynamic). There are moments of pure, childish wonder, especially with the different magical creatures. And the plot with Clarence, with the Obscuris being what it is (building on the lore established in book 7) was really great.

I feel like Johnny Depp was underused as Grindelwald and am interested in seeing his take on the character in a full movie.

>>87181696
it was absolute trash

>>87193029
No he was fucking annoying

>>87192866

Because he didn't suppress his talents. And it is a rare occurence. It takes a conscious effort on the part of the child to do it and Harry couldn't make that effort if he didn't know he was magical.

>>87193029
Of course not. Homosexuality is a shameful, self satiating condition that puts pleasures of the flesh over the intrinsic role of man in nature. It's weakness and moral corruption incarnate, found only in stagnate civilizations wallowing in a pit of their own opulence without any true purpose

>>87192866
>why didn't harry become an obcurial?
Apparently you have to know that you have magical powers and consciously suppress those powers. Harry never knew he was a wizard and he just thought all those random things that happened to him (disappearing glass, hair regrown the day after being shaved bald, randomly escaping bullies by teleporting to a nearby rooftop) were just that, random and inexplicable. Had the Dursleys ever mentioned that he had magic things would be different. But he had no explanation and no need to suppress his powers.

>also did that bitch donate her cut of the movie proceeds to charity or keep it for herself
I don't want to appear as a huge fanboy or anything but Rowling is known for giving huge amounts of money to various charities. Sure, she has a good house and lives a wealthy lifestyle but it's not like she hoards it all. A lot of it goes to children's charities and medical research for whatever it was that her mother died from.

I'm looking forward to the Pokemon sequel set in Paris.

>>87193330
Back when Pokemon Go was huge for about two months I remember reading that WB was gonna release a HP version where you would walk around and catch HP creatures. I don't think they ever went ahead with it though. Also there's like 30 creatures max so it would get even more boring even faster

>>87193089
>And the plot with Clarence, with the Obscuris being what it is (building on the lore established in book 7) was really great.
That's what made me really interested for the sequels. It wasn't just the cash grab it could so easily have been. They took the lore from Dumbledore's sister going out of control and they built on it. We'll probably see a flashback of the three-way duel that killed her and see more of that story and how Grindelwald saw potential in Dumbledore's sister going insane with her suppressed magic.