Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Some fantastic beasts we'll show in the trailer so you can see we do actually have some beasts and the middling subplot that became the main plot because of lack of cohesive vision from the start and the references from Dumbledores army so we can relate this to the main franchise.

    Should have been the working title imo
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  2. #22
    Watched it yesterday, I actually liked it a lot. It definitely had some weird issues with some necessary scenes probably being deleted (like one explaining why they decided to use that deer thing for the election instead of having an actual election) but whatever.

  3. #23
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    15,892
    Finally got myself to watch this, have to say, while it is something i can enjoy, it was rly weak compared to the second one, and had some problems that made les less. Guess it missed a little of the magic the first and second had.


    I liked the actor that did Dumbledore, and while i think the Grindewald actor is an amazing actor, i don't think he landed it like Deep did, his visual(without the hair and the different colour eye barely saw) and mannerism were so different that it looked like another character all together.
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2022-06-05 at 08:14 PM.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflakesz View Post
    But it's still "Harry Potter", so the plot is pretty simplistic, very predicable. Since the intended audience is children.
    One could argue that the intended audience are the children that grew up reading the Potter books as they were released; said children are now adults, hence the similarly-aged characters in the movies...?

  5. #25
    I seen it. It was alright. I think Queenie and the muggle are cute. The ending to this movie was an old cliche but I didn't mind. I didn't think this movie was the strongest out of the franchise. I honestly prefer the first one the most. Probably because it focuses more on the actual beasts ..so in the first one he was out capturing a lot. I enjoyed seeing all the neat beasts/critters. The other ones felt.. less so. Beasts were still there but not as heavily as the first.

    It reminds me a bit of the Riddick movies... Riddick came from a not so high budgeted beginning with beasts/monsters. (Unlike the franchise being discussed in this thread) Well then the story evolved for the second one. The third one went back to the roots and did monsters again. I hear people talking about Willow 2 in other threads.. like hey give me another Riddick instead. One that focus on the necromongers this time around. Can still have some beasties just saying. Get Karl Urban in on that. (I like this actor and he was in the franchise before) That's what they should be doing.. Willow 2? More like Riddick 4, let's go.

    Digressed but was comparing how monsters/beasts felt more like the focal point in both franchises. Either way this movie was fine. Not the strongest, but fine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •