Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald (11/16/2018)

Spoiler: Answer

Completely new invention, as far as anyone's aware. Whether it's truth or lie will have to wait for the next film. The timeline not matching is an indicator that it may not be true.

 

I didn't much like the first "Beasts" and "Crimes" is no better.

Both get better in their third acts but they're tough to take until that point - disjointed and dull too much of the time.

Rowling shouldn't adapt her own books. She's not a screenwriter and it shows.

The more I see Eddie Redmayne, the less I like him!

The end creates intrigue for Movie 3, but I can't claim I'll count the minutes until it arrives...

 

Rowling is a major literary figure... Harry Potter will sit on the shelf with Frodo and Dorothy for generations to come... and, she writes pretty good detective novels...but

time to lay back a bit, I think. During the last few years she’s tried to shepherd the Fantastic Beasts concept into a movie franchise and supervise the Potter play and continue the Strike novels and supervise the Strike TV series, while there’s a bunch of theme park and endless merchandising stuff going on and the strain is beginning to show. The eagerly anticipated fourth Strike novel was disappointing (not just my opinion. It attracted very little critical notice and isn’t selling well), the Beast franchise is kind of a mess, and it’s all just a bit more than the market will bear. It’s getting close to the point where it will start to diminish the crown jewel, the luminous Harry Potter novels.

 

I can understand prequel's, but Fantastic Beasts was only a 160 page novel. Not much going on there?
Chapter II exists only as a screenplay.

I think she should preserve that wasted energy and if anything start laying out more Harry Potter stories, that pick back up when the principal's chldren come of age and enter Hogwarts for an entirely new series.

I think that would be workable if properly executed. There are so many new paths that can be explored.

 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was never even a novel. The original book from 2001 is an encyclopedia of magical creatures written by Rowling (along with Quidditch Through the Ages) for Comic Relief. It has no narrative arc. It's just an alphabetical list of magical creatures with paragraph length descriptions and anecdotes about each one. She's now got the original screenplays for sale for both of the Fantastic Beasts movies.

I don't actually think the "fantastic beasts" bit works for the story she's trying to tell. It now definitely seems like it's going to be a five-movie story about Grindelwald and the war against him, set against the backdrop of our real WWII. The beasts, and by extension Newt Scamander, feel incidental and unnecessary to the plot--and I think that will become an even stronger feeling as the films go on. There's a weird bit of dissonance between this heavy war story for the struggle of magical kind placed alongside "look how cute this niffler is!" She should have just not included the beasts at all, or just written a single fun film featuring Newt's adventures without all the war stuff--not tried to do both at once. Perhaps they wanted to use a title Potter fans would be familiar with...

 

Sorry, I was not quite sure what to call the original book. Just to say, "Not much going on there?"

I never really got where this Magical Creatures thing was coming from and where is it going?

It doesn't seem to have a direction?

 

i assume most know this, but for those who don't-Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is mentioned in the first Harry Potter novel as a textbook used at Hogwarts. JK Rowling chose to expand on that idea for the "encyclopedia" that was published about the beasts which then begat the idea for the films.

 

I saw this yesterday with my girls. Everyone liked it. I thought it was much more compelling than the first installment. As for the plot, I didn't take issue with the exception of one scene where our heroes are dealing with one situation and then you blink an eye and they were seemingly in an entirely different place facing another situation. Otherwise, I enjoyed the action, the graphics, the characters and the plot well enough to look forward to what might come next. I'd give it a solid 7/10 rating. Not high cinema, just a lot of fun which is what I go to movies for.

 

Somehow, I think the movie theaters are conspiring with the studios to make sure that the movie does not do good at the box office.

Grindlewald opened on the previous Friday. I was not available to see the film on opening day.

I tend to avoid theaters on the weekends, because I prefer to catch an afternoon matinee showing during the week.

Since this movie has not received stellar reviews, I figured that I may as well watch the 3D version out of curiosity.

Yesterday afternoon they did not have a 3D showing.

Here is the movie times for Grinderwald for today showings.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Standard
2:30pm, 4:00pm, 6:00pm

3D
9:30pm

Note that there three "regular" showings this afternoon and early evening.

When children are out of school, as it is Tuesday.

Note that the only 3D showing, which children seem to prefer, is at 9:30pm, meaning it would let out a couple of hours later and any children going to view it, would likely be back home to go to bed around midnight, with tomorrow being a school day.

This is really intelligent?

I see that there is a 3D showing tomorrow morning at 10:30am. I will try to catch it.

 

$253.7 Million Worldwide already, no conspiracy to tank anything here, they're already planning # III in the series.

 

I do say this most facetiously. But, the reviews have not been generally been favorable.

Since I did see the previous one, and have a curiosity, i do want to see it for myself and make my own judgement.

Maybe tomorrow.

I do think that it is stupid not to have any 3D showings for after school. and the only 3D showing is at 9:30pm.

Just my opinion.

 

I wanted to see the 3D showing, but the times were only 2:45 and 6:00pm, so I saw a regular showing at 10:15 on Saturday.

 

At least they are running a 3D show in the afternoon and in the early evening, where it is better for families with young school age children.

Tomorrow's 3D shows are at 10:30 AM and at 8:00 PM.

There are three regular showings tomorrow. Two are in the afternoon and one is a late evening show.

The theater doesn't normally run shows before noon during the week, but I guess they are doing it now, because of the Thanksgiving holiday week.

It will be interesting to see if they continue to run morning screenings from now to the end of the year on weekday's.

 

IMDB already lists part three through five!

 

Not surprising. Rowling has a gigantic following.

I'm sure that #3 was planned before #2 even hit the theater's.

 

A five-part series has been planned since before the first film even came out. Rowling clearly has a lot of support, what with the HP films being the highest-grossing film franchise for a time (before Marvel overtook them). I think this was an ambitious over-shot and they should have tested the waters with one film (with possibility for sequel) and seen how it went. Of course, the first film was financially successfully and critically mostly successful, but betting on five films based on, what, an outline and good will seems like a bit much.

 

IMDB had all 5 listed back when #1 hit screens! They've always been planned as a long series.

I guess it was possible that they'd have bailed if 1 and/or 2 totally flopped, but that was unlikely. They're not making Potter money but they're doing enough to sustain future releases...

 

I enjoyed it and I like the fact that you are experiencing the story live as it happens on screen without having read a book. My wife and ten year old daughter were gasping desperately next to me through the whole film. This chapter ties in more with the Wizarding World that we know and love. I expect it will continue to bridge the gap even more in the next three episodes. It's common knowledge that Dumbledore defeats Grindelwald...

As an odd aside Zoe Kravitz plays Leta Lestrange and the trailers included Aquaman, with her potential step Father Jason Momoa...who is dating her Mother Lisa Bonet.

 

simple explanation really. 3d shows are more expensive, adults can afford more cost and see movies later, hence the large amount of 3d/imax/rpx, etc films with post 7pm start times.

 

Perhaps, but most of the 3D fans are children. Many adults I know will not watch or prefer not to watch a movie in 3D.

 

Having three teenagers in our house, I would say 3D fans are mostly teens, not necessarily children. Many teens around here don't even blink at the extra cost, and even if there were several matinee times provided it is the height of "un-coolness" to go to a matinee. They would rather go at night and pay more and be cool doing it. That's what you get from brains that haven't fully matured yet.

 

Teens live for the night!

Remember, these "teens" were brought up from kid's with 3D movies. They still watch their movies in 3D. In fact, if a movie is not in 3D, this demographic will avoid it.

I went to see "Nutcracker" right after opening weekend. The sets were pretty and all that and the camera's movements were interesting, but nothing about the production was really grabbing me.

I received a text and I had to leave, halfway through the movie. I had been watching the regular 2D version in an almost completely empty theater, just another couple at this matinee.

I was reading a Nutcracker post early in the afternoon the next day about a member who was trying to get into a late 3D showing.

Up to this point, I had not even thought about it also being in 3D. I checked the movie times and there was a 3D showing starting in a few minutes.

I had intended to go back to the theater anyway and finish the other half of the movie. But I didn't really have any desire to sit through the first half again.

I quickly got ready and went to the theater, which was nearby. because of the many trailer's, I just missed the first fifteen minutes of the 3D showing of the movie.

Instead of an empty theater like next door, this one was full of families with children (not teens) watching the 3D version.

The 3D version completely blew away the 2D version, completely.

At the end of the movie, all the kids were excited, talking about the movie as they exited the theater.

I was going to go to the 3D showing of Beasts this morning for the 10:30 AM show. But is was not in the mood to watch a movie at 10:30 in the morning.

Next week, Monday and Tuesday, the first early afternoon show is in 3D, I'll wait until then.

I watched the first Beasts on the 65" screen at home. I can do the same for #2, so if I am going to pay for the tickets and lunch (it is an AMC dine-in theater), I want to see it in 3D myself. On video, it can be watched in 2D anytime.
3D sells!

 

I saw the movie Monday and enjoyed it.

Much better than fantastic beasts which was short on plot but good on effects.

I like this series better as it's not centered on kids and school.

Basically Grindewald is just another Voldemort.

Someone should give Tina a better wig.

Supposedly Grindewald has the Elder wand

Never realized that Creedence is also the new Flash till watching the movie.

 

This is the first bit of hope that I have heard yet.

 

I enjoyed it a lot more than my 11-year old Potter fanatic son. He compared it to the 2nd Hobbit movie, which was just a lot of water treading and set-up for the next installment. Hearing that there are at least 5 planned doesn’t give me much hope considering how thin on plot the movies seem to be.

Amen to that!