WB's 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' original script by J.K. Rowling - Part 1

[Sleiek]

Sounds good Tanita_mors! 2 more days for me.

 

[Alex Murphy]

I'll be seeing it Saturday.

 

[Tg11]

McGregor would be about the right age, but if Dumbledore were to be played by someone maybe 20 years down the line, maybe Jeremy Irons.

Then if they go with a younger Dumbledore then Ewan McGregor is my pick for the new Albus especially since they got Depp to play Grindelwald

 

[Iceman]

I usually prearrange cinemea visits with other people and book way in advnace but I forgot about this one, but do want to see it. Better sort something out!

 

[TheVileOne]

Most of the spells in the movie are just white energy blasts and were pretty boring at times

Anyway. I liked the world-building elements. I like seeing MACUSA, inside Scamander's case, things like that.

The movie has very poor pacing, and weak editing. The editing constantly seemed at conflict with the director's vision. Subplots are introduced as major important things and then mostly forgotten about later.

 

[jmc]

You're right about the pacing and story elements. I still don't actually know what this film was meant to be about.

 

[InCali]

You're right about the pacing and story elements. I still don't actually know what this film was meant to be about.

That's unfortunate. Pacing is really important in most cases. It was, IMO, one of the real strengths of Doctor Strange.

 

[Octoberist]

I feel like, as the story gets going with the sequels, it'll get better. Just like the first Harry Potter book and movie. A lot of set-up. Not inherently bad, but books/movies that you can sorta skip unless you're totally in the dark on the mythos.

 

[jmc]

The Potter movies though had at the very least interesting characters. FB lacks that. I couldn't even tell you the names of half the characters in this movie.

 

[Sleiek]

Let me guess. You can't stand Eddie Redmayne like some people in this forum?

 

[Octoberist]

The Potter movies though had at the very least interesting characters. FB lacks that. I couldn't even tell you the names of half the characters in this movie.

I'd wager there's where the problem lies between with writing a novel and writing a screenplay.

With Potter, there is some cultural osmosis steaming from the books. So most of the character development was done in the books, so fans are already aware of the characters. And on the movies on their own, the characters are fine, and a bit flat.

That's why I wanted to read the books after I saw the last movie, and it filled in so many gaps. Especially the significance of Ginny Weasley. She was barely in the movies and all of a sudden she's married to Potter. It felt random and unearned.

But in the books, she was often in the background, but she was a growing presence who had an arc.

So I think Rowling should've done a pass, and then get an actual screenwriter to flesh out her ideas, in how to show character development in a more cinematic way, since you can't include proses (from a book)

 

[terry78]

Let me guess. You can't stand Eddie Redmayne like some people in this forum?

He is a tad off putting. Just laying it out there, man.

 

[jmc]

Let me guess. You can't stand Eddie Redmayne like some people in this forum?

Actually Remayne was fine, everyone surrounding him though were paper thin characters.

 

[jmc]

I'd wager there's where the problem lies between with writing a novel and writing a screenplay.

With Potter, there is some cultural osmosis steaming from the books. So most of the character development was done in the books, so fans are already aware of the characters. And on the movies on their own, the characters are fine, and a bit flat.

That's why I wanted to read the books after I saw the last movie, and it filled in so many gaps. Especially the significance of Ginny Weasley. She was barely in the movies and all of a sudden she's married to Potter. It felt random and unearned.

But in the books, she was often in the background, but she was a growing presence who had an arc.

So I think Rowling should've done a pass, and then get an actual screenwriter to flesh out her ideas, in how to show character development in a more cinematic way, since you can't include proses (from a book)

You're on the right path, the problem is the film feels like it assume the audience knows what it's saying. The Potter films never felt like that, even though I hadn't read the books at that stage I never once felt lost in what I was watching.

 

[Octoberist]

It seems like it was written directly for the fans, instead of a broad audience. Not so much on the lingo and terminologies but the other stuff? Like knowing who the Goldstein sisters and the big baddie are, historically speaking, and their significant to the lore?

 

[tanita_mors]

IDK, there is an endearing quality about him that I like. Also, Newt is a very caring person - he isn't a flashy antihero - it's if you had Nevil Longbotom as Harry Potter instead of Harry.

Honestly, their names are irrelevant. Their characters stayed with me - which is what matters.

The pacing is off at times because it bounces between story-lines that don't share cast members - like scenes between the lead 4 and then Farrell and miller. But, I didn't find it that much inferior to Dr Strange in that regard.

Anyway, I don't find these characters any more paper thin then those in other blockbusters this year, yet this seams contentious because it's set in a world that was a book series previously.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm going to see it tonight. Still excited.

It does have the feel of a 'set-up' movie. It's a lot harder to do it seems.

 

[InCali]

The Potter movies though had at the very least interesting characters. FB lacks that. I couldn't even tell you the names of half the characters in this movie.

The Potter movies always felt like a Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew movie with wands and spells. Not sure what to expect from FB, but I'm anxious to see it.

 

[terry78]

Dr. Strange vs. Newt Scamander in a duel. Who wins?

 

[Octoberist]

The first two Potter movies/books especially. To solve a mystery involving Hogwarts. Then the series took off by the third/fourht book.

 

[InCali]

The first two Potter movies/books especially. To solve a mystery involving Hogwarts. Then the series took off by the third/fourht book.

I thought the 3rd book had a similar storyline. PoA was my favorite HP movie (and it was the least popular at the BO). Go figure.....it's a conspiracy by the movie going audience to taint my otherwise sparkling reputation.....

 

[Octoberist]

Either way, a 79/80 percent is still good. Hey, it could've gotten what Billy's Long Walk has gotten. That's a real shocker right there.

 

[Sleiek]

Dr. Strange vs. Newt Scamander in a duel. Who wins?

Probably Strange because he is the "Supreme" kind and Scamander is the regular kind.

 

[Octoberist]

I thought the 3rd book had a similar storyline. PoA was my favorite HP movie (and it was the least popular at the BO). Go figure.....it's a conspiracy by the movie going audience to taint my otherwise sparkling reputation.....

It did, and I was going to include it, but I thought the third book did the mystery stuff better than the first two. And by adding Sirius Black, it helped out the complexities of 'perception' through the eyes of children and the public.

 

[tanita_mors]

As a movie PoA was the best, but I still feel that as straight adaptations the first two are unmatched.
A shame really, as GoF and HBP are my favorite books - cutting so much of Voldemort's history was terrible really.