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

[DarthSkywalker]

Even in 2013 I wouldnt call it a major success. The only film Id label as a major success domestically that year would be:

Despicabe Me 2

$76 million budget
$380 million box office domestically
Almost $1 billion world wide

That's a major success.

Frozen and Catching Fire weren't major success domestically?

 

[Marvolo]

Frozen and Catching Fire weren't major success domestically?

Catching Fire made a little over 3 times there budget back. Frozen made over twice.

I dont mean to make lite of their success. They were certainly successful, but in the context of 2013, Despicable Me 2 was the major success in the US. It made 5 times its budget back in the states and 10 times its budget back world wide. Nothing else comes close that year that I know of. So while there were successes there was only one truly majore success that year. Imo

 

[Wheels]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-film

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Gravity didnt make enough for WB to give him Inception money and creative freedom?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm

Yeah, it did have a good B.O. return.

I say he's interested because he loved directing Prisoner of Azkabhan. The only reason he didn't make more movies was because he left the series to direct Children of Men, which was a movie he wanted to make way before Azkabhan. In fact, after he made Children of Men he wanted to return to direct Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, but WB chose to stick with Yates.

Oh, and whoever is calling Gravity not a major success is talking crazy. $274 million domestic and $700 worldwide on a $100 million budget is a pretty huge success.

 

[Airwings]

POA, GOF, OOTP and HBP are four really interesting films in the Potter franchise. They are sometimes seen as really good films (by different people, ofc), but sometimes disliked or even hated.

Are people's opinions about what a good film should be that much different?
Someone could praise OOTP, but have trouble with GOF and HBP, and POA is somewhere in the middle ground. For other people, just switch the titles in the last sentence.

I think we should all agree on the fact that Cuaron's film is the best, Newell's the second best, and Yates' first a stinker

 

[MrMaooz]

I liked all the films. There wasn't a single turd. They're all good or great movies.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Cuaron eh? sounds good. POA was definitely one of my favorite HP films. Loved the look and the tone.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I liked all the films. There wasn't a single turd. They're all good or great movies.

Agreed. I was the perfect age for it too, being a little kid when the first came out. I grew up with the characters

 

[Lord]

I also grew up with these movies, there was no Harry Potter movie that was actually bad, but i remember being disapointed by Order of the Phoenix. Not sure about Azkaban being the best though, that place could be tied with some of the other films in the series.

 

[Infinity9999x]

POA, GOF, OOTP and HBP are four really interesting films in the Potter franchise. They are sometimes seen as really good films (by different people, ofc), but sometimes disliked or even hated.

Are people's opinions about what a good film should be that much different?
Someone could praise OOTP, but have trouble with GOF and HBP, and POA is somewhere in the middle ground. For other people, just switch the titles in the last sentence.

I think we should all agree on the fact that Cuaron's film is the best, Newell's the second best, and Yates' first a stinker

I think the reason those films in particular generate such a range of reactions depends on if the person you're talking to is a book reader or not. POA and GOF in particular are many people's favorite HP book, so many book readers can be very hard on those two films.

I agree that, as movies, they're all good. As book adaptations, they're still all pretty solid, but each has some issues. POA was the first Potter film that really had to take some deviations from it's book counterpart (the first two films were nearly identical to the books), but I actually thought it was a better film because of it.

GOF was my least favorite movie to watch, but only because of how some of the characters were handled. I don't mind changes in film from the source material, but what I DO mind is when you don't keep to the spirit of the book or certain characters in the book. Newell seemed to favor very over the top performances from his actors, and in some cases it worked (the Harry/Moaning Mertyle scene is hilarious) in others it was god awful, Dumbledore being the prime example. We suddenly have an antsy fidgety Dumbledore that flinches at the petty light shows of the visiting schools, and sprints across a room and nearly shakes Harry's head off while asking him "DID YA PUT YEH NAME IN DA GOBLET!!!?" That was not at all the persona of the calm, collected, most powerful wizard in the world that he was presented as, and it bugged the living hell out of me. There are many other examples I could give of what I thought was OTT acting, but in general that made me dislike that film the most.

OOTP was a hard film because it was the longest book...yet the shortest film. However, it was a book that certainly could stand to receive a few cuts. It's also many people's least favorite book, so it had a bit of an uphill climb against it. While I enjoyed many of the cuts in OOTP, they also decided to include some very odd ones that actually cut valuable information out of the story that I think would have helped non book readers follow it better. We never learn that it was actually UMBRIDGE who sent the Dementors in the beginning of the film, nor do we get a full explanation of the prophecy at the end of the film. Those were things I think the narrative needed.

I personally enjoyed HBP quite a bit. The problem with it though is that it sacrifices some very interesting story information in lieu of the teen romance angle. I actually loved the way they handled the teen romance, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the more extended Voldermort memory scenes, and I especially missed the moment where Harry realizes Snape was the one who sold Lilly and James out (unwittingly) and that he was in some way responsible for their death. They also, again, only hit the basics while describing a horocrux, and that whole plot point was still a bit confusing to some non-book fans. A lot of book readers couldn't forgive those omissions.

 

[Loki882]

I think the reason those films in particular generate such a range of reactions depends on if the person you're talking to is a book reader or not. POA and GOF in particular are many people's favorite HP book, so many book readers can be very hard on those two films.

I agree that, as movies, they're all good. As book adaptations, they're still all pretty solid, but each has some issues. POA was the first Potter film that really had to take some deviations from it's book counterpart (the first two films were nearly identical to the books), but I actually thought it was a better film because of it.

GOF was my least favorite movie to watch, but only because of how some of the characters were handled. I don't mind changes in film from the source material, but what I DO mind is when you don't keep to the spirit of the book or certain characters in the book. Newell seemed to favor very over the top performances from his actors, and in some cases it worked (the Harry/Moaning Mertyle scene is hilarious) in others it was god awful, Dumbledore being the prime example. We suddenly have an antsy fidgety Dumbledore that flinches at the petty light shows of the visiting schools, and sprints across a room and nearly shakes Harry's head off while asking him "DID YA PUT YEH NAME IN DA GOBLET!!!?" That was not at all the persona of the calm, collected, most powerful wizard in the world that he was presented as, and it bugged the living hell out of me. There are many other examples I could give of what I thought was OTT acting, but in general that made me dislike that film the most.

OOTP was a hard film because it was the longest book...yet the shortest film. However, it was a book that certainly could stand to receive a few cuts. It's also many people's least favorite book, so it had a bit of an uphill climb against it. While I enjoyed many of the cuts in OOTP, they also decided to include some very odd ones that actually cut valuable information out of the story that I think would have helped non book readers follow it better. We never learn that it was actually UMBRIDGE who sent the Dementors in the beginning of the film, nor do we get a full explanation of the prophecy at the end of the film. Those were things I think the narrative needed.

I personally enjoyed HBP quite a bit. The problem with it though is that it sacrifices some very interesting story information in lieu of the teen romance angle. I actually loved the way they handled the teen romance, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the more extended Voldermort memory scenes, and I especially missed the moment where Harry realizes Snape was the one who sold Lilly and James out (unwittingly) and that he was in some way responsible for their death. They also, again, only hit the basics while describing a horocrux, and that whole plot point was still a bit confusing to some non-book fans. A lot of book readers couldn't forgive those omissions.

My biggest pet peeve with HBP is actually something that many other people would consider to be a minor thing. It was the Harry/Ginny kiss. I've always loved the scene in the book where he just can't take it anymore and plants one on her in front of everyone (Rowling's description of the other student's reactions were hilarious). That scene would have been great to see in the movie. Instead, we got a much less interesting scene. I know it's really minor, but it just bugged me.

 

[Airwings]

GOF was my least favorite movie to watch, but only because of how some of the characters were handled. I don't mind changes in film from the source material, but what I DO mind is when you don't keep to the spirit of the book or certain characters in the book. Newell seemed to favor very over the top performances from his actors, and in some cases it worked (the Harry/Moaning Mertyle scene is hilarious) in others it was god awful, Dumbledore being the prime example. We suddenly have an antsy fidgety Dumbledore that flinches at the petty light shows of the visiting schools, and sprints across a room and nearly shakes Harry's head off while asking him "DID YA PUT YEH NAME IN DA GOBLET!!!?" That was not at all the persona of the calm, collected, most powerful wizard in the world that he was presented as, and it bugged the living hell out of me. There are many other examples I could give of what I thought was OTT acting, but in general that made me dislike that film the most.

GOF may have been a better film than it worked as an adaption of the book.
Some details were just really good, like the world cup scenes in beginning. Most things regarding the triwizard tournament are great, especially the dragons. And the resurrection of Voldemort/death of Cedric and its aftermath is amazing, and not only on the emotional level.

POA is still best though. It was the first time the three actors really were their characters, and not just Daniel/Emma/Rupert playing them. At least that's the feeling I get from watching it.
Not matter how scary huge spiders or a giant snake are, the dementors are more of a threat. The same goes for Lupin's werewolf shape. This has a lot to do with their visual appearances, but also because of Harry's emotional connection to both of the creatures.
The robes were gone in POA, in favour of real clothes, Hogwarts didn't feel like a staged set anymore.
All this together give the film a certain realistic edge.

But GOF felt more real than previous films. It was as the characters were in 100% real danger for the first time. I think it's because they hadn't encountered so much life-threatening situations before as they did in GOF. They even had to deal with the loss of a school mate.
GOF could be described as a film about teens who have had dreams about fairy tale worlds (still dark, though) were they had been heroes, but now they wake up to face an even harsher reality.

POA could perhaps be seen as a prologue to GOF. It takes place just when the characters are "about to wake up", and the dementors are a symbol of sleep paralysis.
POA and GOF should be linked together when it comes to altering the fantasy element in Harry Potter and point out that the adventures take place in our world and not an alternate dimension where the fun and light could co-exist with nightmare creatures. POA is the preparation and deal a lot with emotions/feelings and fears, GOF the real thing, the dangers are external. But again, POA is still the superior film

Later films went of course even further with the intruduction of the real world. HBP had a subway scene with Harry, and in DH vol 1 the trio visit a muggle café.

To not go too off-topic there, I have to include Fantastic Beasts in the discussion.
I have to admit that I wonder how the filmmakers will approach the story of Newt Scamander. Will it begin just as Harry Potter did, and then slowly turning darker and more realistic for each film? Or will all the parts of the trilogy be much the same?
What would you guys prefer?

 

[Marvolo]

Alfonso Cuaron may direct Warner Bros' Shining prequel The Overlook Hotel

http://schmoesknow.com/hot-scoop-will-alfonso-cuaron-book-a-room-at-the-overlook-hotel/23609/

I hope this isnt true.

 

[terry78]

Cuaron is off the project because "movies with a lot of visual effects" don't attract him.


Lol I swear its like the guy that is aloof in high school that makes all the girls want him more.

 

[Tanin]

Alfonso Cuaron may direct Warner Bros' Shining prequel The Overlook Hotel

http://schmoesknow.com/hot-scoop-will-alfonso-cuaron-book-a-room-at-the-overlook-hotel/23609/

I hope this isnt true.

I'm only in if they keep the same impossible Hotel structure of the film.

 

[mclay18]

Cuaron is off the project because "movies with a lot of visual effects" don't attract him.


Lol I swear its like the guy that is aloof in high school that makes all the girls want him more.

Hah, Nikki Finke has egg on her face right now.

 

[Hyde]

He was definitely approached. Maybe even entered early talks. But in that interview he never really straight-up denies it, just says that blockbusters aren't of interest to him at the moment. He's the perfect guy to steer this new franchise and WB want to keep him around and happy, but unfortunately it looks like he isn't the guy

 

[Tequilla]

Cuaron don't be a lazy bastard and go make something good instead.

 

[:eek:]

The Boy Who Lived: Warner Bros Sets Harry Potter Global Development Team

By NANCY TARTAGLIONE, International Editor | Wednesday July 30, 2014 @ 3:07am PDTTags: Harry Potter, JK Rowling, Josh Berger, Warner Bros

Harry Potter is also known as “the boy who lived” — and Warner Bros wants to keep it that way. The studio, which has been behind the franchise from the start way back in 2001, has now created a dedicated team to oversee its ongoing relationship with Potter creator JK Rowling. The Harry Potter Global Franchise Development team will be based in London and Burbank, and will help foster the studio’s expanded creative partnership with Rowling. Warner UK, Ireland and Spain President and Managing Director Josh Berger will add the title of President of HPGFD to his current role. The team will develop and execute a “high-level strategic vision” for the Potter brand, and its ancillary businesses, working closely with Rowling’s team at The Blair Partnership and other stakeholders and partners. Berger will be supported by Polly Cochrane in London, and Paul Condolora in Burbank.
Warner says the creation of HPGFD reflects the continuing expansion of the Potter franchise. That now includes the upcoming film series Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them; the Making of Harry Potter studio tour at Warner’s Leavesden Studios outside London; the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios Japan and the expansion of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios Florida; a suite of Harry Potter digital services and products including the website Pottermore; and the Harry Potter stage play, which will open on the West End next year.
Berger says, “With Harry Potter’s consumer touch-points continuing to grow and flourish, I am confident that this talented, cross-company global team will enable us to take full advantage of the many opportunities ahead – helping to bring Harry Potter in all its future incarnations to fans all over the world.”
Cochrane, who is currently SVP and Group Marketing Director of Warner UK and Ireland, will add the titles of SVP and Chief Marketing Officer, HPGFD to her remit. Condolora takes up the newly created role of SVP, HPGFD and Harry Potter Digital in Burbank and will lead the business development around Potter, with a focus on digital opportunities. The exec is joining Warner from Turner Broadcasting System. Also moving over to the team will be London-based Suzie Boavida who will be Business Development Director. Burbank-based Xochitl Ruiz, Moira Squier, Angela Kato-Alvarez, Christine Kittelsen, Cynthia Gonzalez and Rebecca Muh, and Fiona Hickley in London, round out the HPGFD team.

 

[Gabe99]

/film:
Harry Potter Spinoff ‘Fantastic Beasts’ Will Be a Trilogy

The Wrap:
Warner Bros. Blinks in Marvel Showdown: ‘Batman v Superman’ Avoids ‘Captain America 3'

Meanwhile, Warner Bros. has traditionally seen November as a launch pad for its “Harry Potter” movies, and it's possible that the two “event films” referenced below are sequels to J.K. Rowling‘s spinoff “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” which WB will release on Nov. 18, 2016. Several months ago, the New York Times reported that Warner Bros. wanted to turn “Fantastic Beasts” into a trilogy of “megamovies.”

THR:
Warner Bros. dates no fewer than nine untitled DC Comics titles all the way through June 2020.

Warners also laid claim to Nov. 16, 2018, and Nov. 20, 2020, likely for the second and third installments in J.K. Rowling's Fantastic Beasts triology (the first film hits theaters in 2016).

 

[terry78]

Why does this need to be three movies? Aside from money, I don....ahhh, I get it.

 

[Gabe99]

Alfonso Cuaron may direct Warner Bros' Shining prequel The Overlook Hotel

http://schmoesknow.com/hot-scoop-will-alfonso-cuaron-book-a-room-at-the-overlook-hotel/23609/

I hope this isnt true.

Variety:
‘The Shining’ Prequel to Be Directed by Mark Romanek (EXCLUSIVE)

 

[Doc Ock]

Three films? WB must be really desperate to fill the void that the Hobbit will leave once its finished.

 

[Apollo]

Three films?! The book is only 128 pages long. That is around 42 pages for each film.

Read the first 42 pages and let me know if you think that can be made into a 2 hour movie.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't know anymore. I know that JK is writing the script for the first one so there's hope. And she herself can add new material