"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" now looking to be a series of FIVE films instead of three
61 replies, posted
[url]http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/776059-fantastic-beasts-now-five-movies#/slide/1[/url]
[quote]When Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was first announced, it was said to be the start of a trilogy of films, but as most rewarding things work, it has taken on a life of its own. During the Facebook Live Q&A conducted earlier today for the film, franchise creator J.K. Rowling announced that the franchise has been extended from three movies into five movies.
“I can say one thing, we were doing some script sessions the other day and we always knew it was going to be one movie. We always knew that from the start. We said a trilogy as a placeholder because we knew there would be more than one movie. Now I think we can say, I’ve done the plotting properly so we’re pretty sure it’s going to be five movies.”[/quote]
good god they're really gonna milk it for all its worth lmao. I'll wait till I see the first one but if they've really got a good enough story here then alright kewl.
If the movies are good, I don't give a shit
Will it turn out like The Hobbit?
wait, it was a 3 part series?
More like Universal wants to expand their Harry Potter world or Rowling wants to add a wing to her money palace.
[QUOTE=Ithon;51199821]wait, it was a 3 part series?[/QUOTE]
Yea it's been touted as at least a series of films since it was announced, and as a trilogy since at least 2014
[url]http://deadline.com/2013/09/warner-bros-j-k-rowling-team-for-new-harry-potter-inspired-film-series-585122/[/url]
[url]http://deadline.com/2014/08/david-yates-in-talks-for-harry-potter-spin-off-fantastic-beasts-822934/[/url]
Why cant they report sequels AFTER the movies have been shown?
We gonna get any WW2 wizarding magicks in one of these?
alright so i might be spewing shit, but hear me up. i know this movie hasn't come out but what kind of bothers me is that the trailers have shown a LOT of stuff. remember how harry potter movies were like, less ambitious, harry potter gradually built itself up to the more fantastic things you see in the later movies? like sparky wand spells and talking messages/objects were commonplace as if they were cantrips, and although they are kind of impressive to the audience when they first appear, that's b/c they're impressive to harry potter as well, because the audience and the protagonist are discovering this world together. and then as the series proceeds, cantrips become common to the audience, and the big whoa moments are when you see shit like griffons and what not.
apparently in this movie, there's way too much fantastic content in one movie alone (judging from the trailer), and it's usually a red flag to me, because it becomes harder to relate to and then it's just not as immersive as harry potter. in the last trailer alone there were as many absurdly fantastic moments as like at least five harry potter movies combined or something.
not to mention that if you put too much fantasy happening every 2 minutes, specially in the FIRST movie of a now-5-films-saga, it kind of burns out/loses the awe-factor. it becomes kind of commonplace in a BAD way. there's no surprise, since there's going to be a shit ton of creatures in a single movie.
example: like in spiderman 3 where they tried to shove like 3 fucking villains in one movie. venom had like 15 minutes of screen time, wtf
or maybe its going to be another one of those movies where it introduces you to each character and their feats individually and in the end there's one big finale where all the characters appear using their skills to accomplish one big end goal, like defeating a villain or solving one task that requires all of them. this sort of narrative technique is so disgusting when pulled off explicitly. (example: the new tim burton movie)
tl;dr i fear that this movie might be what "the hobbit" was to LOTR.
im a big harry potter nerd so this makes me happy, but 5 movies seems like a lot for this series. either way i wont mind too much if the first one is good, which i'm hoping it is.
[QUOTE=MenteR;51199999]fantastic breasts and where to milk them[/QUOTE]
Now, thats a movie worth watching
the first movie hasn't even come out yet. slow down, movie industry. you don't need to plan your sequels and pre-sequels and shit 20 years in advance and show it to the public like this.
Putting all your eggs in one franchise basket is a great way to risk enormous amounts of money, just look at Ghostbusters reboot
[QUOTE=Naught;51200034]the first movie hasn't even come out yet. slow down, movie industry. you don't need to plan your sequels and pre-sequels and shit 20 years in advance and show it to the public like this.[/QUOTE]
you know that means shit will be stretched out for no reason this is why the last Hunger Games sucks ass
WB likes money
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51200051]you know that means shit will be stretched out for no reason this is why the last Hunger Games sucks ass[/QUOTE]
just like how in the last hobbit movie, a battle that was only 2 pages long(?) got stretched into an over 20 minute fight. the entire movie was 144 minutes long and only covered a total of 72 pages of the source material. And you can bet that it'll be the same with this one.
[QUOTE=Naught;51200059]just like how in the last hobbit movie, a battle that was only 2 pages long(?) got stretched into an over 20 minute fight. the entire movie was 144 minutes long and only covered a total of 72 pages of the source material. And you can bet that it'll be the same with this one.[/QUOTE]
God. What a disappointment the hobbit was. When I first learned it was going to be a movie trilogy I freaked out thinking they would be able to add almost every detail from the book with three movies but instead we got filler and fluff that doesn't even exist in the book. It could have been the most true-to-the-book movie conversion ever but with all the shit they added in and the parts they needlessly decided to draw out it left out more than I thought possible with three goddamn movies for one book
[QUOTE=Naught;51200059]just like how in the last hobbit movie, a battle that was only 2 pages long(?) got stretched into an over 20 minute fight. the entire movie was 144 minutes long and only covered a total of 72 pages of the source material. And you can bet that it'll be the same with this one.[/QUOTE]
Fantastic Beasts was literally just an in-universe Hogwarts textbook written by Rowling in real life to give to charity through the sales made, and that's not as impressive as it sounds as there was really only as much pages as there in the average chapter book for 8-year olds. Any movies they're making are basically Rowling making up new stuff with the book's authors and whatever creatures in said book she thinks she can write a film aroudn.
[QUOTE=Naught;51200059] [QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51200051]you know that means shit will be stretched out for no reason this is why the last Hunger Games sucks ass[/QUOTE]
just like how in the last hobbit movie, a battle that was only 2 pages long(?) got stretched into an over 20 minute fight. the entire movie was 144 minutes long and only covered a total of 72 pages of the source material. And you can bet that it'll be the same with this one.[/QUOTE]
Ehhh I don't really think the hobbit and hunger games situations are a fair comparison to this. The hobbit was based on a single book that was presumably paced for one story, but then got chopped into three pieces for the films anyways (I think, idk I didn't read the book). These films aren't going off a book tho. They're original stories by the original author that are supposedly, like JK says in the OP, made to fit five films. So you shouldn't have issues of bad pacing or shit getting stretched out.
But that ofc assumes this really was made for five films and not the studio going "how bout u stretch shit so we can do another film thx". Personally tho Id like to think WB wouldn't try to tell JK what to do and just be happy with what they get.
On one hand, it doesn't have as much of an issue as the Hobbit films because its only loosely based off of an existing book. They're not really confined by what's already been written.
On the other hand five films does seem kind of excessive, even though Harry Potter is well known, this is almost an entirely different thing other than probably basic spells and some name drops.
[editline]13th October 2016[/editline]
Well I just got ninja'd
[QUOTE=postal;51200146]Ehhh I don't really think the hobbit and hunger games situations are a fair comparison to this. The hobbit was based on a single book that was presumably paced for one story, but then got chopped into three pieces for the films anyways (I think, idk I didn't read the book). These films aren't going off a book tho. They're original stories by the original author that are supposedly, like JK says in the OP, made to fit five films. So you shouldn't have issues of bad pacing or shit getting stretched out.
But that ofc assumes this really was made for five films and not the studio going "how bout u stretch shit so we can do another film thx". Personally tho I doubt WB would try to tell JK what to do and just be happy with what they get.[/QUOTE]
Yeah as long as they're properly written for being 5 films I don't see any relevance to the hobbit, the hobbit was only bad because they tried to make a singular story from one book into 3 movies. The main potter series had 8 films and I didn't get tired of it, so I don't see any problem with this as long as they have good ideas for each movie. That doesn't mean I'm confident they have good ideas for 5 films but I don't see why it can't work in a universe as popular and wide as the harry potter one
[QUOTE=postal;51200146]Ehhh I don't really think the hobbit and hunger games situations are a fair comparison to this. The hobbit was based on a single book that was presumably paced for one story, but then got chopped into three pieces for the films anyways (I think, idk I didn't read the book). These films aren't going off a book tho. They're original stories by the original author that are supposedly, like JK says in the OP, made to fit five films. So you shouldn't have issues of bad pacing or shit getting stretched out.
But that ofc assumes this really was made for five films and not the studio going "how bout u stretch shit so we can do another film thx". Personally tho Id like to think WB wouldn't try to tell JK what to do and just be happy with what they get.[/QUOTE]
I hope, you're but with Hollywood trend i wouldn't hold my breath
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51200044]Putting all your eggs in one franchise basket is a great way to risk enormous amounts of money, just look at Ghostbusters reboot[/QUOTE]
At least Fantastic Beasts is shaping up to be great. Still worried on how the recently added sequels will turn out though.
the fifth film will be a two-parter
Oh boy, I can't wait for five films that are just hipster-y tumblr GIF bait flicks.
Presumably this is going to involve the Dumbledore/Grindelwald stuff, since Fantastic Beasts alone as a premise I don't think can be stretched that far.
So long as they have interesting beasts and magical living things to show off then I guess they can keep making these movies, it'll probably be more entertaining than the Harry Potter series.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.