MovieChat Forums > Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) Discussion > This was nothing what I expected. For on...

This was nothing what I expected. For one...

posted 8 years ago by spencerthetracy
16 replies | jump to latest

I expected the movie to be enjoyable. It just wasn't.

It had nothing of the Potter quality: story, (acting was good), direction, interest, depth.

It had nothing of those.

It did have incredible FX. And that's all it had. A lot of that. But movies, especially ones based on a Rowling book, should have more than just a lot of digital effects, or am I wrong?

I hope that 2 through 7 have a bit more.

Kay: Senators and presidents don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who's being naive, Kay?

[–] TheBigYawn 8 years ago

The direction is good. I respect your other complaints, but I don't agree. For me it was on par with most of the Potter films and better than some, but not as great as PoA and DH.

[–] joannacord-jc 8 years ago

You're not wrong. It was a total yawn & that's coming from a diehard Rowling fan! I also love Eddie Redmayne but found him to be completely void of personality or character. All of JKRs characters no matter how large or small the roll are always intriguing & interesting even the villains. I didn't get attached or feel any kind of connection with anyone.

[–] spencerthetracy 7 years ago

Thank you, Joanna. Exactly.

Kay: Senators and presidents don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who's being naive, Kay?

[–] LucasMass 8 years ago

I can't agree less if you really thought there was no depth to this movie. Practically everything in it serviced the themes, from the characters to the surface plot to the antagonists to the actual title of the movie. It's a rare case were everything is there to hit home the message and for once it feels like its coming from filmmakers with a vision. The sublety is there (the differences in Redmaybe's acting when he's interacting with people vs the beasts etc...), the emotional core is there and it's an actual character driven story were the surface level plot wasn't as important as the characters involved in it. The direction is loads better than what I've come to expect from blockbusters now with way more artistry in every single scene than usual.

So yeah I definitely got way more out of it than you did, I'd suggest you watch it again because there is actually surprisingly a whole lot to this one.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] farfromanonymous 8 years ago

there is actually surprisingly a whole lot to this one.

That's actually the problem. There's a "whole lot", bordering on too much. Many of the things that happen in this movie have no effect on the whole story.

The part where Newt is doing the mating dance on the Rhino beast is silly for the sake of silly, and he ends up sucking the creature into the case by sticking it on his butt in the end anyway. So why didn't he just do that in the first place? Because they needed a silly scene of Eddie Redmayne waving his butt around to make children laugh.

The whole movie was like that. A bunch of overstuffed padding over a semi interesting main story.This movie either should have been a silly movie about a guy collecting lost beasts, or an epic fight between good and evil. Trying to do both split it too much tonally, and made it pretty bad in my opinion.

[–] themodmazza 8 years ago

The Erumpent in Central Park and Occamy in Macy's scenes, were just an excuse to put in childish humor and NYC landmarks. However, the Niffler and Thunderbird did add to the story. As both creatures helped set the plot in motion. I feel, the biggest issue with Fantastic Beasts, was J.K. Rowling's screenplay. Her inexperience was showcased, in that the two main storylines did not mesh cohesively. They worked fine independently, but together were a mess.

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

The erumpent mating scene is disposable, but I don't think the right thing to do would be to just let the creature be sucked in immediately. What's the point of having a setpiece if you're not going to do anything interesting with it?

[–] farfromanonymous 8 years ago

Which is my exact complaint. There was no point to the whole scene, and it hust detracted from the actual plot. Either make the movie about silly animal catching, or make it about the grander story.

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

Technically, the whole sequence where Newt and Jacob catch the niffler and the erumpent serves as moment for them to bond. It also serves to give the audience some excitement in an otherwise slow first act.

But I agree that the movie would've worked better as it's own self-contained thing. The twist at the third act really didn't work, they coul've found a more clever way to set up some of stuff for the sequels. Hell, if they felt the need to have a Grindewald cameo, why not show him in a post-credit scene?

[–] themodmazza 8 years ago

Hell, if they felt the need to have a Grindewald cameo, why not show him in a post-credit scene?

As the saying goes, old habits die hard. We all know, J.K. Rowling loves those types of twists. The Harry Potter books are full of them. The Grindelwald twist might have worked on the page, but it did not translate well to screen.

It also does not help, that the two Davids are not exactly sure how that twist worked, because J.K. Rowling is so secretive. Yates mentioned, that he thinks Graves is still alive. Heyman said, that Grindelwald used Polyjuice Poition at some unknown time, and he has no idea what happened after. While, J.K. Rowling recently said that the twist was done with advanced Transfiguration. How difficult was it for everyone, to discuss this so that it made sense?

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

Yeah, J.K Rowling loves the whodunit genre -- no wonder she started the Cormoran Strike series after Harry Potter. I'm quite found of it too, but this type of twist has unfortunately became a crutch for her, which is a shame because she can actually write some really good whodunits.

[–] LucasMass 8 years ago

I wasn't saying there's a whole lot going on with the plot, I'm saying there's a whole lot to it thematically. Practically everything about it supports the themes and morals of the whole thing, it's layered as hell. I don't agree the plot has too much going on, yes the erumpent scene is there because of a few reasons; pacing, offer some kind of fun action scene between the quiet ones, give Newt and Jacob's relationship time to grow and to establish what kinds of beasts Newt is trying to protect. It's not completely pointless that doesn't go anywhere. It's like that scene in the original Star Wars movie when C3PO and R2 first lands on Tattooine, split up, walk around for 5 minutes only for both to get captured and reunite and meet up with Luke. Looking at it purely from the perspective of what could easily be trimmed, that's it. You could've had them crash land right outside Luke's home. You didn't need those 5 minutes of them just walking around - but it's a lovely sequience because of the pacing and the way it builds their personalities and the world of Star Wars.

[–] ganjagaminggg 8 years ago

Harry Potter movies werent quallity lol... This is much much better

[–] ganjagaminggg 8 years ago

And acting from HP movies sucked (the kid actors) while herw in FB everyone is a good actor

[–] matthyew 8 years ago

I loved the movie, even more than i thought i would. It was just good fun.