Harry Potter Spin-off: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

Oh. Oops. Sorry, I just thought we were spoilering them for no reason for some reason. I didn't realize we had a reason to do so. I apologize.

Fantastic Beasts wins Oscar for best costume design. This is the first time a Potter film has won an Oscar for anything if I'm correct. Well done Colleen Atwood.

Jude Law is playing young Dumbledore

Cool choice. I wonder if they'll make Dumbledore's sexuality more explicit in the film (given that JK Rowling herself is involved with writing the story)?

I'd be surprised if they made it too obvious, sad to say this being a 'family' targeted film means I think we might get another 2017 Yellow Ranger situation - alluded to but not especially focussed on. Though if Grindelwald and Dumbledore share any scenes then expect prodigious quantities of ho/foe yay for the Tumblr crowd.

And I'll be pissed about it if they DON'T focus on it. With Dumbledore is gay being pushed to the side and not mentioned at all in the seventh film and Cursed Child PERFECTLY having the set up to put Albus and Scorpius together but then doesn't because Scorp. HAS to go with the girl who's been nasty to him for the entire show and barely shared any screentime with, I feel like J.K.'s loud voice for trying to support LGBT representation hasn't really matched up with the fruits of her work.

I liked the movie, I just don't see how it could be a franchise of five films. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the Harry Potter universe to keep going sans Harry Potter, but the whole "Fantastisc Beast And Where To Find Them" theme... kind of ended in this movie.

Why not have five movies that have their own individual plots, characters and themes while still having, in the background, the whole Dumbledore-Grindelwald conflict?

It'd make the universe feel bigger while still having an overarching plot to unite it all.

edited 19th Apr '17 10:12:44 PM by ExplosiveLion

I caught this about a week ago.

Interesting little film. I feel like I should have known that Ezra was the real Obscuris instead of the younger girl. They were pounding the none of them survive past the age of 10 button so hard that a Red Herring should have been rather obvious, but I miss it...and so did Grindenwald. He must have been kicking himself for not seeing it sooner, not that he had an chance to.

They could do exactly that. They never said that they were going to slap a 2 on the title or anything and its entirely possible that, with Harry Potter being so massive, they really could pull of a bunch of films that fold together into a single saga without a shared title.

I kinda wish there weren't going to be five movies, but since there will be I'm hoping we get to explore more of the wizarding world. The first one was a good start in trying to expand some of the lore and magic, so let's keep that going. It would be great if every movie took place in a different country, with different characters. This movie would've been a lot more funner if we actually got to see Newt Scamander go around and catalog these fantastic beasts. As much as I enjoyed Eddie Redmayne I don't like the idea of him being in every movie, maybe a reference or cameo but thats about as much as needed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FantasticBeasts?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

A look at the characters on Twitter.

They've basically said that Newt likely won't be the main focus for all five films. My guess is that they'll ease him out (or at least make him more of a supporting player) and concentrate more on the Dumbledore/Grindelwald conflict as the series moves along.

As Johnny Depp has been embroiled in a domestic abuse scandal for a while now, do you guys think they should recast Grindelwald? I say yes, especially after the insane thing Ridley Scott did to purge Kevin Spacey from his new movie. Nobody else has any excuses now.

I wouldn't have a problem recasting him. He only appeared for one scene at the end of the first film. Replacing him wouldn't be that jarring and they could get someone who's easily just as good if not better who isn't a domestic abuser.

Have Dumbledore burn his face off in the climax. Next movie it’s someone else with heavy prosthetics.

Besides, I just don't like the way Depp looks as Grindelwald. I don't know how I imagined Grindelwald looking, but it wasn't like that. He looks like a huge dork.

He looks a bit to modern too. And nothing like the image we got of him in Deathly Hallows.

Part of the issue is that Grindewald was built as this Magneto-type dignified Well-Intentioned Extremist. It's downright surreal when we finally get to meet him and he's just "goofy Johnny Depp villain"

When Depp appeared, the entire theatre audience at my screening burst out laughing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanymous reaction to Narm in a film. If they don't recast Depp, then please at least make him look different.

The production stills they released suggested that they aren't.

I too had a theater that burst out laughing at his apparence. Plus, Graves was a better villain without the Grindewald Plot Twist.

Wholeheartedly agreed. A Grindelwald sympathizer (for lack of a better term) is as good a villain as the first film in the series needs. You gotta work your way up to the Big Bad.

This comic's look for Grindelwald would be a pretty good one.

Plus its not like his motivations weren't unreasonable. But those motives get flung out the window when we know its Gellert and not Graves. Heck, the movie as a whole throws the entire point of a Masquerade into question.

Honestly the fact that they cast Depp despite him being outed as an abuser didn't sit well with me to begin with. It doesn't help that I'm pretty sure Gellert was said to be handsome in his youth whereas...he's not handsome at all here.

The look is good in that comic but I prefer a reaity where bad guys aren't the ones with the exclusive hold over hooked noses.