Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

From what I understand about the ruling it was that paper wasn't wrong at that point due to what was publicly available. It can call him an alleged abuser which can still be damaging in the eye of number of people, but technically correct.

Edited by Cross on Nov 10th 2020 at 7:26:29 AM

Mads Mikkelsen is in talks to take over the role of Grindlewald.

Ah, so Hannibal Lecter may take over as Grindelwald. While Depp did good job as Grindelwald with that clever speech, I'm sure Mads Mikkelsen can easily match him with his interpretation.

At this point I think it's less that Depp has damaged this franchise so much as the studio milking it too much and the creator turning everyone off with her . . . antics

Yeah, the franchise is damaged goods at the moment and while I like Mads Mikkelson it's not gonna be enough to salvage the whole thing. Way more changes need to be made if they want to get this series back on track.

Yeah is weird but in the end it was rowling herself and not depp the one who damage the brand.

"Even if Depp is guilty of the things he is accused of, he bore the brunt of that backlash for a while and the idea that Heard banked on the abused woman narrative didn't go over well. "

Ehhh some people cheer him but for what I get is less that and more that people were upset with heard for abusing him while gloading about nobody belivng him, in a age of me too that was a serious thing to do.

Apparently Mads replacing Depp as Grindelwald has been finalized and confirmed.

Honestly, he's a better fit for the role anyway. Depp's Grindelwald felt a bit... off in the first movie (never watched the second one).

Depp actually improved in the second one, in my opinion. Being one of the few good things about it, along with Jude Law.

Mads will probably do a great job, but either way I'm not really exited for the third movie.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 26th 2020 at 9:21:14 AM

It wasn't a bad performance, it was just that Grindelwald had such a strong appearance and that 30 second cameo did not convince people of the character. The second movie had its problems, but Depps performance better established the character as more than the weird appearance or the evil overlord Voldemort.

My opinion is that the performance isn't really that compelling, but there are so many other larger issues that it just kinda makes the character look better by comparison. Between the horrific pacing, overstuffed plot, nonsense character developments, and other problems, why would I really give a rat's ass about Depp's performance? I wouldn't be able to tell if it were good or bad until it were in a better movie.

Yeah I didn't hate Depps performance but the problem for me is that I just dont really care about Grindelwald as a character/villain. I'm just over the Big Bad type villians who want to take over the world and could do without any more of them for a while, especially in a series still being titled Fantastic Beasts which has still yet to fully embrace that premise.

And yes, I too like Mads Mikkelson but unfortunately he's coming in to a series with such lackluster creatives behind it that I can't get excited. It's a band-aid solution to one problem of many this series currently has.

Edited by clockworkboy on Nov 28th 2020 at 1:36:04 AM

I am going to be honest with you guys. I preferred Grindelwald to Voldemort as a villain.. I always found Voldemort somewhat boring.

I'm still not exited for this movie. And am probably not going to watch it right when it comes out.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 28th 2020 at 9:03:09 AM

I'm not super impressed with this series either, but I think I like it more than most. Even if the stories aren't great, it's just... nice to dip into the Wizarding World for a couple of hours now and again.

I do have a concern, though. Am I putting cash in JK Rowling's pocket by seeing these movies? Because I don't feel comfortable doing that until/unless she recants some of the very nasty things she's said. Or is it more like, she was paid in advance for the screenplay and the price of admission goes elsewhere?

Screenwriters are generally paid by advance commission per screenplay, but a good performance from the film means future commissions for following films' scripts, on top of a boost in merchandise sales that do go directly to Rowling.

I mean, she still owns the entire IP, so she's making money off it no matter what involvement she had with it.

Eyup, you plunk down cash for anything with Harry Potter IP on it you are putting cash into her bank account since she gets a cut of it.

Kinda of a shame honestly. I know someone said separate the art and the artist and it's fair theirs a lot of works I like from garbage people but it's not as easy a thing to do when their still profiting from it rather then say long dead.

I mean, it's an easy choice for me anyway. I wouldn't have even seen the second one if my mother hadn't me dragged me into it. Even disregarding the whole Depp thing (which is a more nuanced situation now anyway), Rowling's writing remains unimpressive with serious issues.

I guess the most ethical option is to wait for the Blu-ray to drop and buy that secondhand.

I hate when people act like just liking Harry Potter means you support JKR, even if you bought the books decades ago before anyone knew about her views.

Honest Harry Potter question:

How come the Harry Potter movies are in Peacock instead of HBO Max? I mean, there's a connection thanks to the Universal theme parks, but that's not the reason, right?

They still have the streaming rights for them. Until they expire they can't put them on HBO Max.

HBO Max actually managed to get a deal to host them for a month for the app launch, but have since returned to Peacock.

Same. I still plan on getting that Legacy game when it comes out, and seeing the movies. I'm not going to let offended people try and police what I watch and make me a bad person for doing so.

I'm currently watching the Fantastic Beasts movies for the first time even though it's years too late. This movie wasn't as bad as I've heard but it's still a disappointment. It feels like the Harry Potter version of The Rise of Skywalker: a movie that had the potential to be good and has some genuinely great moments but it's weighed down by new characters that add little to nothing to the story, unnecessary backstories, gratuitous callbacks, a lack of explanations and a convoluted plot that's all over the place both metaphorically and literally.

Nagini's story is chockfull of Unfortunate Implications but to be honest my biggest problem with her is that she adds nothing to the movie. You could remove her and everything would have been the same. The worst is that she's not even the worst unnecessary Harry Potter character in the movie, that's McGonagall being a professor decades too early. If they had to include an established Hogwarts professor why not Flitwick who, at least in the books, is supposed to be super old.

I could have tolerated Johnny Depp as Grindelwald better if he kept the appearance that he had in jail, the blonde chin length hair suits him much better than the godawful spiky platinum hair with shaved sides. Jude Law is great as Dumbledore and I like the detail that he's one of the few who pronounces Grindelwald's name right but the costuming department doesn't help. I get that him wearing robes would have probably been Narm but they could have at least given him a colorful suit instead of all grey clothes. The costuming in general is terrible, it's way too muggle and also boring and/or ugly. Part of why I love Leta Lestrange and Vinda Rosier is that they are the only characters with fashion sense. Queenie had one in the first movie but it seems that she lost it along with her morals.

I liked Leta but she's more backstory than character. Except for her death, she doesn't really do anything meaningful outside of flashbacks. She's like if all we had of Snape were a random scene of him teaching, his worst memory, the prince's tale, another random scene and then him killing Dumbledore. The whole Corvus Lestrange subplot is unnecessary and is time that could have been used to make Tina and Newt more sympathetic or to give Theseus a personality or to better explain Grindelwald's plans. Credence should have just been a random muggleborn. Also why does Dumbledore say that Obscurials are created because of a lack of love? Ariana was loved but she became one because she repressed her magic. Harry and Tom Riddle were unloved but didn't become Obscurials because Harry wasn't aware that he was magical and Tom never had any reason to fear or repress his abilities.

The last thing, one of the criticisms I had heard about this movie is that it says that Grindelwald is evil because he wants to stop the Holocaust, the atomic bomb and other historical atrocities. Where did that come from? Even by Warp That Aesop or Everyone Is Satan in Hell logic, it doesn't make sense. He sees the future but there's no indication that he actuallt wants to save the muggles from themselves, just that he's afraid of those weapons being used against wizards. Also I think that making his followers Death Eaters in all but name was a misstep. There should be a bigger emphasis on them being interested in the greater good and they shouldn't be all purebloods.

I read a comparison with the Hobbit and it fits. The first movie being flawed but still worth a watch, but WB couldn't help themselves.