Is this for real? 'cause if it is, I'm pissed off.
Huh. Thought it was an April Fool's joke at first because the story was posted on March 31st. Looks like it's real though.
Might I ask why it angers you?
|
Might I ask why it angers you?
Because I'd rather feel like movies are an endeavor taken by people who are doing what they love, and for people who love the same thing.
I understand that that's not the case most of the time but, usually, this remains hidden from my perception. Take the Marvel movie franchise, for example. Is it one of the world's biggest money grinders? yes. Does it feel like it? not really. As bad as they sometimes are, the Marvel movies have a heart, and I think people can sense that. It's real geeky.
In this case, however, when a trilogy is based on what is essentially a made up encyclopedia, in itself a cute little spin off to a series of books that was really more about the character than the nonsensical setting (where wizards for some vague reason got technologically fixated about a thousand years ago, for example) - it feels way too much like a product. Like a calculated attempt to grab as much money as possible by using name recognition.
I am pissed off because when something like this happens, my attempt to shelter myself from the harsh truths of Hollywood gets harder to pull off. Can't fault anyone for liking money, but also really dislike it when an entire trilogy is announced, usually (and seemingly in this case) without a story to tell. It reminds me, for example, how much better The Hobbit could have been as a single, two hours long adventure movie.
Basically, this pisses me off in a similar way to walking into a mall in Christmas and realizing that the whole thing is one gigantic corporate monstrosity of a sale. I knew that last year, too, but I really would have rather forgot about it and focused on being merry this year.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To each their own I guess. The nature of the beast has always been apparent to me, and as long as they still deliver an entertaining product, I really don't care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the Harry Potter movies. (I thought the fourth movie did such a bad job adapting the book that I dropped the movie series and stuck with the books only.)
But it sounds like Rowling is genuinely enthusiastic about this project, and it's not like she's hurting for money. And maybe, in this case, there really IS a story to tell. How could we know, at this stage?
And if the very idea of the movie trilogy irritates you, then don't watch it. Just stick with books that you feel were written by people who were writing what they wanted to write.
|
|
and it's not like she's hurting for money.
I would have loved it so much if that was a relevant point. But, is Adam Sandler hurting for money at this point?
Anyway, I kinda see your other points, and perhaps hearing about yet another movie project that was blown in proportion to become a trilogy for (as far as we know) no reason had me overreacting a bit. I guess the project has a chance, but I'm going to remain pessimistic about it until I learn more, just to be on the safe side.
To each their own I guess. The nature of the beast has always been apparent to me, and as long as they still deliver an entertaining product, I really don't care.
But, wouldn't you prefer that some sort of minimal effort to conceal the nature of the beast was made? if only as a sign of respect to your (the consumer's) intelligence? It's not that there's a reason for anyone in Hollywood to respect the general audience's intelligence, but it would still be nice to get the benefit of a doubt...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To each their own I guess. The nature of the beast has always been apparent to me, and as long as they still deliver an entertaining product, I really don't care.But, wouldn't you prefer that some sort of minimal effort to conceal the nature of the beast was made? if only as a sign of respect to your (the consumer's) intelligence? It's not that there's a reason for anyone in Hollywood to respect the general audience's intelligence, but it would still be nice to get the benefit of a doubt...
Why? It is what it is. They make the movies to make a living/make a profit.
If it's good, or at least entertaining, they get my money. Possibly repeatedly.
If it's not, they don't. Or in the case of a bad decision, not more than once.
I'm more insulted by the ones that pretend to be after something "higher" than making money than the ones who are up-front honest about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you eat at a restaurant, would it bother you that the cooks are trying to make a living, and aren't motivated solely by a passion for food? If you want your car fixed, is it more important that your auto mechanic is crazy about his job, or that your car works? It's no secret that money drives people to do their jobs.
That said, I know that it can be satisfying to follow a story told by someone who genuinely wants to tell it. If you get a bad vibe about one movie, for whatever reason, watch another. Maybe splitting "The Hobbit" into three was a money-grabber. If that bothers you all that much, don't watch it. Maybe watch another movie instead. I heard that, since his childhood, Peter Jackson had always wanted to remake "King Kong".
If you eat at a restaurant, would it bother you that the cooks are trying to make a living, and aren't motivated solely by a passion for food? If you want your car fixed, is it more important that your auto mechanic is crazy about his job, or that your car works? It's no secret that money drives people to do their jobs.
Pretty much this. To put it bluntly, I don't care nearly as much about motivation as I do the quality of the final result. If the product is appealing enough to convince me to spend money on it, I don't care why it was made in the first place.
|
|
If you eat at a restaurant, would it bother you that the cooks are trying to make a living, and aren't motivated solely by a passion for food? If you want your car fixed, is it more important that your auto mechanic is crazy about his job, or that your car works? It's no secret that money drives people to do their jobs.Pretty much this. To put it bluntly, I don't care nearly as much about motivation as I do the quality of the final result. If the product is appealing enough to convince me to spend money on it, I don't care why it was made in the first place.
Oh, I agree, it's just that I can usually feel it when a movie is a product rather than than it's makers' passion. I can't exactly prove anything, but I feel like examining the case of Cars vs. Toy Story is enough to convey what I mean - the former is a toy commercial, and the latter (ironically) is not. Imagine if the elevator pitch for Toy Story was similar to the one about Cars (It would make for a great deal with McDonald's!). We would lose on some of the greatest creativity in the field because of an attempt to sell some more products.
Of course there's always just the option of not watching the thing, though there's no avoiding people going to yet another brainless movie and thinking that that's what fantasy is about.
Aaron Bitman said it well - I don't know yet if this is really the case with this project. However, when one considers the percentage of movie trilogies that were trilogies because they had a story to justify it vs. those who were more about the equation (# of same movies)x(money each movie makes) > (money one movie makes)... odds are, the story does not justify three movies.
Fair enough I guess. Just doesn't seem like something worth getting worked up over if you ask me.
Harry Potter 8- The Search For More Money!
Yes, Lord Snow. Let the hate flow through you...
|
My family and I loved the books and the movies. I'm willing to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt. She seems like a pretty decent person who just really loves writing stories, especially stories that take place in the Potter world she created.
As long as these new movies are well written and well done, I have no problem with them at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would tell you to relax, but that would probably just annoy you more.
I'm in the same camp Orthos is in. If the final product is fun and entertaining,I couldn't care less about their motivations.
I genuinely enjoyed all 4 of the transformers movies, something I see people have a great difficulty of doing.
I kind of have the perspective of waiting to see who they attach as the director/lead actors. That can give you a lot of perspective on how bad a cash grab something is.
I genuinely enjoyed all 4 of the transformers movies, something I see people have a great difficulty of doing.
I thought the first was okay, the second just a poor quality movie that I didn't enjoy.
Have yet to hear from anyone whose opinion I trust on such things say anything that would convince me the third and/or fourth is/are worth seeing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the third Transformers movie more than the second.
|
|
They are absolutely doing it. The movie takes place in and around New York, 70 years before the events of Harry Potter, so some time in the 1940's ...
The movie is about Newt Scamander, the author of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a textbook used by the students at Hogwarts.
Now an old man, he is retired. He has a grandson named Rolf, who married Luna Lovegood some time after the events of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
I would not be at all surprised if they start the movie in the near future, after after the events of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows where Scamander recounts the adventures of his youth when he gains all the knowledge and experience that eventually lead up to his writing the book he became famous for ... similar to how the Hobbit movie began with an old Bilbo recounting his There and Back Again tale to Frodo.
Booooo
LArry fo' lief yo
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
If you eat at a restaurant, would it bother you that the cooks are trying to make a living, and aren't motivated solely by a passion for food? If you want your car fixed, is it more important that your auto mechanic is crazy about his job, or that your car works? It's no secret that money drives people to do their jobs.Pretty much this. To put it bluntly, I don't care nearly as much about motivation as I do the quality of the final result. If the product is appealing enough to convince me to spend money on it, I don't care why it was made in the first place.Oh, I agree, it's just that I can usually feel it when a movie is a product rather than than it's makers' passion. I can't exactly prove anything, but I feel like examining the case of Cars vs. Toy Story is enough to convey what I mean - the former is a toy commercial, and the latter (ironically) is not. Imagine if the elevator pitch for Toy Story was similar to the one about Cars (It would make for a great deal with McDonald's!). We would lose on some of the greatest creativity in the field because of an attempt to sell some more products.
Of course there's always just the option of not watching the thing, though there's no avoiding people going to yet another brainless movie and thinking that that's what fantasy is about.
Aaron Bitman said it well - I don't know yet if this is really the case with this project. However, when one considers the percentage of movie trilogies that were trilogies because they had a story to justify it vs. those who were more about the equation (# of same movies)x(money each movie makes) > (money one movie makes)... odds are, the story does not justify three movies.
For what it's worth, Cars was probably the biggest personal passion project that John Lasseter ever did for Pixar. As a boomer kid, he's actually deeply nostalgic for the kitsch of American road culture, the cars of the 50s and 60s, and the whole Route 66 road trip through the west. You can argue with the results and the NASCAR side of the plot, and with the sequels and spinoffs, because those did come about because while Cars was only solid hit with good reviews (instead of an absolute home run), it sold a METRIC CRAPTON of merchandise. The spinoffs were done to capitalize on that market; I mean, seriously, who expected not only a Planes movie but a near-immediate Planes sequel.
But the first Cars movie? Absolutely a labor of love for Lasseter.
Harry Potter 8- The Search For More Money!
Yes, Lord Snow. Let the hate flow through you...
Thank you, Darth Yogurt.
It was bound to happen anyway. If something does well enough, it becomes a victim of it's own success. I think that happened before the series even ended. Since the last two books were setup and an excuse as to why Saint George didn't die killing The Dragon I was disappointed. Though, I can understand why they didn't actually do that for what was, in theory, a children's book.
I thought the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was excellent. Despite it being based on a theme park ride. . . .
Yeah. I did enjoy the Pirates' series. I enjoyed the mocking more.
|
|
I genuinely enjoyed all 4 of the transformers movies, something I see people have a great difficulty of doing.
Mostly the difficulty comes from repeatedly falling asleep and being woken up by large bangs for the duration of the entire 17 hours long movie.
Now to be perfectly honest I never watched any of the transformers movies, only half of the second one while it was on T.V. That alone was bad enough.
But, I guess, if you enjoy one of them you are likely to enjoy all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to be fair....sometimes half a movie is all you need
|
|
So you watched half a movie, and you base your opinion on all of them on that?
28 minutes of giant robots over the course of 4 movies that are 2-2.5 hours long each? And half of that action gave you crappy views of the Namesake characters? I base my opinions on that. I could base it on that solely but I actually saw the first 3 movies too and they were disappointing in the extreme to me. I would have rather seen the robots be of a simpler design and on screen more instead of each finger consisting of 33 moving parts and legs with 300 different pieces to them.
|
|
So you watched half a movie, and you base your opinion on all of them on that?
Well yeah - see, that half movie was not just bad, it was complete garbage. I was a combination of bored, annoyed (some of the "humor" there was offensive to my brain and borderline offensive to all sorts of nationalities) and amused for all the wrong reasons. There's basically no way a movie that has that 70 minutes stretch could be good. And by all accounts, all 4 transformers movies are basically the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I feel like the Transformers movies kind of does fit this topic even better than Harry Potter.
|
|
[...]Rowling[...] said in an interview once that she doesn't read her own work out loud until after it is published, [...]
You know that's complete BS right? who is she? some omniscient god-like being who's above reading her own stuff before hitting the send button? you know who doesn't need to read their own stuff before sending it for print? god-like beings and s%*#ty writers. Oh wait...
|
|
Yeah I feel like the Transformers movies kind of does fit this topic even better than Harry Potter.
I watched the first one. Gave the second a try... walked out halfway through the second... ignored the 3rd and the rest (don't know how many there are at this point)
They made my second favorite childhood cartoon into one of the worst movie franchises
Yeah I feel like the Transformers movies kind of does fit this topic even better than Harry Potter.I watched the first one. Gave the second a try... walked out halfway through the second... ignored the 3rd and the rest (don't know how many there are at this point)
They made my second favorite childhood cartoon into one of the worst movie franchises
I saw the first movie in a theater, it was disappointing but could have been worse. Saw the second one, but solely to MST3K it with friends, since we heard it was ridiculous. After that I realized paying money to see something bad is just encouraging them to make more, and haven't bothered to see the last two intentionally. I did see a good chunk of the third one on cable, still didn't think it was good.
[...]Rowling[...] said in an interview once that she doesn't read her own work out loud until after it is published, [...]You know that's complete BS right? who is she? some omniscient god-like being who's above reading her own stuff before hitting the send button?
No, I don't know anything of the sort. As thejeff pointed out, there's a difference between reading your own work and listening to it.
Satisfying dialogue on the page is rarely satisfying on the screen, and vice versa. If you wrote like people talked, it would be boring and repetitive. If you talked like people write, it would be long-winded and confusing. Studying the differences between spoken and written language is almost a cottage industry....
Can't believe this hasn't has a post since.
Saw the movie fantastic beasts and where to find them. Visually it was pretty cool: it was like Windstone carvings came to life.
Plot wise it was a little weird and meandering. I felt like I was watching Dr. Who and I'm not really a fan of that series: someone just keeps telling people to do weird random things without any explanation, rhyme or reason and wonders why no one listens. (the rhino scene was an exception, that kinda made sense).
It was a pretty good movie, but it definitely felt like an opening chapter and not a complete movie.
As for being a money-grab, I don't see that at all. JKR has continually been adding more to the wizarding world, and we know she's always had more that she never put into the books. I suspect that she started thinking about Grindlewald and Dumbledore back when she was writing Deathly Hallows. There wasn't much point to adding it there, but I suspect this would have come out eventually one way or another. Money may have influenced how it came out, but not the inevitability.
Yes... Yes... Let the hate flow through you...
Saw it this afternoon and mostly liked it, although the ending dragged on a bit and felt a bit convenient for my taste.
The creatures are all really cool, and at time felt like they could be stuff pulled from some of the weirder bestiary entries over the history of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I had dinner with a friend last night, and we were discussing the movie. (Which is now announced to be the first of five.) And we agreed on some elements of the film that we liked, and some that left us scratching our heads.
We both liked Eddie Redmayne's characterization of Newt. He expands what Hufflepuff's key virtues are. And he comes across as someone on the Spectrum, who probably has a better time dealing with beasts than with people. (The acting at the "Useless?" line was terrific. As I count it, that was the first time that Newt actually looks the person he's talking to in the eye, and his spine in that scene, alone, marks him as a wizard of high character.)
War hero brother? That's an adventure hook if ever I heard one.
(In fact, that's an oddity. In the Harry Potter books, there was a reason for Voldemort to pursue Harry. Other than dumb revenge -- and maybe jealousy regarding Dumbledore -- there's no reason for this villain to keep pursuing this hero. Harry Potter had one story. It feels like Newt Scarmander has at least three, unrelated, stories.)
Dumbledore will probably show up in movie #4 or 5. Who do you think ought to play him?
We agreed that Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is something of a mess. What's her backstory? As an auror, she had infiltrated the Second Salemers ... why? Did she have reason to suspect that there was a wizard among them? She attacked Mary Lou Barebone because she was ... beating Credence in front of her assembly? How did Tina attack? With magic, presumably, because everybody needed to be obliviated, but she doesn't seem to have the soul to attack a muggle with magic.
So, MACUSA demotes her, and she sneaks off and still spies on the Second Salemers. (1) Why is she hiding in the crowd? The Salemers all had their memories of her wiped. (2) Why is that forbidden? You would think that MACUSA would actually think that keeping tabs on "witch hunters" is a smart thing to do. (3) Given that it *is* forbidden, what does she hope to achieve by spying on them? Again, does she think that one of them is a wizard?
She nabs Newt at the bank and then goes ... where?! Into a private meeting of the President and her advisors??! There are lots of wizards who aren't aurors. Where do *they* go when they need to report a crime? When they have a criminal wizard in custody? Maybe a front desk, with a doughnut-eating auror? Why doesn't she take Newt *there*? Why does she take him to her "Wand License" desk?
Basically, her actions are incoherent. Her decisions -- brave sometime, cowardly in front of the president sometimes -- are there to drive the plot rather than describe a character or make sense.
Also, hey, an auror can sentence wizards to death, by themselves, with no appeal, and nobody thinks this is bad. Tina's executioner assures her that her death -- being dissolved in acid -- won't hurt, but there's never a breath of concern that maybe the death sentence was unwarranted.
Also, hey, what was Modesty Barebones doing with a wand? She says it's a toy, but there's absolutely nothing in super-creepy-girl's demeanor that suggests she's the kind of child who pretends to be a witch.
Also, hey, neither of us were the least impressed with President Picquery. She made consistently bad choices throughout the film, and belittled those beneath her in public to protect her own backside.
Also, hey, are Queenie and Jacob supposed to end up being a couple? Because as long as the "no exceptions" rule about obliviating muggles is active, that's going to be one of those classic Shakespearean couples. (That is, lovely wedding, terrible marriage. You know, like, "you look like the young man I loved, before I realized 'he' was your sister in disguise. Let's get married.") Every time Queenie explains to her guy how she's using magic to help out in the bakery, the aurors have to come in and wipe Jacob's memory.
--
When I mentioned this to another friend, her reaction was "I really, really didn't like the female lead. When they said she was no longer an Auror, I blurted out, "HOW did SHE become an Auror?!" Milquetoast with a side of milk and some toast.
"I loved Newt. I even loved Queenie/Jacob and hope she undoes his Obliviate and he just keeps pretending.
"I really hated that MACUSA had zero problems murdering people, especially an emotionally disturbed teenage boy.
"And Johnny Depp makes me want to dropkick him off a cliff. I am so sad he was cast in this movie."
(In fact, that's an oddity. In the Harry Potter books, there was a reason for Voldemort to pursue Harry. Other than dumb revenge -- and maybe jealousy regarding Dumbledore -- there's no reason for this villain to keep pursuing this hero. Harry Potter had one story. It feels like Newt Scarmander has at least three, unrelated, stories.)
In this movie he was perusing Newt because newt made a great scapegoat: He's trying to weaponize a highly dangerous monster and someone has a briefcase full of highly dangerous monsters.. including another of the very rare one he's trying to weaponize.
Next story he'll have a reason, the events of the first movie.
We agreed that Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is something of a mess. What's her backstory? As an auror, she had infiltrated the Second Salemers ... why?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a bunch of muggles trying to stir up political action to hunt witches would be of a lot of interest to witches, whether or not they have a witch with them.
She attacked Mary Lou Barebone because she was ... beating Credence in front of her assembly? How did Tina attack? With magic, presumably, because everybody needed to be obliviated, but she doesn't seem to have the soul to attack a muggle with magic.
A muggle beating an obviously disturbed child ? Going to pound town seems like a real option, as does a wizard being so mad they broke out the wand.
(1) Why is she hiding in the crowd? The Salemers all had their memories of her wiped.
Obliviate charms are not fool proof. They often leave a little bit of a "don't i know you from somewhere" vibe.
(2) Why is that forbidden? You would think that MACUSA would actually think that keeping tabs on "witch hunters" is a smart thing to do.
I figured graves took over that case. It would be a good excuse to keep checking in with his contact and keep other macusa members off of his search. Two birds with one stone.
(3) Given that it *is* forbidden, what does she hope to achieve by spying on them? Again, does she think that one of them is a wizard?
Oh come on, cops NEVER walk away from the case the boss tells them to walk away from.
She nabs Newt at the bank and then goes ... where?! Into a private meeting of the President and her advisors??! There are lots of wizards who aren't aurors. Where do *they* go when they need to report a crime? When they have a criminal wizard in custody? Maybe a front desk, with a doughnut-eating auror? Why doesn't she take Newt *there*?
chance to demonstrate the plot?
Why does she take him to her "Wand License" desk?
I think she was trying to arrest him on a lack of wand liscense, something in her jurisdiction.
Basically, her actions are incoherent. Her decisions -- brave sometime, cowardly in front of the president sometimes -- are there to drive the plot rather than describe a character or make sense.
Eyup.
Also, hey, an auror can sentence wizards to death, by themselves, with no appeal, and nobody thinks this is bad. Tina's executioner assures her that her death -- being dissolved in acid -- won't hurt, but there's never a breath of concern that maybe the death sentence was unwarranted.
I'm pretty sure he's THE auror not AN auror : Head of the FBI. Probably a war powers act/time of declared emergency thing.
Also, hey, what was Modesty Barebones doing with a wand? She says it's a toy, but there's absolutely nothing in super-creepy-girl's demeanor that suggests she's the kind of child who pretends to be a witch.
Could be her mothers.
She could be a witch and it would be instinctive/learned from babyhood.Also, hey, neither of us were the least impressed with President Picquery. She made consistently bad choices throughout the film, and belittled those beneath her in public to protect her own backside.
a) do you expect politicians to do anything else and b) if the system is working as intended there's nothing for heroes to do.
Every time Queenie explains to her guy how she's using magic to help out in the bakery, the aurors have to come in and wipe Jacob's memory.
or the person breaking the rule about dating muggles breaks the rule about telling anyone there are muggles that need obliviating.
--
When I mentioned this to another friend, her reaction was "I really, really didn't like the female lead. When they said she was no longer an Auror, I blurted out, "HOW did SHE become an Auror?!" Milquetoast with a side of milk and some toast.
... pretty much sums her up.
"I really hated that MACUSA had zero problems murdering people, especially an emotionally disturbed teenage boy.
well you're not supposed to like them, but taking out a godzillia level threat to the city and a nuclear threat to wizarding secrecy is a bargain.
"And Johnny Depp makes me want to dropkick him off a cliff. I am so sad he was cast in this movie."
eh wait? where"