NEW PROJECT by JKR: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - The Film

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Wab

Before anyone gets excited about rumours of Scamander novels, JKR has taken to Twitter to vehemently deny the possibility.

If there are, then I hope that they are properly novelized. Script -> Novel adaptation has to be as aggressive as Novel -> Script adaptation if it wants to tell the same story. There are as many cinematic story-telling devices that mean nothing on page as there are literary ones that do not work on screen.

Still, the movie did a perfectly good job of telling its story.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

This is slightly off-topic, but something that Newt himself would have wanted to write!

Conclusion seems to be jumping the gun a little bit, given only one "dwarf" was considered! What about the wizarding world's dwarves? Too many data gaps, I expect. I also didn't see a clear description of which Christmas elves were used - important to know how morphology and magical ability characteristics were defined. For instance, it looks like the authors made some assumptions about Christmas elves that may have kept them more in line with dwarves (e.g., "short and stocky" build, "low" intelligence, "no" spell casting or magical energy). And considering the authors' conclusion that Christmas elves and dwarves are bound together by stone crafting ability, only one variable was used to categorize crafting ability, and no analysis was done to see how much of a contribution crafting ability is to the determined phylogenetic similarity. Based on the variables considered and observations for each, I'm a bit stickered as to how Christmas elves grouped so distantly from other elves.

I expect Newt would probably be more of a pheneticist than cladisticist, but I wonder if morphology and function alone are enough to adequately categorize these [mostly living] creatures! Your thoughts? I'd also expect Newt to experiment with the biological species concept quite a bit. Though the existence of half-giants like Hagrid would seem to shoot that one down!

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Noldus

Certainly, there are pacing issues here. Halfway through the film loses some forward momentum and seems to drag along to show off all the magic, but a part of me finds these flaws excusable when there are scenes inside the case so charming and wonderful that they feel like they could have been directed by Steven Spielberg at his prime.

Perhaps we just have different opinions of pacing issues, but what did you find wrong with the pacing? It seemed pretty balanced to me. You can't always portray storyline/character insight if you're zooming around at a breakneck pace all the time, particularly when you have new characters.

[MrSleepyHead]

Jude Law cast as Dumbledore in the next film. Staying with the big name actors!

[Fawkesfan1]

Finally saw the first movie. Thought it was ok for what it was. Loved the Thunderbird though . And Newt's connection to one of the Lestrange's is interesting.

[Dr Hesper]

I saw the movie. It has potential but I don't see it having the same impact that the other books had. I think most people loved the kids of the HP books and the whole British feel of the setting.

[MrSleepyHead]

I've heard some wish half of the movie was spent in Newt's case, as that's where the magic felt the most real and comforting (much like the first walk through Diagon Alley, for me).

I just finished watching the film for the second time in full (have only caught an hour here and there on planes since the theatre!), and it's growing on me. I still think the film feels a little too Hollywood, but that's the price of a film over a book. I'm beginning to reconsider my first impression that the Obscurus is too overpowered, as it's made pretty clear that Credence is an abnormally powerful Obscurial. But I'm still not buying the thunderbird memory swipe of everyone and everything in New York. One thing I loved about the original series is how magic was powerful but not too powerful: in the books it never seemed like magic could solve huge problems super easily - there were still limitations. Fantastic Beasts, for me, stretches those laws of magic that were lain down in the original series. Though I recognize that JKR kept magical theory relatively untold - probably deliberately so that there's flexibility for thunderbird obliviations!

[Dr Hesper]

It would have been nice to catch a glimpse of Ilvermorny. I think Hogwarts is what makes the Harry Potter universe so charming.

[RemusLupinFan]

I've just seen this movie for the first time this past weekend. I thought it was a good story overall, and I loved the characters. Newt was wonderfully portrayed. It was interesting to see what the magical community was like in the US and how it differs from that of Britain. I also liked the tie with Grindelwald (and the necklace with the Deathly Hallows symbol).

Originally Posted by Dr Hesper

It would have been nice to catch a glimpse of Ilvermorny.

Agreed, though I suppose it didn't really play a part in the story and so we'd have no reason to see it. Maybe it'll play some part in the next movie.

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

But I'm still not buying the thunderbird memory swipe of everyone and everything in New York.

I didn't like that either. It felt too much like an easy quick-fix reset button. I would have been ok with it if it were limited to a few people who needed their memories wiped. But I did enjoy the Thunderbird.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

But I'm still not buying the thunderbird memory swipe of everyone and everything in New York. One thing I loved about the original series is how magic was powerful but not too powerful: in the books it never seemed like magic could solve huge problems super easily - there were still limitations.

Although I believe it wasn't the Thunderbird itself solving the problem, it was only delivering the potion via the rain/water system.