• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Fantastic Beasts 2

Mellow Ezlo

Spoony Bard
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Location
eh?
Gender
Slothkin
The trailer is ok. Jude Law looks promising as a young Dumbledore, although he looks and sounds nothing like either Richard Harris or Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. I'm really glad Hogwarts is appearing, it'll be nostalgic, but I wish they would've gone with a design for it closer to the one from the first Harry Potter film rather than the last one, for the purpose of continuity (although Hogwarts' appearance has never been consistent so eh, and Grindelwald looks nothing like he does in Deathly Hallows). Overall, the trailer looks solid. It'll be really neat to see the Grindelwald story translated into film, even if it's not entirely necessary.

I'll see the movie no matter what, but I'm not expecting it to be amazing.
 

Dizzi

magical internet cat....
ZD Legend
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
I think it was generally they werent allowed to apparate in the grounds unless they made special arrangements....
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
I think it was generally they werent allowed to apparate in the grounds unless they made special arrangements....
That was during dumbledores time as head. I recon security was much more lax back in the day when he was a lowly transfiguration teacher.
 

Cfrock

Keep it strong
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Location
Liverpool, England


I seems there's a new trailer. I present it here without comment.

And down here I present my comment:
I don't like it for reasons that come as a bit of a surprise to me. These aren't the kind of thing I usually notice much.

1. Dumbledore is teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts when the books tell us he was the Transfiguration teacher when he taught at Hogwarts. Why expand on lore with prequels if you're going to disregard what already exists?
2. Dumbledore is teaching a class about a boggart in the exact same way Lupin does in PoA, meaning that lesson wasn't something Lupin thought up as a way to teach his students in a practical, hands-on way that helped establish Lupin as a more involved and thoughtful character, it was just something he, presumably, saw Dumbledore do and is copying that. Why do prequels always do things like this? Why do they always use references that undermine aspects of the original? I hate this so much that my knee-jerk reaction was to not want to see the movie at all.
3. I'm not sold on Jude Law as Dumbledore. He doesn't have the charisma. He just seems brown and flat.
4. I definitely don't like Johnny Depp as Grindlewald. Depp has never been a good actor (fite me) and it really bugs me that Grindlewald doesn't have a Germanic accent. He also looks stupid. What is this, 60s James Bond and the bad guys have to have something odd about their face? He wasn't a bleach blond crazy eye madman when we saw him in Deathly Hallows, what the hell happened? Did he do a fusion dance with David Bowie that went horribly wrong?
5. I don't like that the entire core cast of the first movie are back. I didn't really like the previous Beasts movie because it was utterly pointless to a franchise planned, from the start, to be about Dumbledore and Grindlewald, and seeing them all return tells me this film's story is going to be as meandering and unfocused as the last one. Why not start with showing us Dumbledore and Grindlewald as friends? This is the second film and I still don't see any point to Newt Scamander. Katherine Waterson a cute tho.
6. Credence Barebone is back. The guy who exploded at the end of the last movie. This is something I don't like.
7. The trailer makes the film look like an excuse to show off expensive CGI. This is a trailer so they're going to show off the most flashy stuff, but colours and movement aren't going to sell me on a film.
8. I don't like that they seem to have branded "Wizarding World", as though anyone in God's green goodness is going to think of this as anything other than "Harry Potter", as though "Harry Potter" is not the brand, regardless of whether or not the character is in it. People will describe this as "the new Harry Potter movie". "Wizarding World" is a non-starter and it feels kind of embarrassing.

So I'm personally pessimistic. How about the rest of you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dio

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit


I seems there's a new trailer. I present it here without comment.

And down here I present my comment:
I don't like it for reasons that come as a bit of a surprise to me. These aren't the kind of thing I usually notice much.

1. Dumbledore is teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts when the books tell us he was the Transfiguration teacher when he taught at Hogwarts. Why expand on lore with prequels if you're going to disregard what already exists?
2. Dumbledore is teaching a class about a boggart in the exact same way Lupin does in PoA, meaning that lesson wasn't something Lupin thought up as a way to teach his students in a practical, hands-on way that helped establish Lupin as a more involved and thoughtful character, it was just something he, presumably, saw Dumbledore do and is copying that. Why do prequels always do things like this? Why do they always use references that undermine aspects of the original? I hate this so much that my knee-jerk reaction was to not want to see the movie at all.
3. I'm not sold on Jude Law as Dumbledore. He doesn't have the charisma. He just seems brown and flat.
4. I definitely don't like Johnny Depp as Grindlewald. Depp has never been a good actor (fite me) and it really bugs me that Grindlewald doesn't have a Germanic accent. He also looks stupid. What is this, 60s James Bond and the bad guys have to have something odd about their face? He wasn't a bleach blond crazy eye madman when we saw him in Deathly Hallows, what the hell happened? Did he do a fusion dance with David Bowie that went horribly wrong?
5. I don't like that the entire core cast of the first movie are back. I didn't really like the previous Beasts movie because it was utterly pointless to a franchise planned, from the start, to be about Dumbledore and Grindlewald, and seeing them all return tells me this film's story is going to be as meandering and unfocused as the last one. Why not start with showing us Dumbledore and Grindlewald as friends? This is the second film and I still don't see any point to Newt Scamander. Katherine Waterson a cute tho.
6. Credence Barebone is back. The guy who exploded at the end of the last movie. This is something I don't like.
7. The trailer makes the film look like an excuse to show off expensive CGI. This is a trailer so they're going to show off the most flashy stuff, but colours and movement aren't going to sell me on a film.
8. I don't like that they seem to have branded "Wizarding World", as though anyone in God's green goodness is going to think of this as anything other than "Harry Potter", as though "Harry Potter" is not the brand, regardless of whether or not the character is in it. People will describe this as "the new Harry Potter movie". "Wizarding World" is a non-starter and it feels kind of embarrassing.

So I'm personally pessimistic. How about the rest of you?


Well I am excited!!! Been waiting for a new trailer for what seems like an age and was hoping to see more of Johnny. Overall I like the way he looks, though I don't understand why the filmmakers went with different coloured eyes for Grindy seeing as the characters eyes matched in the deathly hallows movie. Both actors that portrayed him before Johnny had matching blue eyes so naturally I'd have thought they should have been both blue in this film too instead of the one light one dark.

Grindy also had an English accent in Deathly Hallows so I can accept that they went for that again in this film, though I will admit a Germanic accent would have been cool. I also like the hair, Jamie Campbell Bower was blond too and they can do what they want in terms of style. As we see in DH he ends up a bald man so at least we know he made the most of his hair during his youth.

As for the boggart thing. I don't see any other way a teacher would teach students how to deal with one as there is only one method that works. I Personally liked seeing that lesson again as it is a nice throwback from HP. Though the reason why Dumbledore is taking the lesson remains to be seen. Perhaps he was just covering for someone rather than full time teaching Defence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom