Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Article detailing the new antagonists, the more adult tone to the next chapter of the Harry Potter universe, and the American Wizarding World. Suffice it to say upon hearing the differences and the creativity I'm pleasantly surprised with what I'm hearing. You can't outdo Voldemort. So don't try.


http://screenrant.com/harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-book-movie-differences/

They will outdo Voldemort, Khan, and Thanos.

Originally posted by Mindset
They will outdo Voldemort, Khan, and Thanos. You'll be dead before dawn unless you beg for mercy. Never besmirch the holy trinity like that again.

Originally posted by Mindset
They will outdo Voldemort, Khan, and Thanos.

Easily.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Easily. Ridiculous.

Yes, it will be ridiculously easy to make a better character than those 3.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, it will be ridiculously easy to make a better character than those 3. Iyo not mine. You also love Snake Eyes for crying out loud.

Originally posted by quanchi112
the American Wizarding World. The wizards are going to all be fat?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The wizards are going to all be fat? I'm not fat are you ?

The fattest of them all.

They probably just have alot more "blow stuff up" spells than the british wizards. And I'm ok with that.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
They probably just have alot more "blow stuff up" spells than the british wizards. And I'm ok with that. This is really good news. I love this franchise. Lotr gave us more of the same thing which is fine but I love that the direction is going in a different direction. Well done, Rowling.

Thinking this will be a huge hit.

Originally posted by playa1258
Thinking this will be a huge hit. I sure hope so. I love this franchise.

Originally posted by playa1258
Thinking this will be a huge hit.

This will definitely make loads of money; there's a huge ocean of HP fanboys/girls to support this alone, besides bringing in new people to the franchise.

Will it be lackluster children's fantasy like the other HP films though. That is the question.

Probably. Hollywood lives to make glorified baby sitting tools for coked out tramps to take their kids to.

Originally posted by Robtard
This will definitely make loads of money; there's a huge ocean of HP fanboys/girls to support this alone, besides bringing in new people to the franchise.

Will it be lackluster children's fantasy like the other HP films though. That is the question. Some of the Harry Potter films were exquisite so no surprise you didn't care for any of them.

Not true, slopes, the first was decent, for a children's flick.

Then there was one or two others that had some entertainment value.

The series as a whole though was meh, despite having a decent amount of talent in the cast. Oldman is my favorite actor.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Some of the Harry Potter films were exquisite so no surprise you didn't care for any of them.

Rob likes bad movies.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not true, slopes, the first was decent, for a children's flick.

Then there was one or two others that had some entertainment value.

The series as a whole though was meh, despite having a decent amount of talent in the cast. Oldman is my favorite actor. Again, decent isn't great and they had multiple great films.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob likes bad movies.


He backed the last die hard film. He wants more.

Originally posted by quanchi112



He backed the last die hard film. He wants more.



This is a fundamental difference between the two of us, you have to outright to take a dig at me (last DH sucked), I just have to tell the truth.

Truth: You thought 'Immortals' was an okay film

Lol!

Originally posted by Robtard
This is a fundamental difference between the two of us, you have to outright to take a dig at me (last DH sucked), I just have to tell the truth.

Truth: You thought 'Immortals' was an okay film

Lol! Immortals was just an ok film. You want more die hard films. Considering the last one just let the franchise die with some dignity.

Immortals is a cool movie, I can't believe Rob is complaining.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Immortals is a cool movie, I can't believe Rob is complaining. The funny thing is I just said it was ok and he's still obsessed over a comment I made years ago.

I thought it was a great movie. Better then watching 6 Die Hard movies.

(auto quote)[/Apparently Robbie thinks a geriatric Bruce Willis is great for action but screw Henry Cavill.

He threw Henry under the bus.

Originally posted by quanchi112
(auto quote)

Learn how to use the quote function already.

Originally posted by Robtard
Learn how to use the quote function already. So because I deleted one thing you choose this as a defense but nothing I said. Typical juvenile Robbie. Continue to focus on misspellings or improper deletions.

Rob has never been good with the facts about life.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So because I deleted one thing you choose this as a defense but nothing I said. Your inability to use the quote function aside, if I have to "defend" every lie you make, it'd be on here all the time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your inability to use the quote function aside, if I have to "defend" every lie you make, it'd be on here all the time. You didn't defend anything but focus on spelling errors. It's sad but then again you love geriatric Bruce Willis.

He likes Bruce cause he's and old man himself.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He likes Bruce cause he's and old man himself. Yeah, I guess Bruce Willis is close to age so he figured what the hell. Get em for me, Bruce.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You didn't defend anything but focus on spelling errors. It's sad but then again you love geriatric Bruce Willis.

I don't have to keep defending your lie that I liked DH6 when I've said that is wasn't good. You have to lie to take digs at me, I just have to state the truth.

Rob is so nice to me in private, but in public he treats me so bad, I feel used.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't have to keep defending your lie that I liked DH6 when I've said that is wasn't good. You have to lie to take digs at me, I just have to state the truth. You was at more Dh films and Bruce is only going to look worse.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob is so nice to me in private, but in public he treats me so bad, I feel used. Maybe some day he will see the error of his manipulative ways.

Do find it reprehensible how you try and use TI, quano.

Anyhow, back on topic. Do see that Colin Farrell's in the cast, that's a definitive positive at least.

Everyone is using me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do find it reprehensible how you try and use TI, quano.

Anyhow, back on topic. Do see that Colin Farrell's in the cast, that's a definitive positive at least. So now I'm using TI ?

Yes. If you want to prefer Potterverse to the Lotr then proclaim it now. I don't discourage anyone to enjoy the magical world of Harry Potter. It's great.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Everyone is using me.

ViuDsy7yb8M

Looks great.

Originally posted by ares834
ViuDsy7yb8M

Looks great.


will go see

Love my Harry Potter franchise.

Originally posted by Robtard
This will definitely make loads of money; there's a huge ocean of HP fanboys/girls to support this alone, besides bringing in new people to the franchise.

Will it be lackluster children's fantasy like the other HP films though. That is the question.

"Lackluster children's fantasy"?

Alright, here's the deal: Harry Potter is not marketed to children. Its marketed to adolescent and adult audiences. The original movies were never marketed as or labelled children's films. The first two films were considered family films. Just like any Star Wars film that's ever existed, yet no one seems to want to admit that Star Wars is meant for a younger audience than Harry Potter. It is. And that's a fact.

The thematics and the contextual stuff that Harry Potter covers goes above and beyond what most big blockbuster franchises today cover. So please be quiet. No one who actually understands good film would call Harry Potter a "lackluster children's fantasy". The films are almost all rated PG-13, for one, a rating that pretty much zero children's films get. So your rationale for calling them children's films is opaque and nonsensical, especially because films like Star Wars, and films part of the Marvel cinematic universe are marketed to children far more exclusively and consistently than Harry Potter is, and they resemble "lackluster children's sci-fi" far more than Harry Potter resembles a "lackluster children's fantasy."

Films 3-8, and to an extent, the whole franchise, are quite bleak, dark, and violent for films as patronized as they are. By the way, have you heard the term "YA fiction"? That's what Harry Potter is. It's not marketed to children whatsoever, and none of the films really looked like they were, with the possible exception of the first two. Even then, not really at all.

The story literally narritavizes a youths coming of age and his experiences with war and death, while dealing with some other, often heavy adolescent/life issues in the process. The main theme is death. And, um, you do realize the films are all certified fresh on RT, with sky high ratings across the board, and 12 Oscar nominations under its belt? JK Rowling has always maintained she wrote this franchise for teens and their parents. Not young children. And for the most part, it's not been marketed to them.

And on the subject of this being a lackluster children's fantasy...Harry Potter never was, so don't expect this to be. JK Rowling always writes dark stories, if you're aware of her work at all. Plus, there's adults her, not teenagers. What about this film, or the Harry Potter franchise in general, even begins to warrant such a stupid, ignorant, patronizing question?

LoL, look at this fan-person flip out over their precious. Harry Potter was and is "young adult" literature and by extension film, the fact that it gathered a large adult fan base after the fact does not change that. Young adults are generally considered between ages 12-18; sometimes younger. So yes, Harry Potter is a children's franchise as that is its prime target; that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as an adult though.

Consider yourself schooled; no need to thank me, you're welcome.

edit: oh, you're probably just a future spammer, nvm

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, look at this fan-person flip out over their precious. Harry Potter was and is "young adult" literature and by extension film, the fact that it gathered a large adult fan base after the fact does not change that. Young adults are generally considered between ages 12-18; sometimes younger. So yes, Harry Potter is a children's franchise as that is its prime target. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as an adult though.

Consider yourself schooled; no need to thank me, you're welcome. Calling Harry Potter a children's film is like calling Gran Torino an old man's film, yes it stars an old man but that doesn't mean it's geared towards old men. Is Stand By Me also a children's film those standards, I mean it stars children

Originally posted by Firefly218
Calling Harry Potter a children's film is like calling Gran Torino an old man's film, yes it stars an old man but that doesn't mean it's geared towards old men. Is Stand By Me also a children's film those standards, I mean it stars children

Your point is false, Harry Potter isn't a children's franchise just because it has children in it, nor did I make that connection above.

Maybe reread what I said?

Originally posted by Robtard
Your point is false, Harry Potter isn't a children's franchise just because it has children in it. Pigeonholing a movie into a specific demographic does it a disservice. The reason HP became a prolific franchise is because it was very accessible to children but ultimately dealt with things adults could relate with. Had it been a children's film the audience would've outgrown the movies in the span of 8 sequels.

Most Disney animated films, which I've been a fan of myself for decades, Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch etc have elements that adults can relate too and are very popular with adults, that doesn't change the fact that the films are namely children's films and targeted as such

Think Harry Potter like Star Wars was initially aimed at a younger audience, but then with each chapter gee a little more mature because its initial audience was getting older.

But just so happened that adults loved them both from day 1 as well.

Nothing wrong with enjoying something aimed at children as an adult, imo. Just don't become some creepy obsessive type over it.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Pigeonholing a movie into a specific demographic does it a disservice. The reason HP became a prolific franchise is because it was very accessible to children but ultimately dealt with things adults could relate with. Had it been a children's film the audience would've outgrown the movies in the span of 8 sequels. I know and what's ironic is Star Wars is a kids movie according to Lucas. Robtard is nothing more than a dishonest troll.

Originally posted by Robtard
Most Disney animated films, which I've been a fan of myself for decades, Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch etc have elements that adults can relate too and are very popular with adults, that doesn't change the fact that the films are namely children's films and targeted as such

Are you kidding me?
Those films do not have the adult elements that Harry Potter has, are all animated properties, and are all marketed to a much younger audience than Harry Potter is.

I never knew a G rated film about a cuddly space alien could be compared to a PG-13 rated urban fantasy franchise about death and coming of age.

You are aware Harry Potter's most marketed to audience are between the ages of 15 and 30?

It's much the same case with Star Wars, but guys, even Star Wars is meant for a younger audience than Potter, and is marketed to that audience more consistently. Harry Potter has been marketed as a fantasy series for adults just as much as its been marketed as a fantasy series for teens. It's hardly ever been marketed to young children, a rarity for a 30 billion dollar entertainment brand these days. Harry Potter has been able to maintain a relative maturity in marketing that a lot of major entertainment brand blockbusters haven't.

But seriously? Animated Disney fairy tales do not have the same amount of adult/questionable dark content, and that's clear. Those films have always been written and marketed to little kids, and little kids only. Harry Potter has only ever really been marketed to teen and adult audiences. It's apples and oranges.

Dealing with death, separation of family and personal responsibility are not "adult" elements? LoLz. That's only the Lion King.

Anyhow, you're clearly wrong as noted in my first reply to you. The first book is aimed at kids as young as seven. Stop being so effing sensitive about loving Harry Potter and trying to justify it, it's okay, as noted.

Robtard got raped with logic yet again. He hates Harry Potter. He's so petty and childish.

As per his standard MO, quanchi12 making moves and trying to cozy up on someone new he thinks might be underage. Disgusting.

Originally posted by Robtard
As per his standard MO, quanchi12 making moves and trying to cozy up on someone new he thinks might be underage. Disgusting. As usual Robtard makes it creepy and disgusting because his points have all been destroyed and he can't debate for shit.

The expected "No you!" response.

Originally posted by Robtard
The expected "No you!" response. Robbie you were mocked for your hypocrisy and your factual inaccuracy. You resorted to personal insults as you always do when your brain fails.

Throws insults, accuses others of doing it. :0

Originally posted by Robtard
Throws insults, accuses others of doing it. :0 Your points were already destroyed and since you refuse to debate like a man I'll insult you like a dog. Ironic claims since Star Wars are kids films as per George Lucas furthering demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Was there really 8 Harry Potter movies?

I've watched them all but Christ they got monotonous towards the end.
Not one scene or character stands out to me except for the blatant LOTR rip offs.

They were better than the Lotr movies and completely different. Ignorance to suggest they were even remotely similar.

Ignorance is deliberately forgetting Rowling ripped off The Ents & giant spider from LOTR.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ignorance is deliberately forgetting Rowling ripped off The Ents & giant spider from LOTR. So minor creatures which played no pivotal role in the films. It's like crying that Tolkien ripped off dragons for his work. They are vastly different.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Was there really 8 Harry Potter movies?

I've watched them all but Christ they got monotonous towards the end.
Not one scene or character stands out to me except for the blatant LOTR rip offs.

Yeah, the 7th book was split into two films. DH 1 & 2.

Don't worry, quanchi doesn't really care about Harry Potter either, he used to bash it until he saw how well RJ used to troll with being the 'biggest HP fan', so quanchi just copied the routine and here we are.

Me, worried about Quan's opinions?

I'm not a gullible 15 yr old.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, the 7th book was split into two films. DH 1 & 2.

Don't worry, quanchi doesn't really care about Harry Potter either, he used to bash it until he saw how well RJ used to troll with being the 'biggest HP fan', so quanchi just copied the routine and here we are. RJ trolled I didn't. That's the difference. Thanks for admitting he's a troll.

So, is there any hype for this HP prequel?

Only Quan is hyping it up.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Only Quan is hyping it up. Well it is clear no one else from the movie versus is a Harry Potter cinematic fan. Just me.

Johnny Depp has been cast for the sequels and apparently has a brief cameo in this film.

I'm guessing he will be playing Grindelwald.

Cool and weird cast.

Saw the trailer for this with Dr. Strange. I walked out thinking of Dr. Strange but with the HP music in my head.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Saw the trailer for this with Dr. Strange. I walked out thinking of Dr. Strange but with the HP music in my head.



I walked out thinking how superior DS was to any HP instalments.

Seriously, books were fine, but movies...

And wtf Farrell is doing in this movie?

I called it. I ****ing called it years ago and was proven right once again. I'm a****ingmazing.

It was Ok.

Originally posted by Zack M
It was Ok. Better than any DC film from their new cinematic universe. Quit hating, loser.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Me, worried about Quan's opinions?

I'm not a gullible 15 yr old. If I ever need any poor gullible lonely freak to raise any unwanted kids of mine you're the loser I'd look up.

So I quite enjoyed this. Admittedly the plot was pretty weak but it had great world building, the beasts were fantastic (had to do it), and characters were enjoyable. Colin Farrell in particular was great.

8/10

Better than most of the HP films, though still a far cry from any of the novels.

Originally posted by ares834
So I quite enjoyed this. Admittedly the plot was pretty weak but it had great world building, the beasts were fantastic (had to do it), and characters were enjoyable. Colin Farrell in particular was great.

8/10

Better than most of the HP films, though still a far cry from any of the novels. better than which Harry Potter films ?

All I want to know about this movie is....Are there any ACTUAL BUILT SETS or is it 100% Green Screen Backgrounds?

Movie was a mess.

Ezra was f#cking terrible.

5/10, feeling generous

Not a total waste of time.

3d sucks. Go see it in 2d. It's not Dr. Strange.

It's doing pretty good OS. 450-500 is where it will land. Pretty good for the first movie

This franchise needs to continue. It's proven to be superior to Lotr. Voldemort>Sauron.

Originally posted by quanchi112
better than which Harry Potter films ?

SS, CoS, GoF, HBP, and DH part 2.

While there are a few I can kind of see there are a few you're just off the reservation. FB's major villain doesn't hold a ****ing candle to the true dark lord, Voldemort.

The lack of Potter fans on kmc is alarming. Seems many do not have great taste as I do.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The lack of Potter fans on kmc is alarming. Seems many do not have great taste as I do.

I've seen 'em all. I like some of them. Some of the movies were unnecessary, though.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I've seen 'em all. I like some of them. Some of the movies were unnecessary, though. Which ones did you find unnecessary ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
The lack of Potter fans on kmc is alarming. Seems many do not have great taste as I do.

Books are simply so superior, it's impossible to watch this shit without cringing...

FB had abysmal 3D and was nothing special. I'm sure Ezra Miller will do his best to wreck Flash and JLA movies next.

I love the books..I like the movies. They aren't bad, I guess. They might even get people to read the books.

Plus if a movie comes out with Johnny Depp as some nazi wizard battling Dumbledore? I'll be good.

I always enjoyed laughing at all the kids that wore thier peter pan outfits that walked into the Walmart at midnite to get the books.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Books are simply so superior, it's impossible to watch this shit without cringing...

FB had abysmal 3D and was nothing special. I'm sure Ezra Miller will do his best to wreck Flash and JLA movies next. To each their own but I am very excited for what this series has in store just musing over the possibilities.

DC is already a train wreck so it'll actually jive very well with the rest of the shit show if the flash ends up being terrible.

What a nice fun little movie. I'll give it a solid 7/10.

Originally posted by Surtur
Plus if a movie comes out with Johnny Depp as some nazi wizard battling Dumbledore? I'll be good.

I've heard him get described as "gay wizard Hitler" in some places.

Clearly, this is a job for Dean Winchester.

As to the film itself, I thought it was decent enough. Out of the two magical-based films I watched recently, Dr Strange was superior IMO. But this movie was a nice launch pad for the next phase of this universe's franchise.

On a random note though, what kind of messed up people execute criminals in a friggin' acid pool?

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Dr Strange was superior IMO

in everyone's opinion*

I really liked it. Kind of sad the movies keep turning magic into generic energy blasts but i liked the characters and creatures.

We have seen all kinds of spells and versatility in Potter magic. This should definitely rev up in later films. The duel that will take place in the final film as well as the possibilities of Tom Riddle the greatest cinematic wizard of all time in his early years is very exciting.

Just crossed 500 M OS.

Remember when I claimed this franchise would continue post Harry Potter. I'm ****ing amazing.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
in everyone's opinion* Idk I think many people would disagree w you

Look at Quanchi licking WB's ass now suddenly praising the same studio that makes DC films.

Poor guy's so confused.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Look at Quanchi licking WB's ass now suddenly praising the same studio that makes DC films.

Poor guy's so confused. Yates and the same team that works on these films has nothing to do with Snyder and the filth working on the DC garbage. Harry Potter is an exdcpritonal franchise and it will continue with Yates at the helm. I've said this before today, dummy. You always try to misrepresent my position due to your own frustration over backing batman v superman over Star Wars.

I saw this last week and was very disappointed.

Originally posted by Quincy
I saw this last week and was very disappointed. It is just the first one out of 5. You were probably expecting too much out of it.

There is going to be 5 movies?

Originally posted by Surtur
There is going to be 5 movies? Did I stutter ?

You can't stutter online, you aren't speaking words bro.

Originally posted by Surtur
You can't stutter online, you aren't speaking words bro. I always speak out the words I type.

Hmm, well okay.

I just slapped my cat in the face.

"gay wizard Hitler"

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is just the first one out of 5. You were probably expecting too much out of it.

I was expecting to like the characters...

As a big Harry Potter fan that actually read the fantastic beast book: This sucked. I briefly considered walking out when Newt was doing that mating dance, but I was at the theater with someone.

I haven't read FB book, but it's no surprise the original is far better; it's been that way with all Potter movies.

It's not based on the book at all. The book is merely an encyclopedia on magical creatures.

It is just the first film. Give it time for the characters to grow on you.

Originally posted by ares834
It's not based on the book at all. The book is merely an encyclopedia on magical creatures.

Absolutely! It is not based on the book.
It is written by J. K. Rowling

Amazing movie with full of action.
Love to watch again

Enjoyed it, thought it had the best action out of all the HP movies. Made me realize how boring some of the other films can get at times.

Question though, Colin Farrells character in the beginning talks about some magic baby about to be born, at least I think he does. Was he talking about the creature in the movie or was he referencing the birth of Voldemort?

Good question, though I am more interested in seeing the Wizarding War (which apparently ran parallel to WW2). I want to see the wizard equivalent of a Sherman tank.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Good question, though I am more interested in seeing the Wizarding War (which apparently ran parallel to WW2). I want to see the wizard equivalent of a Sherman tank.

I look forward to seeing Johnny Depp overacting the hell out of his part. The good news is that an evil nazi wizard is exactly the kind of role that calls for such acting.

Though Voldemort was born in the 1920s so the timeline does fit if they are talking about him.

If he did mean Voldemort, you'd think Graves would have attempted to eventually get his hands on him before Dumbledore did. Unless he was never able to locate him. HP wiki says Volde was born in 1926, so he'd have been out of Hogwarts before WW2 had ended.