[ad_1]
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald are already two weeks in the theater, and one thing has become perfectly clear to many people: the honeymoon period is officially over. While its predecessor, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was not necessarily met with an incredible response from fans and critics, the excitement of a new Wizarding World story seemed large enough to make up for any gaps in reality. movie.
This is not the case with Crimes of Grindelwald . The film had the sweetest opening of all Wizarding World movies to date, and worse yet, it's the lowest-rated franchise film, with a 40% score for Rotten Tomatoes. This is not terrible, but in a world where our lives are overflowing with blockbusters, the public will not usually make the trip to see a mediocre one (unless it's Venom, for whatever reason).
Many blame Rowling herself. , claiming that she has become too pretentious or that no one around her is keeping her under control, which has led to many bad ideas that have made their way to the movies. But is this really the case? Personally, I agree that it is not controlled, but I do not think it necessarily led to bad ideas, but only to weaker film experiences. Before going into details, let's see what made Harry Potter work and Rowling's more recent post-Harry Potter work.
Harry Potter and the solid structure of history
It was the 1990s. The time of myths and legends. A time when Rowling was a single mother on the brink of poverty. In one way or another, a novel accused of being unsaleable to the current group of children has been found on store shelves and in the hands of children. countless children around the world. People like to say how much the novel has broken all the obstacles, and even if it is a surface, it may be that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone still have a universal quality and timeless that guaranteed success. .
For your business to be fabricated, your stories must be solid. They had to have a beginning, a middle and an end and to feel complete. Yes, I know, all the intrigue with Voldemort was still unresolved, but for the first four or so books, you can theoretically make your entry, gain a complete experience, and escape. Hell, even the last books, which were more serialized, allowed enough self-contained plot to hold, and that's why they've resisted so well since with their cinematic adaptations.
Rowling's proven tendency to create self-contained stories with global intrigues really worked and in fact reflected some TV shows, which had similar structures – which I will discuss later.
Too dense for his own good
Many things have changed since then.
Rowling is a bajillionnaire and a great storyteller, and he went on to write notebooks like the Teddy Casual Vacancy and the Amazing Four Cormorant Strike novels the last of which is written under the pseudonym of Robert Galbraith. In the case of Strike's four novels, we have dark, twisted and complicated books. Rowling has always created mysteries superimposed and intrigued, but with this new series of novels, she was able to do it without constraint. And for novels, they work pretty well. They do not feel bogged down or complicated.
That's where I think we get into the real problem with Fantastic Beats: The Crimes of Grindelwald . I do not think it's a bad story. Minute per minute, I was intrigued by what was happening. But his first problem is that he is too stratified and complicated for a movie. But it worked for these detective stories, right? The Cormoran Strike series has recently been adapted … for television. there is a reason why. Their framing, as well as the multi-layered nature, is better suited to the TV medium – which, in itself, makes the new adaptation very well, if you are looking to be faithful.
The film does not allow as many shades or so many layers without things feeling squeezed or, ironically, slow. You have the right to breathe and digest fewer places, which, overall, makes it a less appealing cinematic experience. I believe she's been trying to incorporate her more layered sensibilities into this story, and if it could have worked in a novel, they just do not work well in a movie.
But that's not the only problem we have in terms of movie support.
Blurred lines between film and television
As I have already mentioned, the original franchise of Potter had a structure much resembling a mystery television series like the X-Files where there is a dominant mystery with a "monster of the week", so to speak. In the years following the end of these films, however, television really tends to go into series and, with the advent of shared universes, some might argue that the film is bled in the film.
Personally, I do not think it's fully bled. in the movie. Marvel has always made sure that every movie feels like a consistent experience, and most other studios as well. Of course, the lines have become blurry, but I still think the lines are there, because most people seem to realize that the public, although generally happy to be able to offer a glimpse of what is coming, still wants be satisfied after sitting for two. movie of the hour.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald do not offer this experience.
Going To Far Far?
We first felt it with The Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them . Yes, the story was relatively self-contained – find the animals that escaped the Newt affair – but his biggest weakness, in my eyes, was that Newt never grew up in the movie, this which made it a relatively superficial experience.
Fantastic Beasts: The crimes of Grindelwald are not really a complete story at any level. Of course, Newt aims to find Credence, but it culminates in a kind of weak and sweet way that I hesitate to qualify as a climax in a film. More than anything, it looked like a bow in a television series. All the threads of progress have progressed, but have not yet met quite satisfactorily.
Personally, that suits me. I'm a patient guy, and as long as I'm entertained, I have the right to wait two more years for the next episode of this story. In addition, I am confident that everything will go well. Most critics and fans are naturally less tolerant. While at least the Marvel films show growing characters in each film, and their stories culminating in a proven traditional climax (no different from those in each Harry Potter's novel ), Fantastic Beasts seems to be content to be an intriguing chapter of an ongoing mystery rather than a novel of a series of novels.
What Next?
I mentioned above that some fans were mobilizing against the author and screenwriter, claiming that she had to stay in check. Although I agree on this point, I do not think it's for the same reason. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Are Bad In fact, I like it rather. It's just an incomplete and unrewarding story, a story that, I'm sure, will marry well, as would any good mystery novel … but it will take another six years of movies, and I do not think not that the public will tolerate it any longer.
So, what is the solution? Pair J.K. Rowling up with Potter the film scribe Steve Kloves. Let it write, but let it in and make sure that the experience remains autonomous. Although the public has a wide range of complaints about this film, I think most would have been forgiven if it was more like a complete story with a continuous arc.
Thus, while the negative reaction against Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald may seem to be a reaction against an author about to relax his work, I think it is actually a reaction against the growing tendency of movies to feel more and more like television shows. With the increase of television serialization, the public is thirsty for a different experience on the big screen and, with that in mind, I can only hope that Warner Bros. can hear these signs before they reach the scene. it's too late.
Do not forget to share this article on your Facebook Wall and with your Twitter followers! Just click on the buttons at the top of this page.
Source link
