First Look at 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'
Now, a criticism (come on, I'm a fan, you knew there'd be at least one) I have with this announcement is the title: why isn't it Fantastic Beasts and the Crimes of Grindelwald? Why separate the two titles? Seeing it written down in Tweet form seemed a bit odd to me, although when I loaded up the film's official logo, I noticed something. The Fantastic Beasts part of the title is very much a heading to the film, whereas The Crimes of Grindelwald is the actual title of the film. This is obviously what J.K. Rowling would have called it, but because Fantastic Beasts is now a multi-million dollar franchise, the franchise name needs to be maintained. It's a sad but true fact when it comes these blockbuster franchises, but it's not one I have a problem with. The whole missing 'and' thing is annoying, but given that the film looks as if it's supposed to be referred to generally as simply The Crimes of Grindelwald, I don't actually have too much of a problem with that - it's just consistency.
Did I really just write a paragraph on the title? Crikey. I didn't even mention how so-so it sounds.
But the real meat here is getting to see the full cast of the characters for our next adventure. Newt Scamander, Tina, Queenie and Jacob are back again, alongside Ezra Miller's Credence (hang on...didn't he die?) and Johnny Depp's Grindelwald (a casting decision I am still not happy with, but ho-hum).We also get our first look at Jude Law as a younger Albus Dumbledore...and one can't help but have a similar problem as with Depp's Grindelwald: he doesn't really look like Dumbledore. At least, assuming how close this is to the flashbacks in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. It's not that Jude Law is miscast, but it's an odd continuity decision - as was the 'look' for Depp, which doesn't match either of the two Grindelwalds seen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Is this a huge problem? Um...we'll see. It bugs me, and will continue to do so until it's justified, but in the grand scheme of things, if this is what J.K. Rowling wants, that's what we're getting. Another argument could be made that these Fantastic Beasts features are prequels to the books and not necessarily the films as well, but that's a bit too complicated for my liking.
All this being said though, I'm intrigued by the synopsis:
As he promised he would, Grindelwald has made a dramatic escape and has been gathering more followers to his cause — elevating wizards above all non-magical beings. The only one who might be able to stop him is the wizard he once called his dearest friend, Albus Dumbledore. But Dumbledore will need help from the wizard who had thwarted Grindelwald once before, his former student Newt Scamander. The adventure reunites Newt with Tina, Queenie and Jacob, but his mission will also test their loyalties as they face new perils in an increasingly dangerous and divided wizarding world...
This is exactly the sort of thing one wants from a sequel. It's a new story, that carries on from the previous film; it incorporates exciting new characters to add to the mix; and it sounds "epic" without being "too epic" so as to ruin the scope of the expected additional installments. The Fantastic Beasts films have the luxury of telling brand-new stories based upon the vague lore established by Rowling in the Harry Potter series. There's not going to be James and Lilly Potter kicking arse, no Order of the Phoenix, none of the obligatory prequel stuff, just a new story set long before that just-so-happens to have been teased in The Deathly Hallows. And that's the best kind of prequel, in my opinion at least.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald will be released on 16th November 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment