I don't know anything about Harry Potter, but this thread title is pure gold.
Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo
-
-
-
One of the dickweeds responsible for this game wrote a blog post this week essentially bragging about the success of harry potter hogwarts mystery:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/VadimBulatov/20180507/317677/Why_is_Harry_Potter_Hogwarts_Mystery_so_successful.phpThe part that particularly pissed me off was this one:
@Some:"Energy is the most valuable resource in the game. The problem with that is that you run out of energy during the most dangerous parts of the adventures. This timing is planned and the player has to leave the hero in dangerous situations. Adults who are somewhat more jaded to harsh realities will just put the smartphone in their pocket. Children, on the other hand, are more sensitive to this.
Despite this, I would not say that monetization in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery is unethical. Here we see a straightforward and honest monetization with the use of energy. The game mostly tells us - just put the smartphone aside and get busy. After all, in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery there are no loot boxes."
First by literally implying they're preying on children to get their bottom line right before saying that's not unethical, then suggesting they're being straightforward and the game tells the player to wait and as a result it's ethical UNLIKE loot boxes, like Jam City has some sort of higher moral ground for not using loot boxes.
But hey, they were successful. So I think we can all resign ourselves to the fact WB will probably keep opting for cancerous mobile games like this one instead of actual gaming experiences based in the HP world.
-
Ugh. Yeah that's extremely smarmy. Let's stress out children so they try to beg parents into spending money.
Definitely sticking with Live Nikki lol.
-
The defense is "at least is not lootboxes".
Wait until they implement a card game based on the chocolate frog card thingies.
-
Deleted the app. I found my wand, I saw Hufflepuff's common room; after that it was just . . . . pointless.
-
Trailer looks good. But also like they're stuffing in characters for the sake of stuffing them in. Dumbledore was always a given, but do we really need Flammel?
-
Am I the only one worried that the trailers make it seem like dumbledore is going to have newt beat Grindlewald and then somehow get the credit?
Because the thing that made Dumbledore considered one of the greatest wizards of all time was his defeat of grindlewald, like that's the main thing (also finding 12 uses for Dragons Blood and help with the Philosopher stone) it would be a huge disappointment if they decided to mess with that legacy in these movies
I was really hoping for an all out battle between Grindlewald and Dumbledore, now I'm afraid there going to tamper with the lore of Harry Potter
-
Am I the only one worried that the trailers make it seem like dumbledore is going to have newt beat Grindlewald and then somehow get the credit?
NO! You are not alone. I got the same feeling and hate the idea.
Because the thing that made Dumbledore considered one of the greatest wizards of all time was his defeat of grindlewald, like that's the main thing (also finding 12 uses for Dragons Blood and help with the Philosopher stone) it would be a huge disappointment if they decided to mess with that legacy in these movies
… that part witht eh stone just sounds wrong. With the wording and how it follows co-discovering the 12 uses of Dragon Blood, makes it sound like he helped create the Philosopher's Stone, instead of help protect the stone. lol But rest I agree with, its Dumbledore's defeat of Grindlewald that set up his rep, its part of the reason Voldemort was scared of Dumbledore.
I was really hoping for an all out battle between Grindlewald and Dumbledore, now I'm afraid there going to tamper with the lore of Harry Potter
Well maybe in 3rd movie it will have a all-out battle between them. But yeah I share your fear of the movie screwing up canon-lore of it being Dumbledore vs Grindlewald. Esp. since Newt is known as an expert on creatures, and not known for any fighting skills. It makes me feel like they are going go dismiss canon profiles and really f-up things, on a Cursed Child level of screw-ups.
The preview just feels too many fanfics of the 'manipulative Dumbledore', esp. ones where he didn't defeat Grindlewald but took credit anyways.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Am I the only one worried that the trailers make it seem like dumbledore is going to have newt beat Grindlewald and then somehow get the credit?
Because the thing that made Dumbledore considered one of the greatest wizards of all time was his defeat of grindlewald, like that's the main thing (also finding 12 uses for Dragons Blood and help with the Philosopher stone) it would be a huge disappointment if they decided to mess with that legacy in these movies
I was really hoping for an all out battle between Grindlewald and Dumbledore, now I'm afraid there going to tamper with the lore of Harry Potter
Grindelwald is the villain for the next four movies. At most in this one Newt is getting a victory in terms of finding a maguffin.
-
I expect it to be Newt giving Dumbledore the courage to face his old friend again. He is the Sam. Or basically book 5 Harry where he does most of the stuff but Dumbledore does the battle. I could understand the worry if Newt was a prodigy in spells but he doesn't seems to be set up as such.
He is the guy with an heart of gold, a kinship to animal and helping people realize their potential. He is not the action guy and someone will have to fill that role.
-
Well, history says it's Dumbledore who defeats Grindelwald. So yeah, Newt helping Dumbledore seems the most likely route.
-
Am I the only one worried that the trailers make it seem like dumbledore is going to have newt beat Grindlewald and then somehow get the credit?
If this story and screenplay was written by anyone else, unguided by Rowling, I would care, but since she does write these films I have no doubt she'll do what's best and most entertaining.
Regardless, this is the duel in which Dumbledore won the Elder Wand from Gindlewald.
-
If this story and screenplay was written by anyone else, unguided by Rowling, I would care, but since she does write these films I have no doubt she'll do what's best and most entertaining.
Regardless, this is the duel in which Dumbledore won the Elder Wand from Gindlewald.
Careful, that is muddy waters there. Rowling had no part of writing the play "Cursed Child" yet when they adapted it to book form, she then had a part helping them changing it from play to book. And now many think that means "she guided it!" so now that cluster fuck that involves deux ex mechana and ignores canon personalities and canon facts that's called "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" is considered canon.
-
But she is actually personally writing the movies. There's a difference.
I don't know why she didn't just write the stage play as well but…
-
Tbh I wish she would just leave the series well enough alone.
-
Tbh I wish she would just leave the series well enough alone.
Why? If you dont want to watch them, you don't have to. It won't affect or change the originals. But it is more of the world, more of the characters. And that's a good thing.
Also its a franchise worth billions, so they were eventually going to do prequels/sequels no matter what, be it books or movies, so better that she be involved than not, so we don't end up with another Cursed Child fiasco.
-
I'm going to watch it. Its also not bad, but there is nothing wrong with letting something stand as it is, and let it stand to the test of time.
-
If they show us inside of Ilvermorny they will get a big extra point from me.
-
If Fantastic Beasts is a book or series, I haven't read it, so the movies can't ruin them for me like they did with the Harry Potter books. For that reason I did enjoy the first film because it was fresh and I had no expectations about the quality of the story going in for it to let me down. There was quite a bit that I found surprisingly likeable, such as it taking place in the U.S. for a change of pace in that universe; I had wondered what their magic society was like by comparison to European ones. Quite a bit more different than I would have thought, and for Muggle/No-Maj folk there as well. Also including one as part of the story was pretty endearing, and I hope Jacob and Queenie are able to be together in one of the movies, if not this next one.
-
-
On that note… why is Gryffindor's symbol a lion instead of a griffon?
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
If Fantastic Beasts is a book or series, I haven't read it, so the movies can't ruin them for me like they did with the Harry Potter books. For that reason I did enjoy the first film because it was fresh and I had no expectations about the quality of the story going in for it to let me down. There was quite a bit that I found surprisingly likeable, such as it taking place in the U.S. for a change of pace in that universe; I had wondered what their magic society was like by comparison to European ones. Quite a bit more different than I would have thought, and for Muggle/No-Maj folk there as well. Also including one as part of the story was pretty endearing, and I hope Jacob and Queenie are able to be together in one of the movies, if not this next one.
There is only one book of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them … its actually a schoolbook and not a storybook( though Rowling did eventually print it,). So its hard for the movie to ruin that book ;P
Yet it would be easy for it to ruin the series if it deviates too much from canonical events.
-
On that note… why is Gryffindor's symbol a lion instead of a griffon?
At least Hufflepuff's name makes sense.
-
They're people names, not animal names. There's no reason to expect their human names to match up with an animal other than the author being author-ey.
Slytherin happens to align with snakes but its the only one of the four and its one of the ones that doesn't explicitly have an animal in the name.
Heck, Griffindor is closely tied to the Phoenix and yet…
-
At least Hufflepuff's name makes sense.
-
I am a proud Hufflepuff, but it has yet to be explained why Hufflepuff's animal is a badger. Not that I'm against a badger, as badgers are fucking badass, but there's never been any hint why Helga Hufflepuff is a badger.
They're people names, not animal names. There's no reason to expect their human names to match up with an animal other than the author being author-ey.
Slytherin happens to align with snakes but its the only one of the four and its one of the ones that doesn't explicitly have an animal in the name.
Heck, Griffindor is closely tied to the Phoenix and yet…
It's true. People can choose whatever animal they want to represent their family/house. Why else would England's crest be a lion when there are no lions in England?
-
@Purple:
They're good finders.
-
True. We are such good "finders". Maybe that's why Newt Scamander has the job of finding Grindelwald so Dumbledore can take him down.
-
Slytherin 4 lyfe
-
They're people names, not animal names. There's no reason to expect their human names to match up with an animal other than the author being author-ey.
Slytherin happens to align with snakes but its the only one of the four and its one of the ones that doesn't explicitly have an animal in the name.
Heck, Griffindor is closely tied to the Phoenix and yet…
Well the Hippogriff is sort of a lion-ish bird, so I don't see why they couldn't have used one of those to compromise between a lion and phoenix.
Also, regarding Hufflepuff's badger, is it known whether they are particularly vicious mothers? Considering Helga seemed the most maternal of the Hogwarts founders, I would think her animal would be the one who most ardently protects its young. I know Grizzly bears have a rep like that but I'm not sure about other animals.
-
Badgers are vicious in general, it would not surprise me if the mothers are particularly vicious. I don't know how big a presence they have in England, unlike here where they are known but not given much thought. If Hufflepuff were part of Ilvermorny then I'm pretty sure it would have been a Grizzly instead.
-
I'd really like to see a documentary-style film of Quidditch Through the Ages.
-
@Kaido:
I'd really like to see a documentary-style film of Quidditch Through the Ages.
Wasn't it supposed to be more hazardous and dangerous back in the day? Like the old Triwizard Tournaments?
-
Wasn't it supposed to be more hazardous and dangerous back in the day? Like the old Triwizard Tournaments?
Hmm, maybe, some of its predecessor games definitely were though.
-
@Kaido:
Hmm, maybe, some of its predecessor games definitely were though.
I should hope so, otherwise a documentary about it would be rather dry and boring.
-
a mockumentary would get my money
-
A History channel version of the history of the Wizarding world? Take my money.
-
Quidditch becomes an infinitely better game if catching the snitch is only worth say, 30 points, instead of 150.
That way it can still singlehandedly turn a game around in a surprising last second twist, but doesn't decide the entire game entirely by itself and make the rest of the team redundant. (The only time it wouldn't decide the whole game is when a team is ridiculously better than the other to get a full 15 goals ahead, as shown the one time in book 4 just for the sake of showing that.)
-
Yeah, I never quite understood that. Did Rowling make it that way only so Harry could become a great quidditch star? Or did she just not think far enough. Even only 100 points would make it more interesting.
-
Welcome to Quidditch! Where everything is made up and the points don't matter
-
Has anyone read any literature on how basically everyone in the wizarding world is horrendously wickedly evil no matter their feelings on Muggle-borns and purebloods? I try not to dwell on it since it ruins the books and movies if I do but I just wanted to know if everyone else got the underlying inhumanity of it all.
-
Start of September, you know what that means!
Yeah, I never quite understood that. Did Rowling make it that way only so Harry could become a great quidditch star? Or did she just not think far enough. Even only 100 points would make it more interesting.
There's a lot of book 1 details she hadn't quite fleshed out, and that certainly hadn't had millions of people poking holes at. It makes the protagonist feel more special, even though it makes the world around them nonsensical.
She also didn't do any math at all on their currency system or how much things sell for. The money makes noooooo sense.
-
The money I saw as being made that way for the sake of being whimsical.
-
The money I saw as being made that way for the sake of being whimsical.
Whimsical in that its 29 knuts in a sickle, and 17 sickles in a galleon (and so 493 knuts in a galleon) is one thing. Wacky numbers instead of a sensible number is fine.
People did the math and it comes out to being like 2 cents, 47 cents, and 7 dollars. And they also did real world numbers based on our prices for silver and gold and you could very very quickly destroy an economy if you were an enterprising muggle because the scales are vastly different. (Our price on gold is about 40$) And that's a level of depth to the worldbuilding Rowling just didn't think about at all.
But that's nitpicky fan wank looking too deep and doing outside math. It's mostly things like Molly spending 1 galleon on all the kids school books, and then Harry spending 30 on binoculars for everyone for a single afternoon… and a firebolt broom being so expensive they don't even put a price tag on it.... less so.
-
She also didn't do any math at all on their currency system or how much things sell for. The money makes noooooo sense.
She wasn't good at math, period. I'm not either but I could tell she goofed on some simple stuff besides the money (which is a BIG headache), like saying Harry spent 2 weeks in Diagon Alley before school in bk 3. He ran away about 1 week after his birthday, July 31, so would it have been first week of Aug. he arrived there, leaving 3 weeks before school started.
-
Hogwarts still lacking in the STEM part of its curriculum
-
Or enough kids aren't taking Arithmancy.
-
On the contrary, it indicates that too many kids are taking arithmancy seeing as they're pulling out as much arbitrary meaning out of numbers as Rowling did with her math
-
Can anyone explain to me how Harry Potter became this massive phenomenon? I mean, I'm reading the book series right now and it's really great, well done, creative, great characters and plot, but so are other books that don't seem to get the same amount of attention, I'm not making fun of the series, I just want to know how it became this big? like it's bigger than any other book series I know.