• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

Random movie thoughts

asterixsmeagol

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
924
Trophy Points
128
I didn't know they still existed, to be honest. All of the locations near my house that I used to use were removed long ago and I just assumed they had all been taken down by now.
 

Ender

Well-known member
Messages
388
Reaction score
190
Trophy Points
58
If Harry Potter wasn't based on books and for whatever reason the movie flop so badly they run out of money after Prisoner of Azkaban, would anyone feel the story is incomplete? Those first three movies are pretty standalone. Sure, Voldemort never fully returns, but would anyone assume he was going to? It wasn't really promised was it? Heck, if you make Tom Riddle a separate character (which if you think about it would be as trivial as removing the reveal) you end up with an anthology of movies with different villains like Indiana Jones or superhero movies.
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
If Harry Potter wasn't based on books and for whatever reason the movie flop so badly they run out of money after Prisoner of Azkaban, would anyone feel the story is incomplete? Those first three movies are pretty standalone. Sure, Voldemort never fully returns, but would anyone assume he was going to? It wasn't really promised was it? Heck, if you make Tom Riddle a separate character (which if you think about it would be as trivial as removing the reveal) you end up with an anthology of movies with different villains like Indiana Jones or superhero movies.
I think people would wonder where the next one is, and years later it would show up on lists of movies with plot holes "everybody missed" that isn't actually a list of plot holes. You know the type. But I don't think people would leave the theater feeling like the story was incomplete, to answer your question.

Going further though, I don't think the films would have been as big a sensation (or even made at all) if not for the success and word of mouth of the books.

I have thought for some time about how I would have handled the story after the third or fourth entry, and what I would have done was have Voldemort out wizards publicly and attack the muggle world. But that's just me.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
I have thought for some time about how I would have handled the story after the third or fourth entry, and what I would have done was have Voldemort out wizards publicly and attack the muggle world. But that's just me.

I've always thought the series should have ended with the worlds' wizards revealing themselves to the rest of the globe. Not only does their self-imposed isolation raise all sorts of ethical problems, but most great endings have an element of melancholy to them (example: the Elves leaving Middle-Earth), and puncturing the cozy insularity of the wizarding community would have been an ideal way to achieve that.

There would still be centuries of stories to be told before such a major in-universe change, of course, so it's not as though future tales would necessarily have to reckon with or explore that process. But, as Q said, "All good things must come to an end."

Instead, however, Rowling said "Nah, it'll be fine," and her disinterest in modifying the status quo in any way allowed for the narrative masterpiece that was The Cursed Child. 😝
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
I've always thought the series should have ended with the worlds' wizards revealing themselves to the rest of the globe. Not only does their self-imposed isolation raise all sorts of ethical problems, but most great endings have an element of melancholy to them (example: the Elves leaving Middle-Earth), and puncturing the cozy insularity of the wizarding community would have been an ideal way to achieve that.

There would still be centuries of stories to be told before such a major in-universe change, of course, so it's not as though future tales would necessarily have to reckon with or explore that process. But, as Q said, "All good things must come to an end."

Instead, however, Rowling said "Nah, it'll be fine," and her disinterest in modifying the status quo in any way allowed for the narrative masterpiece that was The Cursed Child. 😝
I must completely agree.
 

Ender

Well-known member
Messages
388
Reaction score
190
Trophy Points
58
I'll be honest, I never bought the whole idea of wizards segregating themselves away in perfect secrecy. As a kid I thought the wizarding world was literally a different world since Harry runs through the column at King's Cross and winds up in a different King's Cross that's still clearly in broad daylight, not to mention Hogwarts being in broad daylight. And hiding magical locations under this or that genjutsu is fine and all but how in the world do you hide wild animals? Dragons would be spotted immediately. And apparently wizards can be born to non-wizard parents? How do they cover that up on such a regular basis? I still think the series would make more sense with my childhood version where there's this wizard Narnia. Or they could've done like X-Men where wizards are segregated but not secret. But the former idea is one that could actually be used in edits.
 

Ender

Well-known member
Messages
388
Reaction score
190
Trophy Points
58
Continuing my earlier thought on Harry Potter as standalone movies, you could stretch it to include Goblet of Fire if you simply replace the finale. Not sure what you'd replace it with, since you need to account for Cedric Diggory's presence when they teleport, but the location and character could be anything, preferably something with David Tennant as a villain. Barty Crouch Jr. would thus be the film's one-off villain. Past that I don't think anything can be done, as it hinges too much on Voldy Moldy, but those entries are garbage anyway so not a huge loss.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
It occurred to me the other day that Billy Dee Williams is literally named William Williams.
 

MightyAttackTribble

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
185
Reaction score
249
Trophy Points
63
It occurred to me the other day that Billy Dee Williams is literally named William Williams.
The Night Court reboot features an actor by the name of Nyambi Nyambi.

And while not quite the same thing (and not his birth name), Macauley Culkin's full legal name is Macauley Macauley Culkin Culkin.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
I'm not interested in seeing the latest Ghostbusters sequel but the reviews are providing some amusing entertainment.

"to call the writing perfunctorily mechanical, would be to insult many perfunctorily mechanical things like u-bends in sinks"

From this "Kermodian rant" video:


and Robbie Collin writing:

"necromantically sustained through force of sheer commercial desperation"
 

Editzilla

Well-known member
Messages
564
Reaction score
341
Trophy Points
78
100% positive sure, but only 6 reviews, ten times less than the first.
The general reception is still way better than before. There are critical people sure but it's mainly the same kind of pearlclutchers that complained about killer Santa in Silent Night Deadly Night.
 
Top Bottom