I just love how you take specific sentences/words from what I wrote above and criticize them instead of criticizing what the entire thing: Bottom line is that Jude Law, from what little we saw of him, neither looks, sounds of give any sort of feeling of being the character he is supposed to portray, in my opinion, based on how he looks, sounds and indeed, overall feels like in other medias. Have you for example looked at the Hogwarts Mystery gameplay on youtube? At the end of year one, Dumbledore, whose physical appearance is obviously inspired by Michael Gambon, albeit in a more colorful version of the attire and an actually white beard, have the mannerisms of Dumbledore in the books. If you look at the choice of words and the overall look on Dumbledore's face when he peers down at the player over the edge of his half-moon spectacles, smiling warmly, it is almost like seeing Dumbledore from the books. Jude Law, on the other hand, don't even remotely appear to try to resemble Dumbledore as depicted in the books one bit. And yes, the game is set in the 1980's and Dumbledore in the upcoming movie is Dumbledore from the 1920's, but the point is, it is still Dumbledore. But in the trailer, it don't look of feel like him.

 

Exactly this. Much like the costume design thing that came up earlier, there's a big difference between what works when written down on the page and what works when acted out by people on a big screen. As Harrison Ford put it while working on Star Wars "George, you can type this shit, but you can't say it!"

 

Yeah, but Michael Gambon's speech pattern in for example the Half-Blood Prince is much, much closer to book-Dumbledore than what little we'd saw of Jude Law in the trailer. Overusing contractions is kind of a problem, 'cause it makes Dumbledore sound like Mundungus Fletcher.

 

You know, I might actually be inclined to support your point if we had more than four freaking lines to base our impression on. As we do not.... well....

 

I feel like I'm supposed to be excited for this new movie, but honestly, I just want them to stop re-writing canon in order to make money.

 

I see it as expanding the Harry Potter universe. And I enjoy worldbuilding elements, so I am grateful to see different eras of HPverse, whether I like some facts or not.

 

I can't really think of much in the first FB movie that "rewrites" canon per se, as the movie itself had virtually nothing to do with canon. They established a connection between obscurials, wizarding child trauma/abuse, and wandless magic outbursts that was a little too firm for my liking, but everything else was mostly additive.

In fact, out of all the HP movies and extended Potterverse materials (Cursed Child, Pottermore, etc), FB is probably the lest offensive in terms of changes from the books.

 

Not really referring to the first FB movie, in fact I enjoyed the first movie greatly; the Magical Combat was pretty well done.

it is as you say, it had no real significance on the HP plot/text other than giving us a couple questions about Harry and Ariana Dumbledore and letting us know that Magic is quantifiable and inside of Wizard's actual bodies. My main problem is that movie 2 will delve into somethings we know in canon, and seeing how Rowling has managed to mess this up countless times before, I'm not really holding out hope for the movie.

And while I know this makes me a bad person, I don't want to see it succeed in the slightest too. I think Rowling has gotten too much leeway with destroying the franchise as is and the more people buy into it the more she will dilute it.

 

Wait a moment. Magical cores became canon and I missed that?

 

What else do you call having a source of Magic inside you that you can physically and mentally suppress?

 

I don't care if magical cores are the most logical reason for that or not, I refuse to accept it as canon. I'd rather blindly believe some other bullshit than that. (Please, someone give me some bullshit to believe.)

 

There's always the Star Wars route of over complicating it to the point where Objective Power exists and doesn't exist at the same time. And the only thing we can be sure of is that Luke Skywalker from the EU> pretty much every other being that ever existed.

 

Actually, it probably won't. The time period between Ariana's death and "The Duel" is a huge blank spot in the books, and FB:CoG is set two decades before the latter time point. They can basically write whatever they want to fill in that gap.

The FB films will almost assuredly end up decimating our First War headcanons, but canon itself will likely remain largely untouched.

 

Hopefully this one will be an actual war.

 

Yeah man it's just not believable without the trenches.

 

It's not believable when the only battle we see is in a school.

 

Well, like, y'know... Hear me out. The main characters, y'know they... They are schoolchildren.

And y'know... The series is sort of set, like, in a school.



Just sayin'.

 

Where did you get the source from? I rewatched the movie last thing and it only mentioned supressing their magic. It doesn't suggest any singular magical organ.

 

I didn't mention a singular magical organ either, I stated that they can physically and mentally suppress their magic. Which is true, but this also means that the Magic is inside their body somewhere, it could be flowing in their veins for all we know but according to Newt there are slight differences in their physiology as well.

 

That might only mean that wizards are more durable. But - it has been said in the books that Muggles are people without one drop of magical blood, so maybe the magic is in their blood?

Also, who had a problem with Obscurials?