Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

Controversy

Should a section be added for the controversy over History of Magic in North America? Especially in it's regard to it's depiction of Skinwalkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganondox (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Has there been any controversy over this film in North America? - The Bounder (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems some people objected to JKR interpreting Native American traditions into her writings. The articles seem to from 2016 but long before the film was released. The Guardian The Telegraph etc.

I don't think it is of any relevance to this Wikipedia article about the Fantastic Beasts film.

The only reference I was able to find in Wikipedia to the short story in question ("The History of Magic in North America") is on the page Pottermore. This article doesn't even mention it as part of the promotional material from the film. There might be an appropriate place to mention it but this film article isn't it. -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiccans aren't exactly impressed by JKR either, and there is an article Religious_debates_over_the_Harry_Potter_series where it might be appropriate to discuss the reactions to "The History of Magic in North America". -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Religious criticism of the series is almost always dealing with books themselves, rather then the film adaptations. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Production" and "Critical response" sections

This article looks far from complete to me—there are several issues that should have been raised during the GAN. In particular, the "Production and "Critical response" sections requires heavy expansion, and I suggest looking to other Harry Potter film articles for inspiration (namely Philosopher's Stone and Order of the Phoenix). The "Music" sub-section could be largely expanded from the several interviews with the composer, and I'm sure there are many sources that could be used to expand the "Filming" sub-section. I'd also highly recommend a "Design and special effects" sub-section: this article from the Framestore website is an incredible primary source with heaps of special effects information, and a goldmine of secondary sources listed towards the bottom; and with design, there are numerous articles on costume design alone (unsurprising, given the Oscar), so I can't imagine it would be difficult to find sources. As for "Critical response", the article only seems to cover a few reviews (all seemingly positive, at that), and very briefly. The quotes seem to be about the film in general, not really specific elements (performances, design, narrative, etc.), and I'm sure this major award-winning film amassed a larger critical response than two short paragraphs.

I'm not saying this article isn't well written (it is), but there is certainly room for improvement. – Rhain ☔ 12:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the "Production" section is indeed inordinately short for a Good Article. MatthewHoobin, please see the above feedback. Why did you pass this as a Good Article with barely any information about the making of the film? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Upon further study, the "Production" section could indeed be considered short. My apologies. You're allowed to expand it. –Matthew - (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• GA reassessment opened. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

More reviews

I saw the Expand section tag and was interested in adding more reviews but I also wanted to check how the article had changed since it was tagged, in case maybe it had been expanded a lot already. If anyone else might want to check the difference between then and the current version of the page, the Critical response section was tagged as Expand section on July 3 2017.[1] At some point in 2017 a review from New York Magazine/Vulture.com was added. A review from The AV Club was also added (sometime in 2018 I think). In 2020 I added two more reviews, one from Rolling Stone and another from The Telegraph.[2] So that's four reviews added since it was tagged in 2017. The section doesn't seem too short anymore, it seems about the same as most of the Harry Potter film articles. More reviews could be added if anyone thought they added new insights, so I have left the tag in place. (In light of the second film and with hindsight I find some of the negative reviews of the first film quite prescient.) -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Another editor decided to removed the expand section tag,[3] but again if someone wants to include a review from a top critics, or thinks a review is particularly insightful they could still add to the section. -- 109.78.203.221 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft for Fantastic Beasts (film series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Fantastic Beasts (film series) at Draft:Fantastic Beasts (film series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Brojam (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That all ended up getting merged into Wizarding World and Harry Potter (film series) in case anyone was wondering. -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wizarding World TFD

Template: Wizarding World is being considered for deletion. You may help reach a consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_29#Template:Wizarding_World. --Bsherr (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Cast credits

The Infobox had a hidden comment claiming that the shortlist of cast included was "per billing block". This claim was added to the article by User:Wrath_X in June 2018 despite the poster literally not including a billing block.[4][5] It is possible the article was using a different poster at the time, but even if that was the case it is certainly not clear now what poster that might have been, and the hidden comment is not helpful so I have removed it.

Since there is no billing block the documentation Template:Infobox film says "If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus." So that would be the following ten actors[6]:

• Eddie Redmayne
• Katherine Waterston
• Dan Fogler
• Alison Sudol
• Ezra Miller
• Samantha Morton
• Jon Voight
• Carmen Ejogo
• Ron Perlman
• (and) Colin Farrell

Ron Perlman is the only one of those not already included in the Infobox. (There seems to be a working consensus that Johnny Depp's cameo role does not need to be mentioned in the infobox.) I assume there are no objections to adding Ron Perlman to the cast listed in the Infobox in keeping with what the documentation recommends. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Added Ron Perlman to the Infobox.[7] -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Wrath_X removed Ron Perlman from the Infobox without any explanation.[8] As already explained above I added Ron Perlman to follow what the guidelines specifically recommend. Please do not remove Ron Perlman without a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- 109.78.202.191 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There is indeed a billing block: https://www.originalposter.co.uk/fulldetails.asp?rid=19615. It's just that the image used is of a poster which doesn't have it. And Ron Perlman isn't in the billing block. -- Wrath X (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Indeed"!?! An entirely different poster from the one that is actually used here in this article happens to have a billing block. How were other editors reasonably expected to magically guess the existence of this other poster or otherwise WP:VERIFY the billing block based on a poster that was not used or even mentioned anywhere in this article? Unless someone is going to update the poster included in this article to one that actually has a billing block, then it makes sense to follow what the documentation recommends and "include the top-billed actors from the screen credits". -- 109.78.202.191 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone actually went and update the poster image to the version that includes the billing block[9][10] so in that case it is not unreasonable to list the actual billing block of the poster actually used in this article. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

After two years I am glad this has been cleared up. Thanks @109.79.175.194: Mike Allen 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)