Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe. |
Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character.
|
A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).
|
Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it.
|
You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".
Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.
|
LOTR and The Hobbit are two different series set in the same franchise. My point is that Warner clearly wants this in the Harry Potter series even if it's not connected to the character.
|
HP and this one are also two different series set in the same franchise. And what gives you the impression that Warner want this to be known as an essential part of the HP series? In fact, if we are going by J. K. Rowling then it sounds to me like the opposite... I mean, she literally says that the movie has no connection to the plot of the main series aside from the world.
