[worry]

Sorry To Bother You -- Man, that was amazing. I dunno how to describe it. It's a very ambitious satire that starts out with light absurdism along the lines of Atlanta or Office Space and then gets more and more Brazil-y as it goes along. It also has that scrappy, lo-fi, punk rock energy of Repo Man for much of it too, though I'm kinda shocked to read it only had a $3 mil budget. By the end it does a whole lot with it. A lot of comparisons there, but they're all only partial cuz it's pretty unique in its own right. It's always engaging, but will still probably not satisfy the kinda folks who use "artsy" as an insult.

[Malankazooie]

Uh, so Split and Unbreakable are actually joining together to become a movie called Glass? I thought that was a joke. Damn, messed with again by the internets. Never know what to believe.



Never seen Split. Is it any good? I was under the impression that Shyamalan was yesterday's news after a string of stinkers.

[Aptorian]

Split is a great little horror/thriller. Made more so by the endings reveal which connected Split and Unbreakable.

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 26 November 2018 - 02:43 AM, said:

The Christmas Chronicles was pretty good. Lots of cheese but a fairly heartwarming holiday movie for sure. A few surprises that might have various members gushing.

I got a kick out of Mr and Mrs Silvio Dante from Sopranos.

And shot in Toronto. Recognized a lot of locations.

But yeah, we both really enjoyed it. Heartwarming family Christmas stuff, plus the excellence that is Kurt Russell.

The musical number smack dab in the middle is WEIRD AF...but it still worked surprisingly well still.

Also, about 20 minutes in when Santa mentions that Mrs. Claus said he should bring a spare hat...I turned to my wife and said

Spoiler

Now, if they are SMART, then when they show Mrs. Claus, it's Kurt's actual wife Goldie Hawn...and lo and behold when they showed her at the end...Goldie Fucking Hawn. PERFECT.

-------------

We also watched the new COLDPLAY documentary on Amazon Prime, A HEAD FULL OF DREAMS, and it's a great, well crafted look at the band over the years and shot since they were first starting out in the mid-late 90's. As they are one of my all time fave bands, this was just a joy to watch.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 November 2018 - 02:05 PM

[Cause]

Alternative Goose, on 24 November 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

I felt like this film was rushing all the way through. I wish there had been more time to just linger abd enjoy Newt's character and his friendship with the pastry chef companion. It's what I enjoyed most about the first film.

This!!!

[Malankazooie]

Watched Split. Was intrigued so gave it a go. Yeesh, what a mistake. Really bad from start to finish. The lengthy dialogue between doctor and patient was cringe worthy at times. I mean I guess James McAvoy did a serviceable job of juggling (and in a convincing manor) multiple personalities, but damn, it just all felt so hollow and contrived. And the end surprise was pretty dumb, tbh.

[Aptorian]

Well, the film is sort of ruined by knowing what's it's about. I mainly enjoyed it because I had no idea where it was going. It sort of reminded me of 90s slasher films, like Candyman.

[Abyss]

Advance buzz on Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse is very positive.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 28 November 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Advance buzz on Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse is very positive.

Yeah, that's great news. Definitely looking fwd to seeing it!

[Cause]

Briar King, on 29 November 2018 - 02:43 AM, said:

I sure as shit ain’t going to rewind it to confirm the slip up though.

Homophobe! Do it for science

[Abyss]

Astoundingly the buzz on AQUAMAN is solid.
Also, someone is having a shittonne of fun with the marketing....

:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAAAAACH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAABAAEAAAICTAEAOw==

[worry]

Deadpool 2 -- it was okay! Less funny than the first one for whatever reason, but on par with it or better w/ the action and character roster.
Rampage -- also okay, but in context that means it was better than it had any right to be. I dunno why, cuz it was pretty dumb (its idea of an easter egg is having the Rampage arcade machine prominently displayed in the villains' high rise office), but it managed to be dopey in a good way sometimes. Malin Ackerman and Jake Lacy (the villains -- a brother and sister duo who run an evil bio research megacorporation together) are absolutely awful in it, but the writing for them is awful too, in a very kitschy B-movie way that kinda works and is probably deliberate. It's by far the most hammy and dumb I've ever seen Jake Lacy. There's also a mercenary with a mohawk, so that's the kinda level this movie is working on. At the same time, it has some cheesy one-liners that drop like lead balloons. But for a PG-13 movie, the rampage-y stuff is better than average, both military and civilian casualties are shown (as opposed to like a giant monster's footsteps barely missing everyone), and the creatures are all cool. An enthusiastic C+!

[QuickTidal]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 23 November 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

Huh, all of that is actually really good food for thought. And I agree, it's difficult to not feel a bit dissatisfied at this point with it (having only seen two of the projected five films) but I can't really imagine Rowling did anything without thought and reason behind it (there's some time passed now between me seeing the film and thinking about it further - knee-jerk first reactions are tricky beasts).

I expect I'll like the context of the twist better after the completion of the franchise as well when we've got the whole picture.

I saw it on Friday, and really enjoyed it! Specific thoughts in spoiler tag below.

Spoiler

Firstly, the McGonngall thing, and the Dumbledore brother reveal. Turns out that Ezra Miller came to JK's defense and stated that fans need to trust her ("She knows the mythology so well and I think she’s into confounding you for a moment and having a fan go, ‘wait that can’t make sense!’ and then showing you how things you thought couldn’t make sense make sense. I think she enjoys people not getting it for a second. She’s done it to us a bunch of times.”). I have a feeling we are in for some more twisty turns! But yeah, I trust her.

I don't think there are any significant pacing issues with the film...though it DOES kind of stop a bit when Newt and Tina are in the French Ministry records looking for the Lestrange box, but it quickly picks up again as soon as Leta shows up. Otherwise I think the whole thing rolls along at a decent clip.

I will say that I noted a few minor editing kerfuffles with things being too closely tied together with no discernible explanation gaps. The most glaring was when Jacob had made his way to the LeStrange tomb on his own, and Newt and Tina are there as well, and right after the explanation of Corvus being dead ect., the wall slides back and you see Jacob just wandering down the stairs, and no reaction whatsoever by Tina and Newt...not even a "Jacob?!"....he just wanders down into the auditorium and finds Queenie.

I REALLY liked Queenie's plot line. From her trying to spell Jacob into getting married even though he's scared of the risks, to getting lost attempting to find Tina after running from Jacob, to getting nabbed by Grindelwald's people, to choosing his side of the conflict. I mean, her biggest plot point in FB1 was the fact that she is a Legillimens with zero quandaries in reading anyones mind, and that hasn't stopped even after Newt scolded her in FB1. She's still that person who does things willy nilly without thinking. This all ties to that. She needed an "out" to be able to marry a muggle in Jacob, and she thinks (because she's not exactly operating on all cylinders) Grindelwald's plan is the one that will allow her that. Grindelwald's plan "as he's currently selling it" is different from Voldemort. Voldemort wanted nothing to do with Muggles and simply wanted pure blood wizards to rule the wizarding world. Grindelwald on the other hand seems to indicate a desire to have wizards rise up en masse to RULE the muggle world...and uses prophecy of WWII to showcase why this should be the case. Queenie likely thinks that this means she would be free to marry Jacob without repercussions...I'm not so sure that's going to be the case once Grindelwald gets his hooks into her further...but it all makes sense.

I really liked Parisian version of Diagon Alley with the Statue entrance, that was cool.

I initially thought the big-glowing-eyed cats as security system in the French Ministry were weird designs and choices...and then I realized they were aping the famous "Le Chat Noir" picture:

 51mufjSf6jL.jpg (42.83K)
Number of downloads: 0

So that actually makes a lot of sense given the era.

Grindelwald's escape at the beginning and him having co-opted the very young US wizard that Queenie shined off in FB1 tiny helping him escape was VERY well done. That whole sequence was AMAZING.

I also like that they gave us a real reason for Albus to REALLY not be able to help against Grindelwald other than his clear feelings for the man...in the blood pact. Nifflers man, you gotta watch your shinies!

Regarding the Aurelius reveal. Is it possible that Grindelwald is an unreliable narrator here? The entire movie begins on the notion that Grindelwald has a Silver Tongue and lies, lies, lies...I keeping thinking that was intentional on JK's part in writing it. That the end reveal is not an end reveal possibly, and Grindelwald just wants Credence on his side to kill Dumbledore as a threat to his power? Possible.

It is also possible that he is indeed a lost Dumbledore. Kendra died in 1899, and Credence was born in 1901, so the possibility that a child was born to Dumbledore would mean that Percival, inside Azkaban, had a relationship and it produced a child...if so, I could EASILY see the powers that be at Azkaban putting it up for adoption into the US. If so, who was in Azkaban with him at the time? We don't have any info about that.

Jude Law was great as young Dumbledore.

Seeing Hogwarts again was like coming home. The music, the scenery, the school robes ect. I let out a great big sigh on contentment seeing that.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

QuickTidal, on 03 December 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 23 November 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

Huh, all of that is actually really good food for thought. And I agree, it's difficult to not feel a bit dissatisfied at this point with it (having only seen two of the projected five films) but I can't really imagine Rowling did anything without thought and reason behind it (there's some time passed now between me seeing the film and thinking about it further - knee-jerk first reactions are tricky beasts).

I expect I'll like the context of the twist better after the completion of the franchise as well when we've got the whole picture.

I saw it on Friday, and really enjoyed it! Specific thoughts in spoiler tag below.

Spoiler

Firstly, the McGonngall thing, and the Dumbledore brother reveal. Turns out that Ezra Miller came to JK's defense and stated that fans need to trust her ("She knows the mythology so well and I think she's into confounding you for a moment and having a fan go, 'wait that can't make sense!' and then showing you how things you thought couldn't make sense make sense. I think she enjoys people not getting it for a second. She's done it to us a bunch of times."). I have a feeling we are in for some more twisty turns! But yeah, I trust her.

I don't think there are any significant pacing issues with the film...though it DOES kind of stop a bit when Newt and Tina are in the French Ministry records looking for the Lestrange box, but it quickly picks up again as soon as Leta shows up. Otherwise I think the whole thing rolls along at a decent clip.

I will say that I noted a few minor editing kerfuffles with things being too closely tied together with no discernible explanation gaps. The most glaring was when Jacob had made his way to the LeStrange tomb on his own, and Newt and Tina are there as well, and right after the explanation of Corvus being dead ect., the wall slides back and you see Jacob just wandering down the stairs, and no reaction whatsoever by Tina and Newt...not even a "Jacob?!"....he just wanders down into the auditorium and finds Queenie.

I REALLY liked Queenie's plot line. From her trying to spell Jacob into getting married even though he's scared of the risks, to getting lost attempting to find Tina after running from Jacob, to getting nabbed by Grindelwald's people, to choosing his side of the conflict. I mean, her biggest plot point in FB1 was the fact that she is a Legillimens with zero quandaries in reading anyones mind, and that hasn't stopped even after Newt scolded her in FB1. She's still that person who does things willy nilly without thinking. This all ties to that. She needed an "out" to be able to marry a muggle in Jacob, and she thinks (because she's not exactly operating on all cylinders) Grindelwald's plan is the one that will allow her that. Grindelwald's plan "as he's currently selling it" is different from Voldemort. Voldemort wanted nothing to do with Muggles and simply wanted pure blood wizards to rule the wizarding world. Grindelwald on the other hand seems to indicate a desire to have wizards rise up en masse to RULE the muggle world...and uses prophecy of WWII to showcase why this should be the case. Queenie likely thinks that this means she would be free to marry Jacob without repercussions...I'm not so sure that's going to be the case once Grindelwald gets his hooks into her further...but it all makes sense.

I really liked Parisian version of Diagon Alley with the Statue entrance, that was cool.

I initially thought the big-glowing-eyed cats as security system in the French Ministry were weird designs and choices...and then I realized they were aping the famous "Le Chat Noir" picture:

 51mufjSf6jL.jpg (42.83K)
Number of downloads: 0

So that actually makes a lot of sense given the era.

Grindelwald's escape at the beginning and him having co-opted the very young US wizard that Queenie shined off in FB1 tiny helping him escape was VERY well done. That whole sequence was AMAZING.

I also like that they gave us a real reason for Albus to REALLY not be able to help against Grindelwald other than his clear feelings for the man...in the blood pact. Nifflers man, you gotta watch your shinies!

Regarding the Aurelius reveal. Is it possible that Grindelwald is an unreliable narrator here? The entire movie begins on the notion that Grindelwald has a Silver Tongue and lies, lies, lies...I keeping thinking that was intentional on JK's part in writing it. That the end reveal is not an end reveal possibly, and Grindelwald just wants Credence on his side to kill Dumbledore as a threat to his power? Possible.

It is also possible that he is indeed a lost Dumbledore. Kendra died in 1899, and Credence was born in 1901, so the possibility that a child was born to Dumbledore would mean that Percival, inside Azkaban, had a relationship and it produced a child...if so, I could EASILY see the powers that be at Azkaban putting it up for adoption into the US. If so, who was in Azkaban with him at the time? We don't have any info about that.

Jude Law was great as young Dumbledore.

Seeing Hogwarts again was like coming home. The music, the scenery, the school robes ect. I let out a great big sigh on contentment seeing that.

Spoiler

Yeah, I think there's sense in trusting her to sort it out, and as I said I do think some of the disappointment is we're at number two of five and there's no end in sight for a good while yet. However, Grindelwald = unreliable narrator did pop into my head when I watched it - but it makes the appearance of the phoenix problematic. Unless that's another thing we just need to trust JK with.

I think the criticism I've seen of Queenie's plotline is to do with the oversimplification of Grindelwald = same goals as Voldemort. I think it's in young Albus' letter to Grindelwald that Rita Skeeter publishes in Deathly Hallows where he says "We take power FOR THE MUGGLES' OWN GOOD, this is the crucial point upon which we will build" etc.

Do you think this is a wider problem of people wanting instant gratification from a story and if it doesn't all make sense now then it's bad?

I too loved Jude Law - excellent bit of casting. And I do like Depp as Grindelwald - brilliant acting, no matter what I think of him as a human being.

Glad you enjoyed it!

[QuickTidal]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 03 December 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

Spoiler

I think the criticism I've seen of Queenie's plotline is to do with the oversimplification of Grindelwald = same goals as Voldemort. I think it's in young Albus' letter to Grindelwald that Rita Skeeter publishes in Deathly Hallows where he says "We take power FOR THE MUGGLES' OWN GOOD, this is the crucial point upon which we will build" etc.

Spoiler

Indeed, and I think the subtle difference between Grindelwald and Voldemort's goals is in the details (and to an extent, the execution) is only there if you dig beneath the existing layers as they are now. Voldemort's entire existence seems to be predicted on his hatred of the muggle father whom he never realized was swindled into marriage with Merope by love potion (strains of the plot line between Jacob and Queenie there, just for different reasons) and on his mothers death even though she was a pure blood wizard. It informs nearly every choice he makes in his youth and later in life. His mother succumbing to death is his reason for Horcuxes to try to live forever.

Grindelwald and Dumbledore are some version of Malcom X and MLK (Or Magneto & Charles Xavier if you prefer). The same coin, but two different sets of plans, and two different full outcomes.

Voldemort's goals are entirely selfish, and remain as such throughout his life. No one who surrounds him means anything to him really....even his top lieutenants who seems to feel like they are his royal coterie...are nothing to him in the end. Meanwhile, I very much think that Grindelwald's goals (as effed up as they are) are not so much selfish since he really does seem to want a ruling class and not just to seat himself as king. Though his beliefs on ruling over muggles seems to have hardened over the years as Vinda Rosier implies that they will wipe muggles out.

It's also interesting to recall that it is Voldemort himself who eventually kills Grindelwald in his attempt to get the Elder Wand.

At any rate, there is a LOT to digest here and so much lore to change the status quo. I'm excited to see what FB3 does!

Alternative Goose, on 24 November 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

Watched Crimes of Grindelwald earlier. Not bad. Not amazing. An okay film carried by the fantastic world it takes place in.

I felt like this film was rushing all the way through. I wish there had been more time to just linger abd enjoy Newt's character and his friendship with the pastry chef companion. It's what I enjoyed most about the first film.

Maybe I'm forgetting stuff but I didn't recognize half the characters in this film and as such did not care at all about their relationships or their fate.

This film seemed like the dark middle chapter in a trilogy but there's meant to be many more of these films, right? I feel like they should have started out much softer, letting us get to know this older wizarding world before doing the more mature, dark turn of The Goblet of Fire, which happened half way into the Potter series.

I think if they doddled on the main glut of the story that surrounds the time period (that of the rampage of Grindelwald, and the subsequent wizarding war that progresses) then they'd have lost people. There were already a bunch of people complaining that FB1 was too slow and boring to really hold the interest in the HP world (I was not one of them, I find that movie delightful), so moving on to the opening salvo of the main event made sense from a storytelling POV, especially since we need to cover all the way to 1945 in these films.

The only new characters in this film main cast-wise were Leta LeStrange (and she was already a plot point in FB1 when Queenie is in Newt's case and sees her picture in a frame Newt keeps and reads his mind about her), and Theseus Scamander (Newt's brother, who also has a script mention in FB1 when Newt is recognized by the British Minister for Magic at MACUSA and the guy next to the Minister says "Scamander? You mean the war hero?" "No, his little brother"), and Grindelwald's lieutenant Vinda Rosier (who I think is purposefully mysterious as we've never seen her before...I wonder if she's a Ministry plant....who knows)....her name means "to twist"....so that may be a hint. And Yusuf, who is a member of the LeStrange family as well. Everyone else you've seen before, including Nagini as Voldy's snake in main HP series, and the other loyal Grindelwald follower who helps him Polyjuice himself out of MACUSA, a former supervisor for Tina and Queenie, Abernathy who was in FB1.

And yes, 5 films total planned. And as far as I know they will play out in these places

FB1: New York
FB2: Paris
FB3: Japan
FB4: Brazil
FB5: Norway

That could be wrong though.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 December 2018 - 05:13 PM

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 26 November 2018 - 01:26 AM, said:

Sorry To Bother You -- It's always engaging, but will still probably not satisfy the kinda folks who use "artsy" as an insult.

Thanks for the heads up man.

(I might still watch it, it looks all kinds of weird though...so I'll have to be in the mood)

And to be fair, I loathe BRAZIL...tried to watch it through like 3 times and never managed it.

That's not to say I don't like some movies that might fall into that category - THE FALL, DONNIE DARKO, and IT'S ALL GONE PETE TONG come to mind.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 December 2018 - 08:09 PM

[worry]

Haha, for the record by "artsy" -- in this case -- I don't mean 90 minutes of people talking over coffee until a cut to black as the protag meaningfully orders an everything bagel. If anything, STBY goes the other way, and piles on the ambitious (for its budget) fantasy weirdness more and more aggressively as it goes (though it's never surreal unto meaninglessness either, its metaphors are all pretty readable). Anyway, yah, mood still might be a factor, and I don't guarantee anybody will find its more abrasive third act likeable regardless of mood.

[Mezla PigDog]

Mr PigDog is away again. Trying to rectify my Netflix recommendations as the top one is currently "A Christmas Prince" *cringe*. I just watched Arrival for the first time since original release. I reeeeeally like it. It's very clever the way they managed to depict the way she figures it all out.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 03 December 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 03 December 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

Spoiler

I think the criticism I've seen of Queenie's plotline is to do with the oversimplification of Grindelwald = same goals as Voldemort. I think it's in young Albus' letter to Grindelwald that Rita Skeeter publishes in Deathly Hallows where he says "We take power FOR THE MUGGLES' OWN GOOD, this is the crucial point upon which we will build" etc.

Spoiler

Indeed, and I think the subtle difference between Grindelwald and Voldemort's goals is in the details (and to an extent, the execution) is only there if you dig beneath the existing layers as they are now. Voldemort's entire existence seems to be predicted on his hatred of the muggle father whom he never realized was swindled into marriage with Merope by love potion (strains of the plot line between Jacob and Queenie there, just for different reasons) and on his mothers death even though she was a pure blood wizard. It informs nearly every choice he makes in his youth and later in life. His mother succumbing to death is his reason for Horcuxes to try to live forever.

Grindelwald and Dumbledore are some version of Malcom X and MLK (Or Magneto & Charles Xavier if you prefer). The same coin, but two different sets of plans, and two different full outcomes.

Voldemort's goals are entirely selfish, and remain as such throughout his life. No one who surrounds him means anything to him really....even his top lieutenants who seems to feel like they are his royal coterie...are nothing to him in the end. Meanwhile, I very much think that Grindelwald's goals (as effed up as they are) are not so much selfish since he really does seem to want a ruling class and not just to seat himself as king. Though his beliefs on ruling over muggles seems to have hardened over the years as Vinda Rosier implies that they will wipe muggles out.

It's also interesting to recall that it is Voldemort himself who eventually kills Grindelwald in his attempt to get the Elder Wand.

At any rate, there is a LOT to digest here and so much lore to change the status quo. I'm excited to see what FB3 does!

Alternative Goose, on 24 November 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

Watched Crimes of Grindelwald earlier. Not bad. Not amazing. An okay film carried by the fantastic world it takes place in.

I felt like this film was rushing all the way through. I wish there had been more time to just linger abd enjoy Newt's character and his friendship with the pastry chef companion. It's what I enjoyed most about the first film.

Maybe I'm forgetting stuff but I didn't recognize half the characters in this film and as such did not care at all about their relationships or their fate.

This film seemed like the dark middle chapter in a trilogy but there's meant to be many more of these films, right? I feel like they should have started out much softer, letting us get to know this older wizarding world before doing the more mature, dark turn of The Goblet of Fire, which happened half way into the Potter series.

I think if they doddled on the main glut of the story that surrounds the time period (that of the rampage of Grindelwald, and the subsequent wizarding war that progresses) then they'd have lost people. There were already a bunch of people complaining that FB1 was too slow and boring to really hold the interest in the HP world (I was not one of them, I find that movie delightful), so moving on to the opening salvo of the main event made sense from a storytelling POV, especially since we need to cover all the way to 1945 in these films.

The only new characters in this film main cast-wise were Leta LeStrange (and she was already a plot point in FB1 when Queenie is in Newt's case and sees her picture in a frame Newt keeps and reads his mind about her), and Theseus Scamander (Newt's brother, who also has a script mention in FB1 when Newt is recognized by the British Minister for Magic at MACUSA and the guy next to the Minister says "Scamander? You mean the war hero?" "No, his little brother"), and Grindelwald's lieutenant Vinda Rosier (who I think is purposefully mysterious as we've never seen her before...I wonder if she's a Ministry plant....who knows)....her name means "to twist"....so that may be a hint. And Yusuf, who is a member of the LeStrange family as well. Everyone else you've seen before, including Nagini as Voldy's snake in main HP series, and the other loyal Grindelwald follower who helps him Polyjuice himself out of MACUSA, a former supervisor for Tina and Queenie, Abernathy who was in FB1.

And yes, 5 films total planned. And as far as I know they will play out in these places

FB1: New York
FB2: Paris
FB3: Japan
FB4: Brazil
FB5: Norway

That could be wrong though.

See, while the examples you give would make sense to me if I was hardcore into the lore, as a movie watcher that just flew by me in the first and it's been 2 years? Since the last one.

Think about the Potter series. Rowling spent 7 books building the relationship between the characters and the readers. Making it much more impactful when one of them died -

Spoiler

Like for example the Weasley twin.

I didn't feel that at all in this film.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 06 December 2018 - 09:11 AM

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 06 December 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

Think about the Potter series. Rowling spent 7 books building the relationship between the characters and the readers. Making it much more impactful when one of them died -

Spoiler

Like for example the Weasley twin.

I didn't feel that at all in this film.

See, but I don't think WE are meant to feel

Spoiler

Leta's death as much as the characters are meant to. Leta is not important to us having only just been introduced, rather she's important to Newt & Theseus. The REAL character deaths, like the one you mentioned from Potter, will come in Movie 4 or 5. This IS JK Rowling after all.

To that end, and to prove my point, there are similar deaths in the HP series. Cedric Diggory is introduced in the opening scene of the 4th book and dies at the end of the 4th book. WE are not meant to keenly feel Cedric's death...but we do get to see how it affects those around him who attended school with him for 4 years, and his single father Amos (also introduced in the opening chapter). To us, as reader/watcher Cedric a plot device to get Harry to Voldemort and Wormtail at the end. There is a distinction. The deaths I would expect would be in movie 5 for say Theseus...after we've watched him in 3 more films. A main character who we follow through a lot. There will however, still be deaths along the way...but they aren't for us...they are to shape the main characters struggles.