[SPOILERS] Fantastic Beast and Why to Avoid Them

[Yukle]

Okay, so even though I didn't want to, I was outvoted by my friends so we saw Fantastic Beasts last night. And it is... not that good.

There is perhaps 30 minutes of story in it, with the rest being CGI padding of the various animals being cute or dangerous or invisible or boring.

The worst parts are the manner in which it both treats the audience as stupid (such as showing Grindelwald wearing the sign of the Deathly Hallows, up close, about sixty billion times, and having him discuss that it's, "For the Greater Good^TM," and then going, "SURPRISE! Heeeeeeeeeere's Jonny Grindelwald!") but also as really smart (such as relying on a throwaway vague line from Newt that a particular venom is useful so it can be used as a Deus Ex Machina at the end of the film).

That said, Grindelwald seems to suffer from Kylo Ren syndrome: for someone so powerful he can essentially wave his hands vaguely and people either fall unconscious or die, he cannot defeat a young female protagonist's plot armour when they clash in a duel.

The bit that annoyed me most: there was almost a brilliant moral dilemma in the film. It finished with the USA ministry murdering a misunderstood child and Grindelwald could have really tipped everything on its head by saying something like, "I was going to save him and let him use his powers for the Greater Good. But you killed him." That would've been amazing, as it would've shown the ethical complexity of a character.

Sadly, none of the characters have any complexity. They're one-dimensional from beginning to end, unless you count the President's stupid head piece, which seems to have quite a bit of character to it.

There's also a strange inconsistency about the film's magic - the series has never shown anything like the scale of power demonstrated in this film. And given it's in the 1920s, I suppose magic was diluted in the coming decades because the floating emo cloud monster was far more powerful than Voldemort was. In fact, the bowl cut wearing misery guts was able to tear through walls with his mind despite lacking a wand and, apparently, having never seen sunlight.

One of my friends said that it's the beginning of a franchise, so it's just setting the scene but I utterly LOATHE this excuse. Films must be able to stand on their own merits. And I'm still annoyed at the Harry Potter films (most of which stink, I think) for the precedent of splitting up source materials into three or four films each.

So... yeah, either wait until DVD (do people still get them? I do) or don't bother at all.

To finish with a petty gripe: why'd Newt call his book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and why does he keep telling people how to capture the said beasts throughout the film, when he was worried about them being hunted to extinction by magical people who didn't value environmentalism? He might as well have called it How to Hunt the Ones You Haven't Killed Yet.

I give it one salamander and a half salamanders out of five.

[Corvinus85]

First of all, I'm surprised that it took so long to have a thread for this movie. I know there is one about the plans to have 5 films done - there you go Yukle, but I saw the movie last night and no one here was talking about it. 

I wouldn't say the movie is terrible, but I do agree mostly with Yukle. I would also add that I had trouble following some of the story in part due to the mumbling speech of Eddie Redmayne who was the chief supplier of information aboyt the creatures and other new magical stuff this story introduced. And yes, the reveal/twist at the end is definitely Rowling's style, as she pulled that stuff in pretty much all of the HP novels.

I did like the exposition some of the creatures got, even if I have no idea what any of their names are thanks to the reason I just mentioned above. 

I am fairly certain this is not based on a novel, since Rowling directly wrote the script, and I'm not that big of a fan to have bought the script or the companion book.

[Zorral]

I most certainly be watching this travesty of New York City in 1926.  It's the Harlem Renaissance, it's the Jazz Age, it's fracking New York City in 1926 -- and no African Americans!  It was a slam dunk for Rowling's supposed devotion to diversity, but she couldn't even imagine a single African American as a principal character -- in NYC in 1926. Shame on her and everyone involved in the 'writing' of this money milk cow.

 

[HexMachina]

I was planning to watch this. But then I found out who is playing Grindewald and thought  nope

[Yukle]

8 hours ago, Corvinus said:

I am fairly certain this is not based on a novel, since Rowling directly wrote the script, and I'm not that big of a fan to have bought the script or the companion book.

I wonder how much of the original screenplay was intact - it felt like a lot of exposition and dialogue was removed to make way for more CGI zoo sequences. I hope that Rowling had written a lot more depth and it was cut out, rather than the story being so bland and thin to start with.

And the direction was AWFUL - so many scenes had all of the characters lining up neatly next to each other so they could be shouted at by one righteous / self-righteous character.

7 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I was planning to watch this. But then I found out who is playing Grindewald and thought  nope

He is in it for about fifteen seconds, which is still fifteen too many given his recent history. Combined with @Zorral's point that there isn't much diversity (in fact, all of the non-white characters are replaced by elves and goblins, which is kind of racist)... yeah it's not the best.

[SpaceChampion]

9 hours ago, Corvinus said:

 I would also add that I had trouble following some of the story in part due to the mumbling speech of Eddie Redmayne

So it's not just the trailer in which he's indecipherable?  Wow.  I couldn't tolerate that for 90 seconds.

[Pliskin]

8 hours ago, Zorral said:

I most certainly be watching this travesty of New York City in 1926.  It's the Harlem Renaissance, it's the Jazz Age, it's fracking New York City in 1926 -- and no African Americans!  It was a slam dunk for Rowling's supposed devotion to diversity, but she couldn't even imagine a single African American as a principal character -- in NYC in 1926. Shame on her and everyone involved in the 'writing' of this money milk cow.

Huh?! The president is an African American...

Or I missed something...

[SerHaHa]

I watched BET for 5 hours yesterday, and there was NO white people cast in ...anything.  I'm outraged!  How dare they!

[Yukle]

36 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Huh?! The president is an African American...

Or I missed something...

Kind of funny how 1920s USA is progressive enough to have a black woman as president but backwards enough that magical people and muggle are banned from marrying one another.  

[Pliskin]

8 hours ago, Yukle said:

Kind of funny how 1920s USA is progressive enough to have a black woman as president but backwards enough that magical people and muggle are banned from marrying one another.  

Actually, what hit me during the film is that the magical USA are progressive enough to have a black woman as president with all its slavery history, but still resort to House elfs... Like they don't even think of them as slaves yet.

Funny, but so true in our world too. That's the kind of subtile allegories that I like with Rowling.

[lady narcissa]

I saw this movie on Thursday night and enjoyed it.  I thought it was charming.  I really liked Newt and his "fantastic beasts" were adorable.  If I have one criticism its in how 1926 NYC was portrayed - way too clean and the streets were much too wide.

It is a movie someone who hasn't read the HP books could see and not be at too much of a disadvantage.  But lots of fun things for those who have with the Lestrange references and the Deathly Hollows symbol.  And now let the speculation begin about if Ariana Dumbledore was a Obscurus like Credence!

I've never been a fan of Depp so I was never going to be excited about him being in a movie I wanted to see so I was less than thrilled to hear about his casting.  But I am hoping as with Voldemort's character, Grindelwald is talked about more than seen in the upcoming movies.

[Starkess]

I saw this and totally loved it. I loved Redmayne's portrayal of Newt, a very different type of hero. I also liked that we got to see adults out and about doing magic and living their lives--very different perspective from the school-book stories of Harry Potter. Rowling has a knack for drawing people into her imaginative world, even if it doesn't always make complete sense, and I thought the film was charming.

Also, to the OP, it was definitely not HP films that set the precedent for splitting books into multiple films. They only did that for one movie of the seven books and were not the first to do so.

[Yukle]

5 hours ago, lady narcissa said:

It is a movie someone who hasn't read the HP books could see and not be at too much of a disadvantage.  But lots of fun things for those who have with the Lestrange references and the Deathly Hollows symbol.  And now let the speculation begin about if Ariana Dumbledore was a Obscurus like Credence!

I am 100% certain Rowling had never thought of Obscuri until after the Deathly Hallows was published.

And I don't really like them as a concept - they seem ridiculously destructive. How does it make sense that suppressing magic leaves you with more magic than a trained witch or wizard?

Hogwarts should ban magic until you're 20, then let loose, based on this movie.

[Pliskin]

8 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Hogwarts should ban magic until you're 20, then let loose, based on this movie.

The point of Hogwarts is precisely to teach young wizards how to deal with magic and control their powers. Not to create dangerous uncontrollable monsters. I don't see your point.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

The point of Hogwarts is precisely to teach young wizards how to deal with magic and control their powers. Not to create dangerous uncontrollable monsters. I don't see your point.

Yes, that comment was a joke, highlighting that the movie's logic relies on the people who know least about magic seemingly having the most powerful magic of all. Grindelwald couldn't come anywhere near the level of destruction of a child and he is a highly skilled dark wizard.

To be honest, the obscurus is a stupid plot device that undoes much of the existing universe by having something unbelievably powerful and destructive in a manner that well and truly exceeds Voldemort or Grindelwald.

As a literary device, it's badly written.

[The Anti-Targ]

The OP's gripes are mostly my gripes. The most disturbing thing about the movie was all the "righteous" ministry folks killing Credence. In some ways Newt and Grindlewald are actually more allied. And of course we know from HP7 (esp the book) that

Spoiler

Dumbledore and Grindlewald were also philosophically allied, but ended up diverging strongly on approach.

So he isn't the big bad pure evil that is Voldemort.

In the end this is a children's movie that shies away from getting too complex and paints over the cracks of logical inconsistency. In a children's story, letting a knowledgeable audience know who is the baddie in disguise is an acceptable trope in a way that for adult fare it is not. Most kids don't care about Chekov's guns and Deus Ex Machina stuff.

However I would argue that just because Grindlewald COULD Avada Kadavra at the flick of the wrist doesn't mean he would necessarily want to invoke the nuclear option at every turn. I think there is a difference between Grindlewald and Voldemort in terms of their moral threshold for using the unforgivable curses. There seems to be a sadism in Voldemort that does not exist with Grindlewald. And in the end, Grindlewald didn't seem to be all that concerned about being captured. Once Credence was dead he pretty much had no further reason to resist, especially if he was confident of note being able to be held for long.

Watching it as a "sophisticated adult" I'd give it 4/10, watching it from a more child-oriented perspective I'd give it a 6/10.

I assume this is going to end up being the story of Grindlewald's ultimate defeat, rather than the mad cap adventures of Newt Scamander. So at some point the central hero is going to change, since it's not Newt who defeats Grindlewald.

[Bastard of Boston]

I didn't hate it, but I wasn't enamored by it, either. For me, the biggest flaw was lack of connection towards Newt. He was our main character, yet we learned so little about him. I developed no rapport -- no desire to want to see him win. The secondary characters were interesting enough, but still. I was also a little confused by the magic. I haven't watched the previous HP films in awhile, but I questioned a lot of the magical feats...the lack of recited spells and wizards seemingly using magic without wands...? Completely willing to attribute that to my overall fogginess. Regardless, I like the fact that they're revisiting the franchise. I'd like to see them eventually highlight the American school.

[Howdyphillip]

I loved the movie, and I really wish snarky responses could be left out of the thread title. I wish shitting on things wasn't so trendy... 

 With that said, there were a few problems with the film that I can acknowledge. The Johnny Depp reveal of course the most glaring. I will say that it is far more accurate than not for the movie to not be diversified. New York City was incredibly segregated in the 20's, and these were white characters. 

 Everyone is praising Eddie Redmayne for this, but I thought his acting job was rather unremarkable. I was more impressed with Dan Fogler's Nomag, and Alison Sudol as Queenie. Both of these characters made the movie for me. 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Bastard of Boston said:

I didn't hate it, but I wasn't enamored by it, either. For me, the biggest flaw was lack of connection towards Newt. He was our main character, yet we learned so little about him. I developed no rapport -- no desire to want to see him win. The secondary characters were interesting enough, but still. I was also a little confused by the magic. I haven't watched the previous HP films in awhile, but I questioned a lot of the magical feats...the lack of recited spells and wizards seemingly using magic without wands...? Completely willing to attribute that to my overall fogginess. Regardless, I like the fact that they're revisiting the franchise. I'd like to see them eventually highlight the American school.

All the Yates directed HP movies have this issue. The way magic is done is frustratingly inconsistent in his movies. Like how starting with the Order of the Phoenix all the practiced wizards could fly either as dark shadows for the bad guys, or luminous ones for the good guys, when in the books it was clear that only Voldemort and later Snape could do that.

[Pliskin]

9 hours ago, Yukle said:

Yes, that comment was a joke, highlighting that the movie's logic relies on the people who know least about magic seemingly having the most powerful magic of all. Grindelwald couldn't come anywhere near the level of destruction of a child and he is a highly skilled dark wizard.

They say that the power of Credence is unprecedented. Usual Obscuri are not as destructive as that. Credence is the only one who managed to keep that power and survive until being an adult. Usually, they die as children. So, I don't see the contradiction.

If Grindelwald or Voldemort wanted to rely on that power, they would have needed that knowledge when they were children. And they probably would have died in the process. The whole point of Grindelwald's quest is to seek that Obscurial power among those repressed children. Probably after witnessing it with Albus' sister.

There may still be a reason in subsequent movies as to why Voldemort didn't follow the same approach.