Pliskin Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I don't see how it's a retcon. Shouldn't a retcon contradict a previously established fact? This will only expand on what was established by Albus' brother in HP7, which takes a whole new meaning, and it will probably explain what happened with Grindelwald there, which was never clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Saw this misery-fest again today and at the big reveal BF said loudly 'but you have heard of me!' when Grendy is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckwheat Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I saw it yesterday. I expected a light movie about fantastic beasts, with pretty animals, magic and running around chasing said animals, and I think the parts focusing on Newt, Kovalski and the things in the suitcase were the best parts of the film. The darker parts missed the tone a bit for me, which I expected to be a bit funny and just light-hearted in general. The parts with the senator were completely unnecessary, IMO. In the beginning, it felt like there were too many storylines that had nothing to do with each other to follow. The most obvious plothole for me was the resolution in the end: President: "Oh, we are exposed now, we cannot obliviate the whole city, what a horror." Newt: "Nah, let me just release this giant griffin with this potion, which is probably illegal, and rely to the weather to get it all over the city. Problem solved." President and everybody else: "Oh sure, fine, that'll work." Also I feel an ending for the girl Modesty was missing, she was last seen cowering before her adoptive brother and then ... what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Buckwheat said: Also I feel an ending for the girl Modesty was missing, she was last seen cowering before her adoptive brother and then ... what? Even with that exposition talk about Oscurus/Obscurial, I have to say I have no idea what is the deal with it. Plus, I thought Modesty was Obscurial and then it was Credence... Is it like a possession thing? And why, oh my, Rowling decided it was a good idea to write about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckwheat Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 7 hours ago, Risto said: Even with that exposition talk about Oscurus/Obscurial, I have to say I have no idea what is the deal with it. Plus, I thought Modesty was Obscurial and then it was Credence... Is it like a possession thing? And why, oh my, Rowling decided it was a good idea to write about it? Yes, it was made that way that the audience was supposed to think it was the girl Modesty, only to reveal that it was Credence. The way I understand them, if a child is supressing their own magic powers (like they would in an environment those two lived in), they turn into an Obscurus to release all that supressed magical energy. Then they can fly and make it dark and break buildings and all that other crazy stuff. They die young because that power kind of eats them from inside (I guess?). I have no clue how Newt tried to save that Somali girl they talked about, but I think the dark cloud floating in one of the rooms in his suitcase is supposed to be what was left of her/her magic. I am not sure if Modesty was a witch at this point, a muggle that completely accepted the adoptive mother's anti-witch philosophy, or a squib. Somebody I discussed it with seemed to think they (Modesty and Credence) were both Obscuri, but I do not think so, I think the big reveal was supposed to be that it was Credence all along, and not her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just saw it today. I enjoyed it. I do wonder about Graves. He's the head of the American Aurors that's not a position you get at the drop of a hat. Did Grindlewald kill the real Graves and replace him? If not how did Grindlewald have the time to work through the bureaucracy and win his position while playing Graves? it would have made more sense, in my opinion, for Graves to be "one of Grindlewald's fanatics" working toward Grindlewald's goals that to be Grindlewald himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denvek Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I would guess that the replacement was done in the same way as Crouch Jr replaced Moody in Goblet of Fire, but I agree that it shouldn't have been done - there was no reason why he needed to be Grindelwald instead of just one of his followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Yes about the foolishness of Grindlewald being the head of the American Aurors. Though the bigger complaint I have with it is he was able to order the summary execution of two people with no oversight. Which may be a problem with the powers of the head American Auror, and not so much that Grindlewald was able to get himself into that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.