JK Rowling announces Five 'Fantastic Beasts' films

[dog-days]

Just seen the sequel. Thought it was over-long and badly needed an editor to work on the pacing.  I would also have preferred it leavened with more of the humour that brightened the first film. 

Spoiler

 

Good points:

-  Callum Turner was a brilliant bit of casting as Newt Scamander's brother. He and Redmayne made for some of the most visually convincing on screen siblings I've seen, Weasley twins included. I was expecting his character to be much darker than it turned out to be based on the promotional material plus Turner's previous role as Anatole in War and Peace 

- the nibbler and nibbler babies. I really enjoyed the twist at the end that showed what the nibbler had been getting up to during the alarms and excursions. 

- Redmayne himself as Newt was lovely; I think he might be my favourite on-screen hero in contemporary cinema. Shy, obsessive, compassionate, idealistic. And even more so in the flashbacks. (Only possible rival for my esteem: his pet nibbler). 

- some of the visuals were striking; notably the boggart scene and the echo of it again later in the film. 

- I liked the idea of Grindelwald arguing his case by showing a vision of the future. That was the one point in the film where I think the Rowling's concept of him as a charismatic villain, and the film's/script's realisation of him actually lined up.  

- Still love Ezra Miller as Credence. I would very much like him to get rid of his Obscurus, marry his sweetheart and live happily ever after, but I expect this won't happen. Not sure if he really is a third Dumbledore brother or not. I rather hope he just turns out to be a random talented Muggle-born. 

Meh points

- I was against the casting of Depp as Grindelwald from the start. He wasn't as bad as I thought he might be - he didn't seem to be phoning it in. I enjoyed the amount of continuity in his performance - it was picking up where Farrell left off. However, more below. 

- I couldn't buy Queenie going over to Grindelwald. I watched the first film again last Saturday when I was in bed sick, and - yes - she describes herself as a homebody. However, she has a job in the Ministry, smoothly tricks her way out of it to save her sister/Jacob/Newt, and in general seems to be a pretty smart lady. I think the idea is interesting, but the execution wasn't good enough. 

Bad points

- it feels as if it could be a great series of films given that the first film set everything up with a likable quartet of characters whom it was enjoyable to spend time with. But the series as it is has been given a dual core - one is "Fantastic Beasts" and the other "Grindelwald". The second core which drives the plot lets the first one down. It retreads too much of the ground we've seen before in the Harry Potter series, and clamps down on the exuberance and invention that could flood the films from the "Fantastic Beasts" side if they were allowed to. 

- the "Grindelwald" core wouldn't be so bad if it were handled more creatively. Grindelwald is just a variation of Voldemort, his followers versions of the Death Eaters. He's on screen too much to be a menacing, distant presence, and not personally interesting/conflicted enough to enliven his scenes. Dumbledore loved him once, but we're never shown anything lovable or human about him. 

- too much was going on with too many characters. The characters from the first film weren't given much chance to shine, and the new ones didn't have a chance to be properly introduced. 

Nerd points

- Leta's dead. Unless Credence turns out to be Corvus after all, Corvus is probably dead. So where did Rabastan and Rodolphus come from? Were they adopted by Leta's horrible dad? 

 

 

[HexMachina]

It was ok but could have been so much more. What really makes it suffer is the cast of characters is too damn expansive, so nobody gets the screentime they need. I think this is a problem with JK herself. She is a novelist, not a screenwriter. Yes you can be both (see Gillian Flynn) but she needs to realise that what works in a novel cannot always come to screen. All of these characters in a novel is tricky yes, but you can still give them sufficient development. On screen, you just can’t give them the time they need to breathe. Couldn’t even tell you what Gindenwald’s lackeys were called...

Spoiler

There was plenty to like though. The cast was generally very solid, and I particularly liked young Newt and young Leta. I didn’t need even dislike Depp, and I was very dissatisfied when I first heard about it so call me a convert.

The film was very well crafted in terms of camera work, score, lighting, visuals etc. Really loved wizard Paris. Oh and the opening scene with Grindenwalds escape was breathtaking from beginning to end. 

Agree with @dog-days on the wwII vision in the rally. Very powerful scene.

Wish there had been more humour as some of the little zingers were great. “I can’t tell if you’re making a joke...or if you’re just French”

The Beasts we’re a small charming as ever, particularly loved the Chinese dragon

Few criticisms I had that jump to mind 

the “twist” of Credence supposedly being a Dumbledore. Ugh. I mean I think personally it’s a lie Grindenwald is using to manipulate Credence but if it isn’t I won’t  be impressed.

as mentioned initially, the large cast just prevents any kind of character development. This is especially a shame with the likes of Nagini because I really want to see the actress given more material, she is very expressive. 

Queenie joining Grindenwald. Just make no sense at all. “THESE MUGGLES ARE OTHER, ALIEN, BENEATH US!” “Come on sugar, that’s the world where I can marry you!” Just...no. I did however like that Jacob calling her crazy was (twice) what drove her away because that’s really rang true imo. Again I really like the actress so hopefully she gets good material to work with

 

As for your point about Leta @dog-days it’s  bound to be covered in the next films in the franchise as it’s  far too obvious to overlook.

My nerd point? McGonogal shouldn’t have been in the flashback, least of all a season a teacher. By my reckoning she would not have even been born yet

 

 

[Corvinus85]

I wasn't sure if I should start a spoiler thread or not. Anyway, I thought it was very meh, and agree that it was overly long, and its story was fairly confusing.

I really don't know what JK Rowling is doing with this one.

Spoiler

• Why is the Magical Congress of USA now simply called the American Ministry of Magic?
• Nagini had an interesting premise as a character, but then nothing was done with the character
• Circus master loses a bunch of his most precious attractions, simply packs up and leaves
• Plot twists were classic Rowling, too bad a lot of the plot was confusing, and I'm not really sure how things got there; films could benefit from companion novels
• Queenie going over to Grindelwald was very forced, I didn't buy it; I don't understand why she bought into his BS; doesn't she understand that the core of his ideology is not compatible with what she wants in life?
• If Jacob and Queenie love each other so much, why didn't they attempt to emigrate? From what I understand, the wizard/muggle marriage restriction is only in the US. What's holding them to America that much?
• Credence somehow survived NY; Newt didn't know this, and honestly, neither did I (prior to the trailers); apparently being nearly disintegrated doesn't have any lasting consequences - disappointing
• Not sure why this movie had this title; a lot of it wasn't about Grindelwald; it's as if Rowling felt that Grindelwald had to have a strong presence in this one, because she introduced him in the other movie, but then decided to explore other aspects, creating the Credence story line and the Lestrange family secret, which was more interesting, but there was only so much time to dedicate to all these plot lines, and ultimately everything suffered.
• A lot of scenes were too dark, especially Grindelwald's escape
• I often couldn't tell if scenes in the streets of Paris were taking place on the magical side, or the muggle side.
• Why did Dumbledore look much older in the final scene? How much time passed before that scene? It wouldn't make sense for Newt to wait so long to talk to Dumbledore.

On the other hand

• Jude Law was very good as Dumbledore. He seemed to channel a bit of Richard Harris, which was nice.
• I'll also give positive points to Eddie Redmayne, mainly because this time around, I was able to understand most of his lines.
• The creatures were once again one of the strong points; the Nifflers are fun
• Enjoyed the tie-ins with Harry Potter, especially Nicolas Flamel.
• Also, liked the Hogwarts flashbacks
• Pretty good soundtrack

 

[dog-days]

Anyone have any thoughts about the "bewitched" theme?

Spoiler

 

a) Queenie attempts to force Jacob to marry her through magic

b) Leta's mother was bewitched and raped by her father

c) At the end, we are I think initially led to suspect that Queenie may be acting under a spell, until it becomes clear through her dialogue with Jacob and later with Grindelwald that she really is her own agent

Obviously, this connects to the HP series - shortly before FB2, Tom Riddle was born after his mother bewitched and raped his father. 

My only thought is that a) was setting up c) - having presented a tremendously positive picture of Queenie in FB1, her feet of clay had to be made obvious early on in FB2 if the audience would be at all likely to buy her conversion. 

I'm just wondering if it's possible to tie a/b/c into other things that were going on in FB2? 

JKR tends to return to particular tropes that she likes, and she apparently liked the story of Tom's conception so much that she decided to reuse it, right down to the female participant dying in childbirth. (This annoyed me during the film because Leta's mother lives in a world where tongues can be magicked back on. However, it can be hand-waved with the explanation that Lestrange, being a SOB, didn't bother to ask for medical aid). 

 

I did like the carriage sequence at the start, but everything was so dark and fast that I found it hard to follow what was going on. Even though I've been equivocal about the film, I'll definitely be watching it via Amazon when it becomes available. Even if the plot and dialogue are, in the case of the former, overburdened, and in the latter, often very much "As you know, Bob...", there's enough detail and stuff of interest that I think it'll repay another viewing. 

@Corvinus, I wondered about why they weren't talking about emigration too. 

[Corvinus85]

9 minutes ago, dog-days said:

Anyone have any thoughts about the "bewitched" theme?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

a) Queenie attempts to force Jacob to marry her through magic

b) Leta's mother was bewitched and raped by her father

c) At the end, we are I think initially led to suspect that Queenie may be acting under a spell, until it becomes clear through her dialogue with Jacob and later with Grindelwald that she really is her own agent

Obviously, this connects to the HP series - shortly before FB2, Tom Riddle was born after his mother bewitched and raped his father. 

My only thought is that a) was setting up c) - having presented a tremendously positive picture of Queenie in FB1, her feet of clay had to be made obvious early on in FB2 if the audience would be at all likely to buy her conversion. 

I'm just wondering if it's possible to tie a/b/c into other things that were going on in FB2? 

JKR tends to return to particular tropes that she likes, and she apparently liked the story of Tom's conception so much that she decided to reuse it, right down to the female participant dying in childbirth. (This annoyed me during the film because Leta's mother lives in a world where tongues can be magicked back on. However, it can be hand-waved with the explanation that Lestrange, being a SOB, didn't bother to ask for medical aid). 

 

I did like the carriage sequence at the start, but everything was so dark and fast that I found it hard to follow what was going on. Even though I've been equivocal about the film, I'll definitely be watching it via Amazon when it becomes available. Even if the plot and dialogue are, in the case of the former, overburdened, and in the latter, often very much "As you know, Bob...", there's enough detail and stuff of interest that I think it'll repay another viewing. 

@Corvinus, I wondered about why they weren't talking about emigration too. 

The "bewitched" theme was, imo, Rowling taking on the issues of the day, the strong abusing the weak, #metoo, etc. 

So as you and I have been wondering, maybe she should have explored the migration of people that suffer under a certain policies.

Another issue I have is with Grindelwald's actions at the end

Spoiler

He creates those big, fire dragons to destroy Paris, and just as he disapparates, he says he hates Paris. That came out of nowhere. Also, considering his vision of the future, the coming of WWII, wouldn't destroying Paris make Germany's job that much easier? Or is it going to be revealed he is a secret wizard Nazi, and is in league with Hitler.

 

[dog-days]

18 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

The "bewitched" theme was, imo, Rowling taking on the issues of the day, the strong abusing the weak, #metoo, etc. 

So as you and I have been wondering, maybe she should have explored the migration of people that suffer under a certain policies.

Another issue I have is with Grindelwald's actions at the end

  Hide contents

He creates those big, fire dragons to destroy Paris, and just as he disapparates, he says he hates Paris. That came out of nowhere. Also, considering his vision of the future, the coming of WWII, wouldn't destroying Paris make Germany's job that much easier? Or is it going to be revealed he is a secret wizard Nazi, and is in league with Hitler.

 

Spoiler

Ah, so that's what he said. I knew he muttered something, but couldn't make it out. I believe Hitler was a big fan of Paris (the architecture, that is) so oddly enough that's a point of difference between them. The big black sheets that heralded the rally created a strong visual link to the Nazis. Plus the whole look of Grindelwald is very Nazi-from-central-casting Hope they won't go with an explicit story link though. I'd like something a bit different. 

 

[lady narcissa]

Oh yay I am glad there is discussion on the new movie!  I've just come from seeing it.  Overall I enjoyed it but I have to say its only because I come to this movie with such Harry Potter baggage and love.  I am willing to give this movie a lot of added benefit and bonus points I wouldn't give to any other movie.  Things that would drive me batty in another non-JK Rowling related movie for some reason I am just willing and able to overlook and suspend disbelief for with this franchise.  I guess it gives me enough of what I am looking for.  That being said I do think this movie brings with it some batshit crazy retcon stuff that comes a bit too close to the Cursed Child batshit crazy territory.  Cursed Child went a bit too far for me.  This one comes close but we aren't given enough info to know if its really going to cross that line or not.  I guess I have to dive into spoiler territory now...

Spoiler

First of all I just want to say that I think Leta Lestrange is my new favorite Wizarding World character.  I'm sure she is permanently dead because I like her so much so of course she won't not be dead like Credence/Corvus Jr./Aurelius...or whatever his name will turn out to be...is.  But what a tragic person and family.  I liked her and Newt's Hogwarts friendship.  I liked her with Newt's brother.  The ending with the three of them and her "I love you" to them/him was very cliché but it worked for me.  I liked when she and Tina met it wasn't hostile or bitchy but adult women.  And I'm forever going to pretend in the fan fic in my mind that someday down the line at Hogwarts Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy come across that "L+N" carved into the desk and ponder on who the original L and N were.

@dog-days Your point about where Rasbastan and Rodolphus Lestrange come from...well until JK retcons something and tells us otherwise, I'm going to assume they come from a different branch of the family.  Their father perhaps being cousins of Leta in the way Sirius and Bellatrix were cousins.  There was some comment about Corvus Sr. coming from and old pure blood family so presumably there is more to the family than just him.  Unless we are yet to see him taking a 3rd wife and having more children.

The whole who is Credence...I could really care less about and yet its driving the entire plot.  But we are supposed to believe that there were two babies on a boat.  One was Corvus Jr.  One was Aurelius.  They are swapped by Leta and Corvus Jr. dies and Aurelius lives but is somehow then adopted and raised in American separate from either family.  Ugh.  It was bad enough when he was possibly turning out to be a Lestrange.  But now that he might be a Dumbledore is pretty silly.  @HelenaExMachina I totally agree with you on that.   guess I was at first when I heard the spoiler ready to assume Grindewald was lying to Credence about that.  But the whole phoenix thing makes it pretty plausible.  I suppose we've just seen the origins of Fawkes.

Lots of comments I want to respond to but I think its too much for me to handle multi quoting people behind the spoiler tag so I hope you don't mind if I just tag and summarize people and points I'm responding to...

@dog-days I totally agree with you on Newt's brother.  I was expecting him to be a more arrogant and maybe Percy like Ministry employee and I loved his character and relationship with Newt.  As a non-hugger myself I also quite liked his whole hugging thing and then that poignant moment at the end when Newt hugs him.

And I agree with your comment about the WWII foreshadowing by Grindelwald.  That especially worked with Jacob in the audience, knowing what he lived through in WWI and him seeing something equally horrible and beyond horrible like that.  I guess presented with that vision and being offered the chance to work towards preventing that from happening...well I can see why some people bought into what he was selling.

@Corvinus Regarding Queenie going over to Grindelwald, I guess my general take away was he somehow compelled her.  She isn't completely acting of her own accord.  She was ready to fight him and had her wand up and he stared at her for an awfully long time, she gave her wand up, and then she eventually drifts over to him at the rally.  I'll have to see it another time and read the screenplay to see if any of that changes my mind.  But for the moment, that is how I take it.

@HelenaExMachina I totally agree with you about Nagini.  I want to see much more of her.  There is that moment at the end when she arrives with everyone at Hogwarts and I can only imagine its her first time there and I couldn't help but think she might have been amazed to see it.  But then you remember that is where she dies...outside Hogwarts like that.  And of course she could never imagine that is where she will meet her end.  And I can't help but feel pity for her after she has been there at Credence's side through the circus and then escaping and then being each other's support and then he just walks away and leaves her as he joins Grindelwald.

And yes about the annoyance of the retcon with McGonagall!  She totally would not be old enough to be teaching at Hogwarts in 1927.

I could say more but I think that's enough for the moment.  See at the end of the day, what makes this movie work for me is I've come home and its all I can think about and I'm already speculating about what we haven't yet been told, filling in blanks, looking on Instagram and tumblr for other people's thoughts and pictures on the movie, and wondering what is going to happen in the next three movies.  But so not looking forward waiting two years for the next one!

[lady narcissa]

Oh and why is everyone, including Grindelwald, wearing Muggle clothing?!?!  All the British and French wizards in their Ministry offices wearing Muggle suits just seemed wrong.  Dumbledore and McGonagall at Hogwarts too.

[A True Kaniggit]

I still don't like that in the first movie Grindelwald was able to order the execution of two people by potion chamber, a sentence which was immediately carried out. But when he is captured himself immediate execution isn't an option, though they had just killed someone for being dangerous.

Got my tickets for the second movie for this afternoon.

 

 

[Corvinus85]

8 hours ago, lady narcissa said:

Oh and why is everyone, including Grindelwald, wearing Muggle clothing?!?!  All the British and French wizards in their Ministry offices wearing Muggle suits just seemed wrong.  Dumbledore and McGonagall at Hogwarts too.

Yes, I would like to see the movie when there is a fashion revolution in the wizarding world, and everyone starts wearing robes. 

[HexMachina]

@lady narcissa

Want to add that I share you glee at being back in Potter world so I was more forgibiving of the film than I might have been. Will happily watch it again, and didn’t regret the £4.99 ticket (which is my metric of whether it was a good film or not  

Spoiler

I don’t understand why people are taking Fawkes as evidence it isn’t a lie though. Grindenwald obviously knew the little story Dumbledore told Newt already so why isn’t it assumed the Phoenix chick was planted? Plenty of opportunity. In fact the more I think of it the more likely it seems that Grindenwald was just deceiving Credence again, and is setting him up so that he will willingly fight Dumbledore. Grindenwald as good as spells this out earlier in the film whenever he talks of Credence coming willingly and going to kill Dumbledore.

Much prefer it this way too, the alternative is one big retcon let’s be honest.

 

I also liked Leta, think she isn’t definitely dead though. Green flash so it was a killing curse. (Why does nobody say spells anymore?)  As for the Lestrange family, I think there was a line somewhere that Leda was the last, probably right near the start. Plus her weird family tree had her as the last too. We’ll see though. They made a big point of this so I really don’t think they would overlook it.

Wait was Leta Zoe Kravitz?!

 

[Meera of Tarth]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:44 PM, dog-days said:

Just seen the sequel. Thought it was over-long and badly needed an editor to work on the pacing.  I would also have preferred it leavened with more of the humour that brightened the first film. 

  Hide contents

 

Good points:

-  Callum Turner was a brilliant bit of casting as Newt Scamander's brother. He and Redmayne made for some of the most visually convincing on screen siblings I've seen, Weasley twins included. I was expecting his character to be much darker than it turned out to be based on the promotional material plus Turner's previous role as Anatole in War and Peace 

- the nibbler and nibbler babies. I really enjoyed the twist at the end that showed what the nibbler had been getting up to during the alarms and excursions. 

- Redmayne himself as Newt was lovely; I think he might be my favourite on-screen hero in contemporary cinema. Shy, obsessive, compassionate, idealistic. And even more so in the flashbacks. (Only possible rival for my esteem: his pet nibbler). 

- some of the visuals were striking; notably the boggart scene and the echo of it again later in the film. 

- I liked the idea of Grindelwald arguing his case by showing a vision of the future. That was the one point in the film where I think the Rowling's concept of him as a charismatic villain, and the film's/script's realisation of him actually lined up.  

- Still love Ezra Miller as Credence. I would very much like him to get rid of his Obscurus, marry his sweetheart and live happily ever after, but I expect this won't happen. Not sure if he really is a third Dumbledore brother or not. I rather hope he just turns out to be a random talented Muggle-born. 

Meh points

- I was against the casting of Depp as Grindelwald from the start. He wasn't as bad as I thought he might be - he didn't seem to be phoning it in. I enjoyed the amount of continuity in his performance - it was picking up where Farrell left off. However, more below. 

- I couldn't buy Queenie going over to Grindelwald. I watched the first film again last Saturday when I was in bed sick, and - yes - she describes herself as a homebody. However, she has a job in the Ministry, smoothly tricks her way out of it to save her sister/Jacob/Newt, and in general seems to be a pretty smart lady. I think the idea is interesting, but the execution wasn't good enough. 

Bad points

- it feels as if it could be a great series of films given that the first film set everything up with a likable quartet of characters whom it was enjoyable to spend time with. But the series as it is has been given a dual core - one is "Fantastic Beasts" and the other "Grindelwald". The second core which drives the plot lets the first one down. It retreads too much of the ground we've seen before in the Harry Potter series, and clamps down on the exuberance and invention that could flood the films from the "Fantastic Beasts" side if they were allowed to. 

- the "Grindelwald" core wouldn't be so bad if it were handled more creatively. Grindelwald is just a variation of Voldemort, his followers versions of the Death Eaters. He's on screen too much to be a menacing, distant presence, and not personally interesting/conflicted enough to enliven his scenes. Dumbledore loved him once, but we're never shown anything lovable or human about him. 

- too much was going on with too many characters. The characters from the first film weren't given much chance to shine, and the new ones didn't have a chance to be properly introduced. 

Nerd points

- Leta's dead. Unless Credence turns out to be Corvus after all, Corvus is probably dead. So where did Rabastan and Rodolphus come from? Were they adopted by Leta's horrible dad? 

 

 

Oh no....just got spoiled about something without wanting it (I never finished HP books nor movies).(Not because I didn0't want, but I was pissed off whn some people spoiled the main points for me).

Well to your points ones I agree with:

-The brothers' credibility.

-Newt as an interesting choice of a "hero".

-The baby thing. (Although I think it was too rushed)-

-Loved Ezra there as well.

...

Other positive things:

-Loved Zoe Kravitz there as well as Leta.

I have some regrets with the movie. 

Love story regrets:

Spoiler

I reacted more emotionally to Leta's death than Newt's brother and Newt himself. I get that we didn't see much of the love story between him and Leta (and also between Newt and her), but hey, there were suppposed to be strong bonds there. We saw a little bit with the brother who was her fiancee but not enough and also with Newt they could have just showed that you can still care about someone deeply even if she is not your romantic partner or crush....

I also didn't think Newt's bond or whatever with Leta was not explored enough. In the first movie we are supposed to think that there is still some romantic love there, or at least a deep love for your best friend. And then in two scenes we are completely get rid of the former with a first ambiguous reaction by him who could go eitherway (more on the still something) when she is there and then the "confirmation" reaction that he doesn't remember all the past scenes with he so it's a "quick no romantic" for the spectators to understand.

So for all that, more scenes (longer movie) would have been ideal for me. Specially considering that the story as a whole of the movie was complex. ALso, more insight into the main 4 characters should have been appreciated. So I'll say the unpopular thing that the story complexity is enough but 2h and a half would have been beter. After all, the pacing of the movie was great, I felt enteratined all the time.

With Newt and Tina I have no complains. I think it was quite nice that we didnt see what happened exactly these two years between them. I guess they were still writing to each other. Felt quite realistic.

Then, what I was commenting in the spiler tags. The story is complex enough, and I don't complain about that, I'd have done a 2h and 30 minutes movie. So as that some things should have been better developed and didn't feel that they were teleported sometimes, and we could have got to see more about the 4 main character's development.

[lady narcissa]

Regarding the Lestrange family and how possibly HP era Lestranges are related to FB related Lestranges...the Minalima website is carrying their Lestrange family tree image that was done for the FB movie.  They are the people that do all the graphics for the Wizarding World movies.  I think its the image that puts forth the graphics Leta uses when she talks about her family tree in the movie.  As a result the Lexicons online are all being updated with this information and it looks like there are different branches of the family with the HP era brothers possibly being descended from the Cyrille Lestrange branch of the family.

Spoiler

@HelenaExMachina Yeah I am of torn minds about Fawkes as I think about it (because I do think no matter what the phoenix is Fawkes.)  I can see him being a manipulation of Grindelwalds to win Credence over like you say.  I'm curious upon a second viewing to compare the baby raven young Newt shows young Leta with the baby bird Credence is caring for.  And then in parallel does reborn Fawkes in the HP movie look like Credence's baby bird?  And going along with the manipulation theory, it is Grindelwald's wand waving that reveals it to be Fawkes, not Credence.  And if phoenixes are supposed to show up for Dumbledores in times of trouble, surely one would have shown up for Credence earlier on in his life if he was truly a Dumbledore.

 

[lady narcissa]

Oh and yes, @HelenaExMachina, Zoe was Leta.  There is an adorable picture of her and Helena Bonham Carter at the red carpet for this movie on her Instagram account which she titled something like "Being Lestrange Together".

[dog-days]

Spoiler

 

I share the love for Leta Lestrange, though I wish the flashback of her at Hogwarts contained slightly more upbeat elements - if the young actress (v. good, btw) had just been directed to smile a bit while on the run, it would have added another lighter moment to an often grim movie.  Now I wonder why she and Newt fell out/drifted apart, since she seems troubled but otherwise sane, kind and not really dark.  

Sorry about the HP spoiler, @Meera of Tarth If it helps, I think that it was a pretty incidental one - the plot of the later books didn't hang on it. They just slightly expanded on what we already knew from CoS. There was also more stuff which I didn't mention about those events. I do recommend pressing on with the HP books, even if you are partially spoiled - they're big books, so there's a lot in there that'll be new to you. Plus, if you're on board for the the FB films, you'll probably get more out of them if you've finished HP. 

Agree strongly with @lady narcissa about the lack of robes. I kept thinking of that wizard at the World Cup: "I like a healthy breeze round my privates, thanks!" It's as if an international wizarding congress had got together, and announced: "While we support and celebrate our pure and ancient magical ways, Muggle clothes in the 1920s through 1940s are, like, the peak of pure awesomeness - so it would be good if everyone could stop wearing robes for about three decades." 

Though I think the films have always placed less emphasis on robes than the books. The Hogwarts students in the films wear gowns over a traditional Muggle school uniform with a shirt and tie - in the books I think they just wear robes. And then there was Jason Isaacs's  amazing yet vaguely Edwardian get-up as Lucius. 

I dropped into Waterstones today and had a look inside the script. Was disappointed there wasn't a foreword from JKR, or any interesting annotations. One thing I did notice was that the woman who holds the skull for Grindelwald at the rally appeared to be called Rosier - thus probably a relation of the Death Eater. 

 

 

[Meera of Tarth]

23 minutes ago, dog-days said:

  Hide contents

 

I share the love for Leta Lestrange, though I wish the flashback of her at Hogwarts contained slightly more upbeat elements - if the young actress (v. good, btw) had just been directed to smile a bit while on the run, it would have added another lighter moment to an often grim movie.  Now I wonder why she and Newt fell out/drifted apart, since she seems troubled but otherwise sane, kind and not really dark.  

Sorry about the HP spoiler, @Meera of Tarth If it helps, I think that it was a pretty incidental one - the plot of the later books didn't hang on it. They just slightly expanded on what we already knew from CoS. There was also more stuff which I didn't mention about those events. I do recommend pressing on with the HP books, even if you are partially spoiled - they're big books, so there's a lot in there that'll be new to you. Plus, if you're on board for the the FB films, you'll probably get more out of them if you've finished HP. 

Agree strongly with @lady narcissa about the lack of robes. I kept thinking of that wizard at the World Cup: "I like a healthy breeze round my privates, thanks!" It's as if an international wizarding congress had got together, and announced: "While we support and celebrate our pure and ancient magical ways, Muggle clothes in the 1920s through 1940s are, like, the peak of pure awesomeness - so it would be good if everyone could stop wearing robes for about three decades." 

Though I think the films have always placed less emphasis on robes than the books. The Hogwarts students in the films wear gowns over a traditional Muggle school uniform with a shirt and tie - in the books I think they just wear robes. And then there was Jason Isaacs's  amazing yet vaguely Edwardian get-up as Lucius. 

I dropped into Waterstones today and had a look inside the script. Was disappointed there wasn't a foreword from JKR, or any interesting annotations. One thing I did notice was that the woman who holds the skull for Grindelwald at the rally appeared to be called Rosier - thus probably a relation of the Death Eater. 

 

 

Don't worry

I also think I should finish them!

Btw...I agree with the smile of young Leta.

[lady narcissa]

I am wondering with 3 movies remaining where we will have a time jump.  The last one has to take place in 1945 with the Grindelwald/Dumbledore battle.  With the first two movies we've only covered 1926 and 1927.  At some point they are going to have to start jumping in order to get to that point.

JK has already hinted on twitter the next movie will take us to Rio de Janeiro. so I wonder what will take Newt there and how that will tie into the goings on in Europe.

Spoiler

Perhaps to find ways to end the blood tie for Dumbledore?

 

Btw, I am hoping that there is no Cursed Child time-turner nonsense in any of the remaining movies.

 

[PetyrPunkinhead]

I think the first FB film is great, but this just did not live up to its predecessor. This new film is a bit of a mess. It was damn pretty to look at in 3D, but the plot was too convoluted and left little room for our main characters to develop. The whole Lestrange plot would've been great for a book, but was wrong for a movie--especially this one. JK Rowling really suffers from her own fame here by not having an editor, or anyone apparently, to course correct the script. 

[Blue Roses]

Film was interesting and had some great stuff but missed the charm of the first one. Apart from the nifflers who once again stole the show.

A few points:

1) Paris was cold cold cold. In comparison to the fully fleshed New York which had an identity of its own, Paris didn't really come alive at all. Only amusing bit was that to reach the 'magical Paris' one had a disappear up a lady's skirt: very French.

2) Imagery was brilliantly done. 

Spoiler

 

3) Use of WW2 foreshadowing was a very good plot point.

4) Queenie: I disagree her conversion came out of no where. She used her magic to place Jacob under a love charm rendering him completely incapable of independent agency, which is only a whisper away from the compulsion we saw with Leta's mother. She treats him like a pet to be fed as well, and constantly uses her advantages in reading his mind (he tells Newt this) which if you are trying to have a serious relationship with a muggle is an abuse of your power. I think it could have been better signposted but it was there.

 

5) Depp didn't annoy me as much as I though he would. He felt very much on his best best behaviour which retrained the performance but yes I would have preferred Colin Farrell.  

 

[Jordan La Cabra]

I think everyone has done a good job of highlighting the positives and negatives of this film, so I am not going to repeat any points apart from one. I am a sucker for little things in movies like people who are related actually looking alike, so it pleases me that Eddie Redmayne and Callum Turner could actually pass for brothers. What doesn't please me, though, is that Callum clearly looks a lot younger than Eddie (as he is 8 years younger in real life), despite Theseus actually being 8 or 9 years older than Newt in the story. 

But, hey, I don't think either actor would be quite as good in the other's role. Probably, I'd rather they actually looked like brothers than looked nothing like brothers but looked the right age!

Anyway, onto Credence...

Spoiler

He seems to be the centrepiece of the story - his true identity the main mystery. 

In the original Harry Potter series, surely JK Rowling mentioned, at least briefly, all or most important characters in recent wizarding history. To me, Credence is either someone incredibly special or not special at all. There are parallels between Credence and Harry: both are orphans with special powers, who have held the attention of the two most powerful dark wizards of recent history. You would think, then, that Dumbledore would eventually come to know of him, and at some point, during his conversations with Harry in the original series' timeline, Dumbledore might mention to Harry something about a young man called Credence that he had much in common with.

As much as I enjoyed the film, the scene where Grindelwald suggests that Credence is Dumbledore's brother irked me. I don't think Credence is actually Dumbledore's brother, as his family life appeared to be quite thoroughly covered in the Deathly Hallows. At the same time, I don't want it to just be some lie that Grindelwald told Credence to trick him into fighting Dumbledore. It came at the end of the film, which meant it was meant to be quite a big reveal. Even the phoenix came to him - and Dumbeldore had stated earlier in the film that a phoenix would appear to anyone of the Dumbledore family in dire need. He could be some distant relative of Dumbledore's, but I don't really think that is interesting either.

Maybe some here would know better than me, but would there be anyway that the Obscurus could be linked to Dumbledore's sister Ariana? Or that anything else to do with Ariana could be linked to Credence? If part of Credence was part Ariana, then the idea of the phoenix coming to Credence could make sense, as he would be a Dumbledore in part. Also the idea that he could be the one thing Grindelwald needs to defeat Dumbledore may also work.