Subject: Now I think back about it, yeah, it can be confusing...
Author:
Posted on: 2018-11-22 05:54:00 UTC
And that makes me think about something: Last movie pointed out the problem with fantastic beasts and wizarding secrecy...
Seems like the problem entirely vanished here, with the dragon, the banners and the likes. Oh, and the fact there was this giant heck of a fire in one Paris' biggest and well-known graveyards.
So I'm starting this thread so all the inevitable discussion regarding Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald can be kept under a single heading. While there are no spoilers in my post, please be aware that there will probably be spoilers, so make sure you have spoiler tags ready to go.
First thoughts: If you haven't already before seeing Crimes of Grindelwald watch the first Fantastic Beasts again, things make much more sense in both films when watched in conjunction.
It was a good movie and I highly recommend it. Though there are a few areas that I think will open up healthy debate.
I actually liked this movie, and I am going to reserve my judgement on any plot twists/developments/inconsistencies until all of the movies (five now? that feels like an overkill, but OK) are out.
I used up all of my snarking on the abomination that is Peter Jackson's films about Middle-earth, so I have none left for other movie-verses. Besides, I never got much into Harry Potter. I did like the first Fantastic Beasts film a lot, though, so I was looking forward to this one. Definitely don't regret the time I spent watching it and I will definitely rewatch when it comes out on DVD.
Spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler
Okay. Before I start really ranting, I just want to say that visually, the movie was very nice and the special effects were breathtaking.
That being said: the vast majority of the plot was just sort of pushed aside in favor of special effects.
I say plot, but it can really be boiled down to "There's a secret Lestrange and we promise this is important! Hahaha, just kidding, you wasted two hours of your life on this because it doesn't actually matter at all!"
All I can say about the ending is that Grindelwald had better be lying off his ass about Credence being a secret Dumbledore instead, because I literally facepalmed as the credits rolled.
Professor McGonagall was also a teacher. At Hogwarts. Eight years before she was born.
Dumbledore's refusal to fight Grindelwald being the result of a blood pact rather than his reluctance to duel his old friend-slash-crush was also eyeroll-worthy.
And Nagini being a human woman who doesn't pass the Sexy Lamp test ("Can you replace this character with a lamp and the plot stays the same?") was its own level of cringe. Yes, that Nagini. Voldemort's snake used to be a person. I just... I can't.
And all of that is before I get into my now intense, deep-seated and utter loathing for Queenie after her date-rape drugging Jacob into agreeing to marry her, and then it's treated like it's Jacob's fault for forcing her to do that to him. Yeah, sure, she joined Grindelwald (because... he promises to let wizards and Muggles live in peace. Hey, remember that part where she's a Legillimens? Because apparently Rowling doesn't. Even if Grindelwald was using Occlumency to shield his thoughts from her, there's no way she's missing what all of his followers are thinking and I just AUGH.) and is probably going to get a redemption arc so she and Jacob can be reunited and he can apologize to her for not wanting to marry her.
He even called it out for what it was: "When were you going to stop, Queenie? After we'd had five kids?" and she doesn't deny it. Jesus Christ almighty, if it had been a male character doing that to a female character, nobody in the theater would have been laughing like they were.
So yeah. After how good the first Fantastic Beasts movie was, this one wasn't just a disappointment. It only barely ranks above Cursed Child for its godawful characterization, disregard for canon, and lazy plot that goes nowhere.
Spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler
I literally just got back from seeing the movie, so I'm not 100% sure what I think yet. I have a vague impression that there are too many characters, probably due to the filmmakers reaching too far for cameos of names we recognize. Such as Nagini. I don't mind her backstory being that she was a woman with a blood-curse, but seriously, why is she involved in this story? It had better pay off later.
I also have a sense that we're following the wrong protagonist? I mostly like Newt, but I have no idea why he's our guy. Like... what is his arc here? He finally decides to take a side after seeing what Grindelwald is like in person? Okay, but... what did he actually do? What lesson has he learned? Why is this HIS story and not, say, Credence's? He's the one with real skin in the game, real stakes to win or lose. Newt's motivation is, there's a girl he likes and also Dumbledore gave him a side-quest to find and protect Credence. The thing with the blood-pact bauble was a lucky opportunity; I'm not sure he knew about it ahead of time. Dumbledore certainly seemed surprised to see it at the end.
I don't mind the blood-pact, incidentally, because it seems like the kind of grand gesture two young guys on an epic quest for power and glory might well make to each other in a fit of zeal. I'm sure Dumbledore meant it at the time, and may even be reluctant to break it now. The Mirror of Erised scene shows us he clearly still has feelings for Grindelwald, or at least that was my reading. The moment they made that pact was the moment they were closest to each other, and that is "nothing more or less than the deepest desire of his heart." Poor bugger.
... Maybe Tina would make a better protagonist. She's an auror, it could be a whole international detective thing with Newt being this weird guy who keeps turning up on seemingly innocent premises and yet mucks things up and/or helps her in oddly coincidental ways. Like, he's nice enough, maybe she's even attracted to him, but what is his deal, and what is his connection with the elusive Dumbledore? It could've been an interesting mystery from her point of view.
Once again, Jacob is more or less luggage. His motivation is also there's a girl he likes, whose treatment of him is awful and definitely needed to be called out more strongly. If they're setting her up to go to the Dark Side, fine, that's definitely a red flag. That shit is illegal, not to mention immoral. But Team Good Guy just kinda let it slide. {= /
I don't know why we need him and Queenie. They don't get enough development for me to care that much about them, and I'm certainly not rooting for them as a couple after that. I guess Grindelwald has a really good Legillimens now, but he could've had that anyway. Her story might've been better as something discovered in the course of tracking down Grindelwald through his lackeys or something like that.
... I'm liking Tina as protag more and more.
Really, who else actually did things actively to advance the plot? I feel like Grindelwald was pulling the strings the whole time and everything has basically gone according to plan.
That's all I've got now. Perhaps more once I've had more time to process it and absorb other people's thoughts.
~Neshomeh
Spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler
I'm going to start with the Queenie Situation. I agree that her actions regarding Jacob and the Love Potion were not good. Very Merope Gaunt (more on that later). Regarding the Legillimens issues a few things:
1. In Fantastic Beasts, while it was shown to be quite strong with regards to Newt and Jacob, but keep in mind that she did not deduce that Graves was Grindelwald nor that Abernathy was working with Grindelwald.
2. She wasn't really around Grindelwald's followers that were not in his immediate presence. It is very possible that those who were part of his Apartment team were skilled with Occlumency.
3. By the time the Graveyard scene happened she was already lost and probably very much wearing blinders. She did not want to know. She does seem to be very singular minded.
On to the Blood Pact. It could be an interesting plot device, and I think it works. Because while reluctance is certainly a good reason, it could still come into play. Remember there are about 20 years between Crimes of Grindelwald and when Dumbledore fights Grindelwald. I suspect Dumbledore will have dissolved the pact by the end of the next film, which gives two additional movies with Dumbledore on the sidelines deciding how and when to fight.
Lestrange. So I thought it could have been handled better, but early on Leta at least made it clear that Credence was not her half-brother. She affirmed to Dumbledore that Credence was not Corvinus.
Now as to Credence being a Dumbledore...Grindelwald was probably lying. It does not fit with the actual canon timeline (though they are kind of playing fast and loose with that, maybe). I think it is possible that Credence could theoretically be from Honoria Dumbledore's side of the family, but I think more likely Grindelwald was lying. After all he was noted as being manipulative. Given that Grindelwald did not know Credence was the Obscurus until he tried to kill him, I don't think that he knows who Credence is (after all CoG is only a few months after FB).
As to McGonagall, in film I do not recall her being addressed as Minerva McGonagall though it is listed as such in the credits. But as to date, I was checking Pottermore again and there is no year listed for her Birthday. I think the 1935 number was extrapolated and Rowling has messed up on math before (remember Flint attending Hogwarts for 8 years). So as far as I know it does not directly contradict anything in the existing books.
Nagini as a maledictus cursed to turn into a snake. I'm actually alright with that. Nagini was always portrayed with near human intelligence, and the ability to disguise herself as a woman. I think it is passable, but they have a long way to explain how she goes from the Good Guys to Voldermort's Companion. There are also at least three more movies to explain that.
As to Crazy Theories, which I expect none of them to be true, but if they are I want to be able to say I told you so.
1. Queenie's Role. My theory was originally that Queenie was really Merope Gaunt, but as I was checking timelines again, I realized that Tom Riddle was already born by the time CoG starts. But I'll stick with Queenie is still a Gaunt, just descended from the Irish-American Line through Martha Gaunt.
2. Credence's Identity. My theory was originally that he was actually a young Tom Riddle, given his affinity with Nagini, Powerful Dark Magic, Hatred of Muggles, and a Growing Dislike of Dumbledore, but it appears that once again the time lines just do not synchronize. Then I was going to try to make some extreme argument that he was really Tom Riddle Senior, but again given that in canon Tom Riddle was born in 1926 that does not seem viable, not to mention the whole Riddle Senior was a muggle. So yeah I got a whole lot of nothing here. It is unlikely that he is a Dumbledore, because of the simple fact that he would have had to have been born in Azkaban and I'm fairly certain Dementors did not allow that kind of visit.
...I heard a rumor that the aforementioned book was ghost-written and/or a published fanfiction. Is either of that true or is J. K. Rowling legitimately letting fame get to her head?
-Twistey
Jack Thorne and John Tiffany. Rowling just signed off on it, but I doubt she even read it—or if she did, she just didn't care.
If Cursed Child was written by other people, and if Universal Studios had some control over the narrative told by Crimes of Grindelwald (making it plausible that they used that control to screw it up), is Rowling's writing and/or the effort she puts into her writing actually going downhill? I wonder where evidence could be found to confirm or deny that. Hmm.
-Twistey
I don't know one way or the other, but when I read Rick Riordan's "Memories from my TV/Movie Experience" blog post, Rowling is who I thought of at the line "Even the most powerful authors (yes, the ones you are thinking of right now) have WAY less influence and control than you think they do."
Also, she may not want much say. As I recall, Rowling stated that she was done with the Harry Potter universe once the seven books were finished. Maybe she changed her mind for Fantastic Beasts, if the ideas came to her and she was excited about them... but I wonder if it's more likely that people (fans and/or movie people who own some of the rights) have just been putting so much pressure on her for more Wizarding World content that she gave in and agreed to sign off on whatever.
Again, I don't KNOW anything. These are just the thoughts that are rattling around in my brain as I see the films and read the commentary.
Does anyone have any actual information that might illuminate us?
Also, has anyone read any of her more recent, non-HP work? That would be a good place to look and see what her writing quality is like these days.
~Neshomeh
Did you catch the furore over her Wizarding in North America stuff? It was probably a couple of years back now. It wasn't... spectacular worldbuilding.
It could have been. I played around with a few ideas suggested by it: Wands Are Not Ethical, Ilvermorny houses (Part 2), American wandmaking, President Pickles, a sympathetic view of MACUSA. But Rowling didn't go into it nearly as deeply. She preeeeeetty much copied the British model exactly. Which is a real shame.
Hmm... I might repurpose some of those links into The True Story Of MACUSA or somesuch...
hS
And it might just be the consequence of the fact that France was just next door to England compared to America's novelty, and so it was assumed that things were similar, and some things were already written, like Beauxbatons, and totally not a 'burn' reaction from Rowlings, but...
Now I'm thinking and searching about it, I can't help but notice that French Wizardry World didn't seemingly get near the amount of world-building which got into the US one before the movie got out...
And on that same vein, the fact the action just happens to move away from the wonderfully nice Friend MACUSA and his mandatory happiness...
Disclaimer: Phobos had no trouble with it, so it might just be me.
However, I was occasionally very confused about which side of the statue-lady's skirt we were on. We saw people go in, but rarely how they went out again, or exactly where the transition happened. French!Diagon Alley isn't clearly walled off like the one in London. Who could see what, when? Could wizards encounter cars? Could Muggles see Grindelwald's banners everywhere? I don't know. And the wizards in the movies don't wear robes all the time, which would have helped. {= (
~Neshomeh suffers from low brain-bandwidth and can't always take everything in fast enough in one go.
And that makes me think about something: Last movie pointed out the problem with fantastic beasts and wizarding secrecy...
Seems like the problem entirely vanished here, with the dragon, the banners and the likes. Oh, and the fact there was this giant heck of a fire in one Paris' biggest and well-known graveyards.
Per Pottermore, there are eleven main wizarding schools. If you don't live in a country with its own school (or within a school's primary intake area), you are probably either home-schooled, or taught by correspondence course. One assumes that Muggle-borns tend to be grabbed by whatever the nearest school is, even if it's several countries away. There are also non-approved schools, which Pottermore gives only a passing mention to.
Given that J.K. Rowling is a clear Hogwarts Exceptionalist, the documents written by her have a certain... incompleteness when it comes to the other schools. That, of course, means there's a huge opportunity here for wild speculation! Everything that follows is either direct from Rowling via the Pottermore link, or sheer invention on my part. ^_^
To write a fic that is something like "The Rise, Fall, and Reformation of MACUSA"
Something that reads like a History of Magic textbook from the perspective of an outsider, perhaps one of the Southern Witches/Wizards you mentioned in your excellent commentary. If I do write that do you mind if I use your commentary as a starting point/incorporate it into the piece?
A fanfiction fictional non-fiction textbook could actually be an interesting idea.
Bear in mind though that all of this was written before Fantastic Beasts 1 came out, so some of it may well be disproved by the film. :)
hS
It'll just be "alternative facts" or "fake news"
So I guess it is going downhill a little bit. *sigh* I had feared that...
-Twistey