Get 20% off your first Bespoke Post box at bespokepost.com/filmento with code FILMENTO. Thanks to BP for supporting the channel. And sorry this video took a while guys. WB is trying to block it real hard. I wonder why.
Hello Filmento. I would like to recommend an Indian movie RRR (Rise Roar Revolt) recent worldwide blockbuster. I think you'll like it. Definitely worth a watch.
Alternatively, make the first film already about the larger scale stuff. Then you don't have to worry about trying to make a random zookeeper a massive historical figure instead of just a guy who wrote a book.
That plan to "confuse" Grindelwald was just an excuse for their horrible writing. When you write a clever plan or an insane heist or something like that, you tell the audience at least part of what you're doing. They could have given us some info about Dumbledore's plan without the other characters knowing. Deliberately confusing (stupid) plans, too much exposition, cheesy lines, makes you wonder how these people are professionals
@@politemenace5781 and even worse, that plan makes no sense, if Grindelwald can see the future It does not matter how confusing you make your plan, if he could read their minds they could have an excuse but the writters couldnt think of something that obvious
@@MiguelSanchezDelVillar Even worse-worse, Grindlewald CAN read their minds, through using Queenie's power. But the writers... forgot about her? I guess?
They read the script and said wow thats garabge. Than one said, why not take a hut of deadpool and break the 4th wall and just agree that the script is awful then nobody will say its garbage. Yeah thats not how that works.
@@MiguelSanchezDelVillar yes. And I love how they remembered now that Grindelwald can see the future. In the second movie he literally shows everyone a glimpse of the future, but they didn't have to confuse him back then
Honestly, this series ended up being something way different than what I expected/wanted. When I heard Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, I thought we were getting a movie set a looooooong time ago that had Newt traveling across the Wizarding World to discover and write about these beasts. It could have been something like a Wizarding World version of Indiana Jones but with finding rare magical creatures. I thought we would hey to see him go to the various Wizarding Schools around the world that were introduced a few years back by having him meet with a Professor from the school in the area he happens to be exploring. That Professor could have been a guide and it is a way to expand and introduce those various schools without doing a repeat of the original movies. If they needed a "bad guy" for the film (or films), they could have had Wizarding poachers part of a huge global black market or something. Instead, we got a prequel for Dumbledore and Grindelwald with magical creatures shoved in to keep with the title Fantastic Beasts.
@@TothanCrawk I don't think the movie or direction the movies took has anything to do with him being weak. He could be weak and star in a film about him being a magic Steve Irwin. The title of the series has Fantastic Beasts in it, yet has nothing to do with them other than being shoehorned in for the sake of meeting the "Fantastic Beasts" requirement. The first one was Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them based on the educational book Hogwarts students would later read. Instead of Newt discovering these beasts and writing his future book entries, we got a story about him literally finding his beasts because they escaped, his book was already done, and it last few min of the movie showed this was a Grindelwald/Dumbledore prequel. So completely different that what would be expected from a movie titled after an educational book. So now we have magic Steve Irwin somehow forced into fighting a magical equivalent to Magneto when all he wants to do is study his animals.
No, credence's character development was done in 2nd movie, there is no point of retelling same things in next movie, although this is the main weakness of these kind of movies, they does not work as a standalone movie, but they work as series of movies
@@gavykohard1428 I feel like it’s the opposite, these films might have worked better as standalones, Fantastic Beasts in particular; the original, would have been well received, was well received as a single movie but once they made the series all hell broke loose.
Sounds incredibly frustrating, why and how is the audience supposed to connect with a character with changing faces with different actors that do different things?
Short answer total lack of creativity by creativity mean didn't give total freedom create new thing. Reason past movie be inspired cuz not just creativity but mainly freedom for who their really are and in end result became stagnant in really bad way and the cause is overwhelming political heck religion became political in the future if happen.
Ikr. The first movie has a special place in my heart. Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie instantly became favorites of mine. New characters, new stories, new setting. It's like a comfort movie to me. Then they had to shoehorn a shitty story, as well as ruining both Jacob and Queenie's characters (their weird, magic manipulating relationship at the start of the 2nd movie). Kinda reminds me of SW and their need to shoehorn stories important to the "Lore".
They tried to make Grindelwald be Hitler and parallel his rise to power. Both Hitler and Grindelwald are Austrian. Hitler took over Germany in the following way: 1) 1923: Hitler launched a failed coup in Munich and ended up in prison (paralleling Grindelwald in the first Fantastic Beasts film), 2) 1924: Hitler got released from prison early because he was popular. His party started gaining seats in the German Reichstag (German parliament) by giving charismatic speeches against Jews and Communists. (Parallel to the second Fantastic Beasts film, except the speeches were against Muggles.) 3) In early 1932, Hitler gained German citizenship, which allowed him to run in the election only a few months later. The SS became legal again backed by public demand. The SS proceeded to have paramilitary clashes with the Communists. The Nazis win enough seats to force the conservative party to form a government with either them or the Communists. Kurt von Schleicher was made chancellor. He lasted about a month. Instead of reigning in the Nazis as promised, he ended up supporting them and handing his job over to Hitler who repaid the kindness by having him killed in 1934. (Hence why in the third film Grindelwald was exonerated and then allowed to stand for election due to public demand. A bunch of political trickery involving a dead Qilin took place. Finally, a German dude, Anton Vogel, attempted to usher Grindelwald into power by giving Grindelwald his job and would have succeeded except for Newt and Dumbledore's interference.) I'd write more about Hitler's rise to power, but I'd be giving away future plot points of this series. I hate that they did this for several reasons. Firstly, it feels like Dumbledore is doing Rowling's wish fulfilment. You can't "fix" history by imagining yourself or your proxy character going back to change it. The wizarding world is delightful because it is completely separate from our shitty reality. Secondly, they are doing this wish fulfillment while failing to acknowledge all the bad stuff that was really happening in 1932: Great Depression worsens, Japan invades China, and even the real world parallel of Hitler's rise to power are all invisible and unmentioned in the film. It's like the film has a very selective barrier between itself and reality that only let's in ideas the writer wants but none of the other unpleasantness. Thirdly, I hate that Dumbledore actually loved Grindelwald instead of being Infatuated temporarily by power and by his sexual partner. Love is supposed to be the most powerful magic. For Dumbledore, real enduring, emotional love lost to rationality and to "doing what's right." It undermines the "power of love" message from the Harry Potter series.
@@emawerna Your absolutely right heck ever more strange that the movie tittle said "secret of Dumbledore" yet in actually the direction of "Dumbledore" is totally off the route more like "secret of Grinderwald".
Not having the Qilin bowing to Jacob was the biggest missed opportunity. Jacob was shown to have a pure heart throughout the movie, the Qilin was even playful around him. Having the Qilin bowing to him would make the Wizard community to warm up to Muggles (No Majs) then eventually Half-Bloods and Mudbloods. Some other missed opportunities include having Theseus be the spy, Tina Goldstein playing a more active role in searching for her sister and writing out the Karma guy entirely because there was zero point to him being in here. But in my opinion, this franchise was cursed from the start, right back when JK Rowling had this asinine idea of having Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a clear cut solo adventure connected to this huge Wizarding War. I can see Newt seeing Grindelwald once in his life and in regular contact with Dumbledore regarding his books and research, but I cannot see him as part of the legit Dumbledore’s Army. Fantastic Beast should be one solo film, then JK can focus on the Wizarding War series about Dumbledore vs Grindelwald.
The whole film built up to Jacob Kowalski being the pure heart, Dumbledore just speaks it out directly to the camera. And just imagine from a thematic point, how awesome a confectioner muggel as head of wizard world would be, expecially in a film about Naziwizard 2 from Naziwizard Germany. But Rowling was like: "Nah, senpai Dumbledude has to be the chosen one."
@@Sapeidra Funny how you think JK is to blame. Fans are too blame for this. Also why would it be awesome for a Muggle to be had of the Wizarding World? How does that make any kind of sense? It doesn't.
Yes, this would have been a fantastic idea! If Jacob was like the pure heart person that made muggles acceptable to wizards after Grindenald it could have been used to explain why wizards lived at peace with muggles until the Harry Potter time. These last two movies have just been a convoluted mess.
@@HansDester idk man maybe because SHE MADE and WROTE THIS SERIES. also, regarding jacob, why build him up, why foreshadow drop hints about his pure heartedness and then just sideline it to Dumbledore at the last moment. but then youll say, but he' s a muggle it doesnt make sense. but it would have MAde sense based on the story thus far, all the conflict in this wizard war is that one side thinks of muggles as a stain on the earth, that all of muggles deserve to be killed because of world war ii. IF the magic deer bowed to jacob, it would have overturned grindelwalds argument. it would have vindicated thr other side it would have given a lesson that not all muggles or even not everyone is evil because some are evil.
The thing is Dumbledore is NOT pure of heart, it's been years but from what I recall from the books he's done a few shadey things in his past and present to get stuff done, sometimes he is a means to and end guy. But in the end it he could make up for these flaws by being a mentor to pure of heart characters like Harry
Might I just mention that Grindelwald using the Cruciatus Curse (a spell thst requires hatred of the victim and is considered dark enough for an instant prison sentence) on Jacob mere moments after the deer thing "deems him pure of heart" on magical national television is the wizarding world equivalent of going on a talk show with ham juice on your face so the cute puppies lick it to show how nice you are in a grand publicity stunt... only to immediately shoot the host in the face.
@@boyishdude1234 He went to all that trouble to make himself look like a good leader, then immediately used one of the most evil spells in the world. Why would anyone believe he's still a good leader after that?
A spinoff about a ragtag group of characters searching for magical creatures is a cool idea. A spinoff about wizarding history focused on a younger Dumbledore and Grindelwald is a pretty good idea too. But why did they have to *_combine them?_*
@Sergio Astorga it amazes me how they lose easy opportunities for spin-offs. People have been begging for a Marauders tv series for more than a decade. But now everyone is glad it never happened because these new movies are so horrible.
@Halloween All Year Round Grindelwald is the wizarding equivalent to Hitler. He was a blood purist, like Hitler was a race purist. He wanted to subjugate the muggles, like Hitler did with the Jews. They aren't showing in the movies how the wars blend together, but they have the basic eugenicist principle.
Blood Purity was Voldemort's thing. I would have preferred if Grindelwald had been a techno-phobe. He wakes up in bed beside Dumbledore in 1899, and he explains seeing the warplanes and tanks of WWI. Imagine explaining WWI to someone who lives in a world of horses and buggies. Great metal eagles drop fire on unsuspecting cities. Youthful Dumbledore helps spin an anti-muggle, anti-technology narrative. In 1908, ford releases the model T. In 1914, the great war breaks out. In Secrets of Dumbledore, it is 1932, and the Great Depression is still getting worse in the U.S. It is also the year Hitler took over Germany. In 1932 also, Japan invades China. For a wizard, it would be easy to blame everything on technology and end up hating technology. "These muggles are getting out of hand! They'll burn themselves down and us along with them!"
I think the ideas about a series about Dumbledore and a different series about Newt and his beasts would have been great, they would just have to be different franchises, not the same. Edit: thanks for all the likes, I never got this much before!
The way big studios cutout any lgbt scenes from movies nowadays, i doubt if they would've made an entire big budget franchise with a gay main character
@@akshaydalvi1534 It's not like his sexuality matters (storywise, I mean). He's not running around snogging boys, none of his problems are solved by him chatting up a man, in fact, the only reason we even know he's gay is that JK said so after the books came out - before, his and Grindelwald's relationship was written as a slightly toxic friendship at best. His sexuality would literally not have to play into the story at all. Which it doesn't. It was never discussed on screen or on page, the only sources for that are JKs claims in interviews and blog posts, which she has simply refused to put into canon (book OR movie) in one way or another. I don't think that's how it should be, I don't give a heck who the MC likes to hold hands with, but having a nominally gay character is hardly an obstacle even to modern Hollywood. For a popular example, it has been 'revealed' that Peter Quill from the Guardians of the Galaxy is bisexual, but are we ever going to see proof of that in a movie? Of course not, because stuff like that doesn't sell in China.
An issue I had with the film was that there was no set up to a lot of stuff. Albus and Aberforth somehow know Credence is Aberforth’s son. Queenie is suddenly doubting and afraid of Grindlewald. Credence seems to be having doubts in Grindlewald too. It seems like they skipped the film where Albus and Aberforth discover Credence is part of their family and Queenie’s and Credence’s faith in Grindlewald is shaken.
A great way to introduce the characters on the train besides having newt just introduce them, is to have all the characters come to the train car a few minutes apart so we can get two characters interacting and talking and then another joins and interacts and then another. That way we can differentiate everyone’s style and personality individually rather than as a group with each person saying 1 line in a quirky ton
Especially when we consider that that black woman looked like a good old friend of Newt probably from time he spend in Ugadu magic school in Africa where they teach wandless magic
Voldemort cursed this movie franchise the same way he cursed the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher position: in every new movie Gellert Grindelwald has to be played by a new actor
We should have had two separate series, one about Newt’s wacky and lighthearted adventures, and a darker one about Dumbledor and Grindlewald. Either could have been great, but everything has fallen apart in trying to combine them. There’s just no coherent thread holding this story together.
this would work if it was like a comic, with sounds and music, following several people in separate issues. to understand would be to read them all, but you don't need to understand, because things are explained in a world with rules. you could read about this beast, this character and having it made sense without it needing to be shown in a movie but JK's writing has always been that these are charicatures. there is no debt, no growth, no reason for a journey or an adventure.
This was my biggest pet peeve, like... why? It's like JK saw the Tumblr posts about how Dumbledore isn't really a great guy for raising Harry for slaughter, and then decided she would force everyone to remember that "Dumbledore is a good guy with a good heart!". Let alone breaking canon since, while we know he was offered the Ministry for Magic job and declined, his chocolate frog card would have said that he was chosen to be leader of the whole wizarding world, and declined.
Because JK Rowling wants to make it perfectly clear that Dumbledore is a "good gay" now that he's in the closet, just as his ex boyfriend is a homicidal villain because he wants to make a world where he can be out
One element that also killed the movie for me was the election itself. The significance, power, and reach of the International Confederation of Wizards was never properly established in this movie or any of the previous ones. I read all of the Harry Potter books,and I still have no clue how important they are supposed to be. I get the idea that Grindelwald being elected President of it is supposed to be a bad thing, but I have no idea how much of a threat this actually makes him. Is he dictator of the Wizarding World? Commander in Chief? Just the guy who can sign into law the things that his followers push forward? A spiritual leader who is now infinitely more credible (despite already having enough influence to get himself pardoned for crimes witnessed by dozens of wizards)? We don’t even know anything about the other two candidates. What are their tax policies? For all we know, one of them being elected could be far worse, either because they fail to counter Grindelwald or secretly sympathize with him. So, even when the stakes are spelled out, the film still didn’t engage me, as I couldn’t wrap my head around why I should care. Also, I thought the unanimous election at the very end was absurd. Even when Zombie Voting Machine Bambi chose Grindelwald, the other two candidates still got votes. Were there no Grindelwald supporters willing to vote for him regardless of what Bambi said? No followers of the other guy who lost who decided, “I didn’t care what Bambi thought before, and now even that’s been proven unreliable, so why should I care now?” It makes me wonder why Rowling bothered writing this as an election in the first place (outside of political commentary that makes no sense without the real-world context) rather than officially making Bambi the ultimate decision maker.
The movie is afwully mediocre. Its enough to keep you somewhat engaged the first time watching it, but as soon as you walked out the cinema, you forget like 90% of the movie. Which imho is even worse than a bad movie, because bad movies at least can be enjoyed ironically.
I found the entire premise of the deer thing choosing the wizard president because they're "pure of heart" hilarious. First off, the idea that any politician could be "pure of heart" is not only ridiculous in the real world, it also goes against the themes of the original Harry Potter series. Was Cornelius Fudge "pure of heart?" How about Scrimgeour, or Umbridge, or virtually any other character from the Ministry of Magic? The underlying theme for the last 3 books was basically "don't trust the government." The deer thing first decides to bow to Dumbledore, a character that we know is flawed. Then, it bows to some lady that we know literally nothing about, except that she is a career politician who has put herself in position to be a candidate for wizard president. There's no setup of any kind to indicate that she is "pure of heart," but we're just supposed to accept it because the movie is over now. It's stupid.
@@julianpradarodriguez7336 That would make more sense. If the person's motives were pure, then they would be recognized. That still leaves room for the character to be flawed and learn from his/her mistakes.
That actually fits with Rowling's beliefs actually. Shaun did a video on Harry Potter and said that Rowling doesn't believe that the issue is the government system or the way things are but rather the person or people in power, which is why Harry becomes an Auror and Hermione becomes Prime Minister. Nothing can be wrong about the world. It's why house elves don't get rights at the end and Harry's kid goes to Hogwarts 19 years later still thinking Slytherin equals bad.
The heroes choosing to not have any plan to confuse the villain into defeat cause he predicts the future legit sounds like the set up for a comedy movie, but they tried doing it unironically lol
I think one of the craziest way I've seen an antagonist who can predict the future with 100% accuracy be defeated; is the protagonist killing the prediction of their own death with a knife. And yes, it was in The Garden of Sinners.
But they could counter him, they had their own clairvoyant creature that Grindlewald didn't know about until the end of the film. Their plan of having no plan was bullshit.
I still have no clue how Ezra Miller's character is alive. He literally exploded at the end of the first movie, and then he's just magically back in the second movie, not even explained as to how he's alive again.
They said an obscurial can only be killed if he was not transformed and Credence was transformed when they attacked him. What is strange is, that none of American wizards knew about that rule. It s bad writing.
A small piece of his Obscurus flew away after it appeared to have been destroyed. This was shown in the first movie right after the shot of him being "killed," and it wasn't exactly a fast detail that would be really easy to miss like the Book of Vishante in Multiverse of Madness showing Doctor Strange that what he needs to beat Wanda is America Chavez's power. A lot of emphasis was put on it in the cinematography, but not so much so that it was overdone.
@@boyishdude1234thank you for pointing this out, I’ve seen this complaint for years and thought I was going insane for being the only one to notice that Credence’s survival was foreshadowed from the end of the first movie.
@@aquate9637 The books she stole her best ideas from, like Ursula K. Le Guin's Wizards of Earthsea, are really good. The stuff she actually came up with on her own is shit.
@@edrick106 With the way politics shifts in USA , in five years she’s probably gonna be like “ Newt was a transgender non-binary queer person who partially identifies as ~~( something new )”, just being bisexual won’t be enough in five years.
What had me nearly laughing at the end was the crowd reaction to the election results. The entire movie shows an important part of the wizarding world supporting a fascist leader, who wants to basically rule over/enslave the muggle population. The crowd reaction when Grindelwald was chosen confirmed this. But as soon as the second candidate got elected instead everyone was imitatively like "oh yeah so great lets just forget that we tried to enslave billions of people a second ago". They could just clearly split the crowd in two camps or something similar but like that, it was just utterly unbelievable. Also the Dumbeldore Grindelwald fight and the long speeches had ruined the last act beforehand for me anyways. I wanted to like this so badly...
Also being a supporter of a political figure in the HP universe basically starts and ends with gathering in a crowd and chanting their name. All the "Santos Santos Santos!" scenes were hilarious.
@@lasinloser3979 It seemed boring to me. No interesting strategy, no unqiue spells, no flashy colours, etc. The Dumbledore vs. Voldemort fights is hownit should've happened
One thing, as an author, is that when you introduce characters as a group, it is generally advisable NOT to have a large exposition like that, as info dumps are also looked down upon in books, rather you build up to them beforehand, or your work backwards to then show how they know the characters, and there ar many ways to do that, which depends on the characters. Novels are so very different from screenplays, as novels and screenplays condense so much information but in drastically different ways. A screenplay can compound things into an instant, and has different tools at it’s disposal, but a novel needs to figure out when and how to be efficient with word choice. So, still, even then it’s not good.
The fact that when the ending credits rolled in, I didn't know do I want to laugh or cry, summarizes my thoughts about this movie. The actors do a great job, but the plot and it's aspects are badly built and the whole election thing with in the end Queenie marrying Jacob totally blew my mind (in a bad way).
Thing I don't understand is Rowling is a great author (not my cup of tea per se, but I read them for my niece and nephew and they wanted me to finish the series alongside them when they'd grown to reading them on their own. The latter more mature books are definitely readable)... why has she not just stuck with writing books and then making those into movies? ...I mean it's, not like that doesn't WORK....
@@theblackbaron4119 Yea she was basically about to magically mind-potion rape him before Newt stepped in. But they still get together at the end of this movie, so they MUST be just made for each other! /s/s/s/s
I've heard that only first one was supposed to be about Fantastic beasts. The sequels should have been about Grindelwald and originally Newt was not supposed to be in the sequels. But since everybody liked him, he was kept, and so they had to keep it as "Fantastic beasts" which now makes little sense. Way to ruin a franchise.
JK Rowling should just have written another book series to be later adapted into movies, just like HP. That way, she would have been able to tell the story she wanted without anyone interfering, and professional screenwriters would have been in charge of adapting it into movies, and the audience could have chosen what they liked best.
Let’s admit it, she hit her stride with Harry Potter and since then she’s been riding on that cuz of the popularity it gained, I’m sure like any writer she didn’t expect this large of a level of success, but now she’s taken advantage of it cuz she can and we have to suffer for it
Fun Fact: All lines said by Ezra Miller in this movie were unscripted. He was simply coming to the Fantastic Beasts sets at random days/times, in costume, yelling and screaming.
I was expected that the little "Ganyu" will bow to Jacob because the whole movie actually building his character as simple pure man. That also will be quite interesting situation in wizarding community, although the muggle/no-majs will not allowed to take the place but they actually have a capability and equal with wizard in some way. Or in another scenario, the Qilin will bow to Newt. I mean, just in previous movie Dumbledore himself said that Newt doesn't seek power which something that he lacks, we also saw how fair and pure hearted Newt was both for fellow human and especially for his fantastic beasts, he is Hufflepuff after all. But yeah, Dumbledore is the chosen one, so just make the little Ganyu bow at him.
What i hate that the last movie was about Lita Lestrange and her relationship with Newt and his brother, and she sacrificed herself for them and they did not mention her once😆 Theseus was engaged to her, didn't realy seemed bothered by the loss😅
That was a way to present him and make his personality through the movie, because the love of his life died less than a decade ago, and he doesn't look like he cares to remember! That can be a way to cope for him, but they lost the opportunity to use him instead of newt for being the embassator of dumbledore in convincing the british minister of magic to not help grindelwald, like having an emotional confession from him: "he killed my wife even though she went to his side, he will do it to you sooner or later", he managed to gush out with bloodshot eyes, or something like that. That would have killed two problems the video mentioned with one stone, doing something pointless or getting a little character arc from newt's brother while introducing why convincing that man mattered by making the scene emotional, even more so since newt's brother was supossed to be an auror from the ministry. It didn't matter if the outcome was the same and they didn't manage to convince the minister, to be sent to prison and watch the funny dance they did, the scene would have had more weight to it.
That should be the motivation for his brother!!! He doesn't give a shit to the point of being uncanny, he should be driven by revenge and should not give a fuck about Dumbledores plan, heck, you could have a very good plot device there with him ruining the plan because he desperately wants to avenge Lita.
I really wanted this franchise to work but when i first watched the very first movie, i'd have thought it was Newt being a magic zoologist collecting, saving, recording, and showing the importance and passion of his work and the animals he cares for. Not some political schlock with subplots after subplots that no one cares for. In a sense, the first film still had some of the fantastic beasts... but the rest is just some stuff that I never really cared being told in movie format even as a fan of HP. We all know Grindelwald will be thwarted. That's been revealed in the HP books. It should have focused on something else other than that.
They should've stopped after the first movie it was a good stand alone movie. And then they should've announced the Dumbledore film series. only revolving around dumbledore so Newt doesn't play second violin in his own series
@@michiel1162 Agreed. I don't have any problem with them introducing Grindelwald at the end of the first movie as a lead-in to another story, especially since his involvement in the first movie largely revolved specifically around...well...a fantastic beast. But I feel like they should have branched it off into two separate film series after that. One that focuses on Newt's adventures discovering and cataloguing fantastic beasts, and another focusing on the conflict with Grindelwald. I could absolutely see the Harry Potter franchise being able to successfully follow model similar to the MCU if done right, occasionally introducing another big character/plot point/setpiece that leads into its own separate story with occasional crossovers when it's relevant. Instead, they took a series called "Fantastic Beasts" and made the fantastic beasts a subplot while desperately bending over backwards to find ways to shoehorn the central figure into a story that doesn't focus on the very thing that justified him being the lead character to begin with.
Similar to Game of Thrones (Seasons 7-8), it breaks my heart that this amount of talent, both on and off screen, is completely overshadowed by bad writing
Except for Voldemort. He can do magic with just a stare. We saw that when he as professor Squirrel threw bad eye on Harry Potter in order to make him fall from the broom
I agree that Newt definitely deserves a series solely to him and his fantastical beasts and the adventures that he has travelling around the world. But I also think that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's story have so much potential too. Like they could've dwelled into their teen stage, their relationship and how they met and the hallows without rushing and smushing the storyline with Newts and adding more thought-out context to it.
I would re write the entire ending, Dumbledore didn't show himself as a "pure of heart" character as he was basically trying to clean his mistakes and ended up involving people that didn't really had anything to do with those mistakes like Newt, unlike the muggle (forgot his name) that risked his life and wellbeing to help not only the love of his life that became a magical nazi but also his friend. The Quilin should've bowed to the muggle, but since he can't assume for obvious reasons they require it to choose someone else, maybe have him bow to Newt too since he has shown multiple times he is deeply compassionate and don't think twice before putting his life on the line or breaking any laws for the good of others, Newt refuses and then the final selection is made. There shouldn't have a moment of putting Dumbledore as a "perfect" wizard as he can sometimes act like an A-hole and while he is a great wizard that is knowledgeable is a lot of things and arguably the most genial wizard alive, this doesn't mean he doesn't have flaws.
Exactly! I really takes away from his arc in the books; Harry idolizes him and sees him as the ideal wizard until he meets him in the train station, where Dumbledore reveals how his mistakes cost many lives and he sees himself being even less fit to be Minister of Magic than Fudge. The twist is that he's flawed and selfish but at least he knows it and still tries to be a good person. But nvm, he must have been pulling Harry's leg when he said that, he's actually perfect because wizard bambi bowed to him
Rowling has messed up her canon and timelines MULTIPLE times even before the first Fantastic Beast movie. I think it's obvious by now that she doesn't fact-check before releasing her factoids.
I don't know if she changed her coke dealer before writing that part because it honestly feels that while she was under the influence of better quality drugs she was going to make the magic horse bow to the muggle, yes, he can't "rule" but isn't the whole point of the movie to let go biases? Wouldn't Grinderwall plan fail miserably if he loses the support of his xenophobic followers? Maybe after watching magic horse bow to a muggle some of them would change their minds, that makes way more sense that it bows to the guy that was proven to be a callous prick in the last HP movies.
Everyone has flaws, though. “Pure of heart” can’t mean “flawless.” It must mean willing to sacrifice or work for the good of others without selfish ambition. I think it can be argued that Dumbledore learned his lesson from his youthful mistakes and has become “pure of heart.” He is willing to reject power in order to avoid being corrupted and instead of agreeing to lead the world, he retires to a position teaching and running a school. I think that was meant to confirm that he was redeemed and had become willing to do the right thing no matter the cost to himself. BUT yes, Newt and Jacob are clearly also “pure of heart.” Jacob likely wouldn’t be considered since he wasn’t a wizard, but why not Newt. I mean, there were probably random people in the crowd also pure of heart. Maybe it only considers those on the platform or within a certain distance? How does it choose the order of bowing when there is more than one option? Maybe Newt would have been next? Still would have been a cool character moment if it bowed to Jacob to show him honor even though he couldn’t be elected.
It feels like the whole scene of him giving it food was going to be a setup for that, which would have made a great deal of sense thematically since Grindelwald's entire campaign was anti muggle
Yep. When I saw this on HBO MAX recently, I did not even know it was a thing and thought it was the last movie renamed..LOL They really did a poor, poor job of promoting this movie
I love the Charms teacher. I would love for her to have her own story. She also had the best display of magic. It’s usually just laser beams but with her it’s creative.
Agreed Lallie was great, and to boot shows that while yes transfiguration is the go to for combative magic. You can be very creative with charms in combat when in a pinch.
not actually a problem in the books, they're not stand battle crazy, but they are chaotic with all sorts of magical effects going off and environmental hazards. I'd blame the reliance on beam clashes on directors.
@@bmetalfish3928 I agree. I’ve always been annoyed at how boring the movie versions of battles are especially since the source material isn’t like that
Finally someone who mentioned the "confusing Grindelwald" thing as the main problem! To be honest, I didn't feel anything while watching the movie. No amazement, no sadness, no joy, nothing. The only time I really felt something was when I was raging about the Qilin going to Dumbledore and even now I'm asking myself: "Why the in the world did it go to Dumbledore?! Why not to Newt or Jacob perhaps?" The way the entire movie is basicly pointless and they managed to butcher the only scene that wasn't... I literally can't with Fantastic Beasts at this point! Unpopular opinion: The 2nd movie was better than THIS, even if it wasn't logical, because it at least had something of a purpose.
The second movie had a cool fight that showed the power of Grindelwald (convincing preacher and incredibly strong wizard), instead of the normal "point really hard at your opponent"
@@mickys8065 That also, but I also mean story-wise. Yes, it could have been better if Credence would have turned out to be Corvus Lestrange V. and not some "Aurelius Dumbledore"-Guy we never heard about for some reason, it would have been better if Leta wouldn't have died (or died in another movie), but at least there was build-up and a point, even if tne movie was executed clumsily.
@@mickys8065 What was the cool Grindelwald fight? He just did a big fire dragon. I never bought Depp and while this movie has many flaws, Mads proves he needed nothing to be a competent Grindelwald.
@@OsSas3 The big fire dragon that he controlled to kill many wizards and which took several more to dispel, two of which were the heads of their respective auror departments. In comparison, Mads did nothing to set him apart from someone like Lucius Malfoy.
@@mickys8065 Yeah, that's not a duel. The WW got so many amazing spells and the only competent duels we got were Dumbledore vs Voldemort and barely Dumbledore vs Credence, we needed mor of that. Mads was so charismatic in the scene where he goes to mix with the people and everyone chanted his name, he was cold blooded when he sacrificed the magical deer. Depp rely TOO much on theatricality and weird appearance.
Ignoring the critical issues with this movie, the fact that Warner Bros said this films commercial success would determine the future of the Wizarding World in cinema and then there was barely any marketing ruined this movie's chances. My mom is a huge Harry Potter fan, read the books several times, saw all the movies in cinema including the first two Fantastic Beasts movies, and was one of the few who liked Crimes of Grindelwald. Despite that, she never saw a single person talking about the movie or even a single ad for the movie and as a result, she never saw the movie while it was in theaters, making it the first Harry Potter related movie she didn't see in theaters. Warner Bros relied on a movie of this quality and less marketing than freaking Morbius (no not memes, I mean actual marketing from the company behind the movie) to be what decides the fate of this entire universe in film, and I just find that really sad since I also really like the Wizarding World and want this franchise to be the best it can be, but Warner Bros just doesn't seem to care anymore. I mean, Hogwarts Legacy is one of my most anticipated games releasing this year, only behind Splatoon 3 at this point (and maybe Hollow Knight Silksong if it ever releases), and my second most anticipated single player game for the time being only behind Breath of the Wild 2. I want this franchise to succeed, but WB just doesn't seem to care anymore and just wants a corpse to use as a cash cow.
... I would not call spending $21 million on US advertising "barely any marketing." (*edited to replace "marketing"---the US ad campaign, per ispot, yielded 958 million impressions; can't find the total marketing budget, only a Reuters article describing it as "tens of millions")
@@Klishar122 Considering the usual rule of thumb is that the marketing and distribution budget is around 50% as big as the production budget, $21 million would be pretty small for a $200 million production budget.
@@1337-Nathaniel huh. I saw ads for it all the time, and the ad buys seems pretty successful. funny how the people reached vs. not reach can vary so widely. Unfortunately, poor word of mouth probably killed this thing---it had a huge drop off from week one to week two. So, at least you saved yourself the price of a ticket!
The fact that Warner Bros paid both Depp and Mads Mikkelsen (they paid Depp around $10 million because of their contract, and paid Mikkelsen $16 million) for the same role in a movie that would end up failing financially is hilarious. Corporate karma at its finest.
And the movie doesn't fail because Depp isn't in it. It fails for exactly the same reason as the 2 movies with Depp in them failed. It failed due to poor writing (thanks JK Rowling for interfering), poor character development for too many characters and a lack of a clear direction from the movie, with a start to finish mapped out. It tries to be several things at the same time, while failing to be any of them interestingly. It kind of fell into the same trap as the Hobbit trilogy.
@@larslundandersen7722 I actually agree with everything you said, I was just saying that the grindelwald recasting was the cherry on top of everything you said. Not only because of the public scorn against the recasting, but the extra money WB had to pay to do the recasting at all.
The last movie: Tells us Aurelius who has never learned any spells or how to use magic is OP and can defeat Albus This movie: Proceeds to show Aurelius getting bodied by a not serious Albus.
As an amateur writer, this video has not only helped me to further understand how to write scripts but also how to write stories in general. Many of the points made actually inspired me to jot down some ideas for a novel I would like to publish in the future. Really great and informative video!
Arthur C Clarke is alleged to have said "Writing a novel is like swimming in the sea; writing a film script is like thrashing through treacle." It's not easy, and JKR would be well advised to familiarize herself with the interplay that occurred between Kubrick and Clarke when filming 2001: A Space Odyssey.
maybe she need to split this movie into few parts so she can have more time to build the character and the world, like: part 1: The Secrets and The Dumbledore part 2: 2 Secrets 2 Dumbledore part 3: Secret and the Dumbledore - Hogwarts Drift part 4: Secrets & Dumbledore part 5: Secret Five part 6: Secrets and The Dumbledore 6 part 7: The Fate of Dumbledore
Personally, I felt that this wasn't a "bad" movie per se, but it definitely wasn't very memorable. The first thought I had when I walked out of the theatre was "What just happened?" which, you know, isn't a really good sign
Well it didn't happen anything tbh. The bad guy is still on the lose with a massive supporter. The good guy crew is back together again. The only thing is changed is dumbledore can fight the bad guy (I forget the name)
I found it to be absolutely awful.. There's on direction or sense in the writing at all.. it's a typical "stuff happens and people do stuff" movie, where one thing barely leads tot he next and we as the audience is just expected to accept it.
@@toobig7150 eh even then, at least a game lets you have fun outside the story. Fantastic Beasts would be more fun if you could go off script and just do open world schenanegans 😅
Thank you so much for your videos man. I see movies differently because of you, I notice so many things from the perspective of writing and character motivations. I always knew if I liked or disliked a movie but after watching your videos I can finally see why I like or dislike them. You've given me a vocabulary for movies and respect for movie critics that I never understood before.
I m such a big fan of harry potter movies like i watch harry potter movies every 3 months..even i enjoyed crimes of grindelwald...not in my worst dream i thougt that the movie will be this bad..i didnt feel connected to story and often confused..i completed the movie jst because i dont want to leave at middle ..i m really disappointed..i used to search after crimes of grindelwald that whats going on ...when the movie start shooting..i literally counted my days...😭😭😭
I think a good and quick change would be if Newt is afraid of his brother, Theseus, b/c he's bullied him their entire lives. That way, as the movie progresses, Theseus learns to love beasts too and comes to respect Newt. They could've had it when Theseus gets captured, Newt has to abandon an important mission to go save someone he hates (an enemy). Then when Newt uses his beast knowledge to save Theseus without violence, Theseus would saying something like, "I was wrong and I'm sorry." That way, it's a strong emotional transition from 2A to 2B.
We can see that Newt and Theseus’ relationship is somewhat strained in the first movies, and I’m incredibly sad that they didn’t’ take the chance to expand upon that plot point. With more elaboration and carefully handled execution, your idea sounds great!
The problem is: We never saw Theseus being a bad brother. Newt talks shit about him in the first movie so when he's introduced you expect a cliche big brother who is always picking on his little brother and we got someone who actually care for Newt's future and it's A BIT judgemental about his career, that's it. We needed to have that friction since the second movie or else it would feel out of place.
@@OsSas3 they also could've tied in the idea that Theseus is projecting his guilt about Leta's death onto Newt and blaming him in some way. It could've built into a hard emotional moment where Theseus warns the group that when Newt gets involved, people around him die.
@@Evelyn_Okay THIS. I love your idea, it also adds something to the character of Theseus and could be the reason why he gets captured by ignoring Newt and then gets saved by him, fixing the tension.
Even with her books, JK didn't exactly work on the series by herself, Harry Potter was a team effort. She's frequently discussed how she'd submit versions of the material to her editor, who'd then correct inconsistencies within the story, suggest changes to the narrative, and remind Rowling of her own canon. Once she and her editor were comfortable with their final draft, they'd submit it to the publisher who'd make some suggestions about changes, JK would make adjustments and then the Publisher moved the book to print. Screenplay aside, the numerous inconsistencies are incrementally stacking with each new Fantastic Beasts movie and it's a little jarring, to say the least.
@@kalebgray1050 Yes, I'm aware of the standard book publishing process. However, I wanted to focus on JK Rowling specifically, not the industry as a whole. In relevance JK, we can see the difference in the quality of the writing without any outside help. She should have people there to piggyback ideas off of or genuinely tell her that some of her ideas don't make sense in the larger narrative of the Wizarding World (specifically Harry Potter). But it was obvious that WB execs were too scared of pissing her off, so they let her do whatever she wanted with the first 2 Fantastic Beast movies.
@@lucariomew365 She did have those people. They’re called producers and studio executives and Kloves helped her as well on the first two. You don’t think she just submitted a final script without anyone seeing it first do you?
@@dasik84 And the fact that they greenlit FB 2, while keeping her as screenwriters says it all. Also, a movie producer isn't going to have same level of scrutiny.
What baffles me is the fact that on the first movie, they set the world as if the wizards don't known about magical creatures, because no one has take his time to study them, and then, in this movie, the next leader of the wizarding world is elected by magical bambi, and everyone knows that a quilin only bows to someone worthy, so we come from a world where no wizard trust or knows nothing about magical creatures, to a world where magical bambi elects the next leader, and everyone seems fine with that.
this not harry potter franchise would probably do better as a tv series without such a big plot (and without jk rowling), we really could have had newt and jacob catching pokemon
Since the second movie, the "Fantastic Beasts" title feels really forced on this series. They only keep it because the executives want to make another anthology with multiple parts just like Harry Potter. But in my opinion, that whole struggle to be just like the previous story is boring, the first Fantastic Beasts was okay, although it had some flaws, but it was enjoyable, because it's told a story about some weird guy who just wants to capture some endangered species in America, meanwhile the film has kept a bit of the atmoshpere and visual from the last 3 Harry Potter movies, BUT it didn't really want to act like one of them. I'd prefer if the creators just leave Salmander in the first movie, and the next one can drop the "Fantastic Beast" name and replace it completely with "Crimes of Grindelwald", and this one can focus on new characters (mostly from America) who are trying to chase Grindelwald, for example. And each part of this "anthology" could have its on story in this era. And maybe, just maybe it wouldn't be so repetitive.
The fact that they're still calling it "Fantastic Beasts" has to be the most egregiously cynical and corporate attempt at hogging name recognition in recent memory, how fucking desperate do you have to be to attach the name of an expanded universe mockumentary book to a completely unrelated film series just so you can say its an adaptation. It would have been absolutely fine if they had just had two or three films about Newt and his friends with a bunch of background details that set up a wholly separate prequel tetralogy about Dumbledore but no it's name recognition or death in this industry.
This movie series honestly breaks my heart. Say what you want about the Harry Potter movies, each one functions as a competent movie and for real fans is a place of magic and childhood memories. This is a spit in the face to all fans as far as I’m concerned. And for a self proclaimed “feminist” the “bad witch” in this movie is so badly written and has no individuality of her own. Smh…
A lot of people who become villains have a massive shortcoming in their personality somewhere. You usually either get the "Situation made me evil." villain and the "I'm too weak as a person to do things right." villain.
If "Grindelwald as the ability to see snatches of the future" and Dumbledore know him so well so that he sent is Ocean 11 team to confuse him, how come Dumbledore did not put much credence in divination and Trelaney in the Harry Potter books ? I know he mainly offered her a job at Hogwart to protect her from Tom and his followers. Just wondering
OMG you got this on exactly on point! I resumee in my own words: I don't like all the phantastic beasts serie. Why? 1. The costumes and the styles. Capes? Where are the capes that almost every wizard wears? Unlike in this movies, the acutal wizarding world of Harry Potter plays in a universe, that remembers more like a fairytale-world with extravagant clothes, old fashioned styles, almost mideval...the nostalgic vibes we get from Harry Potter is what makes it so magical. This movies instead looks more like a future version of the Harry Potter century....it makes no sense. 2. The missing magic. Although we have some wooden sticks, that people are using mechanically like every single muggle could use a weapon, and although it's supposed to look like magic, it doesnt. We learned, that every spell has it's own choreography, it's own spelling words, it's own emotion and atmosphere. You cannot be frightend and swear some deadly spells without changing your whole aura. It doens't appear magical for me. Did I mention the boring movie soundtrack? They had acutally the possibility to create something new, epic, beautiful, but instead they are just messing it up again and again...I didn't get magic-vibes at all. Did you? 3. The actors. Shouldn't hire super famous actors like Johnny Depp (he's famous for being Captain Jack Sparrow!) on the first place. But than changing the actor was even a worst desicion. And even if the other ones are good actors, Dumbledor is diffrent for me. In the books and the Harry Potter movies he is funny, playful, kind, wise, calm and has a big, pure heart. Jude Law is a perfect Sherlock Homes. But a Dumbledore? Even Eddy Redmayne (Newt Scamander) could be a more convincing version of the younger Dumbledore-Version, than a total serious Jude Law. I doesn't feel like some of the actors really enganged with their future characters in the books and HP-movies. It's not convincing for me. 4. The storyline. Or should I say, the missing one? Too many things happening simultaniously, too many people introduced at once, without really introducing them to the audience... Did acutally someone understand what was happening and why? Could actually someone explain what is going on? Why are there plenty new characters, introduced like the audience is supposed to know who this is? It's a big, messy, confusion. And that's why it was boooring like no movie before. That's the diffrence of Harry Potter. You could easlily watch the first four movies for it's own and you would understand anytime what's going on, even if it would be the first time ever you would see one of them. For fantastic beasts you need to be a hardcore-super-hp-studied-fan, to understand who this is, what this is, why this is and what's happening at all... This was the worst movie in the entire HP-World ever. I felt so cringe, I couldn't even watch the first hour completely, until I felt so confused, so cringe and so bored, that I turned the TV of. I don't know if it would be smart to contiune like this. Better hire Chris Clumbus (regisseur), John Williams (music), Judianna Makovsky (costume) and John Seale (camera) from the first cast again. Steve Kloves messed this time the script up, unfortunately. And: Never make a movie about a non existing story. Let J.K. Rowling write a book first, before even thinking about making a movie out of some scraps of side-informations of her books. And I agree: She can write books unlike anyone else, but she's a desaster in writing movie or theatre scripts. It's simply not working for the entire picture. Sorry. Without the team of the first two movies, J.K. Rowling's HP-Universe would never get a second part and be just forgotten like the wonderful story of "His dark materials" from Phillip Pullman. So if the wizard world of HP got that big, it's not just because of J.K. Rowling's ideas. It's especially because of the great movie team from the first two years that adapted a perfect alinged story of a great book. Never forgeth this 😉👍
@@JeaninBrown It was established he was dying - because Phoenix was flying around him. And Ezra Miller has HUGE problems now, so they're probably super happy his character died.
They should just have used the first movie as a setup for two movie franchises that told their own separate stories. One about fantastic beasts and one about Dumbledore taking down Grindelwald. I’m still saddened we didn’t get a movie about a young Dumbledore and all the tragic events in his early life.
the first movie was what was expected, catching magical creatures but also introducing an evil wizard who could use the creatures in order to fulfill his desires, if they had stuck with newt traveling to countries for beasts instead of making it political and about dumbledore we could of had a great series
Or if they wanted to bring it into real world issues, make it the very obvious Biodiversity Conservation one, but with rare magical creatures instead of real endangered species.
@@karolinakuc4783 The first Fantastic Beasts came out seven years after the first Avatar. The general audience probably would not have been primed to do a comparison, there wouldn't have been anything risky about the timing, especially not with a franchise like Harry Potter.
forget dumbledore and grindelwald. we want a "the wizard in the hopping pop, babbity rabbity, and the cackling stump" spin-off series. The spin-offs we all deserve.
My complains : - there is less Hufflepuff energy. I feel like watching another Gryffindor movie. - there are very little Fantastic Beasts despite the title - there are less worldbuilding and lores. The feeling of finding and exploring something new, new world.
I’m sorry, what? The entire plot is literally based on a fantastic beast, we get introduced to the German Ministry of magic and the place where magic was believed to have originated from.
@@anna-flora999 true heck some old fans of Harry Potter want something new by new mean beyond past previous movie . Make a prequel by using fantastic beast movie is so strange in a bad way cuz people in current new something total fresh idea just what it did from the first fantastic beast. If anything else they should make spin off about something we didn't know about wizard world or make a prequel character relate event before we know what happen by the end of it like some teachers from defense of dark magic,some students that exists before Harry Potter came to Hogwarts , heck make a story of Voldemort cuz yes we know who is really is but still curious about previous year and many more.
What annoyed me the most about this movie is that they invent new stuff into the wizarding world that never existed in the harry potter movies. Like how come we have never heard that there was a global leader of the magic community? In the harry potter books it seemed that every country has its ministry of magic and that was it. There was never any mention of a global leader or that he or she was elected by magic bambi. Its just stupid to invent new stuff in prequels, thats what sequels are for. It breaks the entire timeline. Also: this movie is set in 1933 but from the books we know that the fight between dumbledore and grindelwald happens in 1945. So is dumbledore just gonna chill for 13 years or what? This movie just doesnt make sense on so many levels its baffling me.
The creatures also seems so outta point. Like, just look at that "bird" thing that carries Newt away on the beggining of the movie. Can you imagine something like that on the Harry Potter saga? It's just ludicrous. Also, magic seems so easy on these movies, with every side character acting like Merlin or something, that Dumbledore and Grindelwald don't even feel that special anymore.
@@Matpeixelegal oh and that short fight between dumbledore and grindelwald is also absolutely pathetic. Its one of those "red beam vs. Green beam" fights while the actors are squinting at each other. Why cant we have epic fights like the one in order of the phoenix with dumbledore and voldemord anymore?
My main problem is multiple plots that go nowhere. Animals that are introduced with no purpose just because of the title, family relations that are mentioned every other time, broken friendships, political elections. We're in the third movie and Grindelwald did not accomplish anything with an extensive army behind him. There are so many questions to answer, so many characters that appear and disappear out of thin air. Is just a waste of time.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I feel like I'd enjoy these stories way more as books, where JK Rowling's worldbuilding and writing style can have proper space to breathe and develop.
I love how this entire movie's premise is based around the break of one of HP's most important laws regarding magic: It's impossible to ressurrect the dead.
Have to disagree on this. They didn’t resurrect the dead Qilin. Zombifying a corpse to do your bidding happened in the original books during Voldermort’s war as well as caused the death of the 2nd Peverell brother when he asked the resurrection stone to bring back his lover but she could only act like a zombie, driving him to suicide (Also not sure but the Imperius curse can probably be used on a corpse). Law is not against animating the dead, but giving them their lives back.
@@ruknoonshadiddinder9801 However, wasn't the Resurrection Stone supposed to be one of a kind? The only real way of bringing souls back, as unnatural as it may be. I know Dumbledore said the Peverells were probably just very skilled wizards but I like to think they DID have some sort of "additional" help, since their three creations were beyond anything any other wizard has ever created. A Philosopher's Stone is "skilled wizard" territory. Those 3 gizmos were beyond that.
The Most desaturated fight in this "Movie" has two characters that dont really want to kill each other because they have a very deep Very easy for china to cut out,love for each other
They explained why Dumbledore and Grindelwald fought each other...the vow was broken because they each tried to do something to a third party (one protected, the other attacked). the vow was then void as they avoided direct conflict but ended up engaging each other anyway...it's like a loophole no one knew about.
Very good points! I agree with everything. A huge improvement to this movie would have been tp get rid of all unecessary characters and just focus on the ones we know. The professor witch for example - she contributed nothing that a character like Tina couldn’t contribute. Why was Tina off being ”busy” and the professor witch part of the team instead? Didn’t make any sense. Tina should have had her role and since she has a romantic relationship to Newt that would have raised the stakes immediately. But I think the main issue is that the story couldn’t make up its mind about who is the main character. Newt? Dumbledore? Jakob? Pick ONE and stick to this character!! Since the movie couldn’t make up its mind everything fell apart. It turned all these characters passive and weak, made sure neither had enough story for a two hour movie, and since Grindewald doesn’t really care about any of them (maybe Dumbledore a bit but not nearly enough) he didn’t serve as an effective antagonist. This script was not ready, it needed more work. I mean just the fact that the plan was ”no plan”?? And the audience was invited on this ”no plan” adventure? meh :|
Secrets of Dumbledore is just the franchise’s mismanagement/power struggle coming home to roost. The cracks were there with Crimes of Grindelwald, but this is just further proof of how we need a break from the constant Wizarding World content for both our and it’s own sakes. And that’s without touching on the hair trigger nuke that is the politics.
The spin off stuff was awful anyways the first one was so bad it was entertaining, the second one was just bad and I'm not going to bother watching the third one alone maybe in a watch party (drunk) together.
@@AlfredoPuente8 A person with those names and surname died in 2014. I am not sure if my communication skills can work with dead people. What other authors should I check?
@@pyktukasplays4945 I don’t know if it’s “wasting time” in books but sometimes you can put in too much detail in books that some people will read, and others will skim over. Like JRR Tolkien’s books. I loved the stories but learned early on that if there was going to be a lengthy song or page of lore about a tree or a horse (which most fans probably love) I would be best served skimming those bits. But in a theatre you can’t skim anything. 😃
Why are people liking your post lol. What a stupid idea. I’d rather have a concise book of 300 pages that doesn’t ramble on with filler than a 900 page book that does. It’s one of the reasons the Eragon series did so poorly, it was just too long
I remember these movies and Curse child were compared in a sense that Curse child is a bad story with good execution while the Fantastic Beast films are a good story with bad execution
Hey Filmento! Just wanted to thank you for giving me inspiration to start writing on my own, your tips and movie analysis are so helpful in a way that they help me know what pitfalls I should avoid. Thank you for your amazing content!
Someone really needs to intervene with rowling when she’s writing this stuff. You just had to write a film about a twink going off and finding magical creatures and we’ve ended up with this
Can we also talk about the fact that the Chillin's choice was just a guide/best recommendation. Like you could still vote for whoever, so what real power does it truly have?
It's the same way with Quidditch if you think about it. The Chillin's choice is useless, just something cool to have, like scoring in Quidditch. "Like you could just catch the Golden Snitch to win, so what real power does is truly have to score points?"
@@carlosjuniorbrandao78 catching the golden snitch doesn't make you win automatically, it gives you 500 points or something like that. There were few times (in the book at least) when catching the snitch didn't make the team win because they still had fewer points
@@carlosjuniorbrandao78 Hey, no, no, there was that one match where the seeker caught the snitch and lost because there was no way to beat the other team…and reports of matches that lasted days or weeks. I imagine the scoring matters a lot more then. The students at Hogwarts were just way better seekers than anyone else ever, so the games ended quickly before much scoring could take place. (I actually agree that Quidditch rules are kinda dumb…why score? Just block for your seeker, distract the other team’s seeker, and help him/her look for the snitch…)
@@kellifizw.8846 Oh I agree. I am saying financially, this movie would have probably earned another sequel IF Depp had been kept in it. Regardless of writing
@A Catalan Liam Johnny Depp has hundreds of thousands of fans that will watch anything he is in, yes. Again, I am not saying it'd make the movie good. but I am saying it would have made a fuckton more money. Mads is brilliant, but he does not command a fandom like Johnny.
Wouldn't have even cared for Johnny Depp returning, just the fact that Grindelwald's character sucks in this movie. Before he seemed almost anarchistic, crazy even, which goes through with his crazy idea for a war. The thing is here he just seems like your average fascist strong leader, and that is pretty awful. He's supposed to be a dangerous free spirit, not caring about the casualties. Here he seems to collected, too prepared for the war.
@@thehippie3610 People forget Johnny Depp was in flop after flop before his career stalled; Black Mass, Mordecai, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Transcendence, Lone Ranger, and no one really cared for his role in Crimes of Grindelwald. I don't think he would have had much impact on this movie's success, I think the reception of the last movie could with JK's own controversies really killed the momentum of this franchise
The big problem with these movies is that they don't deliver what they promised. On one hand we have a main character that is relegated to secondary. From a really passionate researcher that is willing to do anything for his research, and to change the magical society's view on magical creatures, to Dumbledore's sidekick who's really good with animals. On the other hand we have Dumbledore, one of the most interesting character on the HP saga, who's past hide many secrets, none of which are answered so far. Instead being presented with new misteries that are way less interesting.
"And if most of your second act would ultimately function the same way if your characters stayed at home to confuse the villian by watching TV, that's not earning anything" - this line is great, and really nailed it for me - exactly why these feel so pointless and boring.
The four things that really damned this movie for me were: 1. Improper use of Jacob as a Proxy Character. 2. Improper use of Bunty and Yusuf. 3. Improper use of the Blood Pact. 4. Loss of momentum from the previous film. The entire election thing was to name the next Supreme Mugwump, which is the Head of the International Confederation of Wizards; a sort of super-minister above all of the individual Ministers of Magic of each country. I honestly don't recall if the word "Mugwump" was ever spoken even once in the movie. The viewer is left completely confused as to what this election is even for. If Jacob had asked someone what the election was, a simple cutaway could have been shown that explained the system to our Proxy Character and in turn explained it to us viewers as well. Bunty and Yusuf were so bland in this movie, you could probably swap their roles and it wouldn't have the changed the movie one tick. They should have been shown using some sort of signature that made them both unique. Bunty is supposed to be Newt's assistant; she ought to be just, if not close to, as knowledgeable about Fantastic Beasts as he is. Yet, aside from the two beasts of her shoulders when she is introduced, we never see her interacting with a beast at all. She should have been the one to explain how Qillns work to our proxy character Jacob so as to display her knowledge. Yusuf should have done more, just in general. [She Who Must Not Be Named] did the exact same thing in this movie as she did in the larger Harry Potter books; she wrote herself into a corner and hastily threw away a plot element to resolve the problem too quickly. In the books, the introduction of the Time Turner opened up a boat load of uncomfortable time travel questions, forcing the narrative into an equally uncomfortable corner. That mistake was too quickly resolved by having the kids smash all the Time Turners in the Ministry of Magic. Likewise, the Blood Pact between Dumbledore and Grindlewald wrote the two into a corner. We know from Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog Card way back in the first Harry Potter movie/book that he is to defeat Grindlewald in combat. That cannot happen as long as the Blood Pact exists, so we know it has to either be destroyed or otherwise circumvented in some form, making the Blood Pact an obstacle to overcome. Having it so hastily shattered over such a meaningless exchange in this movie makes me ask why it was even introduced in the first place. The last Fantastic Beasts film showed us the urgency of Nagini's Maledictus curse, as she has little time left as a human and lives as an outcaste because of it, bonding with Credence over that outcaste status. In this film, she's... not there. At all. What happened to that urgency? Further, the climax of the last film had the whole bit about the babies being swapped on the boat, one of them being Credence. Does that mean that Aberforth is NOT Credence's father? Where did that plot element go? Keeping plot narratives alive is like spinning plates. You need to revisit important elements every few scenes and give them another spin, elsewise, the plate falls and the audience forgets that that was a thing. I suppose Nagini and the baby swapping thing will make a reoccurrence in the next Fantastic Beasts film, but both plot points have gone cold now because of this movie. It's too late.
This movie was the “the rise of sky walker” of Harry Potter. Both tried to get us to like the terrible movies by using nostalgia with old songs and old characters, I half expected Hagrid or Voldemort as a baby to show up for no reason
@@techblizmax9660 Are you trying to say that "Somehow Palpatine Returned" was the GOOD part of that movie? Could've just let Kylo turn fully dark after failing to be redeemed twice in the past 2 movies and used him as a far more interesting villain.
I guess one other thing she’s got going for her is that she actually finishes her book series. Not like George R R Martin (I’ve given up waiting for his next book) or Patrick Rothfuss (the dude is an amazing author, but maybe he should stop crapping on Rowling for her “lack of style” and focus on finishing his trilogy of books first)
I feel like J.K.R's fundamental issue is that she has an extremely essentialized world view. Bad people are bad people, because they are bad people. Good people do good things, because they are good people. A elven race of slaves are a race of slaves, because they are slaves. Outside of the political issues that come from this, it also pours into the writing, where we are meant to hate a character because he's evil, because she tells us he's evil, rather than him actually showing his evil. The same goes for good characters, they are good because we are told they are good. Voldermort had the same issue. Aside from being the antagonist, he really didn't do anything except kill like 3 people on screen. Him as a threat was often told to us, but his threat that traumatized an entire race of magic empowered humans was never once demonstrated. The issue just becomes more noticeable when taken outside of books, where time can be wasted.
And yet of the three plot relevant members of the "race of slaves", two of them were actually free; one of them proudly proclaiming it during his final moments and the other never actually was a slave and only aided Harry once Harry treated him with any decency. This sophomoric analysis of Rowling's supposed essentialized world view (which was clearly not even thought by you; you're just regurgitating garbage you read in twitter by your fellow screechers) wouldn't allow for Snape's redemption (yet while still being a horrid abusive teacher), Dumbledore's ruthless utilitarianism, or characters like Fudge, who's clearly not evil but merely scared and ultimately pathetic. "She never shows Voldemort being evil or even a threat". Mind you, aside your gross dismissal of murder as not bad enough (despite how much you people love to say how "words are murder"), the seventh books had multiple scenes showing the monstrous reality of what it meant to have Voldemort in power. But I guess since they weren't whatever minority twitter is pretending to care about this week, it wasn't actually bad? Seriously, you people are better off screeching how much you hate Rowling over her tweets. Analysis of literature is clearly above your wheelhouse. And now I'm sure you'll reply saying how you didn't read, because of course you people can't process anything that doesn't fit a tweet. Sure can parrot it, tho.
@@julianmarqm8005 You're arguing with someone who isn't even here. If you want to argue with overly sensitive Twitter teens, I'd suggest going to Twitter for that. "The three examples of..." Stop. We're doing media analysis here, what's the meta narrative? World building? Character motives? If you have one character who is different, that doesn't change the meta narrative nor world building. People murder all the time. Voldemort is treated in the narrative as a Hitler-esque villain. The wizarding world changed their entire society because of him. Yet all we see is a cult leader. Yes a bad guy, but not "entire world traumatized by this one man's name" bad. Essentially, we got a 6/10 baddy, but he was treated like a 14/10 baddy. Mind you, people were literally terrified of his name. Your exclamation about things being about minorities leaves me to believe your argument has actually nothing to do with Harry Potter, but instead some other disconnected issue you have. Once again, if you want to discuss media analysis, I'm game. If you want to argue with "the woke left ruining our culture" I'm the wrong lady to talk to, as I couldn't care less about culture war nonsense.
I know I watched this movie at some point but I totally dissociated after the first five minutes right up until the end because I could not explain to you a single thing that happens in this movie.
I wonder how Amber Heard's reputation is gonna affect the next AQUAMAN Because it would be cool to see the movie receiving the same treatment with Heard being replaced
@@bluecoin3771 The movie is just bad all around. i like superhero movies but aquaman is a turd. and it also had patrick wilson as the villain.... the most boring and unmemorable actor currently working in Hollywood.
Wait wait wait OP, so you think that if heard gets replaced it would be a bad decision that would compromise the success of the movie? What drugs are you on my dude lmaoooo
@@djangofett4879 umm Patrick Wilson is literally very famous . Starring in iconic films like Phantom of the Opera. He’s not forgettable at all. Also, its not relatable to the Amber Heard situation. Fallacy.
I still don't understand why JK didn't simply made a new series of books instead of movies. It's not like she didn't attached her name to another HP book after the main series finished. Also, I still can't believe that anyone was naive enough to see a script in which they made the "good guys" allow the second war wold and the "bad guy" is the one who wants to stop it and thought "yeah, this is a good thing to include in our franchise about kids going to school and learning to make feather float."
For one she became less humble, which cause her to think she could do no wrong, she wrote Harry Potter she clearly a master at her craft right? Problem is once you start to become to prideful your work will suffer for it, this is actually really common with any artist and normally reason bad works come out, while people who never let their pride take over normally do really well. On ww2 thing, look pride side now you can go to any HP fan and say Dumbledore caused the holocaust.
if what other comments said true, seems like her attempts with other books didnt do too well, so my guess would be she hoped the movies would get people interested in her books again
Sad enough as this series has become, I loved what it was with the first movie. Newt on his magical animal adventures with having to deal with the background over arching plot of grindlewald starting essentially the Wizarding world's second world war. If they had stuck with that, it would've been like how Harry Potter worked out, him learning how to be a wizard and going to hogwarts with him having to deal with the background plot of voldemort trying to rise up again. But WB couldn't pick between doing fantastic beasts or a Dumbledore origin story, when they could've made either both in separate movie series or at least stuck to the formula of the first movie, or at the very least done Fantastic beasts as a tv series with each episode aptly following a monster of the week formula, which I feel would've worked very well.
I liked the parts with Newt, the beasts, Jacob and Queenie, but the dark and disturbing vibe (abused orphans, etc.) ruined it for me. I wish there’d been a more light-hearted adventure style movie about Newt and his creatures. The politics and tensions could have a backdrop. A TV or streaming series would have been perfect.
@@Andreamom001 I do wish that dark vibe in the first film had taken more of a back seat as well, cause in the Harry Potter films, it was naturally transitioned to with Harry and company getting curious and trying to figure out what the hell was going on themselves, the dark stuff was part of their narrative, but they were the focus. It was closer to that in the first film than any other film, but they just kept running away from that formula
Excellent breakdown! I only saw the first in this series and came away with the same frustrations -- no forward momentum, no clear stakes, unmemorable characters, spoken exposition, no urgency, and no sense of what the cost would be if the characters failed at whatever they were trying to accomplish. Of all the characters, only the baker resonated for me, but not so much that I remembered his name as the credits rolled. On one level, I'm not shocked to learn these problems persist in the franchise. Rowling's spectacular success as an author make her too important to the studio to challenge and too precious for anyone to challenge if they want to put her name on their resume. Subbed!
Get 20% off your first Bespoke Post box at bespokepost.com/filmento with code FILMENTO. Thanks to BP for supporting the channel.
And sorry this video took a while guys. WB is trying to block it real hard. I wonder why.
I just might
Hello Filmento. I would like to recommend an Indian movie RRR (Rise Roar Revolt) recent worldwide blockbuster.
I think you'll like it. Definitely worth a watch.
Can't wait to see a video about Jurassic World Dominion, irony points for JWD standing for Job Well Done LOL :P
Is it gei if i said UwU?
I know this is hard to ask.. but can you explain why the star Wars series feels so bad? 👀👀🤔🤔
Imagine if they'd stuck with a series just about fantastic beasts, that would have been great.
And maybe every now and then there’s a small allusion to what’s going on at the larger scale. But still mainly focusing on newt and the beasts
this is what I've been saying for years
Alternatively, make the first film already about the larger scale stuff. Then you don't have to worry about trying to make a random zookeeper a massive historical figure instead of just a guy who wrote a book.
I think that's the book of "fantastic beasts and where to find them" XD
@@conormurphy4328 no…
We could’ve gotten Newt Scamander and his friends hunting cryptids in wizarding North America. Instead we got this.
I mean that was the first movie, if that was it, nobody would really mind these movies.
Now there's a good concept, that actually goes with the title.
Newt is the only thing that’s good about these movies. He’s an amazing example of a male lead who isn’t toxically masculine. Everything else is trash.
I wouldve loved newt + Jacob hunting pokemon and fixing problems around
the bad guys would've already been there before Newt lol
they planned to confuse Gellert and ended up confusing us audience, mission accomplished by 200%
That plan to "confuse" Grindelwald was just an excuse for their horrible writing. When you write a clever plan or an insane heist or something like that, you tell the audience at least part of what you're doing. They could have given us some info about Dumbledore's plan without the other characters knowing.
Deliberately confusing (stupid) plans, too much exposition, cheesy lines, makes you wonder how these people are professionals
@@politemenace5781 and even worse, that plan makes no sense, if Grindelwald can see the future It does not matter how confusing you make your plan, if he could read their minds they could have an excuse but the writters couldnt think of something that obvious
@@MiguelSanchezDelVillar Even worse-worse, Grindlewald CAN read their minds, through using Queenie's power. But the writers... forgot about her? I guess?
They read the script and said wow thats garabge. Than one said, why not take a hut of deadpool and break the 4th wall and just agree that the script is awful then nobody will say its garbage. Yeah thats not how that works.
@@MiguelSanchezDelVillar yes. And I love how they remembered now that Grindelwald can see the future. In the second movie he literally shows everyone a glimpse of the future, but they didn't have to confuse him back then
Honestly, this series ended up being something way different than what I expected/wanted. When I heard Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, I thought we were getting a movie set a looooooong time ago that had Newt traveling across the Wizarding World to discover and write about these beasts. It could have been something like a Wizarding World version of Indiana Jones but with finding rare magical creatures. I thought we would hey to see him go to the various Wizarding Schools around the world that were introduced a few years back by having him meet with a Professor from the school in the area he happens to be exploring. That Professor could have been a guide and it is a way to expand and introduce those various schools without doing a repeat of the original movies. If they needed a "bad guy" for the film (or films), they could have had Wizarding poachers part of a huge global black market or something.
Instead, we got a prequel for Dumbledore and Grindelwald with magical creatures shoved in to keep with the title Fantastic Beasts.
Also, why name/base the series after the book Newt wrote, but he already wrote it before the movie even starts? Seems kind of silly
I guess they didn't know at the time that Newt was gonna be a hilariously weak and unmemorable lead.
@@TothanCrawk
I don't think the movie or direction the movies took has anything to do with him being weak. He could be weak and star in a film about him being a magic Steve Irwin. The title of the series has Fantastic Beasts in it, yet has nothing to do with them other than being shoehorned in for the sake of meeting the "Fantastic Beasts" requirement. The first one was Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them based on the educational book Hogwarts students would later read. Instead of Newt discovering these beasts and writing his future book entries, we got a story about him literally finding his beasts because they escaped, his book was already done, and it last few min of the movie showed this was a Grindelwald/Dumbledore prequel. So completely different that what would be expected from a movie titled after an educational book. So now we have magic Steve Irwin somehow forced into fighting a magical equivalent to Magneto when all he wants to do is study his animals.
sounds better as a video game than a movie imo
You also forgot so they can make characters gay for no reason what so ever and act as if it is relevant somehow.
can we just acknowledge that we literally don’t even know credence even though the whole story revolves around him
No, credence's character development was done in 2nd movie, there is no point of retelling same things in next movie, although this is the main weakness of these kind of movies, they does not work as a standalone movie, but they work as series of movies
And I'm like, "Which one was Credence again?"
Yeah they set him up in the end og the second one to have a major inpact in this one. But then they switched him out for a reindeer instead.
@@gavykohard1428 I feel like it’s the opposite, these films might have worked better as standalones, Fantastic Beasts in particular; the original, would have been well received, was well received as a single movie but once they made the series all hell broke loose.
not only that, he is not getting stronger everyday, instead going to die soon. So the story ends before it starts.
If they do another one they should recast Grindelwald again. Like how the Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher kept changing each year
haha well that would be a nice running gag :D
I want Richard Armitage as the next Grindelwald
Constant vigilance, constant vigilance…
Sounds incredibly frustrating, why and how is the audience supposed to connect with a character with changing faces with different actors that do different things?
Yes, let's make Peter Dinklage the next Grindelwald!!
It’s a real shame that they’re wasting these good characters and actors and fun setting with terrible writing. So disappointing
Short answer total lack of creativity by creativity mean didn't give total freedom create new thing. Reason past movie be inspired cuz not just creativity but mainly freedom for who their really are and in end result became stagnant in really bad way and the cause is overwhelming political heck religion became political in the future if happen.
Ikr. The first movie has a special place in my heart. Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie instantly became favorites of mine. New characters, new stories, new setting. It's like a comfort movie to me. Then they had to shoehorn a shitty story, as well as ruining both Jacob and Queenie's characters (their weird, magic manipulating relationship at the start of the 2nd movie). Kinda reminds me of SW and their need to shoehorn stories important to the "Lore".
Haaaaave you MET Jk Rowling?
They tried to make Grindelwald be Hitler and parallel his rise to power. Both Hitler and Grindelwald are Austrian. Hitler took over Germany in the following way:
1) 1923: Hitler launched a failed coup in Munich and ended up in prison (paralleling Grindelwald in the first Fantastic Beasts film),
2) 1924: Hitler got released from prison early because he was popular. His party started gaining seats in the German Reichstag (German parliament) by giving charismatic speeches against Jews and Communists. (Parallel to the second Fantastic Beasts film, except the speeches were against Muggles.)
3) In early 1932, Hitler gained German citizenship, which allowed him to run in the election only a few months later. The SS became legal again backed by public demand. The SS proceeded to have paramilitary clashes with the Communists. The Nazis win enough seats to force the conservative party to form a government with either them or the Communists. Kurt von Schleicher was made chancellor. He lasted about a month. Instead of reigning in the Nazis as promised, he ended up supporting them and handing his job over to Hitler who repaid the kindness by having him killed in 1934.
(Hence why in the third film Grindelwald was exonerated and then allowed to stand for election due to public demand. A bunch of political trickery involving a dead Qilin took place. Finally, a German dude, Anton Vogel, attempted to usher Grindelwald into power by giving Grindelwald his job and would have succeeded except for Newt and Dumbledore's interference.) I'd write more about Hitler's rise to power, but I'd be giving away future plot points of this series.
I hate that they did this for several reasons. Firstly, it feels like Dumbledore is doing Rowling's wish fulfilment. You can't "fix" history by imagining yourself or your proxy character going back to change it. The wizarding world is delightful because it is completely separate from our shitty reality. Secondly, they are doing this wish fulfillment while failing to acknowledge all the bad stuff that was really happening in 1932: Great Depression worsens, Japan invades China, and even the real world parallel of Hitler's rise to power are all invisible and unmentioned in the film. It's like the film has a very selective barrier between itself and reality that only let's in ideas the writer wants but none of the other unpleasantness. Thirdly, I hate that Dumbledore actually loved Grindelwald instead of being Infatuated temporarily by power and by his sexual partner. Love is supposed to be the most powerful magic. For Dumbledore, real enduring, emotional love lost to rationality and to "doing what's right." It undermines the "power of love" message from the Harry Potter series.
@@emawerna Your absolutely right heck ever more strange that the movie tittle said "secret of Dumbledore" yet in actually the direction of "Dumbledore" is totally off the route more like "secret of Grinderwald".
Not having the Qilin bowing to Jacob was the biggest missed opportunity. Jacob was shown to have a pure heart throughout the movie, the Qilin was even playful around him. Having the Qilin bowing to him would make the Wizard community to warm up to Muggles (No Majs) then eventually Half-Bloods and Mudbloods.
Some other missed opportunities include having Theseus be the spy, Tina Goldstein playing a more active role in searching for her sister and writing out the Karma guy entirely because there was zero point to him being in here.
But in my opinion, this franchise was cursed from the start, right back when JK Rowling had this asinine idea of having Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a clear cut solo adventure connected to this huge Wizarding War. I can see Newt seeing Grindelwald once in his life and in regular contact with Dumbledore regarding his books and research, but I cannot see him as part of the legit Dumbledore’s Army. Fantastic Beast should be one solo film, then JK can focus on the Wizarding War series about Dumbledore vs Grindelwald.
The whole film built up to Jacob Kowalski being the pure heart, Dumbledore just speaks it out directly to the camera.
And just imagine from a thematic point, how awesome a confectioner muggel as head of wizard world would be, expecially in a film about Naziwizard 2 from Naziwizard Germany.
But Rowling was like: "Nah, senpai Dumbledude has to be the chosen one."
@@Sapeidra Funny how you think JK is to blame. Fans are too blame for this. Also why would it be awesome for a Muggle to be had of the Wizarding World? How does that make any kind of sense? It doesn't.
Yes, this would have been a fantastic idea! If Jacob was like the pure heart person that made muggles acceptable to wizards after Grindenald it could have been used to explain why wizards lived at peace with muggles until the Harry Potter time. These last two movies have just been a convoluted mess.
@@HansDester idk man maybe because SHE MADE and WROTE THIS SERIES.
also, regarding jacob, why build him up, why foreshadow drop hints about his pure heartedness and then just sideline it to Dumbledore at the last moment.
but then youll say, but he' s a muggle it doesnt make sense.
but it would have MAde sense based on the story thus far, all the conflict in this wizard war is that one side thinks of muggles as a stain on the earth, that all of muggles deserve to be killed because of world war ii. IF the magic deer bowed to jacob, it would have overturned grindelwalds argument. it would have vindicated thr other side it would have given a lesson that not all muggles or even not everyone is evil because some are evil.
The thing is Dumbledore is NOT pure of heart, it's been years but from what I recall from the books he's done a few shadey things in his past and present to get stuff done, sometimes he is a means to and end guy. But in the end it he could make up for these flaws by being a mentor to pure of heart characters like Harry
Might I just mention that Grindelwald using the Cruciatus Curse (a spell thst requires hatred of the victim and is considered dark enough for an instant prison sentence) on Jacob mere moments after the deer thing "deems him pure of heart" on magical national television is the wizarding world equivalent of going on a talk show with ham juice on your face so the cute puppies lick it to show how nice you are in a grand publicity stunt... only to immediately shoot the host in the face.
"How about a joke, Mr. Kowalski?"
-Gellert Grindelwald, probably
He is pure of heart…his heart is pure evil…right? He’s erased all goodness. Wizard leader need to be purely good or purely evil, no nuance.
(Kidding!)
I'm getting joker vibes
The Qilin in question was bewitched to make him seem worthy. I fail to see how this is an issue.
@@boyishdude1234 He went to all that trouble to make himself look like a good leader, then immediately used one of the most evil spells in the world. Why would anyone believe he's still a good leader after that?
A spinoff about a ragtag group of characters searching for magical creatures is a cool idea.
A spinoff about wizarding history focused on a younger Dumbledore and Grindelwald is a pretty good idea too.
But why did they have to *_combine them?_*
Because they're not DIsney and can't afford to churn out a spin-off movie or serial about every side character and their grandma in the franchise?
@Sergio Astorga it amazes me how they lose easy opportunities for spin-offs. People have been begging for a Marauders tv series for more than a decade. But now everyone is glad it never happened because these new movies are so horrible.
💯
Simple answer, dollars and pounds
@Halloween All Year Round Grindelwald is the wizarding equivalent to Hitler. He was a blood purist, like Hitler was a race purist. He wanted to subjugate the muggles, like Hitler did with the Jews. They aren't showing in the movies how the wars blend together, but they have the basic eugenicist principle.
"They ruined me" - Dumbledore said calmly
Whilst screaming
and sobbing
and running around in circles repeatedly for hours and hours on end.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
They made me gay - Dumbledore 2022
Blood Purity was Voldemort's thing. I would have preferred if Grindelwald had been a techno-phobe. He wakes up in bed beside Dumbledore in 1899, and he explains seeing the warplanes and tanks of WWI. Imagine explaining WWI to someone who lives in a world of horses and buggies. Great metal eagles drop fire on unsuspecting cities. Youthful Dumbledore helps spin an anti-muggle, anti-technology narrative. In 1908, ford releases the model T. In 1914, the great war breaks out. In Secrets of Dumbledore, it is 1932, and the Great Depression is still getting worse in the U.S. It is also the year Hitler took over Germany. In 1932 also, Japan invades China. For a wizard, it would be easy to blame everything on technology and end up hating technology. "These muggles are getting out of hand! They'll burn themselves down and us along with them!"
You have a very good idea!
Yo this sounds awesome!!
It'd fit with the fine Dad weasly got for the flying car existing.
This is a great idea. For example wizards will be divided on the opinion of using muggle technologies such as Hogwarts express, ministry using cars.
@A Catalan Liam always have
I think the ideas about a series about Dumbledore and a different series about Newt and his beasts would have been great, they would just have to be different franchises, not the same.
Edit: thanks for all the likes, I never got this much before!
Exactly
The way big studios cutout any lgbt scenes from movies nowadays, i doubt if they would've made an entire big budget franchise with a gay main character
@@akshaydalvi1534 It's not like his sexuality matters (storywise, I mean). He's not running around snogging boys, none of his problems are solved by him chatting up a man, in fact, the only reason we even know he's gay is that JK said so after the books came out - before, his and Grindelwald's relationship was written as a slightly toxic friendship at best. His sexuality would literally not have to play into the story at all. Which it doesn't. It was never discussed on screen or on page, the only sources for that are JKs claims in interviews and blog posts, which she has simply refused to put into canon (book OR movie) in one way or another.
I don't think that's how it should be, I don't give a heck who the MC likes to hold hands with, but having a nominally gay character is hardly an obstacle even to modern Hollywood. For a popular example, it has been 'revealed' that Peter Quill from the Guardians of the Galaxy is bisexual, but are we ever going to see proof of that in a movie? Of course not, because stuff like that doesn't sell in China.
@@eldara3 it’s simple actually, don’t make a gay main character, make a main character that is gay
@@akshaydalvi1534 but they would have 2 big budget franchises and one they could send to even those places without cut anything
An issue I had with the film was that there was no set up to a lot of stuff. Albus and Aberforth somehow know Credence is Aberforth’s son. Queenie is suddenly doubting and afraid of Grindlewald. Credence seems to be having doubts in Grindlewald too. It seems like they skipped the film where Albus and Aberforth discover Credence is part of their family and Queenie’s and Credence’s faith in Grindlewald is shaken.
I suspect that has something to do with them condensing some of these plot threads that probably wouldn't have resolved for another movie or two...
@@SnoTangerine I suspect the same. It honestly felt like they skipped the third film and went to the fourth.
A great way to introduce the characters on the train besides having newt just introduce them, is to have all the characters come to the train car a few minutes apart so we can get two characters interacting and talking and then another joins and interacts and then another. That way we can differentiate everyone’s style and personality individually rather than as a group with each person saying 1 line in a quirky ton
I'm just picturing the first episode of any season of drag race
@@oliviabotelho5936 lmfao “come on Wizarding World, let’s get Sickening”
Especially when we consider that that black woman looked like a good old friend of Newt probably from time he spend in Ugadu magic school in Africa where they teach wandless magic
I'm Jacob Kowalski. I'm a baker from New York and I brought my frying pan.
*Techno music*
Voldemort cursed this movie franchise the same way he cursed the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher position: in every new movie Gellert Grindelwald has to be played by a new actor
Totally true.
Voldemort seeks to remove competition. Mission Accomplished: Grindlewald character assassinated
The wizarding answer to *The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus* (which Johnny Depp was also in!)
@@primmoore6232 And Jude Law, and Colin Farrell lol
@@Lotselance, and ALL playing the SAME character! That was a weird movie.
We should have had two separate series, one about Newt’s wacky and lighthearted adventures, and a darker one about Dumbledor and Grindlewald. Either could have been great, but everything has fallen apart in trying to combine them. There’s just no coherent thread holding this story together.
this would work if it was like a comic, with sounds and music, following several people in separate issues. to understand would be to read them all, but you don't need to understand, because things are explained in a world with rules. you could read about this beast, this character and having it made sense without it needing to be shown in a movie
but JK's writing has always been that these are charicatures. there is no debt, no growth, no reason for a journey or an adventure.
Dumbledore and Grindelwald's story isn't exactly PG-13 friendly and has less leeway for shoehorning merchandise advertisement in, you see
I wondered why the Qilin bowed to Dumbledore instead of Jacob or Newt, after they'd preciously made a big deal about Jacob having pure heart.
This was my biggest pet peeve, like... why? It's like JK saw the Tumblr posts about how Dumbledore isn't really a great guy for raising Harry for slaughter, and then decided she would force everyone to remember that "Dumbledore is a good guy with a good heart!". Let alone breaking canon since, while we know he was offered the Ministry for Magic job and declined, his chocolate frog card would have said that he was chosen to be leader of the whole wizarding world, and declined.
@@JanbluTheDerg Wait, the whole wizarding world has a unified hierarchy?
Because JK Rowling wants to make it perfectly clear that Dumbledore is a "good gay" now that he's in the closet, just as his ex boyfriend is a homicidal villain because he wants to make a world where he can be out
@@Poldovico if I understood the movie correctly, yep!
Dumbledore who raised Harry so that he can be used as a tool against Voldemort has a good heart..... I believe you jk 😂
One element that also killed the movie for me was the election itself. The significance, power, and reach of the International Confederation of Wizards was never properly established in this movie or any of the previous ones. I read all of the Harry Potter books,and I still have no clue how important they are supposed to be. I get the idea that Grindelwald being elected President of it is supposed to be a bad thing, but I have no idea how much of a threat this actually makes him. Is he dictator of the Wizarding World? Commander in Chief? Just the guy who can sign into law the things that his followers push forward? A spiritual leader who is now infinitely more credible (despite already having enough influence to get himself pardoned for crimes witnessed by dozens of wizards)? We don’t even know anything about the other two candidates. What are their tax policies? For all we know, one of them being elected could be far worse, either because they fail to counter Grindelwald or secretly sympathize with him. So, even when the stakes are spelled out, the film still didn’t engage me, as I couldn’t wrap my head around why I should care.
Also, I thought the unanimous election at the very end was absurd. Even when Zombie Voting Machine Bambi chose Grindelwald, the other two candidates still got votes. Were there no Grindelwald supporters willing to vote for him regardless of what Bambi said? No followers of the other guy who lost who decided, “I didn’t care what Bambi thought before, and now even that’s been proven unreliable, so why should I care now?” It makes me wonder why Rowling bothered writing this as an election in the first place (outside of political commentary that makes no sense without the real-world context) rather than officially making Bambi the ultimate decision maker.
Grindelwald and Dumbledore's story should have been its own thing. Maybe a TV series. Fantastic Beasts should have been another.
You know what would’ve been a really cool HP spin off?? The origin of hog warts and follow tell the founder’s stories
Wizards during Rome and fall of Rome
The movie is afwully mediocre. Its enough to keep you somewhat engaged the first time watching it, but as soon as you walked out the cinema, you forget like 90% of the movie. Which imho is even worse than a bad movie, because bad movies at least can be enjoyed ironically.
I don’t know if learning the origin of how hogs get their warts would be that appealing.
That's coming to Amazon Prime in 2030 as a series.
@@ianjohnson1249 please don't give them ideas.
I found the entire premise of the deer thing choosing the wizard president because they're "pure of heart" hilarious. First off, the idea that any politician could be "pure of heart" is not only ridiculous in the real world, it also goes against the themes of the original Harry Potter series. Was Cornelius Fudge "pure of heart?" How about Scrimgeour, or Umbridge, or virtually any other character from the Ministry of Magic? The underlying theme for the last 3 books was basically "don't trust the government." The deer thing first decides to bow to Dumbledore, a character that we know is flawed. Then, it bows to some lady that we know literally nothing about, except that she is a career politician who has put herself in position to be a candidate for wizard president. There's no setup of any kind to indicate that she is "pure of heart," but we're just supposed to accept it because the movie is over now. It's stupid.
It would be better if the motived of the person he bows to are honest.
I mean it would still br stupid, but better than "pure heart"
Like, there's no way any politician is a pure of heart. Why would we want naive people like that anyway to lead us.
@@julianpradarodriguez7336 That would make more sense. If the person's motives were pure, then they would be recognized. That still leaves room for the character to be flawed and learn from his/her mistakes.
I guess we are supposed to like her because she subtly cancelled cruciatus used on Jacob
That actually fits with Rowling's beliefs actually. Shaun did a video on Harry Potter and said that Rowling doesn't believe that the issue is the government system or the way things are but rather the person or people in power, which is why Harry becomes an Auror and Hermione becomes Prime Minister. Nothing can be wrong about the world. It's why house elves don't get rights at the end and Harry's kid goes to Hogwarts 19 years later still thinking Slytherin equals bad.
The heroes choosing to not have any plan to confuse the villain into defeat cause he predicts the future legit sounds like the set up for a comedy movie, but they tried doing it unironically lol
I think one of the craziest way I've seen an antagonist who can predict the future with 100% accuracy be defeated; is the protagonist killing the prediction of their own death with a knife. And yes, it was in The Garden of Sinners.
But they could counter him, they had their own clairvoyant creature that Grindlewald didn't know about until the end of the film. Their plan of having no plan was bullshit.
I feel like that's the plot from a Rick and morty episode
Literal Rick and Morty episode
It’s literally like the Rick and Morty episode making fun of heist movies.
Book authors: Writing a screenplay is objectively easier than writing a book.
Fantastic Beasts: Are you sure about that?
Problem is, she was too proud to take some screen writing lessons before attempting to do it.
1rst film was fine but in the 2nd not handling well multiple perspectives was distracting. Bad set ups and pay offs
I still have no clue how Ezra Miller's character is alive. He literally exploded at the end of the first movie, and then he's just magically back in the second movie, not even explained as to how he's alive again.
They said an obscurial can only be killed if he was not transformed and Credence was transformed when they attacked him. What is strange is, that none of American wizards knew about that rule. It s bad writing.
A wizard did it
Literally
A small piece of his Obscurus flew away after it appeared to have been destroyed. This was shown in the first movie right after the shot of him being "killed," and it wasn't exactly a fast detail that would be really easy to miss like the Book of Vishante in Multiverse of Madness showing Doctor Strange that what he needs to beat Wanda is America Chavez's power. A lot of emphasis was put on it in the cinematography, but not so much so that it was overdone.
@@boyishdude1234thank you for pointing this out, I’ve seen this complaint for years and thought I was going insane for being the only one to notice that Credence’s survival was foreshadowed from the end of the first movie.
JK Rowling is a textbook example of “Just because you do X that doesn’t mean you will be great at Y.”
Even her books are far from masterpieces
They just came at the right time and had the great ideas
@@guilhermehank4938 nah her books are really good
@@aquate9637 The books she stole her best ideas from, like Ursula K. Le Guin's Wizards of Earthsea, are really good. The stuff she actually came up with on her own is shit.
Z
@@aquate9637 her Detective Strike novels are really good, and I enjoyed a lot of her stand-alone books too.
dont worry JK will change the lore in like 5 years in a random tweet and then the movie will be good
Jk be like “Newt was bisexual the whole time , yep totally had that planned from the beginning”
@@edrick106 With the way politics shifts in USA , in five years she’s probably gonna be like “ Newt was a transgender non-binary queer person who partially identifies as ~~( something new )”, just being bisexual won’t be enough in five years.
@@Tombbistol not really she is a big transphobe
@@Tombbistol Yeah, a terf obviously would create a morally good transgender character
Nah she's too busy whingeing about trans people
What had me nearly laughing at the end was the crowd reaction to the election results. The entire movie shows an important part of the wizarding world supporting a fascist leader, who wants to basically rule over/enslave the muggle population. The crowd reaction when Grindelwald was chosen confirmed this. But as soon as the second candidate got elected instead everyone was imitatively like "oh yeah so great lets just forget that we tried to enslave billions of people a second ago". They could just clearly split the crowd in two camps or something similar but like that, it was just utterly unbelievable. Also the Dumbeldore Grindelwald fight and the long speeches had ruined the last act beforehand for me anyways. I wanted to like this so badly...
Also being a supporter of a political figure in the HP universe basically starts and ends with gathering in a crowd and chanting their name. All the "Santos Santos Santos!" scenes were hilarious.
Well actually i thought that Grindelwald and Dumbledore fighting was the best part of the last act of the story
@@lasinloser3979 It seemed boring to me. No interesting strategy, no unqiue spells, no flashy colours, etc.
The Dumbledore vs. Voldemort fights is hownit should've happened
My favourite part of this entire film is where, literally in the middle, they all realise they achieved nothing and are back to square one.
One thing, as an author, is that when you introduce characters as a group, it is generally advisable NOT to have a large exposition like that, as info dumps are also looked down upon in books, rather you build up to them beforehand, or your work backwards to then show how they know the characters, and there ar many ways to do that, which depends on the characters.
Novels are so very different from screenplays, as novels and screenplays condense so much information but in drastically different ways.
A screenplay can compound things into an instant, and has different tools at it’s disposal, but a novel needs to figure out when and how to be efficient with word choice. So, still, even then it’s not good.
The fact that when the ending credits rolled in, I didn't know do I want to laugh or cry, summarizes my thoughts about this movie. The actors do a great job, but the plot and it's aspects are badly built and the whole election thing with in the end Queenie marrying Jacob totally blew my mind (in a bad way).
Didn't she kind of hold him hostage in the second one. That's some Stockholm syndrome.
Thing I don't understand is Rowling is a great author (not my cup of tea per se, but I read them for my niece and nephew and they wanted me to finish the series alongside them when they'd grown to reading them on their own. The latter more mature books are definitely readable)... why has she not just stuck with writing books and then making those into movies?
...I mean it's, not like that doesn't WORK....
@@theblackbaron4119 Yea she was basically about to magically mind-potion rape him before Newt stepped in.
But they still get together at the end of this movie, so they MUST be just made for each other! /s/s/s/s
My grievance with the movie is that it was supposed to be about FANTASTIC BEASTS...I loved the first one.
I've heard that only first one was supposed to be about Fantastic beasts. The sequels should have been about Grindelwald and originally Newt was not supposed to be in the sequels. But since everybody liked him, he was kept, and so they had to keep it as "Fantastic beasts" which now makes little sense.
Way to ruin a franchise.
@@docbrown2045 They should never have made the movies called fantastic beasts if they refused to let any fantastic beasts in them
JK Rowling should just have written another book series to be later adapted into movies, just like HP. That way, she would have been able to tell the story she wanted without anyone interfering, and professional screenwriters would have been in charge of adapting it into movies, and the audience could have chosen what they liked best.
Jaja she actually did that... The books werent that good
Let’s admit it, she hit her stride with Harry Potter and since then she’s been riding on that cuz of the popularity it gained, I’m sure like any writer she didn’t expect this large of a level of success, but now she’s taken advantage of it cuz she can and we have to suffer for it
@@jankasolis61 Wrote the books before they were turned into movies? Not the other way round?
@@doloreslehmann8628 xd noooo. After Harry Potter she wrote more books. But those werenteñ good or famous enoght to ve movies 🤔
@@jankasolis61 weren't some of them very transfopbic ??if yes then thats propably for the better.
Fun Fact: All lines said by Ezra Miller in this movie were unscripted. He was simply coming to the Fantastic Beasts sets at random days/times, in costume, yelling and screaming.
Really?!! 💀
I was expected that the little "Ganyu" will bow to Jacob because the whole movie actually building his character as simple pure man. That also will be quite interesting situation in wizarding community, although the muggle/no-majs will not allowed to take the place but they actually have a capability and equal with wizard in some way.
Or in another scenario, the Qilin will bow to Newt. I mean, just in previous movie Dumbledore himself said that Newt doesn't seek power which something that he lacks, we also saw how fair and pure hearted Newt was both for fellow human and especially for his fantastic beasts, he is Hufflepuff after all.
But yeah, Dumbledore is the chosen one, so just make the little Ganyu bow at him.
Dumbledore here reminded me of Gandalf refusing the ring
What i hate that the last movie was about Lita Lestrange and her relationship with Newt and his brother, and she sacrificed herself for them and they did not mention her once😆 Theseus was engaged to her, didn't realy seemed bothered by the loss😅
That was a way to present him and make his personality through the movie, because the love of his life died less than a decade ago, and he doesn't look like he cares to remember!
That can be a way to cope for him, but they lost the opportunity to use him instead of newt for being the embassator of dumbledore in convincing the british minister of magic to not help grindelwald, like having an emotional confession from him: "he killed my wife even though she went to his side, he will do it to you sooner or later", he managed to gush out with bloodshot eyes, or something like that.
That would have killed two problems the video mentioned with one stone, doing something pointless or getting a little character arc from newt's brother while introducing why convincing that man mattered by making the scene emotional, even more so since newt's brother was supossed to be an auror from the ministry.
It didn't matter if the outcome was the same and they didn't manage to convince the minister, to be sent to prison and watch the funny dance they did, the scene would have had more weight to it.
It's like they're trying to ignore the trainwreck of the last film...yet they included Yousef, for no discernible purpose...and they cut Tina 🤷
That should be the motivation for his brother!!! He doesn't give a shit to the point of being uncanny, he should be driven by revenge and should not give a fuck about Dumbledores plan, heck, you could have a very good plot device there with him ruining the plan because he desperately wants to avenge Lita.
I really wanted this franchise to work but when i first watched the very first movie, i'd have thought it was Newt being a magic zoologist collecting, saving, recording, and showing the importance and passion of his work and the animals he cares for. Not some political schlock with subplots after subplots that no one cares for. In a sense, the first film still had some of the fantastic beasts... but the rest is just some stuff that I never really cared being told in movie format even as a fan of HP. We all know Grindelwald will be thwarted. That's been revealed in the HP books. It should have focused on something else other than that.
They should've stopped after the first movie it was a good stand alone movie. And then they should've announced the Dumbledore film series. only revolving around dumbledore so Newt doesn't play second violin in his own series
@@michiel1162 I agree. Such a waste of a wholesome character played by a great actor.
@@michiel1162 true. Why do they need newt, just do a dumbledore franchise!
Many fans agree with you. We wanted to see Newt & his creatures as the focus, not as a vehicle to tell the Battle of Grindelwald.
@@michiel1162 Agreed. I don't have any problem with them introducing Grindelwald at the end of the first movie as a lead-in to another story, especially since his involvement in the first movie largely revolved specifically around...well...a fantastic beast. But I feel like they should have branched it off into two separate film series after that. One that focuses on Newt's adventures discovering and cataloguing fantastic beasts, and another focusing on the conflict with Grindelwald. I could absolutely see the Harry Potter franchise being able to successfully follow model similar to the MCU if done right, occasionally introducing another big character/plot point/setpiece that leads into its own separate story with occasional crossovers when it's relevant.
Instead, they took a series called "Fantastic Beasts" and made the fantastic beasts a subplot while desperately bending over backwards to find ways to shoehorn the central figure into a story that doesn't focus on the very thing that justified him being the lead character to begin with.
Similar to Game of Thrones (Seasons 7-8), it breaks my heart that this amount of talent, both on and off screen, is completely overshadowed by bad writing
has anyone noticed that without their wands, JK's witches and wizards are mortal and easily defeated?
Except for Voldemort. He can do magic with just a stare. We saw that when he as professor Squirrel threw bad eye on Harry Potter in order to make him fall from the broom
Dumbledore and Grindelwald can literally do Wandless magic...
🔫🗿
I agree that Newt definitely deserves a series solely to him and his fantastical beasts and the adventures that he has travelling around the world. But I also think that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's story have so much potential too. Like they could've dwelled into their teen stage, their relationship and how they met and the hallows without rushing and smushing the storyline with Newts and adding more thought-out context to it.
So what was Dumbledore's secret? That he loves Grindelwald? That he had a secret family member? That he was good at heart?
I think he told his “secret” to Theseus and some other officials but they reacted like “everyone already knows that”
Blood pact (either cz sexual or brotherly connection) and sister's death. Not like it mattered anyways.
I think the Dumbledore secret was not about Albus Dumbledore but about Credence.
"The Secret of Dumbledore's BROTHER'S BASTARD" should be the full title.
That's the recurring theme in all Beasts movies: What the hell was going on in that movie I just spent the last 2.5 hours watching?
I would re write the entire ending, Dumbledore didn't show himself as a "pure of heart" character as he was basically trying to clean his mistakes and ended up involving people that didn't really had anything to do with those mistakes like Newt, unlike the muggle (forgot his name) that risked his life and wellbeing to help not only the love of his life that became a magical nazi but also his friend.
The Quilin should've bowed to the muggle, but since he can't assume for obvious reasons they require it to choose someone else, maybe have him bow to Newt too since he has shown multiple times he is deeply compassionate and don't think twice before putting his life on the line or breaking any laws for the good of others, Newt refuses and then the final selection is made.
There shouldn't have a moment of putting Dumbledore as a "perfect" wizard as he can sometimes act like an A-hole and while he is a great wizard that is knowledgeable is a lot of things and arguably the most genial wizard alive, this doesn't mean he doesn't have flaws.
Exactly! I really takes away from his arc in the books; Harry idolizes him and sees him as the ideal wizard until he meets him in the train station, where Dumbledore reveals how his mistakes cost many lives and he sees himself being even less fit to be Minister of Magic than Fudge. The twist is that he's flawed and selfish but at least he knows it and still tries to be a good person.
But nvm, he must have been pulling Harry's leg when he said that, he's actually perfect because wizard bambi bowed to him
Rowling has messed up her canon and timelines MULTIPLE times even before the first Fantastic Beast movie. I think it's obvious by now that she doesn't fact-check before releasing her factoids.
I don't know if she changed her coke dealer before writing that part because it honestly feels that while she was under the influence of better quality drugs she was going to make the magic horse bow to the muggle, yes, he can't "rule" but isn't the whole point of the movie to let go biases? Wouldn't Grinderwall plan fail miserably if he loses the support of his xenophobic followers? Maybe after watching magic horse bow to a muggle some of them would change their minds, that makes way more sense that it bows to the guy that was proven to be a callous prick in the last HP movies.
Everyone has flaws, though. “Pure of heart” can’t mean “flawless.” It must mean willing to sacrifice or work for the good of others without selfish ambition.
I think it can be argued that Dumbledore learned his lesson from his youthful mistakes and has become “pure of heart.” He is willing to reject power in order to avoid being corrupted and instead of agreeing to lead the world, he retires to a position teaching and running a school.
I think that was meant to confirm that he was redeemed and had become willing to do the right thing no matter the cost to himself.
BUT yes, Newt and Jacob are clearly also “pure of heart.” Jacob likely wouldn’t be considered since he wasn’t a wizard, but why not Newt. I mean, there were probably random people in the crowd also pure of heart. Maybe it only considers those on the platform or within a certain distance? How does it choose the order of bowing when there is more than one option? Maybe Newt would have been next?
Still would have been a cool character moment if it bowed to Jacob to show him honor even though he couldn’t be elected.
It feels like the whole scene of him giving it food was going to be a setup for that, which would have made a great deal of sense thematically since Grindelwald's entire campaign was anti muggle
I knew this movie bad when nobody was talking about it
@E . A I saw the trailer at least thought it would do as well as the first fantastic beast but eh
Yep. When I saw this on HBO MAX recently, I did not even know it was a thing and thought it was the last movie renamed..LOL They really did a poor, poor job of promoting this movie
@@bobross1829 There's nothing to promote. It sucked from start to finish.
I love the Charms teacher. I would love for her to have her own story. She also had the best display of magic. It’s usually just laser beams but with her it’s creative.
Agreed Lallie was great, and to boot shows that while yes transfiguration is the go to for combative magic. You can be very creative with charms in combat when in a pinch.
not actually a problem in the books, they're not stand battle crazy, but they are chaotic with all sorts of magical effects going off and environmental hazards. I'd blame the reliance on beam clashes on directors.
@@bmetalfish3928 I agree. I’ve always been annoyed at how boring the movie versions of battles are especially since the source material isn’t like that
As a first time book writer, this was actually useful for me writing books as well, so thank you.
Finally someone who mentioned the "confusing Grindelwald" thing as the main problem! To be honest, I didn't feel anything while watching the movie. No amazement, no sadness, no joy, nothing. The only time I really felt something was when I was raging about the Qilin going to Dumbledore and even now I'm asking myself: "Why the in the world did it go to Dumbledore?! Why not to Newt or Jacob perhaps?" The way the entire movie is basicly pointless and they managed to butcher the only scene that wasn't... I literally can't with Fantastic Beasts at this point!
Unpopular opinion: The 2nd movie was better than THIS, even if it wasn't logical, because it at least had something of a purpose.
The second movie had a cool fight that showed the power of Grindelwald (convincing preacher and incredibly strong wizard), instead of the normal "point really hard at your opponent"
@@mickys8065 That also, but I also mean story-wise. Yes, it could have been better if Credence would have turned out to be Corvus Lestrange V. and not some "Aurelius Dumbledore"-Guy we never heard about for some reason, it would have been better if Leta wouldn't have died (or died in another movie), but at least there was build-up and a point, even if tne movie was executed clumsily.
@@mickys8065 What was the cool Grindelwald fight? He just did a big fire dragon. I never bought Depp and while this movie has many flaws, Mads proves he needed nothing to be a competent Grindelwald.
@@OsSas3 The big fire dragon that he controlled to kill many wizards and which took several more to dispel, two of which were the heads of their respective auror departments. In comparison, Mads did nothing to set him apart from someone like Lucius Malfoy.
@@mickys8065 Yeah, that's not a duel. The WW got so many amazing spells and the only competent duels we got were Dumbledore vs Voldemort and barely Dumbledore vs Credence, we needed mor of that. Mads was so charismatic in the scene where he goes to mix with the people and everyone chanted his name, he was cold blooded when he sacrificed the magical deer. Depp rely TOO much on theatricality and weird appearance.
Ignoring the critical issues with this movie, the fact that Warner Bros said this films commercial success would determine the future of the Wizarding World in cinema and then there was barely any marketing ruined this movie's chances. My mom is a huge Harry Potter fan, read the books several times, saw all the movies in cinema including the first two Fantastic Beasts movies, and was one of the few who liked Crimes of Grindelwald. Despite that, she never saw a single person talking about the movie or even a single ad for the movie and as a result, she never saw the movie while it was in theaters, making it the first Harry Potter related movie she didn't see in theaters. Warner Bros relied on a movie of this quality and less marketing than freaking Morbius (no not memes, I mean actual marketing from the company behind the movie) to be what decides the fate of this entire universe in film, and I just find that really sad since I also really like the Wizarding World and want this franchise to be the best it can be, but Warner Bros just doesn't seem to care anymore. I mean, Hogwarts Legacy is one of my most anticipated games releasing this year, only behind Splatoon 3 at this point (and maybe Hollow Knight Silksong if it ever releases), and my second most anticipated single player game for the time being only behind Breath of the Wild 2. I want this franchise to succeed, but WB just doesn't seem to care anymore and just wants a corpse to use as a cash cow.
... I would not call spending $21 million on US advertising "barely any marketing." (*edited to replace "marketing"---the US ad campaign, per ispot, yielded 958 million impressions; can't find the total marketing budget, only a Reuters article describing it as "tens of millions")
Only $21 million? For a movie of this size and budget? That’s barely a drop in a bucket.
@@Klishar122 Considering the usual rule of thumb is that the marketing and distribution budget is around 50% as big as the production budget, $21 million would be pretty small for a $200 million production budget.
I didn't even know this film existed until I saw the poster for it in the cinema.
And now it's on HBO already.
@@1337-Nathaniel huh. I saw ads for it all the time, and the ad buys seems pretty successful. funny how the people reached vs. not reach can vary so widely. Unfortunately, poor word of mouth probably killed this thing---it had a huge drop off from week one to week two. So, at least you saved yourself the price of a ticket!
The fact that Warner Bros paid both Depp and Mads Mikkelsen (they paid Depp around $10 million because of their contract, and paid Mikkelsen $16 million) for the same role in a movie that would end up failing financially is hilarious. Corporate karma at its finest.
Must be the most glorious paycheck Mikkelsen scored in his life.
And the movie doesn't fail because Depp isn't in it. It fails for exactly the same reason as the 2 movies with Depp in them failed. It failed due to poor writing (thanks JK Rowling for interfering), poor character development for too many characters and a lack of a clear direction from the movie, with a start to finish mapped out. It tries to be several things at the same time, while failing to be any of them interestingly. It kind of fell into the same trap as the Hobbit trilogy.
@@larslundandersen7722 I actually agree with everything you said, I was just saying that the grindelwald recasting was the cherry on top of everything you said. Not only because of the public scorn against the recasting, but the extra money WB had to pay to do the recasting at all.
The last movie: Tells us Aurelius who has never learned any spells or how to use magic is OP and can defeat Albus
This movie: Proceeds to show Aurelius getting bodied by a not serious Albus.
As an amateur writer, this video has not only helped me to further understand how to write scripts but also how to write stories in general. Many of the points made actually inspired me to jot down some ideas for a novel I would like to publish in the future. Really great and informative video!
Arthur C Clarke is alleged to have said "Writing a novel is like swimming in the sea; writing a film script is like thrashing through treacle." It's not easy, and JKR would be well advised to familiarize herself with the interplay that occurred between Kubrick and Clarke when filming 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or maybe she can just keep writing books and then just leave the screenplay to someone else?
maybe she need to split this movie into few parts so she can have more time to build the character and the world, like:
part 1: The Secrets and The Dumbledore
part 2: 2 Secrets 2 Dumbledore
part 3: Secret and the Dumbledore - Hogwarts Drift
part 4: Secrets & Dumbledore
part 5: Secret Five
part 6: Secrets and The Dumbledore 6
part 7: The Fate of Dumbledore
Part 8: Fasten your Secrets
Part 9: Jurassic world Dominion featuring Dumbledore
man this brings me back to that cinemasins video on the fate of the furious where they made a dumbledore joke
Part 10: Dumbledore v Morbius: Dawn of Secrets
@@MrcreeperDXD777 I would unironically watch
Personally, I felt that this wasn't a "bad" movie per se, but it definitely wasn't very memorable. The first thought I had when I walked out of the theatre was "What just happened?" which, you know, isn't a really good sign
It's like Horizon Forbidden west.
Its ok that's it.
i felt very frustrated with the writting, I lost my time watching it
Well it didn't happen anything tbh. The bad guy is still on the lose with a massive supporter. The good guy crew is back together again. The only thing is changed is dumbledore can fight the bad guy (I forget the name)
I found it to be absolutely awful.. There's on direction or sense in the writing at all.. it's a typical "stuff happens and people do stuff" movie, where one thing barely leads tot he next and we as the audience is just expected to accept it.
@@toobig7150 eh even then, at least a game lets you have fun outside the story.
Fantastic Beasts would be more fun if you could go off script and just do open world schenanegans 😅
The editing is on fire in these videos man! Crying at Jacob holding a phone instead of the shot of laughter. 💀
Thank you so much for your videos man. I see movies differently because of you, I notice so many things from the perspective of writing and character motivations. I always knew if I liked or disliked a movie but after watching your videos I can finally see why I like or dislike them. You've given me a vocabulary for movies and respect for movie critics that I never understood before.
My Mom and Dad watched this movie on HBO max, and they fell asleep right through the whole thing.
I m such a big fan of harry potter movies like i watch harry potter movies every 3 months..even i enjoyed crimes of grindelwald...not in my worst dream i thougt that the movie will be this bad..i didnt feel connected to story and often confused..i completed the movie jst because i dont want to leave at middle ..i m really disappointed..i used to search after crimes of grindelwald that whats going on ...when the movie start shooting..i literally counted my days...😭😭😭
I think a good and quick change would be if Newt is afraid of his brother, Theseus, b/c he's bullied him their entire lives. That way, as the movie progresses, Theseus learns to love beasts too and comes to respect Newt. They could've had it when Theseus gets captured, Newt has to abandon an important mission to go save someone he hates (an enemy). Then when Newt uses his beast knowledge to save Theseus without violence, Theseus would saying something like, "I was wrong and I'm sorry." That way, it's a strong emotional transition from 2A to 2B.
We can see that Newt and Theseus’ relationship is somewhat strained in the first movies, and I’m incredibly sad that they didn’t’ take the chance to expand upon that plot point. With more elaboration and carefully handled execution, your idea sounds great!
What about 9S?
The problem is: We never saw Theseus being a bad brother. Newt talks shit about him in the first movie so when he's introduced you expect a cliche big brother who is always picking on his little brother and we got someone who actually care for Newt's future and it's A BIT judgemental about his career, that's it. We needed to have that friction since the second movie or else it would feel out of place.
@@OsSas3 they also could've tied in the idea that Theseus is projecting his guilt about Leta's death onto Newt and blaming him in some way. It could've built into a hard emotional moment where Theseus warns the group that when Newt gets involved, people around him die.
@@Evelyn_Okay THIS. I love your idea, it also adds something to the character of Theseus and could be the reason why he gets captured by ignoring Newt and then gets saved by him, fixing the tension.
Even with her books, JK didn't exactly work on the series by herself, Harry Potter was a team effort. She's frequently discussed how she'd submit versions of the material to her editor, who'd then correct inconsistencies within the story, suggest changes to the narrative, and remind Rowling of her own canon. Once she and her editor were comfortable with their final draft, they'd submit it to the publisher who'd make some suggestions about changes, JK would make adjustments and then the Publisher moved the book to print.
Screenplay aside, the numerous inconsistencies are incrementally stacking with each new Fantastic Beasts movie and it's a little jarring, to say the least.
That’s generally how writing works for every author. Some authors do more on their own, some less.
@@kalebgray1050 Yes, I'm aware of the standard book publishing process. However, I wanted to focus on JK Rowling specifically, not the industry as a whole. In relevance JK, we can see the difference in the quality of the writing without any outside help. She should have people there to piggyback ideas off of or genuinely tell her that some of her ideas don't make sense in the larger narrative of the Wizarding World (specifically Harry Potter). But it was obvious that WB execs were too scared of pissing her off, so they let her do whatever she wanted with the first 2 Fantastic Beast movies.
@@lucariomew365 She did have those people. They’re called producers and studio executives and Kloves helped her as well on the first two. You don’t think she just submitted a final script without anyone seeing it first do you?
@@lucariomew365 She had to show the script to the producers and they greenlit it. They're the ones responsible for everything.
@@dasik84 And the fact that they greenlit FB 2, while keeping her as screenwriters says it all. Also, a movie producer isn't going to have same level of scrutiny.
Let's all take a second to appreciate that this channel's editing is every bit as amazing as it's critiques. This channel is AMAZING!
What baffles me is the fact that on the first movie, they set the world as if the wizards don't known about magical creatures, because no one has take his time to study them, and then, in this movie, the next leader of the wizarding world is elected by magical bambi, and everyone knows that a quilin only bows to someone worthy, so we come from a world where no wizard trust or knows nothing about magical creatures, to a world where magical bambi elects the next leader, and everyone seems fine with that.
this not harry potter franchise would probably do better as a tv series without such a big plot (and without jk rowling), we really could have had newt and jacob catching pokemon
100% agree with you
Since the second movie, the "Fantastic Beasts" title feels really forced on this series. They only keep it because the executives want to make another anthology with multiple parts just like Harry Potter. But in my opinion, that whole struggle to be just like the previous story is boring, the first Fantastic Beasts was okay, although it had some flaws, but it was enjoyable, because it's told a story about some weird guy who just wants to capture some endangered species in America, meanwhile the film has kept a bit of the atmoshpere and visual from the last 3 Harry Potter movies, BUT it didn't really want to act like one of them. I'd prefer if the creators just leave Salmander in the first movie, and the next one can drop the "Fantastic Beast" name and replace it completely with "Crimes of Grindelwald", and this one can focus on new characters (mostly from America) who are trying to chase Grindelwald, for example. And each part of this "anthology" could have its on story in this era. And maybe, just maybe it wouldn't be so repetitive.
Totally agree
The fact that they're still calling it "Fantastic Beasts" has to be the most egregiously cynical and corporate attempt at hogging name recognition in recent memory, how fucking desperate do you have to be to attach the name of an expanded universe mockumentary book to a completely unrelated film series just so you can say its an adaptation. It would have been absolutely fine if they had just had two or three films about Newt and his friends with a bunch of background details that set up a wholly separate prequel tetralogy about Dumbledore but no it's name recognition or death in this industry.
This movie series honestly breaks my heart. Say what you want about the Harry Potter movies, each one functions as a competent movie and for real fans is a place of magic and childhood memories. This is a spit in the face to all fans as far as I’m concerned. And for a self proclaimed “feminist” the “bad witch” in this movie is so badly written and has no individuality of her own. Smh…
A lot of people who become villains have a massive shortcoming in their personality somewhere. You usually either get the "Situation made me evil." villain and the "I'm too weak as a person to do things right." villain.
Considering how transphobic she is and how she has no issue calling trans people Autistic as an insult I'm pretty sure she's just not a feminist.
@@aperson9576 it's true and you should say it
She is a TERF. Not a true feminist.
@@aperson9576 she’s a terf at best
If "Grindelwald as the ability to see snatches of the future" and Dumbledore know him so well so that he sent is Ocean 11 team to confuse him, how come Dumbledore did not put much credence in divination and Trelaney in the Harry Potter books ?
I know he mainly offered her a job at Hogwart to protect her from Tom and his followers.
Just wondering
OMG you got this on exactly on point!
I resumee in my own words: I don't like all the phantastic beasts serie. Why?
1. The costumes and the styles.
Capes? Where are the capes that almost every wizard wears? Unlike in this movies, the acutal wizarding world of Harry Potter plays in a universe, that remembers more like a fairytale-world with extravagant clothes, old fashioned styles, almost mideval...the nostalgic vibes we get from Harry Potter is what makes it so magical. This movies instead looks more like a future version of the Harry Potter century....it makes no sense.
2. The missing magic.
Although we have some wooden sticks, that people are using mechanically like every single muggle could use a weapon, and although it's supposed to look like magic, it doesnt. We learned, that every spell has it's own choreography, it's own spelling words, it's own emotion and atmosphere. You cannot be frightend and swear some deadly spells without changing your whole aura. It doens't appear magical for me. Did I mention the boring movie soundtrack? They had acutally the possibility to create something new, epic, beautiful, but instead they are just messing it up again and again...I didn't get magic-vibes at all. Did you?
3. The actors.
Shouldn't hire super famous actors like Johnny Depp (he's famous for being Captain Jack Sparrow!) on the first place. But than changing the actor was even a worst desicion. And even if the other ones are good actors, Dumbledor is diffrent for me. In the books and the Harry Potter movies he is funny, playful, kind, wise, calm and has a big, pure heart. Jude Law is a perfect Sherlock Homes. But a Dumbledore? Even Eddy Redmayne (Newt Scamander) could be a more convincing version of the younger Dumbledore-Version, than a total serious Jude Law. I doesn't feel like some of the actors really enganged with their future characters in the books and HP-movies. It's not convincing for me.
4. The storyline.
Or should I say, the missing one? Too many things happening simultaniously, too many people introduced at once, without really introducing them to the audience...
Did acutally someone understand what was happening and why?
Could actually someone explain what is going on?
Why are there plenty new characters, introduced like the audience is supposed to know who this is?
It's a big, messy, confusion. And that's why it was boooring like no movie before. That's the diffrence of Harry Potter. You could easlily watch the first four movies for it's own and you would understand anytime what's going on, even if it would be the first time ever you would see one of them. For fantastic beasts you need to be a hardcore-super-hp-studied-fan, to understand who this is, what this is, why this is and what's happening at all...
This was the worst movie in the entire HP-World ever. I felt so cringe, I couldn't even watch the first hour completely, until I felt so confused, so cringe and so bored, that I turned the TV of.
I don't know if it would be smart to contiune like this. Better hire Chris Clumbus (regisseur), John Williams (music), Judianna Makovsky (costume) and John Seale (camera) from the first cast again. Steve Kloves messed this time the script up, unfortunately. And: Never make a movie about a non existing story. Let J.K. Rowling write a book first, before even thinking about making a movie out of some scraps of side-informations of her books. And I agree: She can write books unlike anyone else, but she's a desaster in writing movie or theatre scripts. It's simply not working for the entire picture. Sorry.
Without the team of the first two movies, J.K. Rowling's HP-Universe would never get a second part and be just forgotten like the wonderful story of "His dark materials" from Phillip Pullman. So if the wizard world of HP got that big, it's not just because of J.K. Rowling's ideas. It's especially because of the great movie team from the first two years that adapted a perfect alinged story of a great book. Never forgeth this 😉👍
I still can’t believe that they fired Johnny Depp, _but they kept Ezra Miller._
Edit: Ezra Miller uses they/them pronouns.
Problems with Ezra started few days before the movie came to cinemas. They literally had no time to cut him out. And he dies in the end, so who cares?
@@dasik84 we never actually see Credence die. So there might be a chance he could be back. If there's another movie at all.
@@JeaninBrown It was established he was dying - because Phoenix was flying around him.
And Ezra Miller has HUGE problems now, so they're probably super happy his character died.
Dude can't stop attacking women.
They didn't keep Ezra, WB have terminated his contract
They should just have used the first movie as a setup for two movie franchises that told their own separate stories. One about fantastic beasts and one about Dumbledore taking down Grindelwald.
I’m still saddened we didn’t get a movie about a young Dumbledore and all the tragic events in his early life.
the first movie was what was expected, catching magical creatures but also introducing an evil wizard who could use the creatures in order to fulfill his desires, if they had stuck with newt traveling to countries for beasts instead of making it political and about dumbledore we could of had a great series
Or if they wanted to bring it into real world issues, make it the very obvious Biodiversity Conservation one, but with rare magical creatures instead of real endangered species.
@@christinefarrell6438 Wrong timing though. Avatar series by James Cameron already does it better
@@karolinakuc4783 The first Fantastic Beasts came out seven years after the first Avatar. The general audience probably would not have been primed to do a comparison, there wouldn't have been anything risky about the timing, especially not with a franchise like Harry Potter.
Could have* sorry just fyi
forget dumbledore and grindelwald. we want a "the wizard in the hopping pop, babbity rabbity, and the cackling stump" spin-off series. The spin-offs we all deserve.
3:24 This is Katana. She's got my back. I would advise not getting killed by her. Her sword traps the souls of its victims.
My complains :
- there is less Hufflepuff energy. I feel like watching another Gryffindor movie.
- there are very little Fantastic Beasts despite the title
- there are less worldbuilding and lores. The feeling of finding and exploring something new, new world.
Like 60% of Gryffindor , 20% of slyderin, 5% of ravencrof and Hufflepuff.
I’m sorry, what? The entire plot is literally based on a fantastic beast, we get introduced to the German Ministry of magic and the place where magic was believed to have originated from.
@@joeyjerry1586 it's based around a plot device shaped like a fantastic beast. That's not the same as it being based around fantastic beats.
@@anna-flora999 true heck some old fans of Harry Potter want something new by new mean beyond past previous movie . Make a prequel by using fantastic beast movie is so strange in a bad way cuz people in current new something total fresh idea just what it did from the first fantastic beast. If anything else they should make spin off about something we didn't know about wizard world or make a prequel character relate event before we know what happen by the end of it like some teachers from defense of dark magic,some students that exists before Harry Potter came to Hogwarts , heck make a story of Voldemort cuz yes we know who is really is but still curious about previous year and many more.
I love how Grindlewald somehow became Felix Leiter in the old Bond films, in that he's played by a different actor (almost) every time.
LOL love this comment
What annoyed me the most about this movie is that they invent new stuff into the wizarding world that never existed in the harry potter movies. Like how come we have never heard that there was a global leader of the magic community? In the harry potter books it seemed that every country has its ministry of magic and that was it. There was never any mention of a global leader or that he or she was elected by magic bambi. Its just stupid to invent new stuff in prequels, thats what sequels are for. It breaks the entire timeline.
Also: this movie is set in 1933 but from the books we know that the fight between dumbledore and grindelwald happens in 1945. So is dumbledore just gonna chill for 13 years or what? This movie just doesnt make sense on so many levels its baffling me.
The creatures also seems so outta point. Like, just look at that "bird" thing that carries Newt away on the beggining of the movie. Can you imagine something like that on the Harry Potter saga? It's just ludicrous.
Also, magic seems so easy on these movies, with every side character acting like Merlin or something, that Dumbledore and Grindelwald don't even feel that special anymore.
@@Matpeixelegal oh and that short fight between dumbledore and grindelwald is also absolutely pathetic. Its one of those "red beam vs. Green beam" fights while the actors are squinting at each other. Why cant we have epic fights like the one in order of the phoenix with dumbledore and voldemord anymore?
@@Florianski ikr? Not to mention that they seemed to be on another dimension while fighting which got me thinking like ?????????
@@Matpeixelegal the whole third act looked so fake. You could immediately tell that it is all greenscreen.
Rowling always made shit up as she went along
My main problem is multiple plots that go nowhere. Animals that are introduced with no purpose just because of the title, family relations that are mentioned every other time, broken friendships, political elections. We're in the third movie and Grindelwald did not accomplish anything with an extensive army behind him. There are so many questions to answer, so many characters that appear and disappear out of thin air. Is just a waste of time.
"Magical voting machine Bambi" is the single greatest name for a plot McGuffin I have ever heard!
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I feel like I'd enjoy these stories way more as books, where JK Rowling's worldbuilding and writing style can have proper space to breathe and develop.
Same
I’m with you on this. I didn’t bother watching even the second film, but I probably would have given a book a read.
All of the breathing room in the world isn't going to help Rowling's worldbuilding.
@@mechanomics2649 Nah, it would
Same, tbh.
I love how this entire movie's premise is based around the break of one of HP's most important laws regarding magic: It's impossible to ressurrect the dead.
Have to disagree on this. They didn’t resurrect the dead Qilin. Zombifying a corpse to do your bidding happened in the original books during Voldermort’s war as well as caused the death of the 2nd Peverell brother when he asked the resurrection stone to bring back his lover but she could only act like a zombie, driving him to suicide (Also not sure but the Imperius curse can probably be used on a corpse). Law is not against animating the dead, but giving them their lives back.
@@ruknoonshadiddinder9801 However, wasn't the Resurrection Stone supposed to be one of a kind? The only real way of bringing souls back, as unnatural as it may be.
I know Dumbledore said the Peverells were probably just very skilled wizards but I like to think they DID have some sort of "additional" help, since their three creations were beyond anything any other wizard has ever created.
A Philosopher's Stone is "skilled wizard" territory. Those 3 gizmos were beyond that.
@@ruknoonshadiddinder9801 And the zombies are called Inferri
The Most desaturated fight in this "Movie" has two characters that dont really want to kill each other because they have a very deep
Very easy for china to cut out,love for each other
They explained why Dumbledore and Grindelwald fought each other...the vow was broken because they each tried to do something to a third party (one protected, the other attacked). the vow was then void as they avoided direct conflict but ended up engaging each other anyway...it's like a loophole no one knew about.
Very good points! I agree with everything. A huge improvement to this movie would have been tp get rid of all unecessary characters and just focus on the ones we know. The professor witch for example - she contributed nothing that a character like Tina couldn’t contribute. Why was Tina off being ”busy” and the professor witch part of the team instead? Didn’t make any sense. Tina should have had her role and since she has a romantic relationship to Newt that would have raised the stakes immediately. But I think the main issue is that the story couldn’t make up its mind about who is the main character. Newt? Dumbledore? Jakob? Pick ONE and stick to this character!! Since the movie couldn’t make up its mind everything fell apart. It turned all these characters passive and weak, made sure neither had enough story for a two hour movie, and since Grindewald doesn’t really care about any of them (maybe Dumbledore a bit but not nearly enough) he didn’t serve as an effective antagonist. This script was not ready, it needed more work. I mean just the fact that the plan was ”no plan”?? And the audience was invited on this ”no plan” adventure? meh :|
Secrets of Dumbledore is just the franchise’s mismanagement/power struggle coming home to roost. The cracks were there with Crimes of Grindelwald, but this is just further proof of how we need a break from the constant Wizarding World content for both our and it’s own sakes. And that’s without touching on the hair trigger nuke that is the politics.
The spin off stuff was awful anyways the first one was so bad it was entertaining, the second one was just bad and I'm not going to bother watching the third one alone maybe in a watch party (drunk) together.
Biggest turnoff? No secrets were revealed ! And what? Credence was a Dumbledore? Pffftt.. Johnny Depp revealed that last time .
A book can have all the filler you want, but in a movie every minute counts.
Not really.
You shouldn't waste time in books either.
@@pyktukasplays4945 Tell that to Gabriel García Márquez.
@@AlfredoPuente8 A person with those names and surname died in 2014. I am not sure if my communication skills can work with dead people.
What other authors should I check?
@@pyktukasplays4945 I don’t know if it’s “wasting time” in books but sometimes you can put in too much detail in books that some people will read, and others will skim over. Like JRR Tolkien’s books. I loved the stories but learned early on that if there was going to be a lengthy song or page of lore about a tree or a horse (which most fans probably love) I would be best served skimming those bits. But in a theatre you can’t skim anything. 😃
Why are people liking your post lol. What a stupid idea. I’d rather have a concise book of 300 pages that doesn’t ramble on with filler than a 900 page book that does. It’s one of the reasons the Eragon series did so poorly, it was just too long
I remember these movies and Curse child were compared in a sense that Curse child is a bad story with good execution while the Fantastic Beast films are a good story with bad execution
Hey Filmento! Just wanted to thank you for giving me inspiration to start writing on my own, your tips and movie analysis are so helpful in a way that they help me know what pitfalls I should avoid. Thank you for your amazing content!
Someone really needs to intervene with rowling when she’s writing this stuff. You just had to write a film about a twink going off and finding magical creatures and we’ve ended up with this
Could've been a cross between Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones with dragons and shit. Instead we got C-SPAN with wizards.
It should’ve just stayed a book. Prequels are always shit. See: Star Wars, The hobbit, the thing, Harry Potter.
Can we also talk about the fact that the Chillin's choice was just a guide/best recommendation. Like you could still vote for whoever, so what real power does it truly have?
It's the same way with Quidditch if you think about it. The Chillin's choice is useless, just something cool to have, like scoring in Quidditch.
"Like you could just catch the Golden Snitch to win, so what real power does is truly have to score points?"
@@carlosjuniorbrandao78 catching the golden snitch doesn't make you win automatically, it gives you 500 points or something like that. There were few times (in the book at least) when catching the snitch didn't make the team win because they still had fewer points
@@mariagrabczewska5079 Yes, but it ends the game nevertheless.
The bing chilling is dumb.
@@carlosjuniorbrandao78 Hey, no, no, there was that one match where the seeker caught the snitch and lost because there was no way to beat the other team…and reports of matches that lasted days or weeks. I imagine the scoring matters a lot more then. The students at Hogwarts were just way better seekers than anyone else ever, so the games ended quickly before much scoring could take place.
(I actually agree that Quidditch rules are kinda dumb…why score? Just block for your seeker, distract the other team’s seeker, and help him/her look for the snitch…)
The curse of removing Johnny Depp lol
I'm not saying the movie would've been better, but more people would've seen it
whether the movie good or bad relies on the writing/directing/storytelling but not who is being casted. Plus Mads Mikkelsen is not bad either.
@@kellifizw.8846 Oh I agree.
I am saying financially, this movie would have probably earned another sequel IF Depp had been kept in it. Regardless of writing
@A Catalan Liam Johnny Depp has hundreds of thousands of fans that will watch anything he is in, yes.
Again, I am not saying it'd make the movie good. but I am saying it would have made a fuckton more money. Mads is brilliant, but he does not command a fandom like Johnny.
Wouldn't have even cared for Johnny Depp returning, just the fact that Grindelwald's character sucks in this movie. Before he seemed almost anarchistic, crazy even, which goes through with his crazy idea for a war. The thing is here he just seems like your average fascist strong leader, and that is pretty awful. He's supposed to be a dangerous free spirit, not caring about the casualties. Here he seems to collected, too prepared for the war.
@@thehippie3610 People forget Johnny Depp was in flop after flop before his career stalled; Black Mass, Mordecai, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Transcendence, Lone Ranger, and no one really cared for his role in Crimes of Grindelwald. I don't think he would have had much impact on this movie's success, I think the reception of the last movie could with JK's own controversies really killed the momentum of this franchise
The big problem with these movies is that they don't deliver what they promised.
On one hand we have a main character that is relegated to secondary. From a really passionate researcher that is willing to do anything for his research, and to change the magical society's view on magical creatures, to Dumbledore's sidekick who's really good with animals.
On the other hand we have Dumbledore, one of the most interesting character on the HP saga, who's past hide many secrets, none of which are answered so far. Instead being presented with new misteries that are way less interesting.
"And if most of your second act would ultimately function the same way if your characters stayed at home to confuse the villian by watching TV, that's not earning anything" - this line is great, and really nailed it for me - exactly why these feel so pointless and boring.
The four things that really damned this movie for me were:
1. Improper use of Jacob as a Proxy Character.
2. Improper use of Bunty and Yusuf.
3. Improper use of the Blood Pact.
4. Loss of momentum from the previous film.
The entire election thing was to name the next Supreme Mugwump, which is the Head of the International Confederation of Wizards; a sort of super-minister above all of the individual Ministers of Magic of each country. I honestly don't recall if the word "Mugwump" was ever spoken even once in the movie. The viewer is left completely confused as to what this election is even for.
If Jacob had asked someone what the election was, a simple cutaway could have been shown that explained the system to our Proxy Character and in turn explained it to us viewers as well.
Bunty and Yusuf were so bland in this movie, you could probably swap their roles and it wouldn't have the changed the movie one tick. They should have been shown using some sort of signature that made them both unique. Bunty is supposed to be Newt's assistant; she ought to be just, if not close to, as knowledgeable about Fantastic Beasts as he is. Yet, aside from the two beasts of her shoulders when she is introduced, we never see her interacting with a beast at all. She should have been the one to explain how Qillns work to our proxy character Jacob so as to display her knowledge. Yusuf should have done more, just in general.
[She Who Must Not Be Named] did the exact same thing in this movie as she did in the larger Harry Potter books; she wrote herself into a corner and hastily threw away a plot element to resolve the problem too quickly. In the books, the introduction of the Time Turner opened up a boat load of uncomfortable time travel questions, forcing the narrative into an equally uncomfortable corner. That mistake was too quickly resolved by having the kids smash all the Time Turners in the Ministry of Magic.
Likewise, the Blood Pact between Dumbledore and Grindlewald wrote the two into a corner. We know from Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog Card way back in the first Harry Potter movie/book that he is to defeat Grindlewald in combat. That cannot happen as long as the Blood Pact exists, so we know it has to either be destroyed or otherwise circumvented in some form, making the Blood Pact an obstacle to overcome. Having it so hastily shattered over such a meaningless exchange in this movie makes me ask why it was even introduced in the first place.
The last Fantastic Beasts film showed us the urgency of Nagini's Maledictus curse, as she has little time left as a human and lives as an outcaste because of it, bonding with Credence over that outcaste status. In this film, she's... not there. At all. What happened to that urgency? Further, the climax of the last film had the whole bit about the babies being swapped on the boat, one of them being Credence. Does that mean that Aberforth is NOT Credence's father? Where did that plot element go?
Keeping plot narratives alive is like spinning plates. You need to revisit important elements every few scenes and give them another spin, elsewise, the plate falls and the audience forgets that that was a thing. I suppose Nagini and the baby swapping thing will make a reoccurrence in the next Fantastic Beasts film, but both plot points have gone cold now because of this movie. It's too late.
This movie was the “the rise of sky walker” of Harry Potter. Both tried to get us to like the terrible movies by using nostalgia with old songs and old characters, I half expected Hagrid or Voldemort as a baby to show up for no reason
TROS was alright with Palpatine returning and bringing Luke’s arc full circle imo but does not conclude the series well.
@@techblizmax9660 Are you trying to say that "Somehow Palpatine Returned" was the GOOD part of that movie? Could've just let Kylo turn fully dark after failing to be redeemed twice in the past 2 movies and used him as a far more interesting villain.
Man, she isn't even that good of a book author. She hit gold with Harry Potter, but nothing else she has written has gotten any huge notice
Her Detective Strike novels are really good.
I guess one other thing she’s got going for her is that she actually finishes her book series. Not like George R R Martin (I’ve given up waiting for his next book) or Patrick Rothfuss (the dude is an amazing author, but maybe he should stop crapping on Rowling for her “lack of style” and focus on finishing his trilogy of books first)
I feel like J.K.R's fundamental issue is that she has an extremely essentialized world view. Bad people are bad people, because they are bad people. Good people do good things, because they are good people. A elven race of slaves are a race of slaves, because they are slaves. Outside of the political issues that come from this, it also pours into the writing, where we are meant to hate a character because he's evil, because she tells us he's evil, rather than him actually showing his evil. The same goes for good characters, they are good because we are told they are good.
Voldermort had the same issue. Aside from being the antagonist, he really didn't do anything except kill like 3 people on screen. Him as a threat was often told to us, but his threat that traumatized an entire race of magic empowered humans was never once demonstrated.
The issue just becomes more noticeable when taken outside of books, where time can be wasted.
And yet of the three plot relevant members of the "race of slaves", two of them were actually free; one of them proudly proclaiming it during his final moments and the other never actually was a slave and only aided Harry once Harry treated him with any decency.
This sophomoric analysis of Rowling's supposed essentialized world view (which was clearly not even thought by you; you're just regurgitating garbage you read in twitter by your fellow screechers) wouldn't allow for Snape's redemption (yet while still being a horrid abusive teacher), Dumbledore's ruthless utilitarianism, or characters like Fudge, who's clearly not evil but merely scared and ultimately pathetic.
"She never shows Voldemort being evil or even a threat". Mind you, aside your gross dismissal of murder as not bad enough (despite how much you people love to say how "words are murder"), the seventh books had multiple scenes showing the monstrous reality of what it meant to have Voldemort in power. But I guess since they weren't whatever minority twitter is pretending to care about this week, it wasn't actually bad?
Seriously, you people are better off screeching how much you hate Rowling over her tweets. Analysis of literature is clearly above your wheelhouse.
And now I'm sure you'll reply saying how you didn't read, because of course you people can't process anything that doesn't fit a tweet. Sure can parrot it, tho.
@@julianmarqm8005 You're arguing with someone who isn't even here. If you want to argue with overly sensitive Twitter teens, I'd suggest going to Twitter for that.
"The three examples of..." Stop. We're doing media analysis here, what's the meta narrative? World building? Character motives? If you have one character who is different, that doesn't change the meta narrative nor world building.
People murder all the time. Voldemort is treated in the narrative as a Hitler-esque villain. The wizarding world changed their entire society because of him. Yet all we see is a cult leader. Yes a bad guy, but not "entire world traumatized by this one man's name" bad. Essentially, we got a 6/10 baddy, but he was treated like a 14/10 baddy. Mind you, people were literally terrified of his name.
Your exclamation about things being about minorities leaves me to believe your argument has actually nothing to do with Harry Potter, but instead some other disconnected issue you have. Once again, if you want to discuss media analysis, I'm game. If you want to argue with "the woke left ruining our culture" I'm the wrong lady to talk to, as I couldn't care less about culture war nonsense.
@@julianmarqm8005 Did you delete your last comment?
I know I watched this movie at some point but I totally dissociated after the first five minutes right up until the end because I could not explain to you a single thing that happens in this movie.
I wonder how Amber Heard's reputation is gonna affect the next AQUAMAN
Because it would be cool to see the movie receiving the same treatment with Heard being replaced
If Heard went away, it would be an improvement. She was easily the worst part of Aquaman 1, even before I knew about the allegations.
@@bluecoin3771 The movie is just bad all around. i like superhero movies but aquaman is a turd. and it also had patrick wilson as the villain.... the most boring and unmemorable actor currently working in Hollywood.
Wait wait wait OP, so you think that if heard gets replaced it would be a bad decision that would compromise the success of the movie? What drugs are you on my dude lmaoooo
@@djangofett4879 umm Patrick Wilson is literally very famous . Starring in iconic films like Phantom of the Opera. He’s not forgettable at all. Also, its not relatable to the Amber Heard situation. Fallacy.
@@barombolobombolo1501 read again
I still don't understand why JK didn't simply made a new series of books instead of movies. It's not like she didn't attached her name to another HP book after the main series finished.
Also, I still can't believe that anyone was naive enough to see a script in which they made the "good guys" allow the second war wold and the "bad guy" is the one who wants to stop it and thought "yeah, this is a good thing to include in our franchise about kids going to school and learning to make feather float."
For one she became less humble, which cause her to think she could do no wrong, she wrote Harry Potter she clearly a master at her craft right? Problem is once you start to become to prideful your work will suffer for it, this is actually really common with any artist and normally reason bad works come out, while people who never let their pride take over normally do really well.
On ww2 thing, look pride side now you can go to any HP fan and say Dumbledore caused the holocaust.
if what other comments said true, seems like her attempts with other books didnt do too well, so my guess would be she hoped the movies would get people interested in her books again
Sad enough as this series has become, I loved what it was with the first movie. Newt on his magical animal adventures with having to deal with the background over arching plot of grindlewald starting essentially the Wizarding world's second world war. If they had stuck with that, it would've been like how Harry Potter worked out, him learning how to be a wizard and going to hogwarts with him having to deal with the background plot of voldemort trying to rise up again. But WB couldn't pick between doing fantastic beasts or a Dumbledore origin story, when they could've made either both in separate movie series or at least stuck to the formula of the first movie, or at the very least done Fantastic beasts as a tv series with each episode aptly following a monster of the week formula, which I feel would've worked very well.
I liked the parts with Newt, the beasts, Jacob and Queenie, but the dark and disturbing vibe (abused orphans, etc.) ruined it for me. I wish there’d been a more light-hearted adventure style movie about Newt and his creatures. The politics and tensions could have a backdrop.
A TV or streaming series would have been perfect.
@@Andreamom001 I do wish that dark vibe in the first film had taken more of a back seat as well, cause in the Harry Potter films, it was naturally transitioned to with Harry and company getting curious and trying to figure out what the hell was going on themselves, the dark stuff was part of their narrative, but they were the focus. It was closer to that in the first film than any other film, but they just kept running away from that formula
Excellent breakdown! I only saw the first in this series and came away with the same frustrations -- no forward momentum, no clear stakes, unmemorable characters, spoken exposition, no urgency, and no sense of what the cost would be if the characters failed at whatever they were trying to accomplish. Of all the characters, only the baker resonated for me, but not so much that I remembered his name as the credits rolled. On one level, I'm not shocked to learn these problems persist in the franchise. Rowling's spectacular success as an author make her too important to the studio to challenge and too precious for anyone to challenge if they want to put her name on their resume. Subbed!