T O P

Unpopular opinion: The fantastic beasts movies don’t deserve the hate they get

Unpopular opinion: The fantastic beasts movies don’t deserve the hate they get

TinyButMighty2

I think I saw those videos — they were good! Though I do think the second one does deserves the hate it gets. The first one I actually really enjoyed! It was a simple story with fun new characters and in a new timeline and place — excellent! It could have made a great standalone film, but it was also a nice introduction to this new story. Sure, it wasn’t perfect; there were definitely some superfluous bits, but who couldn’t say that about the HP films either. The second one however… it’s trying to be too much. It’s bloated and has too many twists and characters arcs to rush through. The reveals about Nagini and the Dumbledore family feel like cheap, tenuous links to connect the story to Harry Potter’s. Some of the other twists feel in poor taste. And character motivations (particularly Queenie’s) are confusing and unexplored. It would make a better book probably, as isn’t an unpopular opinion. Even all this aside… the discourse it has about WWII leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It didn’t have to bring the war so directly into its framework. It was possible just allude to it, to show the connections between the real war and the wizarding war. Instead it brought it out in full display at the end of FB2, and it opens too much questions about the wizarding world’s involvement, namely “why would the supposed good guys let that happen?” Saying that, I feel Grindelwald is a much better villain than Voldemort — and I think Jude Law is the best Dumbledore we’ve ever had. The dynamic of these two could save the series; however, they’d probably have to drop the “fantastic beasts” aspect if that were the case (like the beasts were in the second one much anyway…).


HoHoey

First one I enjoyed because it was charming. It wasn't a great film to be honest, wasn't on the level I'd expect from a piece of work that takes place in the same universe as Harry Potter but still enjoyable Other than that the second film felt like a weird mess to me and I heavily disliked it.


RowRow1990

The second one was a mess


nekomancer-kun

I actually find the films enjoyable. Newt Scamander actually became one of my favorite characters in the franchise. Redmayne's portrayal is amazing. Only part that I dislike is >!Dumbledore having a secret brother.!<


voldyCSSM19

Very untrustworthy source. He's definitely lying or bending the truth in some weird way, if Dumbledore actually had a brother we would likely know from the OG series


nekomancer-kun

Hopefully that would be the case. I don't want a retcon.


Crash_Revenge

Issue is, they have already retconed some pretty important information. McGonagall shouldn’t have been a teacher, never mind the age she was in the 2nd movie. Don’t really see how they come back from that.


Calm_Garage_3030

People always said having McGonagall in FB movie make it a bad film. It's just a cameo. Even though, I myself don't like the inclusion of it, it doesn't affect my fondness for the film. They can always retcon by saying it Minerva's mother.


Crash_Revenge

So they would have retcon that too? Her mother wasn’t a professor. At a young age she married a muggle and lived in secret with him, a minister. It’s not just a cameo, in my option. It’s telling of the producers care and respect of the established story. If they can take a pretty important secondary character and throw out their history, what else do they not care about? Maybe there really is now a secret Dumbledore.


Calm_Garage_3030

Again, that just a cameo in the FB movie. She didn't play an important role in the movie. Her appearance in the movie is just a fun easter egg for the fans of HP. If you don't like it, then just ignore it and just pretend that's another character or better yet just don't watch the next film. And, the extra information about McGonagall's mother is from pottermore. They are not from the books, I think.


Crash_Revenge

Whilst she didn’t play an major part of that particular film, she is a significant character in the overall universe. What they do with that character is fundamentally important. Then throwing in a cheap Easter egg is as I’ve said above, is telling of how they don’t care. There are so many characters that could have been thrown in there that fans would have appreciated that don’t have established front and centre roles and places. I know the cinema I was in there was an audible “what? how?” when she appeared on screen - it stuck out and a cameo shouldn’t do that. You are correct, I can not watch the next movie and to be honest I’m not going to be pre-booking a ticket this time. I’ll see it eventually and not just because of McGonagall. The FB movies have a lot of failings and the 2nd didn’t bring the story on track like I was hoping it would have.


ellawood789

Yea if dumbledore had a brother we would have known in harry potter but the part that leaves my mind spinning is the phoenix


TheAnniCake

The most common theory about that one is that Credence somehow inherits the obscurus that used to be Ariana Dumbledore's. I can't tell you how that's possible because we barely know anything about them but I think that's something worth exploring.


raisinghellwithtrees

And the obscurus is genetically a Dumbledore? I still don't understand how that they makes them related. I really liked the first movie. The second not so much. I was just very confused. Still am lol.


TheAnniCake

It is because it used to be a part of Ariana. This theory and the whole second movie are nothing that really make that much sense.


Cygnus_Harvey

So far. And that's said by the literal fascist megalomaniac. I don't trust a word that he says.


Ryuuzoji

But if it isn't true, it's just shitty clickbait bullshit. If it is true: It's stupid. Leta accidentally replacing one important magical baby with another even more important magical baby is just... contrived, even for Harry Potter. If it isn't... Then it's just pointless. "Here's a twist, 2 years later we might tell you it's fake! Or 6, if we don't get around to it in the next few movies"


Captain_Cringe_

This. I've had a lot of people tell me that clearly he must be lying because he's Grindelwald! And I'm not going to say I definitely think he is telling the truth, but I'm just like do you people realize that's still bad writing either way? It's either an incredibly convoluted exposition dump that leads to a bad retcon twist or it's an incredibly convoluted exposition dump that leads to a bad pointless twist.


Ryuuzoji

It's just bad or horrible, really... If people think it's a lie, then what they are saying is that JK intended people to look at the reveal and go "Meh, that's not true" or be shocked and awed fakely. If you felt excitement at the idea, you're apparently an idiot that will be disappointed when it's revealed to be false. What a brilliant piece of writing...


RAND0M-HER0

It ain't over till it's over. The Dumbledore brother could just be a Grindlewald trick.


nekomancer-kun

That's what I figured. Though I would want to see more of Ariana and Aberforth instead of him to be honest. That was such an interesting and sad backstory for a major character in the series that did not appear in the movies.


hpnerd2375

I think Grindelwald was lying just to get him to join the cause


dmh2493

He’s probably going to be his nephew or something, not his brother


Dirkem96

ALLEGEDLY


nashk25

I think the biggest issues with the movies are the things Rowling is trying to add to make us say "oh so that's why". Still the movies are really good, actors are charismatic and we get to see one of the stories I was so eager to watch. Also, the Dumbledore brother is absolutely ridiculous. I'd like to think is just Grindelwald manipulating the kid to kill Albus, also some data doesn't check. How old McGonagall really is and what about the Lestrange girl?


ex-apes

McGonagall being a teacher at that timeline is *so infuriating* to me, like what was JKR thinking? She literally created this character, stated in OotP *for how long* she's been a teacher, then pulls off this? That was the exact moment I lost interest in FB


nashk25

I've lost a lot of respect for Rowling in these past years and it's truly disappointing cuz Harry Potter is a huge part of my childhood, but I've separated the creation from the creator


rainatom

I love the first movie but prefer to think that the second one doesn't exist.


Syvarris233

I'm the same, loved the worldbuilding and all the creatures we saw in the first. the second one I found needlessly hard to follow, wasn't a fan at all EDIT: second one also made some very questionable choices...


Vanillaxsnakexgamer

I'm really excited for the next one, but kinda upset about Depp leaving. He created a good vibe.


Appy_Aplaca

True...


Exa2552

For real? The first one was good, no doubt. But the second one was terrible, not only speaking as a HP fan but from a film making point of view. It was just a BAD movie. How do people not see this?!


_mattgarcia

Exactly. And I definitely don't need a youtuber to tell me why I should like a bad movie. When I watched those movies it had been almost a decade since I consumed anything HP related, so I was pretty much unaffected by the baggage of the original series. I LOVED the first one, watched it 4 times. It was so entertaining and so magic, it had such novelty and, although not perfect, I thought it was really well delivered. The second one is just a lot of nonsense. They try to cram so much stuff together, a lot of it feels pointless and like it's taking away from the important stuff, then it feels like they're rushing all of it. At many times I felt like I had skipped a movie, like I was watching the 3rd installment and had missed the 2nd. At other times it felt like I was watching a movie that was edited by someone who was not part of the original project, like they were just told to fill some blanks with no context. I'm not criticizing people who liked it, I don't think there's anything wrong with that and I love that people had a good time with it, but I don't understand how someone could say it's a good movie or that it doesn't deserve the criticism it gets


RowRow1990

I've watched the first one loads it was so good but the second one. Ugh. I commented about this the other day so I'm not going to repeat it all again but it was just ridiculous. And I'm with you, if people like it then good for them, but I'm not going to enjoy something that had plot holes, different timelines than what was established, completely different characteristics for the already established characters, spells that suddenly do something different that they're supposed to AND THE LACK OF FANTASTIC BEASTS!!! Someone sitting on YouTube isn't going to make any of that miraculously better. P.s...... I went into it, sorry!


SnooCapers9046

ummmm can you explain whyyou think its bad?


sbtrey23

I completely agree. The first one was solid and while it was a little packed, the second one was fine too. I also like to remember that these were made with the idea that they all culminate into a final, hopefully epic fifth movie. I expected the first to be excellent because it sets up the story and the end to be excellent because it wraps up the story. The middle three are there to expand the story and help set up the final conflict. While they doesn’t mean I expect them to be terrible movies, it also means I have slightly lower expectations for them because of their role in a five movie sage (quintilogy?).


annethepolar

Look I love them both, but they do deserve some hate. Some last minute and shuffled retconning for random things like nagini and the possible Dumbledore relation along with some minor other things are a bit wacky. I'm a fan so I'll buy into it, but we can't say they don't deserve some of the hate they get. I am so damn excited for the next one, though I really hate Depp is out (especially after the circumstances surrounding it).


ellawood789

I feel exactly the same way! They are two parts of an incompleted puzzle but I still think that the second one did add some random things like newts assistant (sorry I cant remember her name)


PG4400

Honestly I’m not surprised if the assistant turns out to be a Weasley. Newt calls her Bunty.


RagnarLothbrok23

I was excited but the thought of Johnny Depp being replaced doesn’t sit well with me.


Wet-Needleworker

Any news on who’s replacing him?


RagnarLothbrok23

Mads Mikkelsen. I think it’s a good replacement tho


Wet-Needleworker

Well he’s not Depp


glassgwaith

If anything he could be better. Mads is a great actor


Wet-Needleworker

He played kaecilius in Doctor Strange right?


glassgwaith

He did


Redpythongoon

He's better


Redpythongoon

Mads will be a MUCH better Grindelwald. I am so tired of the Johnny Depp character that's he played on repeat for 15 years. Mickelson is incredible and creepy.


mielove

He'd be more my ideal casting to begin with. However, replacing a main movie character half-way through a movie series is incredibly jarring. Plus the reason they're doing it puts a bad taste in my mouth, it would be different if Depp died or something then I'd be ok with it. As is this recasting isn't exactly inspiring confidence for a number of reasons. :/


mocochang_

Exactly my feelings. I have absolutely nothing against Mikkelsen and I hope he does great, but it does put a bad taste in my mouth regarding Warner and the movie production.


trickman01

There were reportedly on set issues with Depp as well.


Manux005

Right. His ex wife has no evidence, that Depp ever hit her. It was even proved, that she was faking evidence, and Depp even has an audio recording, of her saying, that she hit him continuesly, but he just wouldn't hit back. Yet they still fire him from the movies. It's just so unfair, that a woman can ruin a mans live, by just accusing him of something, even though she was proven wrong.


bov110

i belive he resigned from wb not fired


mocochang_

He was "asked to resign". WB basically asked him to quit and he complied because he didn't want to cause drama. It's basically the same as him being fired, but WB didn't want to deal with the contractual issues.


creusac

Same. I don't know if I will bother watching the rest. Nobody can replace Depp!


Redpythongoon

Mads Mickelson can.


creusac

WB agree with you


DinkandDrunk

Dislike them. They just don’t feel well thought out.


VetusVesperlilio

I liked them both enough to actually buy copies. I love Eddie Redmayne and I adore Dan Fogler. If I enjoy something, I don’t worry overmuch about other people not liking it.


ChristineWhy

Love them both and Newt is my favorite wizarding world character. Eddie did such a great job. Plus can we talk about how AWESOME the kid who played young Newt did in capturing his mannerisms??


Zack_Reid15

I don’t get why it gets hate in the first place I actually enjoy it it shows more background knowledge about characters like dumbledore and Grindelwald and we learn about the United States ministry of magic


perhapsinawayyed

Dumbledores story was completed though, at least in the eyes of the canon. He explained to Harry at kings cross about how he sees himself in his youth etc. Seeing it cannot improve that, all it can do is detract from what we read in that scene. Imo they should have completely detached from Harry Potter, maybe some films on the founders, or standalone films based on the other book releases like fantastic beasts but don’t include dumbledore. It’s just so risky and it will almost never go well


Zack_Reid15

No I’m saying we get to see dumbeldore in his youth era on the big screen and we learn about other characters like newt


perhapsinawayyed

I don’t want to see dumbledores youth. I have it pictured in my head from the kings cross scene, nothing good can come from showing it. The battle vs grindelwald as well can surely only be a negative as the mysticism is taken out of it - how did he beat the elder wand, was it actually the greatest duel of all time etc. We would have seen new characters like newt in spin offs anyway


Zack_Reid15

Yea I see your point I want to see a spin-off like the hogwarts founders


sebystee

I've really enjoyed them both


60svintage

I love the films, but I would love them in books. I understand why JKR has written film scripts and probably has scripts for the next century pre-written. She'd never turn out as many books in the same time period.


Appy_Aplaca

True. Fantastic Beasts was one of the best movies I've ever watched. People are treating them as thought the series have ended, but there are THREE more movies to come, how can you know the whole plot!!! They are crazy people whose minds are full of wrackspurts.


SnooCapers9046

yeysyeysyeydyysyeysys FB FILMS ARE WONDEFUL


nakni14

I 100% like the movies and appreciate what they offer. Cursed Child being considered canon is really my "ughhhhhhh" moment. The Fantastic Beast movies are fine.


mielove

Yeah Cursed Child completely messes up canon. FB1 is fun, FB2 is a bit of a messier movie (with plotlines all over the place), but I'm ok with what actually happened in that movie being canon to the series.


burywmore

They are terrible films that are lessening the value of the Harry Potter brand. However if you like them, great.


eightbillionlunatics

I mean, to anyone who hasn't read the books the films are all pretty terrible.


DinkandDrunk

Who hasn’t? In my experience, most people that haven’t read the books seem to like the movies. The people that love the books are hit and miss on them.


burywmore

I'm not that big a fan of the movies, but Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets are both solid, if a bit bland entertainment and Prisoner of Azkaban has a ton of real style. I agree in one respect..... Every single thing David Yates has ever done is utter trash.


ssbmrai

If you like them I’m happy for you. But personally I will never watch those movies again or bother watching the sequels. The first one is fine but the second one just changed too many things about the series that I believe took the universe in the wrong direction. Such as retconning the Dumbledore lineage and retconning Nagini. I also feel like the story should have focused more heavily on Newt.


Ryuuzoji

I disagree. They movies are pretty fucking bad. MovieFlame's videos are pretty bad too - they don't really address any of the proper criticism of the movies and some arguments barely makes sense. It's been a while since I watched those, but their arguments were pretty bad. The movies, in particular the 2nd one, are pretty damn bad. The 2nd movie was extremely bland. Nagini and the blood pact stands out as the most idiotic things (way to take Dumbledore's guilt-ridden reason to not fight Grindelwald and make it into a McGuffin they retrieve without even fucking trying to), but having a main character with no interest in the plot and having several characters that have NO relevance to the story take up an entire movie was just horrible writing.


JR-Style-93

You can't really say that the blood pact is going to play out simple like that (as in they have it for a few years but Dumbledore can only destroy it in 1945 and then goes immediately to confront Grindelwald.) If that happens it will be cheap I agree, but there is so much that can happen with that. There is plenty of opportunity for Dumbledore to still hold off his attack, and when you have multiple movies like this you can't just have Dumbledore say every time "I can't fight him sorry" until he finally does. There has to be some development. And I think FB is more of an ensemble movie than that it's totally the movie of Newt, sure he didn't want anything to do with it but that's what this movie was about so he could choose a side (it's okay if you don't like how they executed that though). Just like the other characters, so then they are part of the story anyway.


Ryuuzoji

>You can't really say that the blood pact is going to play out simple like that (as in they have it for a few years but Dumbledore can only destroy it in 1945 and then goes immediately to confront Grindelwald.) No, but unfortunately, it's going to be stupid either way. >There is plenty of opportunity for Dumbledore to still hold off his attack, and when you have multiple movies like this you can't just have Dumbledore say every time "I can't fight him sorry" until he finally does. There has to be some development. In this case, the blood pact was pointless. We already KNOW why Dumbledore doesn't fight him, and the blood pact isn't the reason. The existence of the blood pact is irrelevant, which is also shown in the movie by them nonsensically picking it up by coincidence. Apparently Newt's nifler got through all the chaos and fire, was undistracted by everything else and managed to steal the blood pact for them without any of them even trying to retrieve it. If it ends up not mattering, then what was the point of introducing something that it doesn't take any effort to retrieve? It's bad either way. >And I think FB is more of an ensemble movie than that it's totally the movie of Newt, sure he didn't want anything to do with it but that's what this movie was about so he could choose a side (it's okay if you don't like how they executed that though) Maybe, but it's pretty bad at being an ensemble movie when the characters introduced are so uninteresting: - Newt is uninterested in the plot and the idea that "he needs to choose a side" is stupid. What choice is there? Do we really think Newt is wavering between Grindelwald or Dumbledore? Fuck no he isn't. And why does anyone care which side Newt is on? He's a Zookeeper. Best case he can consult on the obscurial, but apart from some knowledge-sharing why does anyone care? - Tina is... There. She does things, and is the closest thing to a main character we actually have. Movie would have been better if we followed her more so she felt more relevant. - Leta is... spent an awful lot of time on in the movie for someone who gets killed off in the end. - Nagini is an emotional support animal with little personality or story of her own. - The guy that hunts Leta/Credence/Corvus turns out to not have had a motivation to begin with and then sticks around at the end. - Dumbledore is there to act like this story has anything to it - he doesn't really contribute to anything but the stupid "choose a side" bullshit and his own idiotic blood pact. - Jacob is there. He's fun. Doesn't do much.


JR-Style-93

>**In this case, the blood pact was pointless. We already KNOW why Dumbledore doesn't fight him, and the blood pact isn't the reason. The existence of the blood pact is irrelevant, which is also shown in the movie by them nonsensically picking it up by coincidence.** **Apparently Newt's nifler got through all the chaos and fire, was undistracted by everything else and managed to steal the blood pact for them without any of them even trying to retrieve it.** > >**If it ends up not mattering, then what was the point of introducing something that it doesn't take any effort to retrieve? It's bad either way.** I think the blood pact is crucial in explaining how Ariana died. It was made when they were teenagers and probably before their first duel, and we know they hit some spells while not knowing which one hit Ariana. Well we know that they were both good wizards and just a spell going random at her and then kills her? I think it's more likely now that the spell bounced off on the blood pact and that caused Ariana to somehow die, so it makes more sense that Albus feels guilty about it because the blood pact could've caused it. So he is guilty in a way anyway, and it makes sense that this wasn't revealed in the last Potter book because only Skeeter wrote about it with information from Bagshot and it could easily be that she didn't have that information. Same with Aberforth. The Dumbledore at King's Cross with the explanation? I always thought that was an hallucination from Harry, but if he wasn't it still makes sense that he didn't really go into detail about what happened. >**Maybe, but it's pretty bad at being an ensemble movie when the characters introduced are so uninteresting:** **Newt is uninterested in the plot and the idea that "he needs to choose a side" is stupid. What choice is there? Do we really think Newt is wavering between Grindelwald or Dumbledore? Fuck no he isn't. And why does anyone care which side Newt is on? He's a Zookeeper. Best case he can consult on the obscurial, but apart from some knowledge-sharing why does anyone care?** It's more that he just wants to get on with his life as a zookeeper but gets involved in the war anyway because the stakes are too high, just like any soldier fighting in wars who would rather be a baker at home or do something else. So Newt didn't really have a personal goal in the war yet, aside from capturing Grindelwald of course. But now with the "death" of Leta and Queenie and Credence joining Grindelwald he has the motivation to be more active in the plot. And he has important skills with all those creatures that can always be useful in fighting a war. He is not a chosen one like Harry where the whole plot revolved directly around him, so it's a bit different than we normally expect in stories but I like that it is not as cliche. >**Tina is... There. She does things, and is the closest thing to a main character we actually have. Movie would have been better if we followed her more so she felt more relevant.** I agree with this, I don't like her character very much. A bit too bland and she isn't doing that much aside from being the love interest of Newt. She should be developed more in future movies. > **Leta is... spent an awful lot of time on in the movie for someone who gets killed off in the end.** Well isn't that the same with Cedric Diggory for example? Also had a brief notion in the book before he plays a bigger role (like Leta was namedropped in the first movie). Anyway I don't even believe that Leta really died, Grindelwald seemed to know her and we know he imprisoned his enemies in Nurmengard. It wouldn't surprise me if that fire send her to cell there and it will be a future plotline to save her. But even if she died it isn't that weird to have a character be introduced in a movie where they die right? **Nagini is an emotional support animal with little personality or story of her own.** Yes she didn't really do much and that was a disappointment, but I think we can expect more from her in future movies and her curse is interesting. Especially since we know where it will lead. But it's a shame that we didn't really get to know her much. **The guy that hunts Leta/Credence/Corvus turns out to not have had a motivation to begin with and then sticks around at the end.** You mean Yusuf Kama? I think his motivation was revealed well enough, he made an Unbreakable Vow with his father to search for Corvus. But then when Credence wasn't Corvus he knew he didn't have to kill him. But yeah his character is a bit of a plot device to let Leta reveal the story. But there was probably more going on with that whole backstory with the baby switching anyway so it will come up in later movies. **Dumbledore is there to act like this story has anything to it - he doesn't really contribute to anything but the stupid "choose a side" bullshit and his own idiotic blood pact.** Well that is the thing with him not wanting to confront Grindelwald for years, so all he can do is work in the shadows and influence others to stop Grindelwald. So this movie was more to introduce him as a new character in the conflict and show his history with Grindelwald. But we all know what their past is and since the revelation of Aurelius Dumbledore came he will probably get a lot more action in the next movies. **Jacob is there. He's fun. Doesn't do much.** Yeah he is comic relief (I have to admit it didn't work as good for me as in the first movie). Although he serves as motivation for Queenie to join Grindelwald, has a good dynamic with Newt who then can explain things to him as well as to the audience so that has it's purpose and it's interesting to see what a Muggle can do surrounded by wizards. You'll probably not agree with everything and that's fine, but I hope some things are more clear now.


Ryuuzoji

> I think the blood pact is crucial in explaining how Ariana died. It was made when they were teenagers and probably before their first duel, and we know they hit some spells while not knowing which one hit Ariana. Well we know that they were both good wizards and just a spell going random at her and then kills her? I think it's more likely now that the spell bounced off on the blood pact and that caused Ariana to somehow die, so it makes more sense that Albus feels guilty about it because the blood pact could've caused it. This doesn't matter because we already know that spells can be deflected and fly all over the place during wizarding duels. We see this both in the movies and in the books. The spell hitting her during a duel is the crucial part, not whether it was bounced by a blood pact, redirected mid duel, missed, dodged or whatever. >The Dumbledore at King's Cross with the explanation? I always thought that was an hallucination from Harry, but if he wasn't it still makes sense that he didn't really go into detail about what happened. How does that square with him giving Harry new information about his motivation? >It's more that he just wants to get on with his life as a zookeeper but gets involved in the war anyway because the stakes are too high, just like any soldier fighting in wars who would rather be a baker at home or do something else. So Newt didn't really have a personal goal in the war yet, aside from capturing Grindelwald of course. But now with the "death" of Leta and Queenie and Credence joining Grindelwald he has the motivation to be more active in the plot. And he has important skills with all those creatures that can always be useful in fighting a war. He is not a chosen one like Harry where the whole plot revolved directly around him, so it's a bit different than we normally expect in stories but I like that it is not as cliche. That would make sense if it was about him choosing to join the war effort - that would have been a still slightly stupid plotline (why does everyone focus on this guy in particular? He's a magic highschool dropout), but that isn't how it's framed. It's framed as the nonsensical "have to choose a side", as if that is a real question. >Well isn't that the same with Cedric Diggory for example? Also had a brief notion in the book before he plays a bigger role (like Leta was namedropped in the first movie). No, because we don't spend a large part of the book following Cedric's story and his relationship with Harry (because they don't have one). > Anyway I don't even believe that Leta really died, Grindelwald seemed to know her and we know he imprisoned his enemies in Nurmengard. It wouldn't surprise me if that fire send her to cell there and it will be a future plotline to save her. But even if she died it isn't that weird to have a character be introduced in a movie where they die right? Well, if she is in Nurmengard, then it's just more fake-out emotion porn with no substance. If this and Credence are both fake-outs, then what we are saying is that the last half of the movie is just pointless bullshit that isn't true. Great writing? And yes, you can introduce a character and kill them off in the same movie, but the amount of time we spent on her is wasted because it is only used to get Newt to take the nonsense decision of "choosing a side", which is not a real question anyway. >Yes she didn't really do much and that was a disappointment, but I think we can expect more from her in future movies and her curse is interesting. Especially since we know where it will lead. But it's a shame that we didn't really get to know her much. Good - then introduce her in the movies where she is relevant. Waste of time in this movie that has too many plotthreads with no impact even without her. >You mean Yusuf Kama? I think his motivation was revealed well enough, he made an Unbreakable Vow with his father to search for Corvus. But then when Credence wasn't Corvus he knew he didn't have to kill him. But yeah his character is a bit of a plot device to let Leta reveal the story. But there was probably more going on with that whole backstory with the baby switching anyway so it will come up in later movies. Point is that the unbreakable oath is pointless because Corvus is dead and has been forever. >Well that is the thing with him not wanting to confront Grindelwald for years, so all he can do is work in the shadows and influence others to stop Grindelwald. So this movie was more to introduce him as a new character in the conflict and show his history with Grindelwald. But we all know what their past is and since the revelation of Aurelius Dumbledore came he will probably get a lot more action in the next movies. I think this underlines a problem I have with a basic assumption you seem to have; that this is a story that needs to be told and especially needs to be told in that many movies. "Well, he can't be relevant in this movie, but we need him eventually" - well then make fewer movies instead of writing a 2nd movie that is completely pointless. >Yeah he is comic relief (I have to admit it didn't work as good for me as in the first movie). Although he serves as motivation for Queenie to join Grindelwald, has a good dynamic with Newt who then can explain things to him as well as to the audience so that has it's purpose and it's interesting to see what a Muggle can do surrounded by wizards. The only argument for Newt being someone so crucial that anyone should give a shit about him joining the battles is that he has unique knowledge about animals and obscurials - so anyone could fit as someone Newt can explain things to. Tina would do just as well in that role. And "what a muggle can do"? He doesn't really do anything...


JR-Style-93

>This doesn't matter because we already know that spells can be deflected and fly all over the place during wizarding duels. We see this both in the movies and in the books. The spell hitting her during a duel is the crucial part, not whether it was bounced by a blood pact, redirected mid duel, missed, dodged or whatever. Yes it can fly over all sides, but that's mostly with other more average wizards. Dumbledore and Grindelwald were top level, even when they were 17/18 years old. I think the element of the blood pact can add another layer to it, with it bouncing off. Do you remember Albus begging while under the influence of the potion "Please don't hurt them, hurt me instead", that could refer to him not stopping Grindelwald because he knows the blood pact is there. Then in an ultimate attempt it bounces off to Ariana or something. I think it's obvious there is a lot to be revealed about that duel (especially if Ariana really was an Obscurus) >How does that square with him giving Harry new information about his motivation? Does it? I think it's all information that Harry already knew subconciously with everything we got throughout the book. The fact that the quote "Of course it's happening inside your head" is used gives credence to that idea. At least to interpret it that way, I always did anyway. >That would make sense if it was about him choosing to join the war effort - that would have been a still slightly stupid plotline (why does everyone focus on this guy in particular? He's a magic highschool dropout), but that isn't how it's framed. It's framed as the nonsensical "have to choose a side", as if that is a real question. It's a real question for someone like Newt who just wants to do his own thing and doesn't really bother with politics. Grindelwald also presents himself with an message that is attractive to a lot of wizards so it isn't as clear cut that choosing the side is easy. With Voldemort that was more clear, but how Grindelwald presents himself to the public (and not what we know meta-wise of him) it's still not that bad. And Newt was chosen to find Credence especially, that was his mission that the Ministry wanted to sent him on and why Dumbledore wanted him to go to Paris. Which makes sense since Newt knows Credence already and had experience with his Obscurus. >Good - then introduce her in the movies where she is relevant. Waste of time in this movie that has too many plotthreads with no impact even without her. I agree with this a bit and it's clearly a case where Rowling uses novel-ideas to a movie and it doesn't work as well. On the other hand she must have her reasons for why Nagini had to meet Credence already (can he speak Parseltongue and we didn't know it the whole time?). At least we have a bit of an idea that she was a caring person once, so maybe something will happen with Credence later on that causes her to turn darker? Or more hateful against Dumbledore? There are some theories out there. >Point is that the unbreakable oath is pointless because Corvus is dead and has been forever. It seems that it is useless now so maybe Kama now gets a new motivation and can let it go. Or the real Corvus is still out there somewhere (because he was saved then in the ocean?). It would make sense with the whole "rise great avenger, with wings from the water". >I think this underlines a problem I have with a basic assumption you seem to have; that this is a story that needs to be told and especially needs to be told in that many movies. "Well, he can't be relevant in this movie, but we need him eventually" - well then make fewer movies instead of writing a 2nd movie that is completely pointless. If Rowling thinks this is a story worth telling I am all for it, we all know how much she planned out the big storylines in HP. Maybe eventually when all the movies are out I won't like the story as a whole, but that's the risk with every story you start to follow (GoT S8 flashbacks). And so I don't know how much of the second movie will be pointless or what comes back and gets development later on, just like in Chamber of Secrets for example. When we didn't know what came later it was just a weird diary with Voldemorts soul somehow, but when we learn that it was a Horcrux it gets a totally different dimension. I expect the same with CoG really. (by the way I think there is a lot of storylines already there in the FB-movies especially with potential ones later on that I don't think five movies is too many. I even think it can be a bit too short) >The only argument for Newt being someone so crucial that anyone should give a shit about him joining the battles is that he has unique knowledge about animals and obscurials - so anyone could fit as someone Newt can explain things to. Tina would do just as well in that role. Nah with Tina you wouldn't get the scene in the suitcase in the first movie. She knows magic and magical creatures from school, she wouldn't be as awestruck as Jacob was. She also has more knowledge about them probably from school, so I think it works fine with Jacob and he was seen as the best character in the first movie. I agree that his inclusion in the second one was forced and that his role was more to serve as Newts friend than as a proxy for the audience.


Ryuuzoji

> Yes it can fly over all sides, but that's mostly with other more average wizards. Citation needed. >I think the element of the blood pact can add another layer to it, with it bouncing off. Do you remember Albus begging while under the influence of the potion "Please don't hurt them, hurt me instead", that could refer to him not stopping Grindelwald because he knows the blood pact is there. Then in an ultimate attempt it bounces off to Ariana or something. I think it's obvious there is a lot to be revealed about that duel (especially if Ariana really was an Obscurus) I don't think it adds anything. What you describe doesn't really match what the fight is actually described like at all. The book clearly mentions all three of them dueling. Said by Aberforth. And Ariana interfered after they were all dueling. Besides if Dumbledore had fired one spell, it bounced off Grindelwald and then hit Ariana instead, he would be in no doubt whether he had killed her. >It's a real question for someone like Newt who just wants to do his own thing and doesn't really bother with politics. Grindelwald also presents himself with an message that is attractive to a lot of wizards so it isn't as clear cut that choosing the side is easy. With Voldemort that was more clear, but how Grindelwald presents himself to the public (and not what we know meta-wise of him) it's still not that bad. And Newt was chosen to find Credence especially, that was his mission that the Ministry wanted to sent him on and why Dumbledore wanted him to go to Paris. Which makes sense since Newt knows Credence already and had experience with his Obscurus. No, it isn't a real question for Newt - there was no way Newt was ever going to join Grindelwald after the first movie. It's a fake dilemma. The actual dilemma for Newt is "will you fight?", which is what he is being presented with, but they frame it in a different way so they can put it on the poster like it's a real thing. >I agree with this a bit and it's clearly a case where Rowling uses novel-ideas to a movie and it doesn't work as well. On the other hand she must have her reasons for why Nagini had to meet Credence already (can he speak Parseltongue and we didn't know it the whole time?). At least we have a bit of an idea that she was a caring person once, so maybe something will happen with Credence later on that causes her to turn darker? Or more hateful against Dumbledore? There are some theories out there. And none of them matter because in the end she becomes a snake and gets manipulated around by Voldemort. Her being his snake is again pretty pointless... >It seems that it is useless now so maybe Kama now gets a new motivation and can let it go. Or the real Corvus is still out there somewhere (because he was saved then in the ocean?). It would make sense with the whole "rise great avenger, with wings from the water". Great, another "well, what we are shown isn't real, so it will be good writing once we actually get to see that all the stupid things slightly makes sense in the end". I think that is every part of the latter half of the movie you have now said is not actually true; Corvus isn't dead (despite magical confirmation that he is), Credence isn't actually a Dumbledore, Leta isn't dead and the blood pact isn't why Dumbledore doesn't fight Grindelwald. So now we have... what left? >If Rowling thinks this is a story worth telling I am all for it, we all know how much she planned out the big storylines in HP. Maybe eventually when all the movies are out I won't like the story as a whole, but that's the risk with every story you start to follow (GoT S8 flashbacks). I actually doubt she planned out the big story lines nearly as much in HP as its claimed she did. The 7th book wouldn't need to introduce as many things to resolve the plot as it does if that was the case. >Nah with Tina you wouldn't get the scene in the suitcase in the first movie. She knows magic and magical creatures from school, she wouldn't be as awestruck as Jacob was. She also has more knowledge about them probably from school, so I think it works fine with Jacob and he was seen as the best character in the first movie. I agree that his inclusion in the second one was forced and that his role was more to serve as Newts friend than as a proxy for the audience. Yeah, I am talking particularly about the 2nd movie. In the first movie he is also irrelevant to the plot by far and large, but at least he serves to be surprised by magic.


JR-Style-93

>I don't think it adds anything. What you describe doesn't really match what the fight is actually described like at all. The book clearly mentions all three of them dueling. Said by Aberforth. And Ariana interfered after they were all dueling. Besides if Dumbledore had fired one spell, it bounced off Grindelwald and then hit Ariana instead, he would be in no doubt whether he had killed her. You don't think that Albus would've defeated Grindelwald there with Aberforth on his side? He was already seen as being slightly better. I think the blood pact as element makes sense, where Albus couldn't really interfere because he knew but still had to protect his sibling in a way. And there would be a lot of chaos there with Aberforth and Grindelwald fighting and Dumbledore trying some defensive magic while Ariana would go in Obscurus mode, plenty of chaos for Albus not really knowing what killed Ariana but suspecting it was because of the blood pact. I don't presume that's the case really, but we don't know any details about the duel really. Aberforth told the story without having all the information (or he had but it would be too many details to tell against Harry). I think it can fit, but you can disagree of course. >No, it isn't a real question for Newt - there was no way Newt was ever going to join Grindelwald after the first movie. It's a fake dilemma. The actual dilemma for Newt is "will you fight?", which is what he is being presented with, but they frame it in a different way so they can put it on the poster like it's a real thing. It's more the choice between fighting Grindelwald or staying neutral and doing your own thing. The sides chosen were also for the other characters in the ensemble and that worked out with Queenie and Credence. >And none of them matter because in the end she becomes a snake and gets manipulated around by Voldemort. Her being his snake is again pretty pointless... I think it adds another layer to the relationship between Voldemort and Nagini and it can be a pretty good tragic story on it's own with a nice girl turning to the dark side. Can be a pretty good subplot in the movies, especially when we see her meeting Riddle in the later movies. >Great, another "well, what we are shown isn't real, so it will be good writing once we actually get to see that all the stupid things slightly makes sense in the end". I think that is every part of the latter half of the movie you have now said is not actually true; Corvus isn't dead (despite magical confirmation that he is), Credence isn't actually a Dumbledore, Leta isn't dead and the blood pact isn't why Dumbledore doesn't fight Grindelwald. So now we have... what left? Rowling is pretty good in deceiving the audience where not everything is as it seems (she even said this in interviews around the release of CoG). I don't think everything is fake (I think Credence is a Dumbledore in a way, destroying the blood pact will be important for a future plot line and we'll see more of the time around that sunken ship. That flashback was more an introduction to that storyline I think, but then later on we can see if more happened. So I don't see it as pointless). But I can understand that people are impatient to wait on that resolution. Sure maybe you're right and it will all turn out to be bullshit, but I like to be optimistic here. >I actually doubt she planned out the big story lines nearly as much in HP as its claimed she did. The 7th book wouldn't need to introduce as many things to resolve the plot as it does if that was the case. She didn't plan out everything of course, but the big plotlines absolutely. Snape and his love for Lily? She knew that from the beginning (she told Rickman the motivation when they shot the first movie when only four books were out). Horcruxes? Definitely. Maybe not the name but the concept sure, she needed to know why Voldemort survived the rebounded curse and what the scar on Harry meant. The diary she probably also knew about it. The hallows were probably not as fleshed out but she knew about them in the sixth book (she had to know why Dumbledore would try the ring with the Resurrection Stone). She probably also knew that Harry would sacrifice himself. But smaller plotlines she probably thought of per book and that's okay. For FB I think she has a pretty good idea how the duel in Godric's Hollow went, who Credence is and what was going on with Corvus, where all the main characters will end up and what will happen exactly in the final duel. But smaller plotlines like how to get everywhere or how the romantic plotlines will play out will probably come later on. >Yeah, I am talking particularly about the 2nd movie. In the first movie he is also irrelevant to the plot by far and large, but at least he serves to be surprised by magic. Well then his purpose is clear, to provide the motivation for Queenie. And to just be a friend to Newt. He doesn't have to be that important everytime, in HP there were also a lot of books where big characters didn't do much.


Ryuuzoji

> You don't think that Albus would've defeated Grindelwald there with Aberforth on his side? He was already seen as being slightly better. I think the blood pact as element makes sense, where Albus couldn't really interfere because he knew but still had to protect his sibling in a way. And there would be a lot of chaos there with Aberforth and Grindelwald fighting and Dumbledore trying some defensive magic while Ariana would go in Obscurus mode, plenty of chaos for Albus not really knowing what killed Ariana but suspecting it was because of the blood pact. I don't presume that's the case really, but we don't know any details about the duel really. Aberforth told the story without having all the information (or he had but it would be too many details to tell against Harry). I think it can fit, but you can disagree of course. So, speculative, and no sources for the "magic wouldn't be flying wild during a duel" part? Great. >It's more the choice between fighting Grindelwald or staying neutral and doing your own thing. The sides chosen were also for the other characters in the ensemble and that worked out with Queenie and Credence. Again, that is the choice Newt is given - but it is framed as picking a side, which HE DOESN'T NEED TO DO. >I think it adds another layer to the relationship between Voldemort and Nagini and it can be a pretty good tragic story on it's own with a nice girl turning to the dark side. Can be a pretty good subplot in the movies, especially when we see her meeting Riddle in the later movies. I don't really think it adds anything... It honestly just makes the original story slightly stupider. And they only meet if we assume he meets her right after finishing school. >Rowling is pretty good in deceiving the audience where not everything is as it seems (she even said this in interviews around the release of CoG). I don't think everything is fake (I think Credence is a Dumbledore in a way, destroying the blood pact will be important for a future plot line and we'll see more of the time around that sunken ship. That flashback was more an introduction to that storyline I think, but then later on we can see if more happened. So I don't see it as pointless). But I can understand that people are impatient to wait on that resolution. Sure maybe you're right and it will all turn out to be bullshit, but I like to be optimistic here. Rowling also used to be able to tell a story that kind of had a beginning, middle and end and an actual plot, but she failed that in CoG. I also don't trust her as far as I can throw her considering how her idea of Harry Potter and what is actually in the books seem to contradict on occassion. But I'm going to stop now; I don't actually feel like you are reading what I'm writing or have anything to base your stuff on other that just being mindlessly optimistic that the mess will be good in 5 or 6 years when it actually finishes up.


dachshundaholic

I loved them first one. The second one isn't bad, but I'm hoping the third helps make the second one better.


Weasley-Adoptee

The worst thing I can say about the Fantastic Beast films is that *Crimes of Grindelwald* feels more like a novel than a film, which in this case doesn't really work to the film's advantage. (But doesn't ruin it either.) Like, that's it. That's the biggest criticism I have. They really are underrated in my opinion as well.


Odysseus_is_Ulysses

These opinions that are “other opinions are wrong” make me laugh.


Lord_Webotama

The mistake was trying to make a new saga out of it. Instead they should have made more books like History of Magic or Beedle the Bard, each presenting new standalone characters and new and different perspectives from the magical world with a secondary plot of Dumbledore and Grindelwald tying them together.


TheSilentHeel

I was bored by the first one, and really didn't like the second one. I'm glad people enjoy them, but they are pretty awful to me. They definitely deserve some hate, and I don't need some random YouTuber to tell me why I should like a bad move.


rocker2014

Completely agree, I love the movies and am looking forward to the third!


Hpquidditch74

Agreed, I love the Fantastic Beasts films. Great characters and for me the storyline has fit into the Wizarding World.


FelicityPhoenix

Why is this an unpopular opinion? Fantastic Beasts is awesome!


Murderous_Intention7

I don’t watch them on a mortal standpoint. Maybe that makes me a shitty person but J.K has been very controversial and hateful in the media, plus the entire Johnny Depp disaster, I just don’t want to show support right now. Maybe I’ll catch up when I see them for sale at a yard sale in a handful of years, maybe my kids will ask me to watch them since I plan to get them into Harry Potter, or maybe I’ll never watch them - I’m not sweating it really. The first two I did watch were very interesting, and incredible graphics, no complaints there. It’s off screen where the show really started.


Writing_blogs2017

I like them


Hunter_Redmane

No hate here! I love both movies, and am eagerly awaiting for JKR to write them proper novels!


JustaSnowbody

I enjoy the series, and am looking forward to future installments. I agree when you say it doesn't really deserve the hate.


HappyWondering

I love them so much!


[deleted]

I liked the first one and hated the second one. Jude Law as Dumbledore was good though. And I don't think Depp is a good fit for Grindelwald.(not because of the newspaper case, I don't think he should be ostracized for that, but because he's not owning the role)


nickoking

The first one is okay, the second one is a complete mess and deserves all the criticism aimed at it.


Proof-Exercise984

I really enjoyed the first one and I'm exited too for the 3rd, but Crimes of Grindelwald was a disaster and it deserves all the hate that it got


Blaze_Lazar

Okay but they fired depp, we should boycott the movie


NiceDrewishFella

If an actor is bigger than the story you shouldn't waste your time anyways.


Blaze_Lazar

Just hate to see the unfair treatment of Johnny Depp, he got fired from most his roles while Amber Heard still gets to keep her roles in the movies she worked on.


NiceDrewishFella

I feel ya on that. I think there is so much more to this story than we are privy to, and rightly so. But I think that the role should be bigger than the actor, and CoG really wasn't a great movie. I hope Mads does well with the part and they can give us some better films.


chris_p_bacon1

The fantastic beasts movies were better than the Harry Potter movies. The Harry Potter movies really weren't that well done. The fantastic beasts storyline was meant to be a movie and as a result worked far better.


squicky89

I think the movies are fun. The CGI and magic beats the HP films hands down. All that wand connecting in the HP movies was so lammmmee. We need. LoTR budget.


SinthoseXanataz

The first one doesnt at least


Quinnlim

I liked them as well


A_random_zy

i liked both too


Sweaty_Budget_5187

Like the first one it didn’t need a sequel


rorschach_vest

I’m very glad you like it! I totally disagree, but I’m glad someone enjoyed them lol


SuddenBag

I loved the first one. Even more than some in the original series. Second one though. For better or for worse, it didn't feel complete as a standalone. It also abandoned/downplayed many factors that made the first one so enjoyable for me.


astheticfucker

I would really love to see the legendary duel between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. What happens when wizards of such caliber face each other. We just had a glimpse of such clash between Dumbledore and Voldemort in Order of the Phoenix, but that was too short. Waiting for the last part.


No-Pressure6042

No the videos are good but I still don't agree. But it's just me being bitter i suppose. To me, everything about fantastic beasts feels like a cash-grab, however well it may be executed.


LittleBeastXL

They didn't before, but now they do after getting rid of Johnny Depp


GraafBerengeur

Oh yes indeed, I'm especially a fan of the first one. There's this video I saw about it that highlights one of the finer aspects, one that gets often underrated (and, in fact, downright hated on by unsavoury types). If you will: [The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander](https://youtu.be/C4kuR1gyOeQ) \-- about how Scamander can be a role model for the new age


Crash_Revenge

Not sure I can really forgive the retcon of McGonagall, for me honestly if I could see past everything else - I cannot see how McGonagall can be forgiven. It almost seems a given that the Dumbledore “reveal” is a fake and there isn’t a secret impossible Dumbledore… but how the hell was McGonagall a teacher at the point of the 2nd film?


JadedToon

They get most hate from me because of their somewhat meta meaning. They are films written and produced by Rowling. She has full control, meaning if there was EVER a time and place for her to put her money where he mouth is. This was it. Now was the time to take all those twitter ramblings and tidbits and make them canon. Yet, she didn't. A bit of a rant incoming, skip if you are not in the mood: The whole Grindelwald/Dumbledore thing drives me up the bloody wall. I hate that she was so blase about them being lovers but now is all koi and subtle about it in the movies. HP could really use some representation like that. I am not the person to scream "mandatory representation in all media", but for a series that was built on the idea of found family, acceptance and tolerance NOT to include it now is just the height of hypocrisy! The inclusion of the "Blood pact" is a way for her to sidestep the whole thing, because GOD FORBID they say "Hey, Albus still has feelings for him so is avoiding dueling him at all costs" and add some emotional weight to the sodding story.


Peter_the_Teddy

The second one does. What a mess from start to finish


Calm_Garage_3030

Don't care what other people think about it, I like them both and can't wait for the 3rd film next year. Also, can't wait for Dumbledore and Grindlewald duel in the 5th film.


kUbogsi

Well this is really unpopular opinion! Everyone I've talked to thinks the FB series is bullshit, especially FB2. But I enjoyed both and Im excited for the next :) I should check the video you talked about.


Tichaelito

I loved the first film. Watched it 10 times in the two years after release. I'm yet to rewatch the second.


bekatd

,


bekatd

,


bekatd

,,z


Sinteque

I like them all


Tbhjr

The first one is delightful. The second one belongs in the trash. The second one can’t even be considered an actual film.


dmh2493

The movies are okay. I just HATE Newt Scamander’s character. Sucks he has to be the lead.


mercfan3

I thought the first one was excellent. The second one was good, but had that classic second movie in a trilogy feel. The third..I’m not sure if I’ll see it. I’m upset they let Depp go, and I don’t like that they aren’t using cannon with Dumbledore and Grindel,


Small_Space_8961

The first was good and the second was bad. It had no second act


rebel_child12

I enjoy the first one. But honestly like cursed child. I really think they were jsut trying to piece together a messy storyline for the sake of a storyline. However fantastic beast has to line up with the Harry Potter storyline.


LoneRanger9000

Depends. If the next few movies explore more into the hidden protentional that were set up in the first 2 movies, then the Franchise deserves love and such. However, if they just leave Dumbledore's brother at that, or if they don't fully explore Nagini's backstory, then it will just be a worthless movie.


NeonMoth229

To all those saying the Dumbledore plot twist is impossible, first, let the movies finish before deciding it’s impossible. Second, Credence is likely Ariana’s obsurus.


Tian_Lord23

I love both these movies, I think they're great. I get people's hatred to the second one, it feels like a middle movie and some of the things people don't like I think will be fixed by the next movie (that's not an excuse but I think these issues will fade with answers). I'm excited for the next one and can't wait to see what they'll do with this story.


dman324

To paraphrase Stephen Fry, a definition of fiction is to tell a true story that never happened. That's the main issue I have with Fantastic Beasts. The plot line doesn't make sense, and there are various inconsistencies with both the main Harry Potter lore, and its own story. But it's an entertaining series at the very least, so I'm not unhappy that it was made.


danielrosen_hp

coming from a hufflepuff of course \*face palm\*


HoodooSquad

I felt like they screwed up america. Like…”we have strict wand control because of the Salem witch trials” isnt reflective of American opinion at all.


nonchalantenigma

I love the first Fantastic Beasts. The second one probably would have been fine (depends on how the other movies’ plots work out to answer some questions), except for the 180 with Queenie’s character.


ShilunZ

The second movie feels like a trivia freak who can never stop throwing random tidbits at you for one minute straight


Odh_utexas

The movies have a lot of pieces that do work: villain setting acting music world building (mostly) Production and cinematography Unfortunately that is undermined by a massive flaw: Newt Scamander lacks charisma almost to the point of unlikeability and none of the Beasts are interesting to me.


thegriff89

Tbh I don't like them just doesn't have the spark the HP films have


reicomatricks

The first one was fun, second one really bugged me and I think it was where it lost everyone. It started off with a magic carnival losing all its animals, so I'm expecting this ~Fantastic Beasts~ movie to be about the magical animal expert tracking them down and catching them. Meanwhile there's all this stuff happening in the background that I'm assuming the main protagonist is going to accidentally get wrapped up in. Instead, for some reason, the main character who wants nothing to do with anyone because he likes animals better than people is the new chosen one because everyone's trying to get their hands on him and get him on their side Dumbledore is being mysterious and saying he's important to the plan, for reasons. It just didn't jive well, the whole time I was asking "huh?" "what?" "why?". As a visual experience it had decent enough effects and it was a fun trip, but as a movie it was poorly written and badly executed. Also, come on, you expect me to believe that's the guy Dumbledore fell head over heels for?


RorschachtheMighty

I agree on the grounds that the first film is a solid standalone experience that gave me a great dose of Wizard World magic I’d been aching for. I fervently disagree in regards of Crimes of Grindelwald. I can’t even get through that one.


DrizzyMcGoo

The creatures is where the filmmakers have really hit their mark. They brought each and every beast to light with superb attention to detail. As a person who didn't really give the FB films a fair go at it, the clips/art of the monsters derived from the work are convincing me to give the movies a proper shot. That being said, I mainly have two gripes. 1. Out of the two short novels she wrote for charity all those years ago I really enjoyed the quidditch version far better that FB novel. I know it's a strange thing to hang on to, but I was really dissatisfied to learn thatl the FB film didn't include a quidditch version (either as a combination story, or, separate individual film) again, ik it's weird, but I really just enjoyed the quidditch book a looooot more than the FB book. Like, my little green book is WORN out. I can't barely even see the cover art anymore. My red book? Nearly mint condition. But maybe that's just me on that one 🤷‍♂️ 2. The story. Lacks. So much. Now, I'm just going off of a smattering of views, but there are some major flaws that can't be over looked. I could say a lot, but OP is trying to be a tad more charitable than I'm being RN. I'll instead widdle the films' flaws down to one major thing, its world is just plain and unconvincing. Ik it's way different, but these flims really could have taken a few pointers from the Philosophers phone. If you're going to introduce us to new magical world; *introduce* us to it. Don't just shove the viewers into a magical world because they're HP fans. I think they tried their best by adding the muggle character, but they didn't commit to making the introduction from his prospective, cutting into his wonder at the world around him. *small* tidbit, but also, IF you're going to take us back to Hogwarts, deliver. I think those scenes left a lot to be desired as well. TL;DR I hear you OP, they're better than the flack people have given the films, but gooood gravy there are just some substantially good reasons to have a problems with these spin offs.


Idina_Menzels_Larynx

Can I be honest? I think they're on the same quality as the Harry Potter movies, but because the movies were based on well developed books with fleshed out characters, we thought they were amazing (because we could fill in the blanks and had preconceived notions of each character or event). If the HP movies didn't have a print counterpart, they'd be just as confusing.