My son liked who loves harry potter and read all the HP and this one.

My other son who is 10 is like me, and didn't understand it and was confusing at times. The potential is there and it is building. I liked this one more than the first one. Anyone seen a video that explains the movie. That might help me.

tv1113 said:

---

After reading an article about it I'm pretty sure it is just Grindewald manipulating him into hunting Dumbledore for him. It is an interesting twist that puts fandom in a tizzy but it really doesn't make sense that he would have some long lost brother.

---

I thought the same thing, but what about the appearance of the phoenix?

My 12-yr-old daughter enjoyed it; I thought it was a jumbled, confused mess.

I liked it. But I'm a HP buff, love Redmayne and Law, and loved the first movie. That said still felt more like a bridge movie rather than one with a lot of meat.

The story in general I think is/will be really good. But like others, I thought it was a bit messy at times. And while I loved Jacob and Queenie(y) in the first movie, I thought their acting (or maybe the script) was meh in this movie. Some really awesome visual effects though, and some visually amazing scenes.

So I like where this series is going. The movie was in general entertaining, though i can imagine for not hardcore HP universe fans maybe not. I just wish this movie was a little more cohesive with more substance than what it had. I could definitely see Rowling's writing in some of the meandering with this film.

I guess best way for me to describe it is like one of those GoT episodes that are important but it doesn't feel like it moves a whole lot. Necessary, but sometimes lacking in that huge moment or major progression.

All in all, I did like it...it's a fun movie with some plot twists i wasn't expecting. But I can see why others may not.

aTmLoKi said:

---

tv1113 said:

---

After reading an article about it I'm pretty sure it is just Grindewald manipulating him into hunting Dumbledore for him. It is an interesting twist that puts fandom in a tizzy but it really doesn't make sense that he would have some long lost brother.

---

I thought the same thing, but what about the appearance of the phoenix?

---

I'll admit, if it isn't just a 3-D chess moment by Grindelwald, I'll be annoyed. I hate that trope.

I think the one thing that makes this story feel different ("messy") is the lessened focus on the main characters. In the HP series, almost every single scene was focused on Harry, Ron, or Hermione. I'm betting that the first 2 movies were 100% those two.

Likewise, for Fantastic Beasts 1, it was Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob who were the focus; many times they were paired too. For this movie though, the scenes were much more varied. Lots of time there was only Credence+Nagini, Grindelwald, Leta, or Theseus with zero presence of our protagonists.

Yeah I'm thinking simply extreme manipulation. Credence is so desperate to know who he is that you could have said his last name was Hitler and sent him after Adolf

Is thread okay for spoilers at this point or do we need another one? I'd like to discuss some of what happened, haha.

Pretty sure its ok. Doesn't look like this is gonna be a high traffic thread. You could use spoiler tags just in case

I thought this movie suffered a little bit of what I think is a trend in recent movies where there's just like... too much happening.

I also for about 4 seconds though Credence was going to become Hitler, and then thought no way, and then after the reveal that he's a secret Dumbledore (maybe), I thought him being Hitler might actually make MORE sense than what ended up happening.

What were y'alls thoughts on the continuity issues?

I'd agree with there being too much going on. You could tell that this was written by a novelist and not someone who regularly writes screenplays. It was definitely a set up film like someone mentioned earlier. With the original HP books, everything revolved around Harry, Ron and Hermione. Here, we have storylines with Newt/Tina, Dumbledore, Jacob-Queenie, Grindelwald, Leta, Credence/Nagini and so on. Hopefully they'll be a little more focused over the next few movies.

Just saw it. Confusing movie. Nobody in our party could fully explain what we watched. Had to read up some after the film. But in the end I was entertained; it did seem a bit long.

I liked it a lot better than the first one. People who were confused by it might not have read the books and / or seen the movies enough.

The first one was boring in my opinion. I think they spent too much time on character development and introducing us to "the beasts".

I loved the connections to the Harry Potter story. The lestranges, Nagini in human form, Nicholas flamel, Johnny depp played a pretty good villain.

I'm curious to see how much of Voldemort we get in the last 3 movies. Supposedly, the last movie takes place in 1945. What makes it interesting is that's the year Voldemort graduates from hogwarts ( I think). The possibilities are endless.

AgShaun00 said:

---

My son liked who loves harry potter and read all the HP and this one.

My other son who is 10 is like me, and didn't understand it and was confusing at times. The potential is there and it is building. I liked this one more than the first one. Anyone seen a video that explains the movie. That might help me.

---

Interesting video about Voldemort. Had 10 million views at one time.

The whole channel has great content tho.

Classic middle movie plot of good vs. evil. A la Empire Strikes back. Bad forces make moves and gain intiative. Good guys forced back against the corner. "Luke, I am your father" plot bomb.

Still enjoyed it. Visually was pretty amazing. And I thought I was immune to that kind of stuff nowadays. Action was fast and fun. Story did seem a bit disjointed at times but if this is a five part series, then it can all be worked out hopefully.

Wasn't perfect but was definitely still worth the price of admission. If you are more than the most basic and casual HP fan, it is still a must see of course.

I think the Phoenix is to trick us more than anything.

Creedance wasn't in a great time of need like Dumbledore had mentioned.


Don't really like the idea he's a completely unheard of dumbledore sibling, seems like his family had been explained enough (good and bad) before this for that to have been left out.

If he is a long lost sibling then Rowling has fallen into making this like Star Wars where somehow every character of note is related which is kind of boring and tired.

For Credence to actually be a Dumbledore is to introduce a massive plot hole that I don't think the series could recover from. Since JKR wrote the script, I just don't think she'd put that plot hole.

As other said, I expect to find out that Grindlewald was lying. He said two things in the movie:

1. He though Credence might be the only one with the power to take on Dumbledore.

2. The entire dog and pony show only existed to draw Credence in.

I think the Phoenix (which everyone assumes is Faux) was put there to build the myth. I think in the time of need, it will product Albus and that's how we will get the truth.

I don't think she cares about plot holes at this point. My many reason for thinking his is McGonagall being at Hogwarts in both the "present time" visit and the Leta flashback.

Not to mention Dumbledore teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts instead of Transfiguration.

I know the Auror said he'd never teach Defense again, but then you have another issue with McGonagall being there and not having a subject to teach.

I listened to the Binge Mode podcast because I honestly couldn't follow a lot of the plot of this one. I have to think Grindlewald is lying about credence being a secret Dumbledore. Otherwise it completely upends everything we learned from Albus, Aberforth and Bathilda Bagshot in Hallows. I suspect the Obscuriel is the same one that possessed Ariana.

The problem with these movies for me is that I don't find Newt all that compelling as a lead character and I REALLY don't give AF about Credence. Not thrilled to see him back in this movie. I do think Jude Law is the best movie Dumbledore we've seen - he's the closest we've seen to the character JKR wrote.

I could tell she didnt write one damn word of the cursed child garbage but Jk Rowling did sign off on it sooo..... my trust in her has weakened a bit.

After sitting on this a few days (and a few conversations with the wife) I'm still pretty lukewarm on this movie.

I think my biggest issue here, like some people have kind of said, is that the focus of these movies is kind of all over the place.

Our main character is, theoretically, Newt Scamander (this series of movies is called 'Fantastic Beasts' after all...), but he did a whole lot of nothing in this movie. He didn't find Credence (Tina did, I guess? seems like everyone knew where he was except for the ministry), he didn't reveal who Credence actually was or wasn't (Leta did and (maybe?) Grindelwald did), at the end he was one of a band of wizards who (led by Nicolas Flemel for some reason...) held back Grindelwald, but that was basically all he did.

Having Newt as the main character in this story feels like if Hagrid would have been the main character of the original movies. Like... yeah his animals definitely impacted the plot, but there are way more interesting people involved.

bobinator said:

---

After sitting on this a few days (and a few conversations with the wife) I'm still pretty lukewarm on this movie.

I think my biggest issue here, like some people have kind of said, is that the focus of these movies is kind of all over the place.

Our main character is, theoretically, Newt Scamander (this series of movies is called 'Fantastic Beasts' after all...), but he did a whole lot of nothing in this movie. He didn't find Credence (Tina did, I guess? seems like everyone knew where he was except for the ministry), he didn't reveal who Credence actually was or wasn't (Leta did and (maybe?) Grindelwald did), at the end he was one of a band of wizards who (led by Nicolas Flemel for some reason...) held back Grindelwald, but that was basically all he did.

Having Newt as the main character in this story feels like if Hagrid would have been the main character of the original movies. Like... yeah his animals definitely impacted the plot, but there are way more interesting people involved.

---

I get your point, but I think the niffler getting the blood pact pin is probably one of the most important points of this whole movie, so Newt's beast was instrumental in moving the fight forward against Grindelwald. Because we all know Dumbledore eventually fights Grindelwald (spoiler, but this is said in HP books many times so whatever), but he was adamant all movie that he can't move against him. So that had to be moved forward. And Grindelwald's obsession with a random boy had to be explained since it carried forward to the second movie, and was his main motivation the last two movies. So while it was a lot of set up, I think it had to be done.

Like I said in an earlier comment, this felt like one of those GoT episodes that didn't seem to move forward a ton, but was necessary to set up plot for future episodes/movies. I watched the movie and it felt like a HP novel and Rowling's writing to me. Which as many have said, doesn't necessarily translate well to script form.

I watched the film a second time and I appreciated it more. But all of this goes out the window if Credence turns out to be a long lost Dumbledore. That would just be so far off canon from Deathly Hallows that it would annoy me. Unless it's absolutely perfectly executed.

Well like I said, obviously his animals end up being extremely important to the plot, but the plot could just as easily have stood on its own some other way if it really had to. Especially since the niffler getting the pin wasn't even Scamander's idea. It just sort of happened to do that while everything else was going on right?

We assume because we didn't see him actively directing the niffler before that moment, but probably a safe assumption.

But who else would have a random niffler in their pockets other than Newt? And his comment at the end to the Dumbledore is exactly why Dumbledore has likely chosen Newt to help him against Grindelwald - Grindelwald doesn't seem to value that which he sees as ordinary. Which is how he views non-magical people and beasts. They aren't wizards, so they aren't important. And because no wizard could steal the blood pact pin from him because he's incredibly powerful, then he was never that worried about it.

So a muggle likely couldn't do anything to thwart Grindelwald. Wizards are tough too because the whole incredibly persuasive dictator-type thing...and he'll see it coming. But Newt and his beasts could be (and obviously will be) a wild card that can tilt the fight in the good side's favor.

Yeah, I mean I get the theme, I just don't think it makes for a great movie. Like I said, it's like if the original movies were focused on Hagrid and his various animals instead of Harry directly. Credence and Grindelwald, much like Harry and Dumbledore, seem to be the most important characters of this franchise.

Probably the bigger issue, frankly, is that I really just don't care much about any of these characters except for Newt. One of the things that made Harry Potter really good was getting to know and like (or dislike in some cases) the characters involved.

Queenie is ostensibly one of the main characters in this series, and when she 'converted to the dark side' (for reasons that are EXTREMELY unclear) it didn't resonate at all emotionally. It was like 'sure...'

I didn't hate the movie, and I hope the future ones make some of the decisions in this one make sense, I just think the scope has some issues.

To each their own I guess.

I personally see Queenie going over as something that makes sense (but took a second viewing and some mulling, to be fair) and a really interesting plot point. Newt, I also feel, is a fun character.

The theme was always going to have to tie to what the hell does Newt Scamander have to do with Grindelwald, and that is his beasts are the wildcard in the overall war against Grindelwald. So if the theme doesn't make a great movie to you, then I guess I understand why you didn't really enjoy it.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why Queenie going over made sense, everyone I've talked to about the movie agreed that made no sense at all, but I'm open to reasons why it could have.

And it's not necessarily that I don't think the theme could make a good movie, I just didn't think this was that movie.

I just think that whole series of events makes Queenie look like an overly emotional idiot, which she clearly wasn't in the first movie. She knows who Grindelwald is before she goes to the house (she jumps up and points her wand at him), so it's not like a "they became evil afterward" kind of thing. She already knows what he's all about, so for her to believe that he's going to let her marry Jacob, when killing non-Magical people is like, his whole thing, is really dumb.

I also didn't like that she 'enchanted' Jacob and was going to make him marry her against his will, that's also very much out of character for her (especially at that point.)

It just seemed like several steps too far for a character that we're theoretically supposed to like and sympathize with.

Wasn't it stated in the movie that they could move to London and it would be a legal marriage? Is that just too easy for the plot sake? I felt they ruined her character

FightinTexasAg15 said:

---

Wasn't it stated in the movie that they could move to London and it would be a legal marriage? Is that just too easy for the plot sake? I felt they ruined her character

---

His bakery is in New York, his family is in New York. Their lives are in New York. I mean, I'm sure they would have considered it given time, but they had a fight and she ran off. And it's also the 1920s...probably was a bigger deal to just up and move to another country for folks back then.

And also it would have been too easy plot-wise, but at the same time, I'm sure it wasn't as simple as it seems in that time.

It took me two viewings to be okay with how they handled Queenie. I do think it could have been done better, but I don't think it's as off-base as I did after I watched it the first time.