Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Demented Daisy

The Fantastic Beasts Series

Recommended Posts

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 10:11 PM, GaT said:

I finally got to see this today, & I liked it. I thought they set up the world well & didn't make everything seem like "Harry Potter Light". I still don't like the name "No-Maj" though, she really couldn't come up with something better? Muggles is a great name for non magical people, No-Maj just sounds stupid. It reminds me of the first book when I got jarred out of the story by the phrase "put-outer" because it was so lacking in imagination, deluminator is such a better term.

 

16 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

No-maj is lame, but it seems exactly like something Americans would come up with (I'm American, mind you) so I get a kick out of it. 

The etymology of "No-Maj" has driven me a bit nuts since I first heard about it. Differences in British and American English like lift vs. elevator, parking lot vs. car park, subway vs. tube, etc. came about because people in separate countries an ocean apart settled on different terms for new inventions. There would have been non-magical people going back centuries and English-speaking wizards would have had a word to describe them, probably before European immigrants settled in America in large numbers. Unless, the American wizarding world is largely made up of homegrown Muggle-borns rather the emigrating wizards who would have brought terms like "Muggle" with them, in which case it makes sense that this new community of wizards came up with their own word to describe non-magical people. Still, it's pretty boring in comparison.

To this American, the term "put-outer" brought to mind very different connotations than extinguishing lights and seemed wildly out of place in a children's book! Though AFAIK, the device is also referred to as a put-outer in the original British edition.

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

To this American, the term "put-outer" brought to mind very different connotations than extinguishing lights and seemed wildly out of place in a children's book! Though AFAIK, the device is also referred to as a put-outer in the original British edition.

It is.  I....may have a complete set of the British version with the adult covers (in addition to my complete set of American ones) and there are many little changes in terminology (like Scotch vs Sello tape-which is how I learned where Spellotape comes from; or lemon drop vs lemon sherbet) but not the Put-Outer.  Most of the terms are the same in each version, as they are part of the Wizarding World but the little ones that are specific to the Brits or Americans are reflected in their respective publications.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to admit, my main thought coming out of this movie was wondering how non-Harry Potter fans would take it. Because, as a stan who's adored this world since my pre-teen years, I found plenty to enjoy but also couldn't manage to overlook a few glaring flaws, and I'm not sure if my previous love for the series helped or hurt on that front. Especially since I've always vastly preferred the books to the movies (though I still enjoy the latter), and Rowling's presence as the screenwriter really raised my expectations for this one. Which made it all the more surprising that my two biggest issues with the film were two areas where she really excelled in the original books. Namely:

1) It kind of felt like two separate movies jammed into one to me. It tried to be both a charming romp about a hunt for fantastic creatures and a much darker series-launching episode of the rise of Grindelwald, but while each side worked in it's own way, the two never really meshed in the way that she was able to do when she combined the fight against Voldemort with the classic boarding-school narrative of Harry Potter. I think the latter had a couple of advantages there. First in that Harry's story and Voldemort's story are inextricably linked from the very first chapter of The Philosopher's Stone, whereas Newt and Grindelwald seem kind of randomly thrown together. And secondly, the increasing threat of Voldemort and (perhaps more importantly) all he represented was a natural fit for what was ultimately a coming-of-age story, where things like the loss of innocence and the need to determine what one stands for and what they're willing to fight for are essential parts. The closest this film came to creating a real connection between its two storylines was the potential seeds planted linking Grindelwald's magic-supremacy views and the USA's "backwards" laws regarding wizard-muggle relationships. It's pretty thin at this point though, and leaves me wondering if she might have been better off making Kowalski the main character (and still has virtually nothing to do with the Fantastic Beasts side of things).

2) Considering how the Potter series is full of characters in both major and minor roles that leap off the page (or the screen) immediately, I was kind of shocked at how...flat and unmemorable most of the characters were. I don't know whether to blame Rowling, Yates, or the actors*, but other than Fogler's Kowalski and Alison Sudol's Queenie, I just didn't find the characters particularly engaging.

*With the exception of Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton, who I thought did the best job at trying to create something out of nothing. Morton in particular was impressive in managing to bring genuine menace to such a tiny, underwritten role.

And just to repeat:

On 11/19/2016 at 1:44 AM, dkb said:

Does anyone know what Depp says when he looks at Newt at the end?

Was trying to figure it out and thought I would understand at the second viewing, while trying to  listen really hard, but still didn't get it.

Did anyone catch that line? Because I'm assuming it was something important, but I couldn't pick out what he said. And I don't like to pile on here, but count me as one who's less than enthused about Johnny Depp's casting. Even leaving aside his problematic personal life, it's been so long since I've seen him play a character rather than a caricature that I'm not sure he's still capable of it. And while the Potterverse certainly has it's fair share of colourful, larger-that-life characters (and I wouldn't have it any other way), I'm going to need to see something with a bit more weight when it comes to a character that's basically Wizard Hitler.

Boy, this post makes it sound like I hated the movie, but I didn't. Like I said, there was plenty to enjoy -- in particular the worldbuidling, which was as delightful and fascinating as always -- and I'm still looking forward to the sequels (and can't wait to see who they cast as Young Dumbledore). I guess after such a long absence from this world I was just hoping for a little more.

Edited by AshleyN
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed this, and I really loved seeing more of the Potter world, and more characters outside of the people in Harry's life. It had some issues with pacing, and No-Maj sounds stupid (especially considering the original people who founded their wizard school were British, according to Pottermore), but I overall really enjoyed it, and am excited to see more of the Potter world. New countries, new time periods? 

Also, was there a wizard WWI? Or were they just kind of involved in the muggle one? Is there a wizard UN? It looked like one was meeting, are they still a thing? I want more answers! 

I liked all the characters but Jacob and Queenie stole the show for me. I am glad they included a likable muggle character (all the muggles we met in Harry Potter were mostly jerks or clueless victims) who handled all the craziness of the wizarding world pretty well. I was really hoping they could have made an exception for Jacob. Its not like he was going to tell people or join those creepy anti witch weirdos. Maybe in a sequel, he and Queenie run off to Europe when he gets his memories back. 

I want inside Newts briefcase! All those creatures were awesome, and I want to hug them! 

Add me to the people wanting to keep Colin Farrell instead of Johnny Depp. I would much rather have him around than see another stupid, mugging Depp performance. Maybe Colin Farrell can stick around as the real Graves? If Depp was using polyjuice potion, he had to keep the real one alive, right? Its funny how Johnny Depp would from respectable actor to tool, while Colin Farrell kind of went from tool to respectable actor.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

the original people who founded their wizard school were British

The founder of the American school, Ilvermory, was an Irish witch who had had no contact with Hogwarts.

Grindelwald says, "Will we die, just a little?"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/2/2016 at 2:56 PM, Silver Raven said:

Grindelwald says, "Will we die, just a little?"

Anybody know what that means? The question doesn't make sense to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed it, very impressed. Loved Colin Farrell ,  he's so good and I too want to see him back . The platypus creature was my favorite .

Also the plant creature was great too, but I kept referring it as a "Groot".

Edited by AstaCharles
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Watched this, didn't know what to expect going in, thought it was enjoyable but flawed. I'm not sure Redmayne's performance worked for me, I get what he was going for, but the flat affect and disconnection didn't always seem like a good fit. Kowalski was very well done, and finally a likable muggle. Tina and Queenie were reasonably well drawn as well. It did feel like two separate movies, though. Both pretty good in their own right, but tying them together wasn't a success IMO, it just felt tonally so different. The whimsy of the animals vs. the horror and claustrophobia of the witch hunters and the paranoia of the American wizarding society.

Morton was chilling. The actors playing Credence and Modesty also really made me feel for them. It was surprisingly dark, and a surprisingly explicit depiction of long-term abuse and its consequences. Farrell was impressive, I felt he took a part that was only broadly sketched and thrown together and made it three dimensional and scary. He exuded power and authority and his scenes with Credence were so hard to watch because he infused them with predatory cunning. Also surprising that the movie went there, but it read as accurate given what is established about Grindelwald in the books. Bummer that he won't be back, if original Graves could make a comeback that would be cool, but if it felt shoved in for no reason, better not go there and ruin the great work he did in this movie.

Edited by katha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, katha said:

I'm not sure Redmayne's performance worked for me, I get what he was going for, but the flat affect and disconnection didn't always seem like a good fit.

I agree, it almost felt like Newt had aspergers to me, I think he should have had a stronger personality. 

Share this post


Link to post

I love this movie. I guess my opinions are unpopular, because I absolutely love the characteristics of Newt. 

He's driven, determined and doesn't care what people think of him. No wonder his grandson marries Luna, I bet she reminds him of Newt. I wonder if the quiet voice and the not looking people in the eyes were learned traits. I work with kids, and Newt reminded me of those who I have worked with who were bullied. I didn't mind either trait, because I saw the difference when Newt was in his suitcase. He was completely in charge and in command. He stood up straighter, looked right at Jacob. He was in his element. It gave me hope for all my quiet, introverted kids will see themselves in Newt and realize too they can be heroes.

I loved all the small character beats. Queenie ordering the Giggle Juice and never drinking any but giving them to Jacob. Tina still doing what was right even though she had been fired. Newt talking to Tina in the investigation room when it was brought up that he was expelled from Hogwarts. Newt pleading for the beasts when they were taking anyway from him. Newt crying multiple times and no one made fun of him for it. Queenie trying to hide Jacob from the Macusa at the end, and then her visiting him at the bakery.

I hate reading reviews where they talk about how the Fantastic Four's friendship at the end didn't feel earned because I disagree. They might not have been trapped in the Girls bathroom with a troll, but the search for the creatures, Tina turning them in, Queenie rescuing everyone and them trying to save Credence was a lot of bonding in a day or two.

I'm hoping like the orginial HP stories, Rowling is leaving breadcrumbs building up to the end(like her tweet saying five in five different languages, I hope those are the magical countries we'll see). I hope that Dumbledore acknowledges that Tina and Newt took on Grindwald on their own. (Which is awesome). I really hope we find the real Graves, because I bet he and Tina were close. I hope we get more Hufflepuff shoutouts and I really hope we see young versions of the older Harry Potter crowd. I'd love to see young McGonagall, Slughorn or even the parents of some of our adult heroes (edit for, I have no idea how old any of the older staff in this series would be considering how much older Dumbledore is. I need to go math some numbers).

Edited by SnoGirl
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

So I agree that Redmayne's performance was a bit understated, and that Tina looked too much like Mary Lou.  There wasn't a real good explanation for Tina's backstory, it was really rushed and I'm not sure I heard it all clearly (something about she tried to rescue Credence from Mary Lou earlier, but bungled it and so was demoted from being an auror).

I wasn't sure that Kowalski remembered Queenie at the end.  I'm fairly certain the obliviate spell worked on him, but he had seen so much and it had impressed on him so much, that he was driven to recreate the animals in his pastries, they came from his subconscious that did remember.  It is my hope that when he saw Queenie, he remembered it all, but it is ambiguous.  He could have just recognized the connection he had with her, like his subconscious remembered the animals.  In any even, I believe they will end up together, and hopefully we will see that in the next movie.

So I'm guessing the five movies will tell more of Dumbledore's story, i.e. his sister, the conflict with his brother and Grindlewold and essentially lay the groundwork for Voldemort.  Hopefully they do it better than Star Wars did.  I noted the reference to the LaStrange family too.  I hope we find out more about America's wizards and school.  Is there just one, or in different regions so it too can have a Tri-Wizard Cup.

I'm meh on Depp in the future movies.  Have to see what he does when the part is bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2016 at 2:19 PM, AshleyN said:

 

I have to admit, my main thought coming out of this movie was wondering how non-Harry Potter fans would take it. Because, as a stan who's adored this world since my pre-teen years, I found plenty to enjoy but also couldn't manage to overlook a few glaring flaws, and I'm not sure if my previous love for the series helped or hurt on that front. Especially since I've always vastly preferred the books to the movies (though I still enjoy the latter), and Rowling's presence as the screenwriter really raised my expectations for this one. Which made it all the more surprising that my two biggest issues with the film were two areas where she really excelled in the original books.

 

Speaking as a non-Harry Potter fan...and I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I hated it. I went to see it with my 13-year-old son, even though the trailers didn't excite me. I will say that the visuals in the movies were amazing. We saw it on a standard screen--no 3D, no IMAX. And yes, it was filmed darkly, but the creatures, the scenery, and the magic were all impressive.  So the movie looked good, but the story itself left me wanting. I couldn't figure out a definite direction for the plot. In other words, I couldn't understand why most of the characters were doing what they were doing. And I didn't identify with any of the characters, and their mysteries and adventures didn't draw me into the movie at all. In fact, the only scenes I found exciting were the ones at the end, with the climactic subway battle. But even then, I felt bad for Credence but didn't connect with him in any emotional way. 

I guess that was my problem--I didn't emotionally connect with any of the characters.  Perhaps if I had been a Harry Potter fan, I would have felt more connected to this world. The movie was certainly better (to me) than any Marvel or other comic book movie I've seen, but that isn't saying much. Comic book movies leave me absolutely cold. But this movie simply made me shrug and say "Ehh."

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/15/2016 at 2:12 PM, topanga said:

I guess that was my problem--I didn't emotionally connect with any of the characters.  Perhaps if I had been a Harry Potter fan, I would have felt more connected to this world.

 

I am a Harry Potter fan, and I couldn't really connect with the characters at all.  I liked the movie, but I didn't love it....the main characters just did not have the chemistry of Harry/Ron/Hermonie.  I am looking forward to the sequel though, I tend to find the first installment on trio's are the slowest set up wise.  My friends are who are huge HP fans absolutely LOVED it, to me it was decent, but not great.

I did think Eddie Redmayne did very well though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely adored it. It was a breath of fresh air that offered several wonderful treats -- while I adored our Harry, Ron & Hermione (and more), I admit that I loved not having to think about or worry about children as main characters, I loved the brand-new cast and world to enjoy, and for once, I was unspoiled and had no idea what would happen. 

I thought Colin Farrell was really absolutely stunning -- so much slinky menace and that disquieting sense of space invasion every time he cajoled and bullied the young boy. He's such a subtle and versatile actor that I was, um, displeased when he was replaced in the end. 

I like and often love Depp. He can be so, so good -- primarily when being over the top is essential (I have a weak spot for Captain Jack Sparrow) or when the part, paradoxically, requires quiet and restraint. I will always think his Sweeney Todd performance is an unappreciated masterpiece, for instance.

But lately I do feel he's gotten, er, kind of lazy and stuck on "quirk" as a character definition, and I winced at the reveal at the end -- not least because it feels completely unnecessary to me. Why not allow Farrell to show suddenly bleach-blonde hair? We'd all go, "Oooh, Grindelwald!" and that's it. And we'd have an amazing actor to continue his work in the next film(s). Grr. Depp just feels like an interloper to me.

Speaking of acting, I thought Redmayne was fine, but I admit that I am not a huge fan of his. He's a perfectly good actor, but I always see him "acting." It's visible (a fact that bothered me even more when he won the Oscar for the overpraised "The Theory of Everything" over Benedict Cumberbatch, who I felt should have won for his utterly transformative, subtle, and shattering performance as Alan Turing in "The Imitation Game"). Here, once again, Redmayne added on a few too many quirks and tics for my tastes, as if, once again, to say, "Look how hard I'm trying to be this quirky wizard guy!" and that annoyed me.  But I still felt affection for Newt by the end, and was moved by the character.

As far as the rest of the film, I thought it was lovely, funny, moving, and magical. And I thought the final 15 minutes were absolutely breathtaking, and the effects were some of the most gorgeous I have ever seen on film. The magical restoration of New York broke my heart -- I couldn't help but feel a kind of wistfulness, a wish for wizards to return and bring back our two towers (I lived in NYC for two years not long ago and that skyline still looks wrong to me). 

So, in short, I absolutely loved this. I thought it was sensitive, funny, poignant, dark, moving, and wonderful. I can't wait to own it.

Edited by paramitch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, paramitch said:

As far as the rest of the film, I thought it was lovely, funny, moving, and magical. And I thought the final 15 minutes were absolutely breathtaking, and the effects were some of the most gorgeous I have ever seen on film. The magical restoration of New York broke my heart -- I couldn't help but feel a kind of wistfulness, a wish for wizards to return and bring back our two towers (I lived in NYC for two years not long ago and that skyline still looks wrong to me). 

I totally agree. The movie was visually stunning. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 21.12.2016 at 2:17 PM, paramitch said:


I thought Colin Farrell was really absolutely stunning -- so much slinky menace and that disquieting sense of space invasion every time he cajoled and bullied the young boy. He's such a subtle and versatile actor that I was, um, displeased when he was replaced in the end.

I've seen a few reviews in newspapers make this point as well, that the replacement seemed totally pointless and anti-climatic. I think that Farrell was so memorable may prove a double-edged sword for the movies going forward. It's perhaps a bit of a wasted opportunity? Farrell's Grindelwald would have been compelling in the sense that he's tonally so different from Voldemort, as far as Dark Lords go. It's actually very easy to see how someone like that could gain followers. He seems so reasonable, he's manipulative and knows how to twist people's weaknesses and use them as weapons against them, he's got authority and charisma, but charisma that reads as "just like a normal wizard, but more competent, more powerful, smarter". I can see even non-followers being duped into thinking "he's not my thing, but he sounds rational and like he knows what he's doing". Which is way different than the openly crazy vibe Depp was already going for.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Depp had what, one line? But of course he's a sinister-looking albino with mismatched eyes, one of which looks like possessed Regan's from The Exorcist. I was half-expecting his head to spin around.

I don't think it's a coincidence that he doesn't even appear in the trailer for the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel I saw this weekend. Now if only they'd adopt that strategy for whole movies...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

"Will we die, just a little?"

Was he referring to horcrux? 

I like the movie, very well done, my favorite was the Swooping Evil that has

the ability to suck out a person's brains. :XD

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure Jude Law will do well, but wasn't Grindelwald supposed to be better looking than Dumbledore? With Depp's weird albino look I can't imagine it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

While I'm sure Jude will be great, part of me was down with the idea of Jared Harris (son of Richard Harris, Dumbledore 1.0.) playing him.

And between him, Johnny Depp, and Colin Farrell, someone in the casting team was a fan of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (R.I.P. Heath Ledger.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

I'm sure Jude Law will do well, but wasn't Grindelwald supposed to be better looking than Dumbledore? With Depp's weird albino look I can't imagine it.

If we're lucky, Depp won't be playing young Grindelwald. Maybe he was good looking in his youth, but something happened to make him all weird looking.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is, though, that we saw Grindelwald briefly in movie 7 and he didn't look bizarre.  He looked like the old man he was.  Voldy only looks weird because of his Horcruxes.  I'll never understand why: 1) Johnny Depp was cast and, if he had to play the role, 2) they want him to look like a Targaryen.  Hopefully they tone it down in the rest of the movies, if they insist on keeping him around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

The thing is, though, that we saw Grindelwald briefly in movie 7 and he didn't look bizarre.  He looked like the old man he was.  Voldy only looks weird because of his Horcruxes.  I'll never understand why: 1) Johnny Depp was cast and, if he had to play the role, 2) they want him to look like a Targaryen.  Hopefully they tone it down in the rest of the movies, if they insist on keeping him around.

JK Rowling keeps saying she very happy he's been case in the role, so I doubt they'll get rid of him.

Share this post


Link to post

Damn. Then I'm going to hope the look gets changed and that Depp reverts to his pre-Pirates days when he would have been worthy of the role. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I like the casting of Jude Law a lot.  I've though highly of him since he was cast as Watson in the Sherlock Holmes and was the only good thing in that movie.

Much better than Depp, who'll just play another variation of Captain Jack as Grindelwald.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, benteen said:

Much better than Depp, who'll just play another variation of Captain Jack as Grindelwald.

That's pretty much all he does anymore.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I hope the fact that young Dumbledore plays a big part of this movie -- along with JKR herself writing the script -- means we will finally get the uncut backstory of the Dumbledore family.  That was the best part of the Deathly Hallows book and I was always miffed that the movie cut it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 10:03 PM, thuganomics85 said:

While I'm sure Jude will be great, part of me was down with the idea of Jared Harris (son of Richard Harris, Dumbledore 1.0.) playing him.

Oh wow, I really like Jared Harris and I didn't realise Richard Harris was his dad

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really didn’t expect to like this as much as I did. Something about the premise about hunting down various escaped magical creatures wasn't too exciting for me, even as a Potter fan. That said, I came away enjoying it a great deal. Eddie Redmayne as Newt in particular was charming and I'm very happy he's the lead, but I liked all the characters, even Jacob who I thought coming into this would be an annoying comic relief character (sort of like Ron, but worse)... Jacob and Queenie were both really cute, although I couldn’t help being annoyed at how violating Queenie was to people’s privacy. Tina was probably the weak link of the four, even if I wouldn’t say I disliked her. It felt odd to me that she acted as if she’d known Newt a long time in several scenes near the end instead of having just met him; Queenie and Jacob were much more believable. I'm not anti-Depp, but I can't help wishing Depp was not Grindelwald just going by the disappointing reveal scene--I didn't understand the meaning of Grindelwald's words to Scamander at all. Colin Farrell did a great job; what a shame to lose him. And too bad Credence didn’t survive. I would’ve loved to see his interactions with Scamander in a sequel, although the fact that the Aurors immediately decided to eliminate him seemed true-to-life. Although I couldn't help hoping he might've survived on re-watch, because there's a moment where Scamander looks up at one of the "pieces" of Credence floating away for some reason (I believe after Grindelwald has already been escorted offscreen?). As far as the creatures themselves, I surprisingly liked all of them—the bowtruckle and niffler were especially adorable. Someone said it already, but I couldn’t help but think of Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy when the bowtruckle was onscreen.

Despite Depp—who I don’t hate as an actor, but didn’t look my vision of Grindelwald at all*—I’m glad there are going to be several more films to follow. I hope the entire series is successful, and as enjoyable as this first film was.

*Actually, I think I would’ve liked Depp more as the character if he had been more himself instead of made-up very pale and white-headed (even if he isn’t blonde).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wondered why Grindelwald didn't just "Avada Kedavra" Newt during the last battle instead of flinging bolts at him from his wand or whatever he was doing.  Maybe he knows he needs Newt for something, which will be dealt with in a future movie that will explain his last words to Newt.    Maybe he was trying to maintain his cover still, though the rest of the US contingent had no problem killing Credence, who wasn't evil, he was a tragic figure.

I liked Newt as Redmayne - quiet and awkward around people, but confident with his magical creatures as well as being brave overall and not a reluctant hero.  It's nice to see a character so invested in the creatures but not like Hagrid's obsessiveness; Newt cares about them for what they are.  The dung beetles always working in the background was a nice touch - in these types of movies we rarely see the animals pooping and here was a good show-don't-tell about how all those areas were kept clean.

I wasn't feeling the budding romance they were trying to sell with Newt and Tina though; Queenie and Jacob were much more believable.   I think that Jacob did get his memory wiped by the rain, but Queenie did something when she walked out and kissed him under the invisible umbrella; some kind of spell that would cause his memory to return when he saw her.  We know some of his memories are still there and I think he absolutely recognized her in the bakery. 

Pet peeve about the HP universe - I'm always annoyed by how casually and often the obliviate spell is used.  I know there's a lot of good reasons to keep non-magical people in the dark, it just is such a violation and is so casually used, almost as a crutch by Rowling.   It makes total sense in the context of this movie (we don't want people running around "burn the witch") but by the time Harry has matured, I would hope that there would be better cooperation.  Anyway, just my peeve.

I could have watched a whole movie about the magical creatures alone!  I think the movie suffered a bit from not having a central story - we have Newt trying to recover his creatures and keep them safe with the help of Jacob mixed with the Obscurus storyline and the severity of the US aurors (they were going to kill our heroes!)

I also thought Colin Farrell was menacing and creepy and am not excited to see him switched out for Depp.

Visually the movie looked great and I really enjoyed seeing so much competent magic being done.   I had to keep reminding myself that everyone actively using magic was an adult who had been doing so for years and it was nice to not have to watch students fumbling around.  I did wonder why Newt had to take non-magical transport, if it were too far to apparate, surely there was some other magical way to get around long distances?  Though now that I remember, Voldemart would fly so I guess not.

Loved the bowtruckle and the niffler and that we saw the niffler back in the case at the end with his pile of shiny coins.  So, so cute, great work there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, Johnny Depp just looks like such a tool even when he's only posing. I didn't know Grindelwald was a stupid idiot. Replacing Colin Farrell with him was such a mistake.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I've said this before but I already can't take Grindelwald seriously because they've hired Johnny Depp.  He'll play it the same goofy, stupid way he plays all his roles.  The WB wanted an ass clown and they got an ass clown.

Law looks good at DD and I think he'll do a great job.  I liked his Dr. Watson a great deal and I hated those Sherlock Holmes movies.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Grindelwald has the Elder Wand in that picture, while Dumbledore is holding a black wand. Curious its only Grindlewald, Dumbledore and Newt who have their wands out. Mad-Eye Moody would be disappointed.

Newt’s brother looks kinda like a tool. A surprising spoiler in that article that he’s

Spoiler

Engaged to Leta Lestrange. There’s an interesting turn of events. Now I want to know what house his brother was in.

 

I dont know whats considered spoilers so

Spoiler

Im suprised Credence is in the picture but not so surrised who he’s sitting by. I thought I read an article about a circus in this movie and from what Claudia’s character is described as haved poisoned blood, I bet Credence ends up at the circus with her. But Im glad he’s back and I hope he’s more than he was in the first movie. I hope he remembers that Newt amd Tina tried to save him.

 

As the the first movie could have really been a stand alone, I wonder if this movie is going to be building towards the Dumbledore/Grindlewald fight. Still hate that they replaced Colin Farrell.

 

So happy Jacob and Queenie are together. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, starri said:

We're supposed to believe Dumbledore dated THAT?

I don't think they actually DATED, but clearly there's no accounting for taste.

At least we'll (hopefully) get the full Ariana story that was left out from DH...

Edited by Spartan Girl

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even hate Depp as an actor, but I also think he's horrible for Grindelwald.  I'm not looking forward to Jude Law either. Still, I'm sticking this series out for Newt/Jacob/Queenie/Credence. I liked those characters. And I'm excited to see what Rowling's done with the idea of a wizarding circus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I assume eveyone by now has heard about the heat JKR has been getting on social media over her statement about the Depp casting controversy.

Is it really fair for her to get so much hate for a statement that the studio most likely pressured her to make? She didn't DEFEND Johnny Depp; she even admitted that she talked to the the filmmakers about recasting, but while she said they decided to keep going with him and that she was "genuinely happy", I'm thinking was ultimately the director's choice and she had to go along with it.

I understand that people are angry and feel kind of betrayed. But she's not in charge of casting. And some of the comments made about her are just so nasty, calling her a hypocrite and a sellout and putting her with the likes of Lena Dunham. LENA DUNHAM. Now that's just uncalled for.

Please tell me I'm not alone in feeling this way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size