Fantastic Beasts

[BD80]

... Grindelwald was presented pretty heavily handedly... (Johnny Depp? Really?)

-jk

Depp? Really?

I just lost any enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. At least this will break his losing streak.

[JasonEvans]

Depp? Really?

I just lost any enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. At least this will break his losing streak.

He's barely in it, less than a minute of screen time I think. But, it seems he will be the main bad guy in several of the sequels, if not all 4 of them.

Of course, unless the movie fundamentally changes from what we know about Grindewald from the books, his motivations and ultimate plans are widely known and cannot be a surprise. He is dead set on establishing a world where wizards will rule over muggles.

And, if we are being faithful to the books, he will not be defeated by Dumbledore until the mid 1940s even though the movie that just came out took place in the early 1920s.

Jason "this...is...such...a...mess!" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

"this...is...such...a...mess!"

To carry on with the Seinfeld themes(at least for me):

Serenity now! Serenity now!

[cato]

He's barely in it, less than a minute of screen time I think. But, it seems he will be the main bad guy in several of the sequels, if not all 4 of them.

Of course, unless the movie fundamentally changes from what we know about Grindewald from the books, his motivations and ultimate plans are widely known and cannot be a surprise. He is dead set on establishing a world where wizards will rule over muggles.

And, if we are being faithful to the books, he will not be defeated by Dumbledore until the mid 1940s even though the movie that just came out took place in the early 1920s.

Jason "this...is...such...a...mess!" Evans

You're overthinking this. I thought the movie was great. I enjoyed it as much as any of the Potter movies.

You complained above about Newt not being a commanding presence. Well, he was, but only when dealing with the animals.

I'll be interested to see where this goes.

[JasonEvans]

You're overthinking this.

You are probably right. I certainly have thought more about it than JK Rowling did.

[elvis14]

You're overthinking this. I thought the movie was great. I enjoyed it as much as any of the Potter movies.

You complained above about Newt not being a commanding presence. Well, he was, but only when dealing with the animals.

I'll be interested to see where this goes.

I'm with Cato on this one. I enjoyed the movie and my daughters (14 and 12 years old) loved it. Yes, I can analyze it out the wazoo and find lots of flaws but I choose not to because I enjoyed it and I can leave it at that for now. I will say that it would have been cool if more of the beasts were well behaved/trained and could have helped more along the way as opposed to being a cute distraction.

[davekay1971]

You are probably right. I certainly have thought more about it than JK Rowling did.

George Lucas probably called JK awhile back.

"Lots of money to be made in prequels, JK."

"Well, I guess so, George, but, the problem is, the audience will already know where we end up, and there could be some real issues of continuity in getting there."

"No worries, JK. Just think about the money."

"Um, yeah, but..."

"G5."

"You want me sell out the beloved world I created...for a G5 jet."

"A G5 jet...and LOTS of money."

"For an airplane...and money."

"G5, baby. G5 playa..."

[JasonEvans]

^^ This ^^

You must spread some Comments around before commenting on davekay1971 again.

[Chicago 1995]

My kids are 7 and 9, and they didn't find it slow, FWIW. I didn't either, and my wife will tell you I'm not the most patient guy. Loved the Beasts and the way that Redmayne came out of his shell when he was with them, as opposed to with people.

As for the other criticisms, I'll admit to being a touch disappointed that Grindelwald was going to be played by Depp. Hopefully, he can turn the ham down to about zero for that role. I think part of my disappointment too was that Colin Farrell had been good, I thought, as Graves. That Grindelwald is just evil though didn't bother me. I didn't take that as a retcon of his limited origin story from the Potter books, so much as that we were picking it up mid-stream. He's already fully into his "Greater Good" stage. To the extent he was something else was during his school age years. This story was well past that point.

It's not that different than the approach with Voldemort, really. Do we learn more of Tom Riddle's back story? Obviously. But it's not like Riddle is any more sympathetic as a student -- or even as an orphan -- than he is as Voldemort. Riddle was just bad from the outset. Where Riddle's story matters isn't in relation to his own development, but in relation to the other characters that were Rowling's focus -- Harry and Dumbledore and Snape. It's not crazy to think that Grindelwald will be used in the same way as a tool and foil for development with regard to Dumbledore here. The obscura and its origin seems to be a direct link to Dumbledore and his sister Ariana, who seems to have been an obscura herself. We'll be getting back to that and Grindelwald's role in her death, no doubt, and Grindelwald's back story, I suspect, will be more developed at that point.

The idea that this is a platform for the next four movies isn't wrong. I just don't think it is necessarily a criticism. The movie stands well enough on its own -- unlike the Star Wars prequels. It's a happy return to a comfortable, magical (literally) universe, with threads in the known, told stories. There's no Anakin Skywalker or Jar Jar Binks here. It's just that it's got an impossibly high standard to live up to, and we're judging it when it is partially complete.

[luburch]

I thought the film was good, not great. Just as entertaining and well done as any of the Potter movies.

Also agree that the Cormoran Strike books are fantastic. Especially the first and third. JK is much more than coasting off of one good idea.

[Dev11]

You are probably right. I certainly have thought more about it than JK Rowling did.

Jason, tell us how you really feel.

I had a blast watching the movie, plot issues aside. If the whole series was just erumpents and nifflers and demiguises, I think I'd be satisfied.

I agree, though, that Grindelwald could have been more mysterious. Why not make Graves a sympathizer rather than the actual big bad guy? The books built Voldemort up really well before he's actually revealed in the flesh, including introducing a number of his followers. The end of Goblet of Fire is my favorite part of the series, from when Cedric and Harry leave the maze until the end of the book.

[alteran]

I thought it was just OK. It clocked in at 2:15 but could have been cut back by 15-30 minutes. It's pretty slow at times and I didn't think the story was that interesting, but it sets up a decent platform for a series.

I started to write a longer post saying this but decided not to-- clearly my reaction was very similar.

[Devilwin]

Haven't seen it myself, but did see a couple of reviews, and both were basically "good, not great" type opinions. I rarely listen to critics anyway.
I did once, and got disappointed. Being a horse racing fan, I was dying to see "Secretariat" when it came out. Most reviews were really good.
I was a big fan of Secretariat, and even saw him in person four years before he died. The movie was full of inaccurate info.
They had Secretariat's success saving Chenery's Meadow Stable, when in fact it was Riva Ridge the year before, as he won the Derby and Belmont Stakes.
No mention of this at all in the film. So if you want to see a movie, go see it. Pay no attention to other people's opinions..lol

[YmoBeThere]

---

Saw it yesterday, enjoyed it. Not an all time great film but as noted a good entry into the series. Newt/Redmayne was a bit disconcerting at first, he wouldn't look at anyone, in particular the customs agent. It took a while to realize why this was the case(never read the books).

Also, with regards to the water, what was the point of showing the bank manager in the shower? I think to connect the rain and it's entering the general water supply, this obliviating everyone's memories.

[IrishDevil]

I walked out FB having enjoyed it (and will see the rest of them, who am I kidding?), but the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. And I had a long drive home, so I thought about it a lot.

I think Jason, unsurprisingly, nailed it on the head. This struck me as a movie written by a someone unused to writing logical conflict and likeable characters without the aid of internal monologue and third person description - a novelist in the screenwriter's chair, out of her comfort zone.

I suppose Newt is meant to be awkward but charming, but whether due to writing or performance, I never got much charm from him. It also doesn't help his likeability any that Newt's customs evasion and negligence with his belongings, two of the first things we see him do, account for much of the trouble in the first two thirds of the movie.

We root for some heroes, though, not because they are likeable, because their antagonist is so evil that we want what the hero wants. The struggle between them draws us in. This, unfortunately, also presents a problem for FB, because Newt and his antagonist don't really interact much, which lowers the stakes of Newt's struggle and makes it less compelling. Despite the reveal of Grindelwald at the end, Newt's antagonist is MCUSA, the American magical government, and specifically their anti-magical beast policies, to which Graves/Grindelwald is never specifically linked. MCUSA opposes his goal of magical beast conservation and education, yet we only see this opposition occasionally throughout the movie, which makes our hero's overall goal feel like a background story, as much of the action is driven by Newt's recovery of his animals and the Graves-Obscureal storyline. And while Graves/Grindelwald and Newt come into conflict as they both attempt to reach Credence at the climax, they both want him to survive, and thus arguably want the same thing, though motivated by different, somewhat muddy purposes. Unclear conflict = unclear rooting interest, so another strike against Newt.

Some heroes, even if unlikable initially, we root for because we like how they change throughout the movie. As nearly as I could tell, Newt's great change in the movie was from "awkward and unable to maintain eye contact with humans" to "awkward, but able to verbally commit to visiting a girl he likes in a year while maintaining marginally more eye contact." Maybe this is what FB was hoping for, as Newt says straight out that people don't like him and he is interested in how likeable Jacob is, but the change is so small, it hardly seems worth it.

Tina fares no better - flat, mopey to start with, and largely uninteresting. She is made out to be such a blunderer in her work in the beginning that when we learn about the arguably heroic act that put her in this position - standing up for a victim of physical abuse and attacking the abuser - it seems to belong to different character. That stronger character emerges some in the final third of the movie as she duels Graves/Grindelwald and attempts to save Credence, but then the movie undercuts Tina at the end by attributing her victory - winning her job back as an auror - to Newt putting a good word in.

Queenie and Jacob give me some hope, though - not only because they were relatable and easily the most enjoyable story in the movie for me, but because the ambiguity in the ending provides options. I know Grindelwald will have to be dealt with, but I wonder whether the FB series would be better served in the next movie by focusing on Newt, who I suspect is a complex character in Rowling's mind and notes, but failed to make the jump to the screen intact.

I will also be curious to see how they pull off the Grindelwald story. Rowling has linked his campaign to WWII in a number of ways, including place, time, and ideology. This overlap of major wars in both the wizarding and non-wizarding worlds was reinforced in FB when Newt shares with Jacob that he, too, fought in WWI, in a dragon battalion (so sad - what an opportunity for an intro to Newt that would have been!). I will be interested to see how they weave Grindelwald into the second quarter of the 20th century to let us see how magical events moved beneath the surface of such a well-documented period.

Whatever they do going forward, I hope they learn from this one, because it was not pretty in a number of respects. But, like I said at the beginning, I will probably see whatever they make anyway, so perhaps they also don't care to change? I am sincerely hoping, davekay, that the he George Lucas/Ep I-III analogy is not as apt in a few years as it looks right now.

[JasonEvans]

I walked out FB having enjoyed it (and will see the rest of them, who am I kidding?), but the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. And I had a long drive home, so I thought about it a lot.

I think Jason, unsurprisingly, nailed it on the head. This struck me as a movie written by a someone unused to writing logical conflict and likeable characters without the aid of internal monologue and third person description - a novelist in the screenwriter's chair, out of her comfort zone.

I suppose Newt is meant to be awkward but charming, but whether due to writing or performance, I never got much charm from him. It also doesn't help his likeability any that Newt's customs evasion and negligence with his belongings, two of the first things we see him do, account for much of the trouble in the first two thirds of the movie.

We root for some heroes, though, not because they are likeable, because their antagonist is so evil that we want what the hero wants. The struggle between them draws us in. This, unfortunately, also presents a problem for FB, because Newt and his antagonist don't really interact much, which lowers the stakes of Newt's struggle and makes it less compelling. Despite the reveal of Grindelwald at the end, Newt's antagonist is MCUSA, the American magical government, and specifically their anti-magical beast policies, to which Graves/Grindelwald is never specifically linked. MCUSA opposes his goal of magical beast conservation and education, yet we only see this opposition occasionally throughout the movie, which makes our hero's overall goal feel like a background story, as much of the action is driven by Newt's recovery of his animals and the Graves-Obscureal storyline. And while Graves/Grindelwald and Newt come into conflict as they both attempt to reach Credence at the climax, they both want him to survive, and thus arguably want the same thing, though motivated by different, somewhat muddy purposes. Unclear conflict = unclear rooting interest, so another strike against Newt.

Some heroes, even if unlikable initially, we root for because we like how they change throughout the movie. As nearly as I could tell, Newt's great change in the movie was from "awkward and unable to maintain eye contact with humans" to "awkward, but able to verbally commit to visiting a girl he likes in a year while maintaining marginally more eye contact." Maybe this is what FB was hoping for, as Newt says straight out that people don't like him and he is interested in how likeable Jacob is, but the change is so small, it hardly seems worth it.

Tina fares no better - flat, mopey to start with, and largely uninteresting. She is made out to be such a blunderer in her work in the beginning that when we learn about the arguably heroic act that put her in this position - standing up for a victim of physical abuse and attacking the abuser - it seems to belong to different character. That stronger character emerges some in the final third of the movie as she duels Graves/Grindelwald and attempts to save Credence, but then the movie undercuts Tina at the end by attributing her victory - winning her job back as an auror - to Newt putting a good word in.

Queenie and Jacob give me some hope, though - not only because they were relatable and easily the most enjoyable story in the movie for me, but because the ambiguity in the ending provides options. I know Grindelwald will have to be dealt with, but I wonder whether the FB series would be better served in the next movie by focusing on Newt, who I suspect is a complex character in Rowling's mind and notes, but failed to make the jump to the screen intact.

I will also be curious to see how they pull off the Grindelwald story. Rowling has linked his campaign to WWII in a number of ways, including place, time, and ideology. This overlap of major wars in both the wizarding and non-wizarding worlds was reinforced in FB when Newt shares with Jacob that he, too, fought in WWI, in a dragon battalion (so sad - what an opportunity for an intro to Newt that would have been!). I will be interested to see how they weave Grindelwald into the second quarter of the 20th century to let us see how magical events moved beneath the surface of such a well-documented period.

Whatever they do going forward, I hope they learn from this one, because it was not pretty in a number of respects. But, like I said at the beginning, I will probably see whatever they make anyway, so perhaps they also don't care to change? I am sincerely hoping, davekay, that the he George Lucas/Ep I-III analogy is not as apt in a few years as it looks right now.

If it was possible, I would spork Irish Devil* continually for the next month for this well-reasoned and clear articulation of his concerns about the film. Really well done post.

-Jason " * - that sounds kinda sexual... sorry about that" Evans

[IrishDevil]

Unintentional innuendo notwithstanding, thank you, Jason!

The more I think about Newt in the war, the sadder I get that we didn't get to this movie first. It could have accomplished so much that was missing from FB:

- tie Grindelwald to global events through involvement in WWI, establishing his bona fides as a powerful villain and as the looming shadow of evil over the period, and thus the planned series

- show Newt's background and attitude toward a magical society that has to some extent rejected him (expulsion), grounding his awkwardness and loneliness, the latter of which appears to have been meant to show in FB but was sorely lacking and would make him far more sympathetic. This would also make it far more heroic for Newt to fight to protect the society that has rejected him, both in war and then later in NYC in FB.

- show Newt's love of and aptitude with magical beasts, then force him into situations where those central traits place him on the horns of a dilemma. I mean, a lover of magical beasts using those beasts in warfare? Such rich possibilities for the character.

- introduce a different side of the wizarding world (military), rather than just an American re-skinning of what we had already seen, plus plenty of set pieces involving combat, magic, and magical beasts.

Sigh.

[JasonEvans]

Unintentional innuendo notwithstanding, thank you, Jason!

The more I think about Newt in the war, the sadder I get that we didn't get to this movie first. It could have accomplished so much that was missing from FB:

- tie Grindelwald to global events through involvement in WWI, establishing his bona fides as a powerful villain and as the looming shadow of evil over the period, and thus the planned series

- show Newt's background and attitude toward a magical society that has to some extent rejected him (expulsion), grounding his awkwardness and loneliness, the latter of which appears to have been meant to show in FB but was sorely lacking and would make him far more sympathetic. This would also make it far more heroic for Newt to fight to protect the society that has rejected him, both in war and then later in NYC in FB.

- show Newt's love of and aptitude with magical beasts, then force him into situations where those central traits place him on the horns of a dilemma. I mean, a lover of magical beasts using those beasts in warfare? Such rich possibilities for the character.

- introduce a different side of the wizarding world (military), rather than just an American re-skinning of what we had already seen, plus plenty of set pieces involving combat, magic, and magical beasts.

Sigh.

Anyone got $180 million or so laying around so IrishDevil and I can make our much better Fantastic Beasts movie?