Fantastic Beasts setting off a series

[JeenLeen]

I watched Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them not too long after it came out, and later heard that it was the set-up for a new series of movies. And I see another one is coming out soon or recently came out.

My question is: what set-up for a series was there in the original Fantastic Beasts movie?
By the end of the movie, everything seemed wrapped up pretty tight with no loose strings and no story to continue. For the sake of any who haven't seen the first one, I'll spoiler things, though I reckon this thread will contain spoilers, so, probably spoilers in replies.

Spoiler

Show

The main character and the love interest go their separate ways, but it's strongly implied (and known in canon) that they end up meeting again later and getting married. No real loose ends on either of them except they enjoy their careers a bit more.

Gindelward makes a (sorta) surprise reveal near the end, but he's captured and arrested. This is after the big war in Europe (right? he fled to America after losing the War?), so it doesn't seem any set-up for the big War. And he's in jail. Presumably securely in jail. At least, the movie doesn't seem to hint he'll break free or it wasn't really him. At least unless I missed some end-scene detail.

I fully accept I may have just missed some stuff. But if I did, what did I miss?

[Quiver]

Fantastic Beasts is weird in terms of some continuity, mostly because it retcons in some things.

The big one being

Spoiler

Show

Grindlewald being arrested. We know he and Dumbledore are due to duel during/at the end of the Second World War. The original Fantastic Beasts was set after world war one... meaning that Grindlewald was arrested, broke out of jail, then went on to set himself up as Dark Lord and confront Dumbledore in World War II. Which seems needlessly convoluted to me.

The other big thing is that the trailers for Fantastic Beasts show that a certain character is going to be playing a role in the movie. I'm trying to avoid naming them since - well, spoilers - but there was a scene involving them that got cut from Fantastic Beasts which would have set this one up.

There's aslo some other loose threads - such as the newspaper company - buuuut I have no idea if that's being integrated or not. So... long story short, yes, this was planned as a franchise from the start.

[Zmeoaice]

I excepted Potterverse Pokemon and got Wizard Hitler. Like seriously, what do the beasts have to do with this film.

It wasn't even an engaging story about Wizard Hitler, I shall be skipping the sequel.

[Douglas]

The big thing for a sequel to follow up on is that Grindelwald was just getting started. He'd done a few scary things that newspapers were reporting on, but nowhere near the scale of what we know from other material he eventually did. On a more limited to the movie itself point, the confrontation with him near the end of the movie shows that he outclasses the people who are now holding him captive, and was defeated only by the intervention of a visitor, who went back home right after. MACUSA couldn't beat him in a direct magical battle without help, it's not much of a stretch to think they probably can't hold him for long without help either.

I excepted Potterverse Pokemon and got Wizard Hitler. Like seriously, what do the beasts have to do with this film.

It wasn't even an engaging story about Wizard Hitler, I shall be skipping the sequel.

Yes, this is the movie's biggest problem. It had two major plot lines, with drastically different tones, that don't interact with each other at all until the very end, where the protagonist from one happens to cross paths with the antagonist from the other. It's like they had two different movies, either of which could have been good on its own, and jammed them together, and they clash horribly. And then they only advertised one of the two.

Potterverse Pokemon is what they advertised, and could have been a good comedy adventure movie. Wizard Hitler is a natural fit for a dramatic epic movie, and I would have watched and probably enjoyed it if they'd done a movie on just that, giving it proper focus and a consistent tone. Both of them in one movie just doesn't work.

[Kitten Champion]

It's a lot like the Hobbit movies, where they wanted to make it another Lord of the Rings epic with all sorts of ties to the later events but at the same time it was supposed to be this lighthearted children's adventure story and they just kind of blended the two together into an awkward and bloated mess.

Personally, I don't care about Wizard Pokemon, particularly because Newt Scamander felt like a Mary Sue in the vein of some of the more annoyingly self-indulgent parts of Matt Smith's run on the Doctor and I didn't connect to him at all. I would have, however, probably enjoyed a movie about a daring Witch cop in Potterverse's 20's New York and have that setting be fleshed out more.

[Narkis]

Yes, this is the movie's biggest problem. It had two major plot lines, with drastically different tones, that don't interact with each other at all until the very end, where the protagonist from one happens to cross paths with the antagonist from the other. It's like they had two different movies, either of which could have been good on its own, and jammed them together, and they clash horribly. And then they only advertised one of the two.

Potterverse Pokemon is what they advertised, and could have been a good comedy adventure movie. Wizard Hitler is a natural fit for a dramatic epic movie, and I would have watched and probably enjoyed it if they'd done a movie on just that, giving it proper focus and a consistent tone. Both of them in one movie just doesn't work.

This, so much this. Wizard Hitler should not have been in that movie. If they must, they could have used his rising threat as a background detail and maybe have some supporter of his as a minor antagonist, and build from there at the sequels. But they wanted that surprising Johny Depp reveal and a flashy epic wizard duel at the end, and the movie was mutilated to get there.

After all that, I'm skipping #2. I might catch it on DVD.

[Dienekes]

Fantastic Beasts is weird in terms of some continuity, mostly because it retcons in some things.

The big one being

Spoiler

Show

Grindlewald being arrested. We know he and Dumbledore are due to duel during/at the end of the Second World War. The original Fantastic Beasts was set after world war one... meaning that Grindlewald was arrested, broke out of jail, then went on to set himself up as Dark Lord and confront Dumbledore in World War II. Which seems needlessly convoluted to me.

The other big thing is that the trailers for Fantastic Beasts show that a certain character is going to be playing a role in the movie. I'm trying to avoid naming them since - well, spoilers - but there was a scene involving them that got cut from Fantastic Beasts which would have set this one up.

There's aslo some other loose threads - such as the newspaper company - buuuut I have no idea if that's being integrated or not. So... long story short, yes, this was planned as a franchise from the start.

Probably just taking a page out of history. Hitler tried to gain control of the government, got arrested, wrote Mein Kampf, got a lot of followers. And well, became the Hitler we all know and despise today.

[SaintRidley]

I excepted Potterverse Pokemon and got Wizard Hitler.

Shouldn't have even been Potterverse Pokemon before they bait and switched to Wizard Hitler. Potterverse David Attenborough should have been the plan.

[Malimar]

Spoiler: Crimes of Grindelwald Spoilers

Show

Too many beardless white guys. Prosopagnostic me couldn't tell them apart. Was the guy who was given charge of killing Credence by the Ministry at the beginning the same guy as Grindelwald's agent who killed the half-elf and set Credence to exploding? And Grindelwald had a bunch of other minions who were only seen in one or two scenes each. And the crowd of aurors following Theseus around! Jeez.

The scene in the amphitheatre, where a spectator goes for the auror and he kills her? Why would an auror's first instinct be to go for the Killing Curse? Why would a British auror be trained to strike first with an Unforgivable Curse whose use would send a normal person to Azkaban? Obvious conclusion: that auror was a plant, Grindelwald's agent.

Grindelwald's maybe got a point re: WWII. We muggles are rubbish at not, y'know, Hitlering everything up all over the place.

Aurelius Dumbledore -- between Percival's imprisonment in Azkaban, Kendra's death at the hands of Ariana, and the character's youth, the timing doesn't work out for him to be a brother or even half-brother of Albus, Aberforth, and Ariana. My girlfriend's theory is/was that he's the son of Ariana with Grindelwald (who could easily be bi), but the timing doesn't work out for that, either. The timing does work out for Credence to be a son of Albus (unlikely: supposedly gay, not bi) or Aberforth (unlikely, unless Credence turns out to be half-goat). Obvious conclusion: Rowling, well-known to be rubbish at dates, has just messed up the dates again, and any of the above could be possible.

[deuterio12]

After all the hype behind we finally getting to see Nagini's origin story

Spoiler

Show

She gets a great intro scene then procceeds to do f*** all the rest of the movie, being reduced to a bystander.

Personally, I don't care about Wizard Pokemon, particularly because Newt Scamander felt like a Mary Sue in the vein of some of the more annoyingly self-indulgent parts of Matt Smith's run on the Doctor and I didn't connect to him at all. I would have, however, probably enjoyed a movie about a daring Witch cop in Potterverse's 20's New York and have that setting be fleshed out more.

~~

I care about wizard pokemon, but I'll agree that Newt feels like a Mary Sue since besides having his magic pokemon army that makes one wonder why other wizards aren't keeping such pets for all the uber abilities they have, Newt can also take on Wizard Hitler who in turn slaughters trained auror squads like they're flies.

Even the britain ministry is smart enough to try to hire him at the start of the new movie. "This guy can always save the day, let's just put him in our payroll."

At this rate I expect that Dumbledore will never actually take down Grindelwald, it will be Newt (again), but for some reason it will get written down as Dumbledore pulling it off. Probably because Newt's too humble and stuff, wouldn't want the glory. Like by the time of Harry Potter nobody remembers it was Newt who took out Grindelwald the first time.

[Magic_Hat]

So is this yet another attempt by a major studio to launch a cinematic universe?

[deuterio12]

So is this yet another attempt by a major studio to launch a cinematic universe?

Technically it's more of a prequel/expanded universe for Harry Potter that already was a cinematic universe with 8 movies.

[Magic_Hat]

Technically it's more of a prequel/expanded universe for Harry Potter that already was a cinematic universe with 8 movies.

Expanded universe - cinematic universe...tomato - tomato
Oh wait that phrase only works with audible speech.

Basically I see little difference in the terminology. Furthermore I'm so sick of cinematic universes. With the exception of Marvel they've all been disasters, and I'm even of the mindset the MCU is awful.

Anybody remember a time when people just tried to make on really good piece of fiction or media? Remember simplicity? Remember a stand alone story that's compact? Remember trilogies where the final film isn't pointlessly divided into two parts?

[deuterio12]

To be fair, Tolkien himself started with the Hobbit then expanded it into Lord of the Rings trilogy where the ring of invisibility turns to be an artifact of doom and I think we can all agree the Lord of the Rings books are timeless classics and superior to the Hobbit, so expanded universe works when done right.

Much older, the legend of king Arthur as we know it was actually developed over centuries, with each generation adding new stuff like dragons and whatnot which we now consider part of the basic package.

So I would say expanded universe's always been part of the menu. In my country there's even a saying that roughly translates to "who tells a tale, adds a line", basically meaning humans have always sought to expand stories.

See also: the zillion fanfictions in the internet.

[GloatingSwine]

To be fair, Tolkien himself started with the Hobbit then expanded it into Lord of the Rings trilogy where the ring of invisibility turns to be an artifact of doom and I think we can all agree the Lord of the Rings books are timeless classics and superior to the Hobbit, so expanded universe works when done right.

The Hobbit was written as a separate story, then retroactively bolted on to the mythological universe Tolkien was constructing largely for his own amusement when it came time for the sequel.


Most extended universes are doing really badly. Marvel are only getting away with it because they've got 40+ years of publication to pillage all the iconic bits of. DC screwed the pooch because they started from the premise that they should ignore the iconic elements of the work they were adapting and because they tried to go in too hard too fast.

It seems like Potter is doing worse than most though, because they've also fallen victim to Prequel Disease.

[snowblizz]

I watched Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them not too long after it came out, and later heard that it was the set-up for a new series of movies. And I see another one is coming out soon or recently came out.

My question is: what set-up for a series was there in the original Fantastic Beasts movie?

It was made by a big movie studio.

[Kato]

To be fair, Tolkien himself started with the Hobbit then expanded it into Lord of the Rings trilogy where the ring of invisibility turns to be an artifact of doom and I think we can all agree the Lord of the Rings books are timeless classics and superior to the Hobbit, so expanded universe works when done right.

And here I am disagreeing with you because the Hobbit is a great, short, concise children's book, while LOTR is a fine book but definitely drags at times and gets stuck in its own extended mythology at times. Both are good, but the Hobbit is better, imo.


More about the topic of the thread.. Saw the new movie yesterday. It was... OK. I didn't expect it to be great but it was decent, though I feel like some parts were bad without any need for them to be there / bad. I think it could have been much better with some changes.. Oh well. I guess as long as the millions of Rowling fans love it...

[Brother Oni]

Expanded universe - cinematic universe...tomato - tomato
Oh wait that phrase only works with audible speech.

Use phonetic spelling - to-may-to, to-mah-to.

[Tyndmyr]

Alright, so, having seen the second Fantastic Beasts film, I'll give a review. Much of it's spoiled, because, well, spoilery. I shall provide labels as appropriate, but read those at your own risk.

I excepted Potterverse Pokemon and got Wizard Hitler. Like seriously, what do the beasts have to do with this film.

It wasn't even an engaging story about Wizard Hitler, I shall be skipping the sequel.

First off, this is pretty much the case. This isn't that novel, Voldemort is also basically an overly authoritarian bad guy with a bunch of minions that are going on about blood purity. It isn't the only thing Voldemort has going on, though. The original series manages to have a lot more breadth and wonder.

I'm gonna summarize a few of my complaints as follows...first off inconsistent plot and magic. Secondly, bad characterization. Third, what characters they chose(tokenization etc complaints go here).

Plot/Magic problems.

Spoiler

Show

The first movie basically tied everything up with a bow. This is all trivially undone in the first thirty seconds of this movie or flat out ignored. Basically there's no real weight to the first film, and it doesn't matter to this one much. We still have Grindlewald attempting to woo Clarence which was...what he was doing in the first film. Also, it's a bit stupid of the wizarding world to have him get out so easily. Particularly when they have a death room execution method that they use for much lesser offenses. If there's anyone in need of executing, it would be Grindlewald, yes? Or perhaps they ought to have shifts of multiple guards watching him and such? The first movie ought to matter more to the second.

Anyways, on to magic. Nobody talks to cast magic anymore, unlike in the original series. It's rare for any spells to be spoken, and when they are, they are not used consistently with the original films. You watch an auror wordlessly avada kedavra somebody casually, for instance. This isn't some grand evil guy, or anything, it's just treated as "oops, I accidentally murdered someone". This is odd. It's not limited to that instance, though, "Accio" is used without specifying a target, "finite" is used to, instead of dispel, create a circular wall of super fire or something. There's also apparently magic that lets you look backward through time which is used casually once, and never brought up again. It would be immensely useful, and would solve all sorts of problems both in this film and in the original trilogy, but consistency is....not great.

Also, everyone apparates/disapparates all the time, save for when plot demands it. Have to leave a scene in a hurry? Well, time to walk pointlessly across the city if we need the protaganists to catch up. Wards answer literally none of these, because we often see apparition in the same scene by other people, and apparition wards literally never come up.

Bad Characterization

Spoiler

Show

Why does Queenie do what she does in this movie? Like, literally, any of it? She says she "just wants a normal life" at one point, but literally nothing she does appears to be in pursuit of that.

Also, it bothers me that they took the problematic aspects of her from the last film, and then dialed them to eleven. We're not at allusions of mind-raping, we're at fully intentionally mind-raping someone to...marry and produce offspring with them. This is treated as a minor faux pas. This is...troubling. It can't reasonably be an accident, and a very similar situation is set up to frame another fellow in the same movie as a horrific bad guy, so why does nobody react appropriately to this?

I'm also not sure why this plot needed to be in the film at all. I'd honestly not looking for a large dose of squick when I'm going to watch Harry Potter, and she's not even an adversary, so there's no actual reason for her to be pointlessly evil.

Also, apparently a large subplot is people being upset with each other because of a misunderstanding over who is getting married to who. This also connects to literally nothing, and appears to be little more than a reason for characters to not talk to each other, and is in no way connected to the prior movie. It slows things down is about all it accomplishes.

We go to Hogwarts for...no real connection to the plot. Also, they apparently sort of went halvsies on if Dumbledore had a relationship with Grindlewald. Lots of heavy hinting, but they certainly aren't willing to come out and say it. This is difficult to swallow, as Grindlewald being literally magical hitler, played by Johnny Depp just doesn't seem like the sort of person Dumbledore would be all about, yknow? They don't really explain anything about why this relationship would exist, or what they saw in each other, but it was apparently enough for a blood pact.

Also, it is odd for the hogwarts staff to be mostly elderly in the original series, but be young and be the same people in this one. It feels less like an organic world, and more like a hamfisted cameo. It's...rough.

Why are characters here?

Spoiler

Show

Well, we have the beasts existing, but they're mostly handy Deus Ex's to solve a given problem, or they're a random "moment of wonder" that don't connect to anything. The Niffler's are goddamned adorable, though. Niffler remains my favorite animal, because they have fun and unique behavior that isn't just "be big and roar scarily". Other than Team Niffler, animals do surprisingly little in this film.

Which means it's really odd that Newt is the person Dumbledore always chooses to do things. Does Dumbledore have literally nobody else? Why are Newt and Dumbledore so close? These are not answered, I'm afraid, but it feels odd. It also isn't clear what the hell Dumbledore and Newt are after. Newt flat out refuses to search for the Credence for the ministry, but does so for Dumbledore. If he'd simply said yes to the ministry, all reason for secrecy vanishes. Nearly all of the Newt/Ministry conflict exists for no particular reason.

Why is Nagini here? She seems closely aligned to Credence, suddenly, despite not having been in the last film at all, and Voldemort seems unconnected. Also, there are literally more lines of other people objectifying her than she gets to speak in total.

Why does everyone care so much about Credence's identity? If the goal was merely to find Credence, okay...that actually doesn't appear to be that hard. And it's claimed to be the goal sometimes. But halfways through the movie, it turns into researching his family records. This ends up taking a ton of screen time, and ends with an unheralded ass-pull of huge proportions. Also, phoenixes are apparently crows. There's never an explanation of why Grindlewald just knows this, and there's no reasonable way that the information ought to exist.

Why is dumbledore already openly accepted by literally everyone as the most powerful wizard alive? The guy's a young teacher at a school. This is prior to the master wand claiming and all that. Movie is also uninterested in explaining this.

Why is Yusef in this film at all? His entire plot is a red herring.

Why is Lestrange in this film at all? Her entire plot is a red herring.

Basically plot boils down to "Unlike what we told you in the last film, Credence is alive. Find him. Characters then do a bunch of unrelated stuff."

It's also kind of a repeat. The whole movie is ultimately Credence-centric, but is just another "it was him all along" at the end. Just like in the last movie. With the bad guy attempting to woo Credence and the good guys attempting to...find him I guess. Ostensibly to save him, but nobody actually bothers to try to get him working for good.

So, in terms of a series, I have literally no idea what they're going for, save for making more sweet, sweet money.

[Mordar]

So is this yet another attempt by a major studio to launch a cinematic universe?

No, it is an addition to an existing cinematic universe.

Expanded universe - cinematic universe...tomato - tomato
Oh wait that phrase only works with audible speech.

Basically I see little difference in the terminology. Furthermore I'm so sick of cinematic universes. With the exception of Marvel they've all been disasters, and I'm even of the mindset the MCU is awful.

Anybody remember a time when people just tried to make on really good piece of fiction or media? Remember simplicity? Remember a stand alone story that's compact? Remember trilogies where the final film isn't pointlessly divided into two parts?

I hear you...but I think there is room for both "stand alones" and "series" movies. I also think that it is probably harder to make long/complex movies good than simple and/or compact movies of the same quality...but I don't think simple/compact is the best answer for all movies.

As to the OP: I fall in the Pokemon camp here, I guess. I believe it set up what could have been a lighter series of adventures involving magical creatures. Instead, it looks like it will be Steve Irwin Meets The Junior Devil. So I think it is a bit of bait-and-switch to use the "Fantastic Beasts" leader, and they should have just went with "The Crimes of Grindelwald".

- M

[deuterio12]

Spoiler

Show

Anyways, on to magic. Nobody talks to cast magic anymore, unlike in the original series. It's rare for any spells to be spoken, and when they are, they are not used consistently with the original films. You watch an auror wordlessly avada kedavra somebody casually, for instance. This isn't some grand evil guy, or anything, it's just treated as "oops, I accidentally murdered someone". This is odd.

My headcannon for that one is:

Spoiler

Show

The unforgivable curses weren't considered that unforgivable back in the day, government officers going "oops, I accidentally murdered someone" was just something that happened.

Spoiler

Show

Why does Queenie do what she does in this movie? Like, literally, any of it? She says she "just wants a normal life" at one point, but literally nothing she does appears to be in pursuit of that.

Also, it bothers me that they took the problematic aspects of her from the last film, and then dialed them to eleven. We're not at allusions of mind-raping, we're at fully intentionally mind-raping someone to...marry and produce offspring with them. This is treated as a minor faux pas. This is...troubling. It can't reasonably be an accident, and a very similar situation is set up to frame another fellow in the same movie as a horrific bad guy, so why does nobody react appropriately to this?

I'm also not sure why this plot needed to be in the film at all. I'd honestly not looking for a large dose of squick when I'm going to watch Harry Potter, and she's not even an adversary, so there's no actual reason for her to be pointlessly evil.

But that's precisely the point.

Spoiler

Show

Queenie spends all the movie descending into the dark side and ends up joining team evil. When she started mind-raping muggles it was the warning sign that they should've done something about her, but they didn't and now she's another minion for the big bad.

Spoiler

Show

We go to Hogwarts for...no real connection to the plot. Also, they apparently sort of went halvsies on if Dumbledore had a relationship with Grindlewald. Lots of heavy hinting, but they certainly aren't willing to come out and say it. This is difficult to swallow, as Grindlewald being literally magical hitler, played by Johnny Depp just doesn't seem like the sort of person Dumbledore would be all about, yknow? They don't really explain anything about why this relationship would exist, or what they saw in each other, but it was apparently enough for a blood pact.

Clearly

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore just loved bad boys when he was younger, but wised up as he grew up.

Why are characters here?

Spoiler

Show

Which means it's really odd that Newt is the person Dumbledore always chooses to do things. Does Dumbledore have literally nobody else? Why are Newt and Dumbledore so close? These are not answered, I'm afraid, but it feels odd. It also isn't clear what the hell Dumbledore and Newt are after. Newt flat out refuses to search for the Credence for the ministry, but does so for Dumbledore. If he'd simply said yes to the ministry, all reason for secrecy vanishes. Nearly all of the Newt/Ministry conflict exists for no particular reason.

That's kinda the point.

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore's pretty good at manipulating people, and also smart enough to recognize that Newt's the only one who can stop the big bad with his magic pokemon. Dumbledore could've probably sent others, but they would've probably just got themselves killed.

Spoiler

Show

Why is dumbledore already openly accepted by literally everyone as the most powerful wizard alive? The guy's a young teacher at a school. This is prior to the master wand claiming and all that. Movie is also uninterested in explaining this.

That's precisely the explanation

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore was enough of a genius prodigy to get a teaching place at super-prestigious Hogwarts despite his young age.

Also said position is Defense against the Dark Arts, strongly implying he had already had pretty good experience fighting against said Dark Arts. Considering that they pit the students against the real thing, they need to make sure the teacher really knows what he's doing.

So, in terms of a series, I have literally no idea what they're going for, save for making more sweet, sweet money.

That's always one objective, although I guess Rowlings also loving just making the pictures in her head come alive.

Mostly agree with your other points that I didn't address BTW, just had to nitpick some.

[Olinser]

My headcannon for that one is:

Spoiler

Show

The unforgivable curses weren't considered that unforgivable back in the day, government officers going "oops, I accidentally murdered someone" was just something that happened.

But that's precisely the point.

Spoiler

Show

Queenie spends all the movie descending into the dark side and ends up joining team evil. When she started mind-raping muggles it was the warning sign that they should've done something about her, but they didn't and now she's another minion for the big bad.

Clearly

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore just loved bad boys when he was younger, but wised up as he grew up.

That's kinda the point.

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore's pretty good at manipulating people, and also smart enough to recognize that Newt's the only one who can stop the big bad with his magic pokemon. Dumbledore could've probably sent others, but they would've probably just got themselves killed.

That's precisely the explanation

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore was enough of a genius prodigy to get a teaching place at super-prestigious Hogwarts despite his young age.

Also said position is Defense against the Dark Arts, strongly implying he had already had pretty good experience fighting against said Dark Arts. Considering that they pit the students against the real thing, they need to make sure the teacher really knows what he's doing.

That's always one objective, although I guess Rowlings also loving just making the pictures in her head come alive.

Mostly agree with your other points that I didn't address BTW, just had to nitpick some.

The use of the Killing Curse is pretty in keeping with what was shown in the first movie, too.

Remember, they were in the process of executing Tina and Newt without even pretending to have a trial. Using deadly force in response to a direct attack doesn't seem out of place in the time period established.

Frankly I've never really understood why the Killing Curse was part of the Unforgivable 3 curses in the first place. There are any number of other spells demonstrated whose only purpose was to kill in FAR more gruesome ways. It's inclusion gave the impression that it was a political decision, and 80 years in the past the political environment would be far different, especially with Grindelwald running around and a Muggle World War just having finished.

As far as Dumbledore goes.... while he was extraordinarily talented I really got the impression from the movie that half the reason they gave him the job in the first place was to keep a close eye on him and make sure he wouldn't go running off to join Grindelwald.

[deuterio12]

Frankly I've never really understood why the Killing Curse was part of the Unforgivable 3 curses in the first place. There are any number of other spells demonstrated whose only purpose was to kill in FAR more gruesome ways. It's inclusion gave the impression that it was a political decision, and 80 years in the past the political environment would be far different, especially with Grindelwald running around and a Muggle World War just having finished.

There's also the bit that the Killing Curse is claimed to be completely unblockable in the books while the other killing spells can supposedly be warded against (although in the last HP movie the killing curse is deflected by a shield spell but that may've been an oversight). At least in this new movies I don't recall the killing curse being blocked again, while stuff like that animated fire can be blocked by a suffeciently talented wizard.

As far as Dumbledore goes.... while he was extraordinarily talented I really got the impression from the movie that half the reason they gave him the job in the first place was to keep a close eye on him and make sure he wouldn't go running off to join Grindelwald.

That sounds reasonable.

[Tyndmyr]

My headcannon for that one is:

Spoiler

Show

The unforgivable curses weren't considered that unforgivable back in the day, government officers going "oops, I accidentally murdered someone" was just something that happened.

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps? I'd gotten the impression in the original series that they were just as unforgivable at least back in Voldemort's day, likely earlier, but perhaps a grim and gritty past was intended. Still, it strikes me as both a bit inconsistent with the verbalization and obviously unnecessarily harsh. And then it's not used against the actual bad guy.

Same as the death room in the first movie. The grim and gritty aspect is not bad in itself, but it's bothersome from a consistency standpoint.

But that's precisely the point.

Spoiler

Show

Queenie spends all the movie descending into the dark side and ends up joining team evil. When she started mind-raping muggles it was the warning sign that they should've done something about her, but they didn't and now she's another minion for the big bad.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but it's...sufficiently obvious that it's not really a small telltale warning sign, yknow? It's way over the top.

And it's not consistent from Queenie's pov. She wants to what, mindrape people so she can have a "normal life", but also wants to join wizard hitler to...well, whatever he's after, it's certainly not a normal life. It ends up being just for the evulz, and she's lacking in any real motivation.

That's kinda the point.

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore's pretty good at manipulating people, and also smart enough to recognize that Newt's the only one who can stop the big bad with his magic pokemon. Dumbledore could've probably sent others, but they would've probably just got themselves killed.

That's precisely the explanation

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore was enough of a genius prodigy to get a teaching place at super-prestigious Hogwarts despite his young age.

Also said position is Defense against the Dark Arts, strongly implying he had already had pretty good experience fighting against said Dark Arts. Considering that they pit the students against the real thing, they need to make sure the teacher really knows what he's doing.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but you've *also* got McGonagall there, teaching. It runs into this strange area where very little changes in a very long period between movies. Kind of like Solo, actually.

Mostly agree with your other points that I didn't address BTW, just had to nitpick some.

Fair enough, I can't take issue with a few nitpicks, especially given how many I've got.

[Olinser]

My headcannon for that one is:

Spoiler

Show

The unforgivable curses weren't considered that unforgivable back in the day, government officers going "oops, I accidentally murdered someone" was just something that happened.

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps? I'd gotten the impression in the original series that they were just as unforgivable at least back in Voldemort's day, likely earlier, but perhaps a grim and gritty past was intended. Still, it strikes me as both a bit inconsistent with the verbalization and obviously unnecessarily harsh. And then it's not used against the actual bad guy.

Same as the death room in the first movie. The grim and gritty aspect is not bad in itself, but it's bothersome from a consistency standpoint.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but it's...sufficiently obvious that it's not really a small telltale warning sign, yknow? It's way over the top.

And it's not consistent from Queenie's pov. She wants to what, mindrape people so she can have a "normal life", but also wants to join wizard hitler to...well, whatever he's after, it's certainly not a normal life. It ends up being just for the evulz, and she's lacking in any real motivation.

That's kinda the point.

Spoiler

Show

Dumbledore's pretty good at manipulating people, and also smart enough to recognize that Newt's the only one who can stop the big bad with his magic pokemon. Dumbledore could've probably sent others, but they would've probably just got themselves killed.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but you've *also* got McGonagall there, teaching. It runs into this strange area where very little changes in a very long period between movies. Kind of like Solo, actually.

Fair enough, I can't take issue with a few nitpicks, especially given how many I've got.

As far as Queenie goes,

Spoiler

Show

She's clearly in the middle of a breakdown and isn't thinking particularly clearly. In the first movie she was already pretty disconnected from everybody else around her except Tina, and then they mind wipe the man she fell in love with.

Then she gets him to fall in love with her again, except he's a bit of a stickler for the whole 'thrown in prison for getting married' bit.

So she drugs him and runs off to another country to force him to marry her. Not surprisingly, he doesn't react well to this.

So she joins up with somebody that says he wants to end The Masquerade, and with no need for secrecy she could marry him without them being thrown in prison. Obviously she's glossing over little things like Grindelwald wanting to rule the world, and ignoring the fact that he CLEARLY thinks they're inferior to wizards, but see above, not thinking rationally.

[OutOfThyme]

Shouldn't have even been Potterverse Pokemon before they bait and switched to Wizard Hitler. Potterverse David Attenborough should have been the plan.

That's exactly my biggest complaint about the series: You could have a Potterverse Planet Earth (the series), set in the backdrop of the 1930's/World War II with Wizard/regular Hitler, and it could be done so much better. Keep the wizard war thing to its own series, instead of linking it to wizard Attenborough.

One of the biggest problems I have is that Rowling seems to think that explaining every little detail about the world is necessary. In a world where magic is supposed to be this mysterious thing that isn't clearly defined or explained (beyond people with wands from bloodlines can do things), trying to tack on details that link to the original set of films/books takes away a sense of wonder.

That, and I think another issue with the series is that it feels strange. The universe works (kinda, I'm not a fan of Rowling's style of worldbuilding now that I've had more exposure, but that's another story) best when Potter is an outsider looking in, and we're kinda forced to throw that away. I suspect that's why they had a Muggle dude in these films, since having an audience proxy helps when everyone in the story is in the know.

[deuterio12]

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps? I'd gotten the impression in the original series that they were just as unforgivable at least back in Voldemort's day, likely earlier, but perhaps a grim and gritty past was intended. Still, it strikes me as both a bit inconsistent with the verbalization and obviously unnecessarily harsh. And then it's not used against the actual bad guy.

Same as the death room in the first movie. The grim and gritty aspect is not bad in itself, but it's bothersome from a consistency standpoint.

Remember that

Spoiler

Show

it's been at least a couple generations between wizard hitler and Harry. Voldermort isn't even born by the time of this movie, when he became the new dark lord then Grindewald was some old geezer.

Although yeah wonder why nobody tries to Avadra Kedrava wizard hitler when they're fine doing so to people who didn't do anything nearly as bad.

But now that I think about it, the unforgivable curses are mentioned as only working when you really want to do the effect. Crucius only works when you really want the target to suffer. So Avadra Kedrava would only work when you really want to kill the target.

That sounds like quite a solid explanation. The nameless civilian got killed because the auror was on edge and reacted on "kill or be killed", while Grindelwald has his super charismatic aura so others can't bring out any killing intent against him. Wizard Hitler could charm his own jailers and Dumbledore himself after all.

Just like regular Hitler had plenty of germans trying to kill him but none could just walk to him and shoot the dude, they always went for indirect bombs, something where they didn't need to look Hitler eye to eye.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but it's...sufficiently obvious that it's not really a small telltale warning sign, yknow? It's way over the top.

And it's not consistent from Queenie's pov. She wants to what, mindrape people so she can have a "normal life", but also wants to join wizard hitler to...well, whatever he's after, it's certainly not a normal life. It ends up being just for the evulz, and she's lacking in any real motivation.

I'll agree with Olinser's points here.

[Kato]

Two comments on points of discussion :

The friend I saw it with had to point it out to me, too, but the Avada was (likely?) cast by Grindelwald's spy in the ministry, so it was staged and not regular procedure. I mean, it's still weird as heck but makes a little more sense that way.

I think Queenie's descent was maybe a little contra to her depiction in the first movie but very much consistent over this one. She is crazy in love. She is willing or unaware if she does horrible things for that cause. Maybe it happens a little bit fast but it's a somewhat logical descent towards 'I know better than you / them what's good for you / them'.

[Malimar]

Spoiler: Crimes of Grindelwald Spoilers

Show

The scene in the amphitheatre, where a spectator goes for the auror and he kills her? Why would an auror's first instinct be to go for the Killing Curse? Why would a British auror be trained to strike first with an Unforgivable Curse whose use would send a normal person to Azkaban? Obvious conclusion: that auror was a plant, Grindelwald's agent.

The friend I saw it with had to point it out to me, too, but the Avada was (likely?) cast by Grindelwald's spy in the ministry, so it was staged and not regular procedure. I mean, it's still weird as heck but makes a little more sense that way.

It is, of course, (just barely) possible that the auror was already super on edge, surrounded by wizards he perceived as hostile and dangerous (every wizard is dangerous, a wand is like a gun but more so), and thus panicked. But that's why cops and soldiers are trained: so their reactive instinct is correct. Aurors should be trained to react instinctively with expelliarmus or the stunning curse or the full-body bind curse or the one that entangles the target in ropes, which are all just as effective at disarming a wizard as avada kedavra is. Of course, given Rowling's general depiction of magical Britain, perhaps it would be a more plausible assumption that aurors are given no training whatsoever, just slap a badge on 'em and let 'em go.

STILL! I just rewatched Goblet of Fire, where Barty!Moody demonstrates the Unforgivable Curses, and it's outright stated that students are supposed to either only learn about them later on or never learn about them at all, and are absolutely never taught how to use them. Why would anybody but a dark wizard even know how to cast avada kedavra (given that it takes more than just hate and anger (else Harry could have successfully used it on Snape))? Aurors might be expected to know what it is and to be on the lookout for it, but not how to cast it.

I don't know if it was intended on the part of Rowling and the other filmmakers, but the only interpretation that ultimately makes sense is that the guy is a plant.

[SaintRidley]

On the question of why these particular curses are Unforgivable but not, say, Fiendfyre, I think it comes down to what Crouch and Bellatrix explained in books 4 and 5 about how they work. It's not just the effect, but the intent you have to have to really make them work. You need to really, really want to utterly dominate someone to pull off the Imperius Curse. You can't just hate somebody, but you have to be so twisted that their suffering gives you pleasure for the Cruciatus Curse to work properly. You have to not only be completely and utterly fine with outright murder for its own sake but also truly want that person dead for the Killing Curse to work - a classroom of fourteen year olds of even temperment and not even a reason to hate the professor could cast it all together at him and barely give him a nosebleed, because they wouldn't have the proper intent. They're the kinds of curses that aren't just incredibly dangerous, but the kind of person who could and would go about using them regularly is the kind of person you do not want on the streets because they have no regard for the lives, well-being, or agency of anyone but themselves.