Crimes of Grindelwald Discussion

Should Nick watch this movie?


  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .

Katherine Alicastell

Former Headmistress
Messages
1,971
OOC First Name
Jesse
Blood Status
Mixed Blood
Relationship Status
Divorced
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual
Wand
Straight 9 ½ Inch Rigid Chestnut Wand with Unicorn Tail Hair Core
Age
October 1988 (67)
So I just saw the Crimes of Grindelwald. I don't think there's already a topic for this movie so I thought I'd start one.
Overall it was a great movie. If you haven't read the books.
Spoilers if you haven't seen it;
Usually I don't mind when JK tries to introduce new things, or elaborate on the old, because it gives us stuff to pick and choose from. But just some of the stuff in this movie - I can't.

There was a lot of magic that didn't make a lot of sense to me (as if magic doesn't make enough sense already :lol: ) but there was this use of some sort of magical dust multiple times that for some reason could show Grindelwalds visions, or allowed Newt to see where people had been in the past. From what I can recall this wasn't really explained, it was just kind of there, and it's not something we've ever seen before. Surely the Ministry would just use this magical dust to find killers or who was where/what they did in the past. What on earth was this?

Then there was this blood bond, which was essentially an unbreakable vow. Not sure why Dumbles and Grindles didn't just use a vow. Then of course there was Grindles fiendfyre-esque spell, but it only burned those who weren't loyal to him? And managed to kill all these trained Aurors without any effort, but Newt was able to defend himself? It really made no sense

Flamel was interesting to see, but his reappearance at the end seemed kind of pointless and forced in. I couldn't read the name of the person he was talking to in the photograph, initially I assumed it was Perenelle but the text didn't look like it matched, so I honestly have no idea who told him to go. Also, what was with the crystal ball plot device? Yes, we've seen prophecy orbs before, but they record the prophecies as told by the seers, not this random "snippets of all these plot important characters and locations you should totally go to!". It was just a way to get Muggleman to all the drama, but it didn't make any sense. It seemed like too powerful a device (much like the magic dust) to just be sitting around.

What irked me most was the final reveal of Credence being Dumbledores brother. Um, come again? Aurelius Dumbledore who? I don't think so. It was the most ridiculous reveal they could have done after faffing about with all this "Credence is a Lestrange" bull. The mother of Credence drowned, and it can't have been Albus' mother because she died in an accident with his sister. I don't think his father could have had another child, seeing as he went to Azkaban when Ariana was quite young. I don't know how the math works out, but it seemed of, and I'm hoping it's just another fake out/Manipulation.

Finally, where were the creatures? We see a couple at the start, and then it's basically just Pickett and the Niffler from then on out. I'm also not really a fan of all these nameless creatures, or ones created for the movie, while ignoring all of the pre-existing ones from the Fantastic Beasts book that would be actually nice to see. The Matagot in the French Ministry were kind of useless as a security, since they only attack when provoked, and inexplicably became regular cats outside of the Ministry? (Also how creepy was that woman who brought them?) The Kappa was cool to see, if brief, and so was the Augurey and Kelpie, but that was about it. Would've been nice to see more.

And that's about all of my thoughts on the movie. It wasn't bad, and for the most part I enjoyed it, but there were a lot of times I was just confused.
 
I saw the movie last night and gosh I have a lot of thoughts but I'll try and keep it short.
There were a few positives about the movie which was of course seeing the aurors in action, and Grindelwald's escape in the beginning was very exciting! But after that for me it just sort of died down, and the way things were glossed over and weren't explained (the gold magical dust, the entire relationship between Jacob and Queenie and that his memories were restored but not how it happened, etc) really bugged me, and made me ask 'why?' a lot in my head but not because I was curious, because it didn't make sense without an explanation.

The stuff with hogwarts, and with Flamel was also a big question mark for me to why it was included, and the mention of McGonagall and lots of other references akin to that just seemed like it was catering to the long time fans to make them go 'oh wow look that's Professor McGonagall!!! and that's the philosopher's stone!!' and didn't have any real benefit to the movie itself. The whole Lestrange family stuff just seemed pointless in the end when Credence was eventually told he was a Dumbledore, like everything was a filler to kill time before the end of the movie because they didn't know what else to do with the story.

I could go on but I won't, the general idea of the movie isn't terrible and it was alright to watch, but I do think it could have been much better, and a lot of the side stuff could have been removed to to explain other things in more detail and make it more compelling.
 
Last edited:
I can't see it because I still havent seen the first one, but I was laughing about the drama about the surprise character. Oh JKR, you're so fun.

Also, Jesse, wow I'll have to read about some of that. @_@

I don't know if this needs a spoiler but...the McGonagall drama is what I'm talking about
 
I can't believe I forgot about
The half-ELF? GURL. WHAT.
I assumed the woman was a half or part goblin, like Flitwick, but half elf? That comes with all kinds of iffy questions o_O
 
I just have seen it! I liked it better than the first one. It was that HP feeling again and the music was just awesome.

I really liked Leta. And didn’t saw it coming that Queenie would join!! I don’t think that Credence is a Dumbledore. I think that is a lie. I have some many questions right now. Am curious why Leta wasn’t with Newt after all. Loved seeing the French Ministry of Magic! Can’t wait for another movie.
 
I'm very frustrated with this movie.

There were a few things I liked, but honestly not much. I liked the flashback at Hogwarts, and that was pretty much it.

This movie felt all over the place, and actually contradicts HP canon in several ways which is very frustrating. It doesn't feel like JKR cared about stuff she already established, unless it was to namedrop them for audience reaction (see: Nagini)

Seriously, what was the point of Nagini? I was spoiled about her through the trailer, and literally rolled my eyes so hard. I really feel like making Voldemort's snake a person could potentially have been interesting, if it had anything to do with Voldemort and his story. I don't understand the point of making her some random circus lady in 1927 Paris, except for the fact that it gets people talking because it's a name they recognize.

Besides that, I just felt like the plot was severely lacking. I don't get why the Ministry wanted Newt for the job, so from the start I felt like it didn't' make a lot of sense. Then they were just traveling all over the place to look for other people, which dragged on for a long time. It just didn't feel very cohesive to me, and a lot wasn't explained very well. I don't get the point of Leta and her backstory. And why was she marrying Newt's brother when she clearly liked Newt? I expected some sort of explanation, but I don't feel we got any.

A lot of the magic made no sense, and I literally don't understand why Queenie joined Grindelwald, unless they want to pull a twist later where she joined to get information or something? Because her reasoning for joining makes no sense. Why support the man who wants to rule over muggle because you love a muggle and want to marry him? What?

Don't even get me started on the Dumbledore twist. It doesn't fit, timeline wise, as Credence or whatever his 'real' name is supposed to be would have been born after Dumbledore's mother died. It also takes away a lot of the Dumbledore backstory importance if true. Hearing about Dumbledore's past was one of my favorite things in Deathly Hallows, and seeing this movie so shamelessly contradict it (while also referencing it?) was just frustrating to no end. Would this brother really not have been mentioned by Skeeter in her book? Come on.

I often felt like the entire movie was just an excuse to show off how well they could do the special effects now, and to show off the interesting magical creatures they could think of while making this story. It was a very pretty movie, but that's not enough.

Yeah I'm going to stop here. Let's say in summary that I'm not a fan. I could go on for a while longer, but I won't xD
 
I overall enjoyed the movie, but more in an ‘it was fun’ way, and there are so. Many. Things. That don’t make sense.

I feel like Newt was the wrong protagonist for the movie. It didn’t make sense to put him in there; he didn’t want to know, he just wanted to study magical creatures. And honestly, I would have much preferred another movie about Newt studying magical creatures. Fighting wizard Nazis is valid, but it’s been done. Anyway, it would have made much more sense for the main character to b an auror, with an actual reason to be there.

The stuff with Nagini was pointless, weird, and . . . kinda racist? Certainly concerning, anyway. The Lestrange family drama seemed unnecessary. And there definitely weren’t enough beasts.

Re: Queenie joining Grindelwald, I got the impression that she’d been enchanted somehow; she was acting a lot like how Jacob was under her love potion. But that still raises the question of why: why would she be important enough to bother doing that? Unless there’s another unnecessary plot twist coming . . .

The Dumbledore plot twist was, I agree, baffling. Although did it actually state he was Albus’ brother? It might make more sense if he was related some other way, but I don’t know enough about the Dumbledore family tree to know if that’s plausible.

On the other hand, Grindelwald is a much better-written and more interesting villain than Voldemort (he’s using some of the same arguments as Hayley, which amuses me) - but then, that’s not hard. Voldemort is a terrible villain, and all of Rowling’s other villains are more developed characters. Also, I like that Newt knows and points out how manipulative Dumbledore is (a nice change from Harry’s misplaced blind faith) . . . but he still takes the bait.

A random setting thought: why aren’t the teachers at Hogwarts wearing robes? Has the wizarding world somehow become more old-fashioned since the 1930s? I had been wondering some time ago whether wizards might have become more conservative after Voldemort - he galvanised the pureblood supremacists; did the wizarding world push deeper into hiding as a response? (Not that I expect that possibility to ever be addressed in canon, but it’s interesting to think about)
 
I have just seen this movie. I enjoyed it.
The funniest part was that someone messed up at the cinema. so the first few minutes of the film were shown in visuals but with Truly madly deeply by savage garden playing over the top which totally changed the mood.

I also thought the Chinese cat creature was really cute.
 
guys, this topic is now a poll.
Should I watch this movie? Please vote above. Remember: I haven't even finished cursed child and definitely had thought sand feeling about the last movie.

And can I just say, continuing to call this series "fantastic beasts" is fantastically dumb?
 
Based on the poll results: It sounds like I need to find some time to hate watch this movie. xD
 
30 minutes in and steampunk vacuum cleaners, huh?
Dumbledore has the invisibility cloak at this point in time why, exactly? Or its just an enchanted glove that's also a port key or something?
Obliviating only takes away bad memories? Whatt? Oh good, we haven't gone that crazy. Oh, apparently we have.

This is going to be a rough ride.
 
Am I allowed to keep double posting?
Okay, so continuing the movie I realized I have no idea what's happening. Like, none.
Is this how the original films felt for people who didn't read the books?
Am I just old and dumb now?

I skimmed some of the stuff above and it seems like this blood pact or whatever that I haven't gotten to yet is their sad excuse for why everything in this film is through intermediaries who don't mean anything to the actual story and characters who are entirely unimportant in the canon (or, indeed, invented for the purpose of giving Newt foils and friends when honestly who cares about Newt?).

Who is Grindewald talking to in that group of people? What is the deal with this totally-not-Harry-Potter boy? As far as I can tell, nearly an hour into it we have no idea why everybody wants him so badly but neither is the quest to find him so compelling in itself because the searchers are groups of people we don't care about and the whole storyline is muddied with subplots that are as uninspiring as everything else in this new sub- franchise.

But what really inspired this rant was WTF was Newt doing when he first got to Paris? I really can't even imagine.
 
I feel so validated in my decision to never watch any of these movies xD
 
Guys, in the last 10 minutes there has been the introduction the term "can't-spells" (somehow stupider than no-maj for muggles), and a skull-bong of prophecy.
I... I think I love this movie.
 
Still no Australian "muggos" term :c
Skull-Bong of Prophecy though =))
 
Oh, cool, nothing happened in this movie.
 
What are can't-spells? Inquiring minds who don't plan on watching must know...
Same as no-maj, same as Les Non-Magiques, same as muggles. They're getting less clever with time.
Grindelwald said:
It is said that I hate Les Non-Magiques. The Muggles. The No-Maj. The Can’t-Spells.
 
Then there was this blood bond, which was essentially an unbreakable vow. Not sure why Dumbles and Grindles didn't just use a vow.
I can tell you why they did this: you can't break an unbreakable vow.
They needed a contrived excuse to not have Dumbledore be kickin' ass through the whole movie but still let Dumbeldore eventually defeat Grindewald without dying himself later on to vaguely stick to canon. (Not that that really matters anymore, but y'know.)
So there's this equal-but different vow-but-not-vow thing that Dumbledore and Grindewald as youths think "it's just as good! maybe more romantic!" and then Dumbledore gets to break without also making all unbreakable vows worthless.
 
What are can't-spells? Inquiring minds who don't plan on watching must know...
I just saw the script for this movie in the book store.
Will you read it if you won't watch it, Cyndi? Surely a good hate-read would brighten your commutes!
 
Ahahaha, probably not . But I did see Fantastic Beasts is on TV tonight, so I'll probably DVR it :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top