Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

They released a teaser trailer today, and I have to personally say it looks great! Jude Law makes a pretty convincing Dumbledore too IMO.


Thoughts?

First question: How did they apparate in and out of Hogwarts?

That's a pretty decent trailer. I didn't care for the first one much at all. I've yet to be convinced that Rowling is half the screenwriter as she is a novelist. I also would have loved it if Colin Farrell had just kept playing the part; I think he's a much better actor than Depp, especially these days. I'll probably catch this when it comes out on video, unless I hear really good things when it's released.

The end of the first where Colin Farrell morphs into Depp was so freaking pointless. Really was just sequel-baiting.
Was the reveal he was Grindelwald not enough? He had to be Grindelwald AND be a completely different person?

Thought the trailer itself was very poorly edited. Can't say I'm excited, which sucks.

I've been waiting quite some time for public opinion to move against H̶a̶r̶r̶y̶ ̶P̶o̶t̶t - sorry, the Wizarding World franchise. With series-worst reviews for this movie, maybe that shift has begun? One thing's for sure: what with Crimes of Grindelwald's teasing of World War II as a historical event, the Wizarding World's whole "we believe in diversity and equality, but also forced segregation now and forever from the muggles" thing isn't going to get any less awkward... :s

I didn't like the first one. Doctor Who lite with Harry Potter Easter Eggs. Might watch the second one on HBO. Not in theaters. And don't get me started on Depp.


Back in the day when there was still speculation on how the original HP books would end, a lot of people thought revealing magic to the muggle world was going to be the inevitable outcome. Oddly, Harry is a hero who strives for normality, so his win is a return to the status quo, not an improvement or disruption of it. So it makes sense they didn't do that in his story, but still that seems like the obvious direction to take the franchise, what with the popularity of superheroes right now.

I'm surprised they haven't taken advantage of that angle, but there are always sequels when this prequel well runs dry.

I came around to liking the first one quite a bit more with repeat viewings but I thought this one was really bad. No real arcs, no real motivated story propulsion, no real resolution, a terrible CGI goop ending and a final twist that is pointless if a lie and stupid if true. The direction was average. I really enjoyed the production design and I think the score is wonderful. Great work by Jude Law catching the arrogance/wisdom balance of Dumbledore perfectly IMO. Grindelwald was so bland, it was disappointing. The movie tells us he's extremely charismatic and charming but Depp doesn't give us that. It's a missed opportunity because the differences between him and Voldemort were very interesting. Voldemort wouldn't have cared what people thought but Grindelwald couches his message in dog whistles to make it more palatable and draws people (including Dumbledore, like the smartest dude) in to his side. The way Depp played him I can't see any of that. Oh and the Queenie thing was shockingly dumb. If it's not real (imperius) then it's even worse. I won't be seeing the next one in the theater.

Several videos commenting on the film:

^Well... at least one of those people wasn't too obnoxious to watch.

Can somebody spoil me the "twist"? I really don't give a damn about this film and just wanna see if it's what I thought it would be.

Zamros said:

^Well... at least one of those people wasn't too obnoxious to watch.

Click to expand...

Which one are you referring to?

Zamros said:

Can somebody spoil me the "twist"? I really don't give a damn about this film and just wanna see if it's what I thought it would be.

Click to expand...

^I added a spoiler tag for other members. This movie is not that bad IMO. 

Some would say the plot is a little thin, and that's quite true, but there are some great character moments and visuals. Also if you're a big HP fan, the fan service will make you dance in your seat (for me at least ).

Zamros said:

Can somebody spoil me the "twist"? 

Click to expand...

Rob Bricken's (text) Spoiler FAQ. is fun, as is Jenny Nicholson's reaction:


Having read/seen several spoiler FAQs, I now kinda want to borrow this from the library someday, to witness the narrative train wreck for myself. Emphasis on the "kinda."

I think I liked some of this movie. I'm honestly unsure. Feels like a lot of character moments were left on the cutting room floor in favour of PLOT PLOT PLOT EXPOSITION MORE PLOT. Not a huge fan of the colour grading, everything is so flat and lifeless, but I feel like this is a problem with most blockbusters these days.

Weirdly though I found myself enjoying most of it haha. But weather it works for me is entirely dependant on the next few films. I kinda feel the same as when I walked out of BvS - desperately wanting to like it (as I love the characters/universe) but feeling that something just isn't right.

The biggest failure of this flick though, is that it takes what could've been rather compelling character motivation and replaces it with a physical plot device. I facepalmed bigtime at that.

If hogwartsprofessor.com is to be believed, the problem may be less JK Rowling's inexperience as a screenwriter and more the attempts of the director and studio to force her work into the Procrustean mold of the "Hollywood Blockbuster". John Granger has already sussed out that what went on the market as the "Original Screenplay" for the first movie is really only a slightly less edited transcript of the finished film - and all indications so far are that the same is true of the second.

That means we can't be entirely sure who was responsible for the sprawling over-plotted mess that is the screenplay for "Crimes" - particularly the pointless, overwrought, and highly offensive infodump/big fat red herring that is the Yusuf-Leta-Credence subplot. All it does is suck all the air out of the movie and confuse (and/or annoy) the blooming heck out of the viewer. If I were planning a fanedit (I've concluded that I just don't have the necessary skills), I would target that whole mishegass for excision first and foremost.

Leta is problematical enough without that in her background. It is sufficient that she was unloved and sent away to live with (presumably British) relatives, which rejection caused her to "act out" at school. She did not need to be turned into a full-blown Extinct- Equine-Fossil Trope "Tragic Mulatto". So she's biracial, so what? The wizarding world doesn't give a Niffler's patoot about skin color, and hasn't for a very long time - the only thing they care about is whether you're magical or not. Are we really, REALLY stuck in the dreadful old past where some form of coercion is the only acceptable explanation? We're not in the 1960s any longer.

Yusuf is a cool character wasted on a bad plotline, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

As for the alleged "two magical boy babies switcheroo followed by ship sinking", that's stretching coincidence far past the breaking point.

Once we get at least the third film out in public in commercial digital format, I expect the faneditors to have a real field day.

MovieMaven said:

That means we can't be entirely sure who was responsible for the sprawling over-plotted mess that is the screenplay for "Crimes"

Click to expand...

I once read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, in which both sides of combatants stand around and watch as Harry and Voldy debate, at length, who rightfully controls the Elder Wand, based on who disarmed who when, and whether that person was willing to be disarmed, thus making their possession invalid, or something. I think they then went on to compare their favorite ice cream flavors. This back-and-forth expositing of backstories lasted a whole chapter or so.

I thus know exactly who's responsible for The Crimes of Grindelwald.

Don't you dare compare that beautiful chapter to the CoG mess!    The inversion of the expected final battle was awesome, but more importantly Voldemort's downfall was ultimately magic that he never gave a shit about. It's perfect that he's undone by his hubris yet again (just like his constant underestimation of the magic of love, elves, prophecies, etc). He does not bother to understand that which he sees as beneath him, which undoes him in the end.

I'm sorry it didn't work for you but that chapter is the perfect anticlimax. Voldemort had already lost (three books earlier in Goblet of Fire, in fact), when he ensured Harry's survival by using his blood. The part where Harry first walks into Voldemort's inner circle is my favorite bit of writing in the whole series.

What that has to do with CoG, whose finale has zero thematic ideas and is the opposite of an anticlimax (a big, dumb, unnecessary CGI fight), I don't understand. The last book, while you didn't enjoy that particular trope inversion, is thematically so tight. It's also a "mystery" that the reader had all the information to solve. That's what Rowling is particularly great at IMO (she's not a great writer sentence to sentence). None of that is true of any of the stupid twists in CoG. 

All that being said, I am very comfortable saying that Jo Rowling is a fantastic world builder and plotter, which make her a damn good writer in my book. But she's also written two screenplays, one of which is decent with issues and one of which is terrible. It's not hard for me to reconcile that, because they're two entirely different skill sets. There's a reason it's rare to see folks excel at both. You can pick and choose elements to compare, I guess, but the problem is structural. Based on her two screenplays, she doesn't have a good sense of film pacing and two hour narrative propulsion. That's okay, I don't get why they don't have her come up with the whole story arc and then work with a screenwriter to adapt the vision to the film medium.

thecuddlyninja said:

What that has to do with CoG, whose finale has zero thematic ideas and is the opposite of an anticlimax (a big, dumb, unnecessary CGI fight), I don't understand.

Click to expand...

Surely you see the common storytelling technique - to base the crux of the climax not on the emotions or strength of the characters in that moment, but instead to focus on overlooked or unknown details from years prior. IMHO, it's a crappy storytelling technique that undercuts the protagonists.

thecuddlyninja said:

It's also a "mystery" that the reader had all the information to solve. That's what Rowling is particularly great at IMO (she's not a great writer sentence to sentence). None of that is true of any of the stupid twists in CoG.

Click to expand...

Myself, I consider mysteries greatly overrated. The future is a mystery. Tomorrow is a mystery, and tomorrow comes every day. Calculus is a mystery to me, and I've got no interest in calculus. In general, and especially when it comes to stories, I want to hear about personalities clashing and drama resulting in the moment. Context and backstory are important, but the passions of the characters in the moment should always take center stage in a dramatic climax... and, IIRC, neither Harry nor Voly particularly cared about the Elder Wand or who it belonged to. They were focused on fighting each other, but Rowling was playing storytelling calculus.

Now, if Harry had given an impassioned speech about the need for magical cooperation, and, rallied many of the Slytherin students to the Light Side, thereby turning the tide of the battle, that would've been a climax. The guy who spent his entire childhood an outcast, rallying his bitter rivals to his side? That would have been drama. Instead, they all got locked up in the dungeons, or something. Not impressed.

(Want more? Check out my essay "How Harry Lost His Magic." )

Gaith said:

thecuddlyninja said:

What that has to do with CoG, whose finale has zero thematic ideas and is the opposite of an anticlimax (a big, dumb, unnecessary CGI fight), I don't understand.

Click to expand...

Surely you see the common storytelling technique - to base the crux of the climax not on the emotions or strength of the characters in that moment, but instead to focus on overlooked or unknown details from years prior. IMHO, it's a crappy storytelling technique that undercuts the protagonists.

Click to expand...

I don't see the commonality between those two, no. The big, dumb unnecessary CGI fight in CoG is not helped/hurt/affected by previous unknown or overlooked details, is it?

I also do not agree that the super dramatic climax of book 4, where we get our first interaction with Voldemort proper in the series because he is literally brought back into being, is overlooked. The detail of it being Harry's blood is hardly overlooked or unknown. It happens, Voldemort discussing it happening, Harry recounts it to Dumbledore and Dumbledore definitely reacts. If anything, it could have been more subtle that it was so important, but that's a different criticism.

Gaith said:

Myself, I consider mysteries greatly overrated. The future is a mystery. Tomorrow is a mystery, and tomorrow comes every day. Calculus is a mystery to me, and I've got no interest in calculus. In general, and especially when it comes to stories, I want to hear about personalities clashing and drama resulting in the moment. Context and backstory are important, but the passions of the characters in the moment should always take center stage in a dramatic climax... and, IIRC, neither Harry nor Voly particularly cared about the Elder Wand or who it belonged to. They were focused on fighting each other, but Rowling was playing storytelling calculus.

Click to expand...

That's cool, to each their own. I am also into personalities clashing, drama and passion. Mysteries can enhance all of those things for me. The mystery of what will happen tomorrow rarely has life or death stakes for me (except it will one time, obviously) so I don't quite get the comparison. But then again, I studied calculus and love it. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think we can both agree that I have more appreciate for the structure of a story/mystery (as well as the narrative/dramatic implications) and you are less interested in the form and more the function, yeah? And most mysteries don't improve that for you. As far as the Elder Wand goes, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Harry definitely cared (although the author withheld us from knowing his plan until the climactic point). Voldemort "cared" in the sense that he's aware of how wand ownership works but he assumed that taking it from Dumbledore's body would give him control. What you're getting at, I think, is that the book doesn't really seem to care about wand ownership much until it matters. Although, let's be clear, Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because he used his blood when returning to his form, not because he failed to properly own the Elder Wand. That failure kept Harry alive during the Seven Potters scene, though. In the movies, none of this is accurately portrayed, and viewers of the film would for sure only half understand the Elder Wand and that would be about it as far as explaining how Harry "beat" Voldemort. It's definitely an undercut, but I really appreciate that what the hero had to do to beat the villain was stay alive and figure out what the villain had not, which was his downfall. I much prefer that to a big, dumb physical fight. The producers of the films do not agree with my take, because that's what we got.

At the very least, let's agree that you use the phrase "storytelling calculus" to disparage and I would use it as a compliment and one of my favorite things about the series.

Gaith said:

Now, if Harry had given an impassioned speech about the need for magical cooperation, and, rallied many of the Slytherin students to the Light Side, thereby turning the tide of the battle, that would've been a climax. The guy who spent his entire childhood an outcast, rallying his bitter rivals to his side? That would have been drama. Instead, they all got locked up in the dungeons, or something. Not impressed.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree and think that them locking up Slytherin students whole cloth is a big mistake. It would have been great from both Harry's perspective, and the Slytherin students. They should have gotten to make a choice, you know, the main thematic thrust of the entire series. Weakest point in the whole ending, for me.

Gaith said:

(Want more? Check out my essay "How Harry Lost His Magic."  )

Click to expand...

I did, and found it very interesting. I think you articulate your thoughts on the series quite clearly. I dig that, though respectfully disagree with a lot of your issues. I think it comes down to what we take out of the main character. When you get to the end of your essay and you don't get what has changed or what the point is, and reference how much Luke grew in Star Wars, it snapped into focus for me. You must not get what I get out of the character Harry Potter. You literally say the main trio is defined only by their fight against Evil. The thing I love most about the story is everything the main characters go through outside of that. And sure, that is always the backdrop. Kinda has to be when big Evil is around and you're the chose one. But that is used to make broader points about adolescence, friendship, romance and family. I'm sorry that it doesn't connect with you the same way but at least we both get something out of the series. 

That being said, you make a great point about the lack of expansion in the story, which set my imagination off thinking about how that could have worked. It would have been really interesting, I think. Now we're "expanding" but under the setup of uninteresting prequels to which we know the ending. I also wholeheartedly agree about the diminution of Ron, though not Hermione. Unless you mean the movies, in which case yes, definitely both and it's even worse for Ron in the films.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always interesting to read. It took me a while but a thoughtful response like yours deserved the same.

thecuddlyninja said:

What that has to do with CoG, whose finale has zero thematic ideas and is the opposite of an anticlimax (a big, dumb, unnecessary CGI fight), I don't understand.

Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the CG fight, I'm referring to the big exposition scene of how the babies were swapped twenty years ago, or what-not. (I haven't seen either FB movie.)

thecuddlyninja said:

I also do not agree that the super dramatic climax of book 4, where we get our first interaction with Voldemort proper in the series because he is literally brought back into being, is overlooked. The detail of it being Harry's blood is hardly overlooked or unknown. It happens, Voldemort discussing it happening, Harry recounts it to Dumbledore and Dumbledore definitely reacts. If anything, it could have been more subtle that it was so important, but that's a different criticism.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that scene in the book/movie. It's the series' inarguable high point (meaning, of course, it's all downhill from there).

thecuddlyninja said:

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think we can both agree that I have more appreciate for the structure of a story/mystery (as well as the narrative/dramatic implications) and you are less interested in the form and more the function, yeah? And most mysteries don't improve that for you. As far as the Elder Wand goes, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Harry definitely cared (although the author withheld us from knowing his plan until the climactic point). Voldemort "cared" in the sense that he's aware of how wand ownership works but he assumed that taking it from Dumbledore's body would give him control.

[...] At the very least, let's agree that you use the phrase "storytelling calculus" to disparage and I would use it as a compliment and one of my favorite things about the series.

Click to expand...

Aye, we have a legitimate disagreement about storytelling techniques. But I'm still pretty sure Harry didn't at all care about the Elder Wand per se; he was only (barely) interested in how it could be used against Voldy - who had much the same interests. So, the convoluted recitation of who it really belonged to was puzzle-box storytelling, rather than personality-driven drama.

thecuddlyninja said:

You must not get what I get out of the character Harry Potter. You literally say the main trio is defined only by their fight against Evil. The thing I love most about the story is everything the main characters go through outside of that. And sure, that is always the backdrop. Kinda has to be when big Evil is around and you're the chose one. But that is used to make broader points about adolescence, friendship, romance and family. I'm sorry that it doesn't connect with you the same way but at least we both get something out of the series. 

Click to expand...

Yep, I think the characterization in the Potter series is darned thin, full of dry, asexual romance, utterly unconvincing politics, and a near-total lack of shades of gray/nuance/moral quandaries. My two cents.   

thecuddlyninja said:

That being said, you make a great point about the lack of expansion in the story, which set my imagination off thinking about how that could have worked. It would have been really interesting, I think. Now we're "expanding" but under the setup of uninteresting prequels to which we know the ending. I also wholeheartedly agree about the diminution of Ron, though not Hermione. Unless you mean the movies, in which case yes, definitely both and it's even worse for Ron in the films.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always interesting to read. It took me a while but a thoughtful response like yours deserved the same.

Click to expand...

Cheers!