Grindelwald was in hiding. He had escaped Europe. He was just trying to make trouble on the side in the process.
There was no vision. That's never been a thing in this 'verse, except for Harry getting some of Voldemort's memories. Grindelwald was just lying to try and manipulate Credence.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Aside from the surprise favorite character turning out to be Grindeldepp, it was a decent movie. Nothing to knock my socks off, but it was a fun time, liked the humor. Gotta say though, even when I knew about that one thing way in advance, boy did it kinda ruin the film for me when I had to actually see it. Probably the reason I'm feeling even less excited about those sequels right now.
x7 Then how did he know anything??? It seems plot convenient if he didn't actually have some kind of a vision. And visions are things, if just there'd have to be some cause for them. Divination and all that. So, either he has an unexplained vision, or an unexplained plot knowledge. : /
x3
I'd argue that we know that Hogwarts letters go out at 11 in the modern era, but who knows how things might be handled in previous times. After all, Dumbledore did go and visit Tom as an orphan so there are possibly other options? Still daunting.
The niffler is officially the cutest thing in the HP universe.
I don't know what's cuter here, the niffler or Eddie Redmayne's face.
◊
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:44:08 PM by Zanthype
"In 900 years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important."@L Dragon 2: Why are you trying to compare Doctor Strange and Fantastic Beasts? They're two completely different films and franchises, with two different ways of depicting magic to boot.
Okay moving. It was nice to see the HP world again. I thought the pacing was a bit wonky, and the multiple storylines were weaved together rather weakly .
Also wish they'd left the Grindelwald reveal until the next moving. The whole transformation scene kinda ruined the climax for me. I also hoped that Graves was simply a follower of Grindelwald. Missed opportunity. He had this presence throughout the film, and I really wish he'd stayed. What a waste of Farrel's character. [sad]
Agreed. I was expecting him to be a follower based off of the Hallows icon, but... Grindewald himself??? And Graves felt like a really cool villain that I wanted to explore more... That felt a bit out of left field. And, as I've said before, the lack of explanation makes it rather nonsensical. Is Rowling losing her edge on logical plot twists at this point? Because considering this and Cursed Child...
edited 24th Nov '16 2:18:49 AM by InkDagger
Well, J.K. technically didn't write the Cursed Child...
The ink flows into a dark puddle, just move your hand- write the way into his heart![]()
That doesn't change anything. She still approved that fanfiction made official installment.
Saw the film. Characters and ideas were great but I felt it was a little too dark. A lot of scenes went for maximum drama. I know not everyone will agree with me but I miss the whimsical and lighthearted nature of the earlier films.
Yes, I've read the books. Even the one for this movie.
edited 25th Nov '16 6:43:49 PM by DocJamore
I didn't find the dialogue exposition-heavy, though part of that may be that exposition (particularly in one sequence introducing a lot of the creatures) tends to be paired with stunning visuals. It certainly wasn't dull. The action was fantastic and varied - spells DID things, not just having every spell throw people backwards like in some of the HP movies. And lots of wordless magic, since we're dealing with adult wizards rather than the kids in the HP movies.
I disliked two of the narrative choices at the end - one of which has been criticized by almost everyone on this thread - but I enjoyed the movie as a whole. I liked the way the plots intersected - that Newt's doing his own thing and gets mixed up in much larger events - and liked the worldbuilding of the American wizarding world. It was a fun mix of light and dark, in my opinion, though I can understand some viewers finding the mix jarring. The four main characters are all well-written and compelling.
edited 27th Nov '16 8:11:38 AM by Galadriel
I saw the movie yesterday and liked it overall, especially the four main characters. I also found American wizarding society to be interestingly presented. It kind of feels like an inverse of the Crapsaccharine World of British wizarding society in that American wizarding society seems to be drawn to avoid the problems of its British counterpart (appropriate) with the end result that it's dystopian in its own way (also appropriate). I'd basically describe it as Repressive, but Efficient.
One thing I'm not sure whether is clever or has horrific Unfortunate Implications (probably both) is that American house elves seem to have jobs which were stereotypically African American in the historical milieu (i.e. shining shoes; elevator operator; working/performing at a speakeasy). I lean a bit more on the horribly offensive side but I give some credit on the clever side because it is in keeping with everything else we see of American wizarding society that there would be an abolitionist debate about freeing house elves with the result that they'd be free but still working in servitude.
On a spoilerly note, I like the idea of Grindelwald as deep cover agent, even if it is a rehash of the Moody plotline in the main books. However, in what is probably the norm, I think Depp is woefully miscast and his brief appearance at the end of the movie is not at all encouraging. Basically, Grindelwald is the Magneto to Dumbledore's Professor X- but with the ho yay as a canon- you want someone who is urbane and charming, not Johnny Depp in "wacky mode".
Also semi spoilery, but I expect we'll see Newt's brother in the next movie- I imagine he'll be a buff Flasheart type. Also expect to see/learn more about Newt's ex, that Lestrange girl. Presumably a relative of Bellatrix and Narcissa- spoiler just in case- I get the feeling that she had something to do with Newt's expulsion (shades of Voldemort framing Hagrid).
edited 27th Nov '16 8:48:45 AM by Hodor2
I wasn't following the development of this film, so I didn't know about Depp being cast as Grindlewald, but seeing Depp in The Reveal really took me out of the movie. Other than that, I really liked this film, even more so than the rest of the HP franchise. It was nice to see some of the magical society in America, and I look forward to seeing its development.
Was thinking about who would be/would have been a Grindellwald (besides just getting back Jamie Campbell Bower). If gong the German actor route, Daniel Brühl would be a good choice as would Tom Wlaschiha (also a bit of a Casting Gag given his character in Game of Thrones).
Also, in a weird bit of what I guess I'd call synergy, I'm currently listening to the audiobook of Anthony Horrowitz's novel Moriarty, which has Moriarty (who is English of Anglo-Irish ancestry) disguising himself as an American Pinkerton detective named Frederick Chase. Not sure if he can do a somewhat RP English accent or not but after seeing Fantastic Beasts, I think Collin Farrell would be well cast as Moriarty/Chase.
edited 27th Nov '16 11:43:21 AM by Hodor2

Just saw the film today. While a bit rough in some areas like the editing and pacing being a bit too fast to really absorb the world, it was still good overall. I really liked how each of the different creatures was designed, and the American branch of the wizarding world is also intriguing, and makes me want to see more from it.
Still, Doctor Strange trumps this film (and some of the HP films) in regards to magic depiction and the like.
edited 21st Nov '16 9:28:25 PM by LDragon2