Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

But that still ends up contradicting the fist book though. When Mc Gonagall transforms from her cat form in front of an entire class of First Years, the only kids that seem to be particularly impressed are the ones who did not grow up in wizarding families.

Edited by megaeliz on Jan 2nd 2022 at 2:01:47 PM

Maybe being an Animagus was more stigmatized in the past?

Honestly, I think we might be putting more thought into justifying this within the context of the universe than the movie ever did. I get the sense that Rowling just thought it would be cool and just kinda threw it in, without any real idea of how it would fit into the already established world-building of the books and movies.

Honestly, that’s kind of a problem with a lot of sequels/prequels/etc, set in already existing universes in general. It’s just especially noticeable here since we as an audience have spent so much time in this world, that anything that don’t make sense within the rules and context of the setting, tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Edited by megaeliz on Jan 4th 2022 at 1:55:30 PM

Maybe Animagus were much less normalized back then? Like, idk, I can't think of one off the top of my head because I'm exhausted rn but I'm certain there were talents considered exotic and astounding back in the 1910s that would be considered pretty mundane and common by today's standards.

Maybe the process of becoming an Animagus and the magics involved weren't commonly known and practiced by, idk, old bog witches and, by the time of the Marauders and Harry's eras, someone recorded how it was done and spread the information widely. It could also be a known quantity back then still, but something that "A friend of a friend claims he saw his friend Jerry turn into a rat". Wizards can do it, but no one really knows *how* to do it and haven't seen a transformation up close.

Or... it's just lazy contradictory world building from an author who was kinda lazy and inconsistent in the first place and the longer her series goes on the more inconsistencies will build up? :/

Did the circus hawker actually say she was cursed, though? Most wizards would think "Animagus" and go "Meh" but if she was cursed to be able to be turned into a snake...

> Or... it's just lazy contradictory world building from an author who was kinda lazy and inconsistent in the first place and the longer her series goes on the more inconsistencies will build up? :/

Yes

I wouldn't say inconsistent. Any post-book production are though.

He did say that, yes.

The series is very inconsistent about what is and is not considered impressive to the average wizard, and how well they know/understand magic. Remember back in the first book when Ron thought he could turn "Scabbers" yellow with a rhyming English-language spell? You'd think he'd seen his parents and older siblings casting actual spells and known they didn't work like that.

By the way (I'm bringing this up because Rowling's politics were part of the conversation earlier, but I can drop it if it's too spicy), this week Rowling tweeted that she believes in "innumerable gender identities," but still thinks trans-friendly legislation can put cis women in danger. So, one little baby step at a time, I guess.

...It's a start, I guess?

Meh, probably a smoke screen. It’s not unheard for bigots to go “I don’t have a problem with hypothetical perfect those people, just all the ones I happen to encounter who never match my standards”. She’s made similar claims before about “supporting ‘real’ trans people” and then going off on yet another rant.

Just have her go into the right direction, rather than letting her settle in a bubble echo chamber.

I know some people already wrote her off and I don't exactly blame them, especially if they're trans themselves, but I think the best possible ending here is for Rowling to realize she made a mistake and change her behavior accordingly.

Mate, I've literally been harassed by TER Fs before, and I can confidently say that they pull this shit all the fucking time. They will go on about how they "totally" support trans rights, they're just "looking out for women", and then keep on making comments implying that trans women are all rapists and men are being locked in women's prisons or whatever dumb bullshit these morons are thinking.

Rowling is a committed TERF. She is using the TERF playbook. Plenty of bigots try to deny their own bigotry, it's what they do. Take it from a trans woman: don't be naive.

Yeah, that isn't a step in the right direction. Her messaging has always been "I support trans people... the problem is that we're not dealing with trans people, just men in dresses who want to harass women." In other words, she theoretically supports trans people... it's just that she doesn't think people who claim to be transgender actually are, or deserve rights.

It's not better. But apparently it's working.

People really are desperate to rehabilitate their views on Joanne.

Do you think JK's controversial and vocal proclaims have had negatively impacted the reputation of the series? I just ask because I don't want to get locked in my bubble.

Sort of. People seem pretty willing to divorce her from the books, but she has caused people to turn a much more critical eye towards the more questionable aspects of the series.

I think the books (being 20 odd years old now) were always going to be re-examined eventually and given how society changes over that kind of time, it was likely that aspects won't have aged well.

But her own personal views and reputation certainly won't have done any favours in that regard.

Obviously hasn't helped, but like I said, people are desperate to rehabilitate her image. It's really a testament to the property that several people, even in this thread, can hear a transphobic dogwhistle and go "hey, she's making progress."

People want to like Harry Potter. People want to like Joanne. WB in particular is doing its damnedest to insulate the brand from backlash against her. There's so much momentum behind it that hurting the brand is honestly an uphill battle. But dammit, she is trying.

Edited by Larkmarn on Jan 7th 2022 at 12:32:21 PM

Mm yeah, I did watch a bit of the reunion special out of curiosity and found it to be a really weird vibe. Just a lot of trying to cover up that the actors are trying really hard not to mention JKR with schmaltzy wintry things and ballroom dancing. And videos of JKR talking about the franchise show up, but WB makes sure to remind you really hard that her contributions were filmed in 2019.

Edited by Synchronicity on Jan 7th 2022 at 11:57:51 AM

Yes, but that's the cherry on top of people reexamining the franchise and finding that it holds up far less than they remember in terms of writing, themes, and how it reflects on Rowling's own reactionary stances. The recent discourse about Rowling's character names (she named a black character SHACKLEBOLT for fuck's sake) comes to mind, as does that memetic 4chan post about Harry Potter being the ultimate liberal fantasy. It's a punchline for people to say what their Hogwarts house is.

The series was so popular that, even if Rowling wasn't a TERF, it would inevitably face backlash. The Fantastic Beast movies arguably played a part in that. But when you have a book series where there's a literal plot point mocking social justice activists by depicting a race of house elves that ENJOY being enslaved, where you have an Asian character named "Cho Chang" (a name that, to be blunt, sounds like a racial slur), and where the good guys literally dump an orphaned child into his abusive family's residence for ten years, of course there will inevitably be backlash. Rowling is just a British chauvinist from the generation of Tony Blair-supporting New Labour liberals and her views have not changed since then.

Yeah, I watched the reunion special (my brother was a huge HP fan) and it felt extremely awkward. Like they were pretending J.K Rowling died in 2018-9 and the franchise itself ended with the 8th film (as there's not even a throaway mention of The Cursed Child, for example, despite it being a direct, canonical continuation of the stories of these characters).

Seeing the actors just chat shit about their experiences, particularly the main trio with their genuine friendship and unique experience of growing up with a film franchise, and the many directors discuss their differing approaches, can be somewhat neat in a behind-the-scenes way, but overall it's basically a nostalgia opiate with the added problem they're obviously trying to salvage the pristine nostalgia in a franchise that has been rocked to its core by controversies and just the advancement of time as people realize it was never that good. It's an odd experience. I feel like it'd have been more honest of Rowling just didn't show up at all in the special, paradoxically speaking. As it is, it feels like they're just ashamed of themselves every time they have to cut back to her.

Some omissions of actors also feel weird. Maggie Smith was one of the absolute mainstays of the franchise (Mcgonaghal is, iirc, the second ever character to show up on-screen after Richard Harris' dumbledore) and her abseence feels glaring to me. Similar for David Bradley and Michael Gambon (for all the discussion about Richard Harris, none for Gambon about how it felt to burden such a character after a iconic performance). Of course they wouldn't be able to get every actor and that's fine, but some archival footage at least would be nice.

Has there been a reason why Maggie Smith wasn't able to join up?

As for Rowling, her terf rants are shitty and I take particular issue with her infamous one 2 years back where she claimed to love trans people and have transgender friends before a rant, and that sort of smokescreen is pretty galling. If she actually was truthful, then it must be a terrible friendship if she's actively speaking against their existence, but it hopefully is bull. A true friend would use their connection to their marginalized group to defend them, not to pretend not to be a bigot while ranting hate.

That said, it did feel weird that this special seemed to pretend J.K Rowling is dead and otherwise downplay her contributions. As shitty as her attitude is, I wonder if it's fair to deny her credit for her creations.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Jan 7th 2022 at 3:20:14 PM

TER Fs also do this shit all the time. I've seen quite a few trans people or "de-trans" types (people who detransitioned) voicing support for TERF ideology.

It IS also a bigot playbook to claim to have friends who are X and then proceed to explain why X is bad and should be oppressed, to deflect claims of being a bigot.

And occasionally, they DO have those friends...and they're a bunch of sycophants to reactionary ideology. It's no different than when people touted Milo Yiannopolis as proof that the alt right weren't *actually* homophobic, just because he was a gay man using all their talking points.