Fantastic Beasts and the Crimes of Grindlewald (SPOILERS)

[ray245]

Grindlewald and WW2 are pretty obvious connected, given that Grindlewald (based in Continental Europe) is stated to have been brought down in '45, and that the way in which the symbol of the Deathly Hallows is used in relation to Grindlewald is pretty obviously intended to invoke the Swastika (older mythological symbol coopted by modern racist extremist, subsequently seen as shameful by most of society but used by modern sympathizers and asshats trying to seem edgy).

Luna's father was wearing it.

Luna's father, crazy as he was (even by wizard standards) knew what the symbol actually meant. He was a believer of the deathly Hallows after all.

It appears that many wizards post-Grindelwald didnt, judging from how pissed off someome from the continent got when he saw Luna's father wearing it, and given the hero trio's lack of knowledge of the subject altogether up until that point.

Just because you knew what the Nazi symbol originally meant does not mean you should wear it around in Europe.

[Crazedwraith]

Luna's father was wearing it.

Luna's father, crazy as he was (even by wizard standards) knew what the symbol actually meant. He was a believer of the deathly Hallows after all.

It appears that many wizards post-Grindelwald didnt, judging from how pissed off someome from the continent got when he saw Luna's father wearing it, and given the hero trio's lack of knowledge of the subject altogether up until that point.

Just because you knew what the Nazi symbol originally meant does not mean you should wear it around in Europe.

Yes but Luna's dad, Xenophilius didn't know it was Grindelwald's sign. Unless this film changes that it wasn't Grindelwald's sign. He just carved into the wall at Durmstrang when he was a student there. Grindelwald and Xeno used it for the same reason: to show there were Hallows seekers.

It just some dumbass kid's at Durmstrang that associate it with Grindelwald. Even Hermione flat out tells us in DH that there's no record of Grindelwald using a symbol.

[wautd]

That's a good point.

As to wars overlapping, it doesn't line up perfectly, but there is clearly enough back and forth interaction between the worlds for the conflicts of one to influence the other to some extent. IIRC, Pottermore claims that thousands of Wizards and Witches illegally participated in the First World War despite their governments forbidding them to do so- I'd imagine mostly ones with Muggle connections, who either felt some loyalty to their Muggle nations, or just saw innocent people suffering and wanted to do something about it.

Considering it was mentioned that Newt was taking care of the dragons on the eastern front I think the wizarding world had their own fronts in their own dimension

[The Romulan Republic]

Finally saw this movie tonight. I don't have time for a full, in-depth review right now, but suffice to say that it was a colourful, superficially charming film, with whimsical visuals and music and a strong cast, which nonetheless fundamentally dropped the ball at several points on theme and characterization and engaged in several questionable retcons of prior canon, most notably with its retconning of Dumbledore's motives, and with its clumsy attempt to address the issue of sexual assault while refusing to acknowledge it as such.

Frankly, I think a lot of the film's problems stem from incorporating ideas which had no basis in the original Potter canon, but have become highly prevalent in the fandom/fanfiction. It is unfortunate that Rowling, who is one of the few authors big enough to be able to effectively resist outside pressure to edit her work, would go this route, but I fear that, as social media becomes more and more dominant and fandoms become more and more interconnected with the actual creators of fictional universes, we will see more and more the canon coming to be shaped by the fandom- which is to say written by committee dialled up to a million.

Depp utterly sold me on his performance as Grindlewald, though.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, are they seriously going with "Voldemort's pet snake was originally a cursed human woman"? In all seriousness, is Rowling trying to spawn a million Voldemort/Nagini beastiality slash fics?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Saw it the other day. Was...acceptable, for a film that's meant to be 2 of 5, I wasn't expecting it to be omg super-awesome.

A few things did stand out though. One, the thing with Credence trying to find his birth mother was a quite interesting plot thread and well-handled. Two, the fact that he is (supposedly) a Dumbledore isn't the issue you all are trying to make it - I don't recall it being stated that he is Albus's brother, just that he's a Dumbledore. He's probably a cousin on his father's side.

As for Nagini being Voldie's snake...could simply be the same name, or that Nagini (this film's character) will be important to Grindelwald and Voldie will name his familiar after her as a "see, I too have a Nagini serving me, I'm an awesome Dark Lord."

Also, I dunno what it was, but unlike TRR, I really didn't buy Depp as Grindelwald. I mean, you could have had pretty much any actor in that role. This guy is supposed to be some great charismatic inspirational leader of a revolution. He's supposed to be someone who leads by inspiration, by creating a vision of a future rather than by fear like Voldemort. Find someone who actually has gravitas in the role for fucks sake.

[FaxModem1]

I thought his speech at the end worked. But there were actors who could have delivered it a lot better.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The speech was fine, but not great, which it could have been with a better actor. I mean, with no definitive appearance for Grindelwald in this period (we see him in Deathly Hallows once as a young man stealing the Elder Wand, and once as an old man in prison) you could have had just about anyone. Why they went with Johnny Depp for a serious, menacing villain I have no idea. They'd have done better bringing Kenneth Brannagh back, he did terrifyingly well at portraying a well-spoken, plausible, convincing utter soulless bastard in Conspiracy after all.

[Tribble]

The speech was fine, but not great, which it could have been with a better actor. I mean, with no definitive appearance for Grindelwald in this period (we see him in Deathly Hallows once as a young man stealing the Elder Wand, and once as an old man in prison) you could have had just about anyone. Why they went with Johnny Depp for a serious, menacing villain I have no idea. They'd have done better bringing Kenneth Brannagh back, he did terrifyingly well at portraying a well-spoken, plausible, convincing utter soulless bastard in Conspiracy after all.

Unfortunately, they apparently decided that if you're the evil boss then you have to be pale and creepy too, no exceptions. Johnny Depp's version just doesn't work for me. I was expecting, well, basically Colin Farrell's take really. I thought he was a good fit for the character, and it's a shame they didn't stick with him.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I did get a kick out of (even though Potter writers cribbing from other series usually irks me in fan fiction) was Newt using Ventus as a wind-conjuring spell. Taking a page out of Harry Dresden's spell book are we, Newt?

[Crazedwraith]

It could be a coincidence since both series use pig latin for their magic.

[Gandalf]

Indeed. What did wizards use for their spells before Latin?

[Crazedwraith]

Indeed. What did wizards use for their spells before Latin?

In Dresden files anything they like. It's arbitrary to each wizard what language and words you use for a spell. One of Dresden's spells is pig english for example. It's just important that the words are not real/not a language you understand to insulate your brain from the magic.

In HP the words matter a lot and are consistent so I've no idea if it's addressed at all. I wouldn't put it past JKR to say latin was based on magic rather than vice versa.

[The Romulan Republic]

IIRC, some spells do have non-Latin bases in Harry Potter. I've heard that's the case for Avada Kedavra and Alohomora, for example.

[Crazedwraith]

So I finally saw this, got it for my mum for mother's day at the end of last month and we just got around to watching it. It's kind of a mess and the sound was kind of awful, given the quiet voice everyone having weird mumbly speech patterns she could hardly get what they were saying.

There seems to me as in the last movie but perhaps more so there's two wildly different parts to these movies. Awkward Newt bumbling around having adventures with his beasts and trying to get with Tina. And the Grindelwald and his rise to power plot and they don't really work together at all.

That said, I do like Dumbledore's description of Newt and why he likes him. It really echoes why he says he so admires Harry in DH. They don't seek power. They're just very decent chaps.

Grindelwald's speech was interesting partly for the strangely accurate WWII prophetic bits and just the way he speaks, he apparently can't say 'throw over the world order, crush the muggles under our boot' straight out, it's all denials and dogwhistles while he stil lcasually murders a family just for being in a house he wants. Kudos on that score.

Most of the rest of it is hogwash though. Leeta's death was a pointless sacrifice. And the thing with Credence is weird. So Leeta was randmly on the trip to dump the boy in america and then brough back? She swapped babies for some reason and it just turns out the other kid was also a powerful wizard and secret Dumbledore? leaving alone the idiocy of the latter part, the first bit is deeply stupid and the kind of plot point that is usually resolved with 'no you were a kid and didn't understand that's totally not what happened'. Like that one kid in TNG that thought he blew up his ship by falling on a wall console.

So yeah, it's a pretty damn weak outing.