Newt and Grindelwald
Like any good story, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald has a contrast between its protagonist and antagonist. In this case, there's Newt Scamander, the magical zoologist who has an interest in fantastic beasts, and Gellert Grindelwald, the magical terrorist that commits atrocities in the name of the Greater Good. At first glance, there not only seems to be no similarities linking these two together, but actually nothing at all linking them all together. However, when you look at some of the finer details, they're actually interesting foils to each other, similar to Harry Potter and Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort.
First of all, Newt. Newt has an interest in fantastic creatures and is currently writing a book to help people understand them, rather than their gut reaction being killing them, which is how most of the authorities end up reacting. He recognizes that they are dangerous, but sees that they have as much of a right to live as wizards do and believes that, given time, patience, and proper care, they can be just as docile and peaceful as wizarding society is.
Now compare this to Gellert Grindelwald. Grindelwald does not hate muggles; as he makes very clear in his speech in the Pere Lachaise cemetery, he does not consider them lesser or disposable, but rather of a different value. He believes that, if he doesn't, muggles will end up destroying themselves and wizards, but if wizards can rule, then they can stop wizard persecution and secrecy as well as introducing the tools to make a sort of forced peace between the two races.
Both of them do not see the supposedly "lesser" races (beasts for Newt, muggles for Grindelwald) as to be killed or enslaved, but rather to be tamed, pacified, and forced into peace (the latter solely in the case of Grindelwald, but still). Both were expelled from their wizarding schools due to expressing these beliefs. Newt even shows compassion for Jacob just as Grindelwald shows a twisted admiration of Credence in this movie. Finally, both go against the law to do what they believe is the right thing.
The major difference is that Grindelwald wants to force muggles into subservience under wizards for the good of the WIZARDS, rather than the muggles; Newt believes that the CREATURES have been dealt the short end of the stick, and thinks that, even if the wizards will still see the creatures as beneath them, they can care for them and treat them like living beings.
If or how this will come to light in Fantastic Beasts 3, 4 or 5 remains to be seen.
Fantastic Beasts: Credence Barebone and the Appeal to Pity
Credence Barebone is an often-cited Base-Breaking Character for the Fantastic Beasts series (if not worse). This is really not surprising. He is very much a Flat Character. Whether this can be attributed to J.K. Rowling (witer), David Yates (director), Ezra Miller (actor), or some combination from the three is open to debate. But within the context of the films he is a Perpetual Frowner with No Social Skills who can be quite an insensitive Jerkass. Attempts to gloss this over with a Freudian Excuse fall flat mostly because Credence is far from the first orphan who faced Abusive Parenting or Parental Abandonment in the Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts franchise, much less other contemporary franchises. Notably, his backstory directly parallels Rey in Star Wars, having been sent away by his parents to endure an Orphan's Ordeal and be raised by an abusive non-relative only to grow up and discover that he has magical powers.
The audience is clearly meant to feel sympathy for him. But he does little to elicit any. His obsessive quest for identity is borderline cliché for works with orphaned characters. He also comes across as a Creator's Pet due to the extent to which his story eclipses that of the character (Grindelwald) whose name is actually in the film's title.
But he is Unintentionally Unsympathetic due to his treatment of Nagini as merely a crutch that he can cast aside once he decides to join Grindelwald and seemingly shows no concern for her well-being or survival without him. Nor does he ever even seem to consider seeking help for her blood curse, because his own quest for identity is his one and only concern.
Credence's tragic backstory seems to evoke an appeal to pity on the part of the creators, but they fail to make him a sympathetic character. Contrast Newt, who has a raging case of Hollywood Autism going on and yet still manages to be an engaging protagonist who also manages to acquire (non-desperate) friends in-universe. The contrast with Harry Potter is even more glaring. We seem to be expected to pity Credence for his hard life, and this is certainly possible to do. But his story brings the larger narrative to a screeching halt. The more so to established Harry Potter fans who already know that Credence Barebone/Aurelius Dumbledore will be a forgotten historical figure by later generations of the wizarding world.
