Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

The second at least tried to really build out the characters and the world—the problem was that it all felt like setup that probably should’ve been paced out. The third benefitted from being probably more focused and streamlined than the other two—and again, they at least had the sense to give it enough of an ending that fans aren't disappointed that the other two movies probably won't get made (in the case of The Divergent Series though, it's driving me crazy now that they ended up tripping so close to the finish line and were unable to cross it). Crimes of Grindelwald felt like a lot of things were happening—and I mean A LOT, but Secrets of Dumbledore knew what it was building up to and did it way better though.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Dec 6th 2023 at 11:30:15 AM

They should have made the whole movies about finding beasts.

That is one of the reasons as to why I prefer the first one. Its the only one where the fantastic beasts are the focus of the plot for the most part. In the other two the beasts seem tacked on, which really shouldn't be the case for a series called Fantastic Beasts.

Edited by Bullman on Dec 6th 2023 at 5:39:11 AM

Basically, I like Grindelwald and wanted to know but I expected him to be something...different.

Yeah, you def won't like him in Dumbledore's secrets where he's kind of like Voldemort and Trump.

For me, the Fantastic Beasts got too much focus from the start, so the obligatory bits moving forward—other than the Qilin having a major role in the story—did feel more unnecessary. This was clearly being built as a story where Grindelwald was the overall main threat. That's what I'd always wanted to learn more about.

Kind of wishing they'd gave an explanation on where Grindelwald's form as "Graves" originally came from. Also, wondering why they didn't just have Colin Farrell back when they kicked Johnny Depp to the curb too—unless it was because of The Batman in which case I answered my own question (and yeah, Mads Mikkelsen killed it of course as was to be expected).

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Dec 6th 2023 at 8:09:01 AM

The war against Grindelwald should have been told in a separate prequel. That way they wouldn't have to shove so many fantastic beasts into that story and the fans who don't care about it and just want fun movies about Newt Scamander and fantastic beasts could watch that without the plot being about a wizarding war. There's a Tumblr post saying that one of the main problems of the FB movies is that it's trying to simultaneously be a whimsical animal movie and a gritty urban fantasy that deals with serious topics. Having one movie (or series of movies) be about the adventures of a magizoologist and his suitcase full of animals and another series of movies be about dealing with the Predecessor Villain of the Harry Potter verse would have worked much better.

As we also already established, was trying to be both for kids and adults at the same time and the tone definitely clashed on both occasions too.

Yeah, Dumbledore's secrets opens with Grindelwald slitting open the throat of the Qilin.

That was a shocking scene. Yet at the same time, these movies established they definitely weren't afraid to go dark, so there you go.

also that underground worm thing

I've seen other people on the internet say it and I'll echo it here; the series should have just been magical Indiana Jones.

We know from the jump that Newt travels around the world and I remember the character saying he saved an animal from trafficking at one point, so just have each movie be him going to a different country trying to save a famous mythological creature with a new colorful cast of characters in each installment.

It'd be a golden opportunity to expand the world and even add some diversity into the mix by going to places like Egypt or Asia and getting local actors involved. Expand the brand and expand the audience. I feel like these movies shrunk the world instead of expanded it, which is an issue I'm having with Star Wars content lately.

Gonna be honest, I was never really invested in the Grindelwald Dumbledore drama anyway.

Same here. I get why some people would be interested in the Dumbledore and Grindelwald story since they're familiar names/characters, but to me it always felt like a Magneto and Professor X type deal but with magic. Something I've already seen before (and done much better imo).

Edited by clockworkboy on Dec 7th 2023 at 3:12:09 AM

Except then the creature stuff would consist of something like the crab-type creatures and the crab-walking in order to get them to not attack you. That's fine on its own, but when you combine that with the Qilin's throat getting slit in the same movie? Then yeah, those things don't fit and the tone is definitely a Whiplash.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Dec 7th 2023 at 8:37:24 AM

Hard disagree on that. The kind of pulp-y adventure that it sounds like most of us wanted Fantastic Beasts to be thrived on that kind of whiplash. That can be an asset instead of a detriment.

Huh. Now that I think about it, I wonder if involving actual WWII in TCOG was a sort of callback to Indiana Jones which a lot of people were comparing the first movie to.

The world traveling maybe felt akin more to James Bond actually from my view.

Something like the crab-walking felt too kid-friendly to me. That said, yeah. The point was probably to have the dissonance be effective to the audience because it'd memorable in a different way than the death of the Qilin was.

I mean, I think some people forget that the first film had "The government happy execution chamber" in the same film as "Newt does a mating dance and call to get a magic rhino to charge the bag".

The first film may be the least bad of the trilogy, but that doesn't mean it's excluded from "ideas for how things could have been done better" discussions.

I mean I would say that personally the first Fantastic Beasts is actually better than a lot of the later Harry Potter movies for one reason I find Newt to be more enjoyable than Harry. Harry is just not a character I really like as I grow up. He is often a bit to angsty for my tastes and as such not very fun to read or watch. Newt, however, is a lot more fun and his genuine care and bond with his beasts make him a lot me endearingly to me personally.

That said, yes the film definitely has a lot of issues. Namely everything that has to do with the ministry and Grindelwald which feels like they belong in another movie and takes attention away from the plot I actually enjoy. Which is Newt and his human friend trying to get the beasts back.

Edited by Bullman on Dec 7th 2023 at 1:48:25 PM

Yeah, you def won't like him in Dumbledore's secrets where he's kind of like Voldemort and Trump.

Then we shall call him Voldrump!

With the first movie, there was I guess enough of either a separation or a commonality between those things that they felt they could exist in the same story. With Harry, his struggling to deal with both his internal and external issues is what made him extremely identifiable to me. With Newt, his desire to be an All-Loving Hero and yet also realize he's being tested in the face of danger worked too though.

The first movie does get credit for being a starter film where everything that this world is focusing on was just being introduced. It had that at least to allow it a little leeway with the weaker points—that and it not being based on a novel, though it also still felt like an adaptation of one (again, chucking that up to Rowling being a book author first and foremost).

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Dec 7th 2023 at 1:06:42 AM

Man I remember when that first teaser trailer came out for the first movie and I was hyped af for it despite not really being into Harry Potter. I was intrigued because it clearly marketed itself as something different from the OG story yet still a part of that world.

I miss being hyped for things, it rarely happens anymore for me these days.

I get that. The most hyped I've felt lately is from an RPG series from the late 2010s.

I think that the first Harry Potter movie is the best of the bunch. It's the perfect example of what a fantasy story is about. It's about the magical whimsy and the exciting sense of atmosphere and scale. It's why Hogwarts at Universal resembles that design and aesthetic and not the dark and grimy aesthetic of the later movies.