So now McGonagall has two inconsistencies. One near the end of her life where she'd supposedly retired and yet is inexplicably headmistress of the school, and one where she's an adult before she was born. Amusing.
Gellert Grindelwald I do want to believe you, I'd just like some evidence. So, did someone in the movie state her name, or reference her child Minerva McGonagle?
Gellert Grindelwald Her mother was Isobel Ross, a witch. Her father was a muggle minister. Her mother hid her magic from her father because she didn’t know how to tell him or was prevented from doing it. Once Minerva began showing signs of magical ability (summoning toys for example), she had to tell him the truth. Minerva had two younger brothers. Her father was a muggle, like I said, so the McGonagall name is not associated with magic. It was either a straight up mistake as attempted fan service or she’ll have a time turner and have gone back to help Dumbledore in his time of need, or whatever. Although that wasn’t supposed to be possible due to the limits of time turners until Cursed Child.
The pregancy thing couldn't work, because of the same reason the bloodband plot point doesn't work. Grindelwald, Dumbledore and Aberforth had duel. But in the duel Ariana god hit by a spell, and died. Only nobody knew who's spell it was and that is when the "friendship" between Grindelwald and Dumbledore ended. So there already is a reason for the conflict. And a way Ariana died. But if their friendship ended at that moment. They already made the bloodband before that duel. So this movie screws up the canon again. Because they wouldn't be able to even have that duel because of that bloodband.
The working theory is that despite the blood pact, Dumbledore and Grindelwald still tried to attack each other in anger. The magic they used for the pact being, I assume, rare and, thus, volatile might have caused their spells to bounce off and hit Ariana.
Camelia Berghean but if it was thay simple. Then there wasn't really a duel what was specificly stated. Also Aberforth was involved with it . And if it just bounched of it wouldn't explain how they don't know who's spell hit her
Well, I could see them both losing their tempers and both throwing spells at each other at the same time, only for both of the spells to deflect and hit Ariana. That way they don't know which spell that hit her actually killed her. That's the only thing I can think of that would fix the stupid plot hole that JK made
yeah I agree that the pregnancy couldn't work but having Dumbledore be so deliberately blind about Grindelwald is so much worse than a blood pact. It would have Aberforth's anger make sense because he knew about then and it would give Rita Skeeter's books a bit of legitimacy too. It would have been so appauling to have Dumbledore refuse to fight him and Grindelwald use that to his advantage. Nagini should have just been a snake that Voldemort named. JK didnt remember that the 7th book happened at all? I hate to be that jerk who says that it was ghost written but with these last releases I'm starting to buy into it...
Find out next time when you tune into: *everything you loved from your childhood dragged into a dark alley and having the shit kicked out of it for money*
Colin Farrell is a much better Grindelwald than Depp. When you started talking about the family tree, my boyfriend and I were dying from laughter because he's super into genealogy and family trees, so we know all too well that that's not how family trees work at all. Nothing makes me more angry about this movie than the fact that Dumbledore is gay, said the writer herself, but even though he doesn't want to fight his old boyfriend or whatever, the producers explicitly said "No gay in this movie. None." I'm so over J.K. Rowling being fake woke, honestly. If the character is actually gay, then let him be gay.
JK essentially decided that the potential money of people in much more conservative cultures was more important to her than standing by her twitter based virtue signalling...and also decided that she'd prefer a rating that wouldn't exclude the younger more dewy eyed Potter fans and their parents from coughing up their money...
@@lollylou22 maybe theres a slim chance she can be saved from sjwism. Despite being orange man bad she isnt so obsessed with the virtue signal, that shed nuke her income.
My favorite JKism so far, is her claiming "There was at least one Jewish student at hogwarts," like really? You can't say this shit 20 years later when it's not written in any of your books. Dumbledore being gay didn't seem like a huge shock to me cuz Grindelwald was supposed to be some super legendary wizard and they were close. I thought it was odd to announce it so long after, but alright, and then she just kept going and I realized she was layering her woke idpol bullshit into the canon as full-on retcons.
Jk Rowling is like a person who likes to pull at loose threads, but harry potter 1-7 had no loose threads so she is cutting it to create loose threads so she can incessantly pull at them.
The books weren't that good after Goblet of Fire. I always thought she started just filling pages with a lot of fluff to make every book as big as goblet of fire yet none of the later ones are actually fun. Everyone is angry and miserable, there's people dying left and right. She fucking kills Hedwig in Book 7. Why? It was like dart board decisions.
@@Antiformed At some point she grew board of Harry Potter. She was done after 7. She wanted to do other things (Things she failed at). Kind of like George Lucas and wanting to do documentaries instead of star wars but his divorce destroyed his nest egg so he had to earn more money so he started milking star wars again.
You know what impresses me about this review? The fact that you actually remembered most of the movie... To me the movie was so confusing that I had already forgotten the beginning of the movie by the time I got halfway through it.. I love Harry Potter and had high hopes for these fantastic beasts movies, but I was even more disappointed and confused by the second one than I was the first.. I really hope that JK Rowling works with an actual screenwriter in the next one instead of trying to write it herself.. She's a brilliant novelist, but I'm afraid her screenwriting needs some work.. I really want to care and love these new characters she's come up with, but they need to be written better..
Ever since the last book was released (the deathly hallows) It has annoyed me greatly that JK Rowling refuses to sit back and leave her creation alone. No she constantly keeps popping up to TWEAK the HP universe and change things - after the book was written. The biggest thing she "tweaked" were James Potters parents. All through the books they were Charlus and Dorea Potter. Now suddenly they are Fleamont and Euphemia!! That is when I was turned off JK Rowling as an author and I have not read anything she claims to have written since then. Whats the point? She will only change and "tweak" it later on!! I have no trouble watching this critique since I was not planning to going to see the movie anyway. My husband went to see it and he HATED the cliffie ending!! I had to explain that the crimes of G movie was the 2nd of 5 planned movies!! He also said the story jumped around a lot but the special effects were spectacular. I think that movie was made JUST for the SFX!!
SereniaSaissa would you be as PO'd if J.K. Rowling had written these movies as novels first, then published them, then gotten them made into movies? Through that outlet would her tweaks have been more palatable? Also, wow: I wasn't even aware of those tweaks you mentioned concerning James Potters' parents. Honestly, I've read the books multiple times & never noticed that James Potters' parents were named.
19:35 Now this has me thinking. I remember watching BBC America and noticing how that none of the cops in British TV have guns (except for Jack Robinson from Miss Fisher, because he lives in Australia), and presumably that's a happy accident because it means that the British writers can write tense standoffs that don't just devolve into "hey we're cops and have a gun, we can just shoot you". Is there sort of a reverse stereotype when British people watch American TV? Like they watch Law & Order or CSI and think to themselves "well obviously they can just arrest anyone instantly, they're packing tons of guns." The reason I bring this up is because this American auror just walked up and iced this bitch with one shot just like if he had a gun, while the previous Harry Potter stories taking place in Britain, Avada Kedavra is kind of a pain in the ass to use because otherwise it's functionally identical to a gun and would just turn the magic fight into a gunfight
Even those of us who were entertained by Last Jedi have to admit it was a fucking mess where none of the writers were on the same page (hell, not even within the same book)
"How can she be the richest author in the world?" Because there was a time where she was writing for her audience and not to push her social agenda. #CrimesAgainstGrindelwald
I assume she got a new shitty PR Manager who told her she has to do politically relevant stuff. Which celebrity, musician and artist doesn't get instrumentalized nowadays...
JK never explained anything about the magic systems of the potterverse. There are hints in some of the books, some wizards are more powerful, some spells can be cast with a thought and a wand, some magical wand materials are more magical than others. TBH this makes the story continuity hurt. What are the stakes when a wizard could literally cast all day long with impunity and magic can literally do anything you want it to from changing some text on a page to fitting 3 tons of dragon in as small teapot. The reason that these movies don't work is because there aren't a long series of thought out novels that can fully explain and give context to the actions, motivations, and feelings of the characters without blurting it out in exposition.
@Tesla-Effect You could say that but we never ask whether or not some magic can't be used. Like is gandalf able to use fire magic onto said ring. With the Harry Potter films, we just get flashes of light from their wands. In the books we get to see real kinda of magic you'd expect in other fantasy tales. Yeah, time magic is an example but that's mainly it. Harry Potter has always played fast and loose with it's magic. Not really restricting itself. Even if it's soft magic, the films and books differ on who's powerful at times. Hell, this movie proves my point that magic is whatever the film makers want it to be. You gain feckin' CSI Miami, detective magic bullshit.
As a kid I thought it was a good message that even though they had so much power, to use magic to kill was very firmly and aggressively discouraged. Wizards fighting wasn't supposed to be a super common thing.
@Tesla-Effect both the magic system and the world building in Harry Potter are incredibly soft and shallow. Which works for some stories but not for Harry Potter
Ah, it is so enjoyable to watch someone rant about stuff that annoyed the hell out of me. Thanks ! I think the Queenie plot was the worst part of the movie. She just casually uses a love potion, aka wizard GHB, to get Jacob to marry her... Sure, that's fine, let's create a conflict. But THEN it is frame as if she is just a poor girl in loooove and Jacob is the unreasonable one for thinking (and regretting it in about half a second), that she is crazy. First, calling her crazy seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given the fact that she tried to marry him against his will. Second, he is way too forgiving of her for that ; how come he takes the blame and we (as an audience) are expected to agree ? Hum, no, sorry. And as you pointed out, it just changes Queenie's character, she does a 180 for no reason. If they wanted her to go to the dark side, have Jacob die, or turn his back on her, make her have a huge fallout with Tina over the whole wizards-can't-marry-muggles issue... It would have been so easy, but no, they had to be stupid about it. Unless I remember incorrectly, Grindelwald said Credence was actually named Aurelius Dumbledore, and just implied that he was Albus' long lost brother... So I am hoping that he is either lying, or Credence is another Dumbledore but not Albus' brother (because that would make no sense).
Mina M ever since Nagini's premier in the teaser trailer I liked the reveal idea of Credence being Nagini's dead son. Yes, I was upset that they just brought Credence back from the dead.
Because the polyjuce had transfigured his wand relationships so he owned the wand Perceval graves had. So therefore, he is still in power of the elder wand
Bellatrix Lestrange, that's not how polyjuice potion works. I don't think that's how Polyjuice Potion works. Otherwise why didn't Harry & Ron own Crab & Goil's wands after using polyjuice potion to turn into them for a time? Doesn't this go against the canon / the books logic in how potions & magic work?
Why do I love that ultra dark dumbledore story possibility? Oh because it would bring depth to characters they are cheapening and since we’re obviously throwing out the source material, why not make the best story out of this mess as possible? Also repair the horrible no-homo plot device that is the ‘blood pact’ by describing this device containing their shared blood that restrains them from hurting the other as something akin to a symbolic marriage. I mean shared blood, lifelong promise that ties them together, symbolic jewelry that always carried on a partners person, etc... it’s not a hard leap not make with 2 lines in the next film. They can do this and make it mean whatever they want because we’ve never been introduced to this magic before and they clearly made it up
Can we keep the fandoms apart like honestly some people loved tlj grow up and respect other people's opinions. In comparison, this movie was objectively bad.
@@VeelouC TLJ was objectivly bad. There are literary 6 hour long videos out there analysing that movie. Non of them positive. But that does not mean you can't enjoy it. Same goes for this movie, which was enjoyed by thousands of people. Thats literary true for almost any blockbuster movie. I like the first three transfomers movies. I know people who dislike it as a howl or thing everything after 1 or 2 is garbage. After 3 for me. Atleast this movie dies on being just incompetant, not being that will telling the fans that every movie/arc before was worthless.
@@VeelouC That was not really a serious ment comparison. But no matter of the quality, I think we can agree that Disney/WB are going to milk the brand recognition to it's death. That they don't care if they build a cohesive univers or not comes to show by the transition from the respectiv first to second movie. By no means does that imply you're not allowed to enjoy them.
Guy is crying because of fucking logo, I dont think his comments are legitimate enough to take them seriously And I think this guy is of the sort who hates all harry potter franchise because dumbledore is gay
Rowling just struck a nerve back then when the Harry Potter books were released. From a literary stand point she was always a light weight. But that was fine because she put a lot of heart into the story and it were children books after all. HP was about wide-eyed wonder at a world the protagonist never really understood. And it served it's purpose because leaving a lot of information to half-truths and myths was enough to drive the story. Now that Rowling needs to fill the gaps we see that she's not a world-builder in the sense that i.e. Tolkien and GRR Martin are. Deconstructing myth is a very difficult path, because it will likely destroy the magic. And in a story about magic that's self-defeating.
@@Runenschuppe exactly, if Rowling wanted to do world building she should have never put the epilogue in 7. instead of the wrap-up, she should have had Harry leaving Wizarding Britian after the war due to the fame a/o trauma. Globe-trotting Harry could have easily built out the world and given an opening to add more whenever she wanted; each book/movie a different country with different adventures for him.
@@Runenschuppe I mean, you can see this tendency in the books already. First books, the carriages that drive them to hogwarts are just magical and drive by themselves. Fifth book suddenly they're drawn by invisible beasts, which harry should have seen in the first place, witnessing his mother's death. Why do port keys exist if people can apparate easily? How far can people even apparate? Are port keys only for minors who aren't allowed to apparate yet? Should've just left a lot in the fog and just be magical instead of trying to explain things and then create plot holes en masse.
Um, actually, every time he (Grindlewald) is speaking to an audience that isn't just his own followers he speaks in euphemisms and always stops short of his conclusions and solutions. The movie is still trash, but it gets this aspect of gas lighting and manipulation correct.
How is nobody questioning the half-elf thing???? I just could not stop laughing at the idea in the cinema. Like did the human give birth to the half-elf?? Or the other way round?? Like that's REALLLLLLY funny to me hahaha
I didn't even think about that, i was too busy being confused about the method of conception. Like, aren't elves little ugly slaves? Who'd fuck that? Or did an elf rape a chick?
@@corruptangel6793 Humans have fucked apes, goats and pigs, unfortunately, so that wouldn't surprise me. Still creepy af though and unnecessary. She could've just been an Elf that disguised herself or used a charm to not be noticed on her way to the US. like ugh
@@highwaygroan Even if that's size-challenged, at least it can be assumed to be consensual. How can sex between a human and a house elf (magically enslaved into servitude fyi, to the point where their obedience can be passed on through wizarding wills!!!) be in any way consensual?
highwaygroan giants weren't enslaved by the Wizarding world, nor did they ever seem like a completely different species to me than Wizards, Witches & 'Muggles' aka Humans. I thpught of Giants as extremely large humans even in the Potterverse. Although after the 4th book it did seem as though all Giants were somewhat retarded.
Although I'm old, I like HP. Nowadays there is a nostalgic quality about the old films. But we have to remember that JKR is an amateur writer who got lucky and now her ego is driving her. I've written sixty-three novels (six best sellers) so I kinda know what I'm talking about. But I believe she is tired. She has reached the top of the mountain and there is nowhere left for her to go. So, she is spinning, frightened of falling. And that produces achingly incompetent storylines. I only can say this: Beware the fate of Marie Corelli.
Considering Dumbledore's Dad is jailed and his Mom was dead when Credence was born, maybe it's a full metal alchemist thing. Albus tried to bring his sister back from the dead but ended up creating a new human instead. So since Credence was repurposed from her body, he's technically a sibling? don't know where the name comes from tho.
Though your Ariana explanation is admirable and I appreciate you trying to make something better than it was, it is clearly established that she is killed by a stray spell cast by one of the three combatants in the three way dual. BOTH Albus and Aberforth are certain it was themselves who cast the spell. This is what tortures both of them for the rest of their lives. Your theory would break the book Canon, interesting though it is.
The unbreakable vow to kill the kid doesn't make any god damn sense anyway. If he doesn't he's going to die of age before the kid anyway, he can just live with the vow till he dies. Maybe this vow had a time limit, like a shitty arcade space shooter.
32:32 -- This a very big side note, but your point about the name LeStrange brings up one pet peeve I've always had about the audio books, namely that the otherwise wonderful Jim Dale insists on giving Bellatrix a French accent, even though A) The LeStranges are clearly British, and B) Bella is a member of the House of Black (i.e. cousin to Sirius), and only has a French name by marriage anyway.
0:50 I've heard that 50 years ago this was actually normal. Hell, as recent as Return of the Jedi audiences were willingly spoiling the entire movie for themselves before it even released (no joke, Lucasfilm actually spoiled the whole movie a year before it came out, and in that age that would drive UP ticket sales)
Lucasfilm did not spoil Return of the Jedi before it came out and certainly not an entire year before. Also, after Empire Strikes Back (the Vader reveal in that movie was one of the best kept secrets ever), no one was going to miss ROTJ. Btw, I stood in line a total of 6 hours at The Egyptian in Hollywood to see Empire twice the first week it came out in 1980 -- no megaplexes in those days -- and I took my 6 year old son with me both times. We didn't get to see Star Wars until 6 months after it came out in 1977 because the lines were so long. I don't think you realize what a phenomenon those movies were when they released. Drive up ticket sales lol.
@@beemoji2280 Of course they were phenomenal. But Lucas has always been a businessman first when it comes to promoting it. He has always pulled stunts to drive up ticket sales and toy sales. And um, you are sadly incorrect that Empire had the best kept secret ever. Check out this news column printed in 1978, over a full year before Empire came out: s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/6/6/437666_v1.jpg That's David Prowse, spoiling Darth Vader being Luke's father. Again, before Empire came out. I love Star Wars. I played the shit out of every Star Wars game I could when I was ten. I would play the battle scenes of Attack of the Clones every day if I could. But Star Wars is not sacrosanct. Star Wars is not holy. Star Wars is a dumb as shit hodgepodge that was made up on the fly and has every flaw behind the scenes you could think of, from actors on drugs to George Lucas literally rewriting his script after shooting has already started because he doesn't give a fuck. That doesn't make me hate it, that makes me love it more.
@@gellertgrindelwald5891 tbh i have consumed much more hp media than marvel (I haven't even seen all marvel movies but I have seen all hp nor have read any comics but I've read all harry potter books) but ok I guess
There's a good reason for making Grindelwald have a hint of charisma in the movie, but not real charisma. Because children will see it and if he had actual charisma the children may get convinced that you really are an "untermensch" if you can't use magic and those children will become literal Nazis (according to WB and Rowling at least) because of that movie. So instead they show that he has charisma, by showing the effect, but don't actually show the charisma itself because that's "dangerous".
dude, for one of your videos, specifically on a topic that arouses your ire like no other, could you do it in German? I understand that next to English, German is one of the greatest languages for expressing hate, and if you're as eloquent in German as you are in English, I kinda wanna hear what lucid shit-talking in another language sounds like, and so long as you don't spontaneously grow a suspiciously narrow mustache, I don't think anyone will have a problem.
Okay, that is funny - before I even saw the german books in the shelf I was already thinking "this speech rhythm - is he german?!" :D Lass einfach mal alles raus, ich bin sicher, die englischen Fans würden sich köstlich über einen schimpfenden Deutschen amüsieren. Einfach nicht das R rollen ;)
Wow I don’t know how many I’ve watched this video and I still can’t stop laughing. This is just so hilarious. I love how you’re not trying and forcing it to be funny, it’s just genuinely hilarious. Well done sir, this might be my favorite video on UA-cam
I wonder when Dumbledore decided to start wearing robes? I mean, I'm not complaining too much because Jude Law looks great in a suit. But it's kinda weird that he starts dressing like old-man freakin' Merlin once he reaches a certain age.
I agree 100%. I remember thinking, after finishing the epilogue of the last potter book for the first time, Gawd, I hope she'll write more. I was so invested in the Potter universe, and I wasn't ready to let it go. Then, she went on and wrote more. I was so freaking excited !!! Now, I wish she wouldn't have. And I just don't get it, either. I thought she was a genius, reading the potter books. But all she has done since contradict that, A LOT.
Initially I thought these films were going to be like a Wizard Indiana Jones type of films with Newt traveling across the world and facing different villains who were threatening magical species. I got none of that. I liked the first film though.
I can honestly say that I enjoyed your 40+ minutes of very accurately and deservedly destroy 'The Crimes of Grindelwald' way MORE than I did watching the actual movie itself. :)
I'm pretty sure that blue fire is some of the infamous "fiendfyre", which appears in the book of _Deathly Hallows_ but not the film. And I'm guessing, BTW, this is the same type of fire that is utilized in the final chamber before the Mirror of Erised in the first book.
Uuuuuuuuuuuugh. The entire Queenie plot line made me sooo ANGRY!!! Know how they could have reintroduced Jacob? That she sought him out, and they fell in love again. She could tell him about the memory wipe thing after introducing him to magic, and voila. She didnt even have to put a spell on him!! She could have just suggested that they move to England so they could get married and not deal with the whole American wizard's being dicks! And while they were there she could reintroduce Jacob to Newt. And they could have this funny thing where Jacob doesnt remember them being friends but Newt does but they still get to be cool friends again. AND QUEENIE NEVER GOES TO GRINDLEFUCK BECAUSE NO!!!! NO NO NO NO!!JUST FUCKING NO! There. I fixed that part. Because it made me so mad.
I saw this film and thought to myself "wouldn't this be more interesting if this movie was about Dumbledore in the same period?" The answer is Yes I don't give a damn about Newt's shenanigans
Jared Haris would be so great as Dumbledore, now that you pointed that I'm even more dissatisfied with this movie. Depp does not work as Grindelwald and Jude Law would be the perfect fit. At least I'd ship the shit out of Jude Law and anyone who isn't Johnny Depp.
A lot of the complaints you have can be explained in a simple way: sequel hook. Many of the elements we saw appearing but not being used for anything during this movie will likely play a key role in the next one, but they had to start here. Prepare for a tragic love story between Nagini and Credence, where she will turn into a snake to help him, fail, regret the wizards and swear to help the next brooding teenager she meets. It's also why there's a big change in Credence's character from the previous movie, where Gridenwald said he was never gonna be a wizard, but now he's part of the Dumbledore family. The change is strictly to make a more personal and high stakes story that can make sequels and a lot of drama. But since Credence doesn't make for a good villain, they still need Gridenwald and his story.
Explanations can't excuse that Crimes of Grindlewald is really terrible movie story telling. Rowling needs to not be writing the script for these movies because she's really bad at it. Like doesn't have the first clue how to do a movie script.
I remember when i watch the film and they killed the toddler, i turned to my friends and said that was a waste if he had left the child alive it would have given him more ambiguity as a villain.
Am I the _only one_ who think Dumbledore teaching DADA prior to going after Grindelwald and the blood pact makes perfect sense? Just think about it, TheBurgerkrieg: We know Dumbledore was remorseful for letting himself be enthralled by Grindelwald's charm and extremist ideology and, more than anything, that his friendship with Grindelwald was what led to Ariana's death. Bitter and full of regret, yet wanting to rectify past mistakes, I think Dumbledore took the DADA job specifically _because_ he foresaw Grindelwald's rise to power and decided that, if nothing else, he could arm successive generations at Hogwarts with the knowledge and skill to defend themselves when the time came. Before Torquil Travers just decided Dumbledore wouldn't teach DADA anymore, (although we know from the books that that not something even the Minister for Magic can do, because there's a system, you know, the headmaster running the school would have to agree to the ban, the Board of Governors might have a thing or two to say about it). But I mean - come on. When _I_ heard he would teach DADA, I figured he switched to Transfiguration around the time he finally went to confront Grindelwald for their 1945 duel, because he expected that after the duel, he would either be dead, meaning the headmaster would already have a replacement to continue his work to teach students to defend themselves, or he would win, and the danger would be over, meaning he was free from his perceived obligation of protecting successive generations of students by teaching them how to protect themselves, and hence free to teach his favorite subject. As for the blood pact - I for one think the conditions of the blood pact was subtly twisted in Grindelwald's favor. The pact was, in crude terms, "not to fight each other", but I get the sense that that was more of a crude summary. I think it was more along the lines of "not to stand in the way of the Greater Good". Like, Grindelwald was willing to share his plan of world domination with Albus and would even preferred it if they went on that path together, but ultimately, he knew if one of them were to get a change of heart, it would be Albus. So what was he to do? Well, obviously he would want to take advantage of the fact that Dumbledore was in love with him to convince him to make this oath, which, incidentally, just so happened to constitute a binding, magical contract that would, in the event of Dumbledore abandoning the cause, prevent him from stopping him from rising to power. It would matter very little if he could not fight Dumbledore, (which would also come into play as a condition of the blood pact if Dumbledore felt defeating Grindelwald was for "The Greater Good"), because as long as Dumbledore was actively prevented from trying to stop him by the blood pact, and Grindelwald was free to go ahead with his plan, why would he want to? Then Newt appeared in New York just as he was busy tracking down the Obscurial, and when he realized the Magizoologist was on Dumbledore's good side, he figured that Dumbledore had decided to oppose him indirectly, and now there was a second reason to get his hands on Credence. I mean -furthering his goals at the expense of someone else seems to me just like the kind of thing Grindelwald would do, and I think that's what the blood pact is for. The three-way duel was a violent, and yes, indeed, deadly scuffle between three people fueled by righteous anger, it was less about stopping Grindelwald and more about stopping Grindelwald from torturing Aberforth with the Cruciatus Curse. So that particular duel didn't meet the conditions/limitations of the blood pact. At least - that's what make sense to me.
Ninclow Doesn’t matter. McGonagall in the books talked about how he was the Transfiguration teacher when she herself was still a student. So, if McGonagall is indeed older in this series, it makes even less sense since he was teaching DATDA after McGonagall graduated.
@@Mrbluefire95 I don't think she ever mentioned it in the books, but Dumbledore are indeed said to be her Transfiguration teacher on Pottermore. Most likely, Rowling just ignored her own canon for the sake of fan service.
If the blood oath was along the lines of "don't stand in the way of the Greater Good" then why can Dumbledore not fight Grindlewald, if he thinks that his stuff is not for the Greater Good? If it's explicitely about not fighting each other (as it was mentioned in the movie), the three-way duel makes no sense at all. I highly doubt Dumbledore thinks Grindlewalds plans are for the Greater Good at the point of the 2nd beast movie yet he still needs that amulet. Also, why is there even such an item in the first place and why does Grindlewald have it? Don't blood oaths work just like that? Dumbledore switching stuff he teaches also makes sense to me. Every now and then you also just might want to explore other areas of magic. Still there's no explanation for it though.
I don't think that other person was imprisioned and Grindewald was the auror all along. I think that Grindewald knows some kind of spell that changes body/place with a wizard marked before. Are you sure Grindewald was not the one encaged ?
Me: As an autistic HP fan, I'm so glad we have an autistic wizard protagonist in the series! There's no way this could be given some sort of bad- Warner Brothers: Newt's role will be increasingly reduced with each new Fantastic Beasts film! While he'll always be there, he'll get less relevant until eventually he becomes a footnote with no real bearing on the plot! Me: *URGE TO KILL RISING*
Just discovererd your account by this video. watched the movie yesterday and it was sooo yawning boring … btw: are you german? spotted some germans treats in your bookshelf ;-)
For some reason it sounds like you didn't get it man... Grindelwald has an idea. Grindelwald is stopping concentration camps and the atomic bombs from ever happening, he's seen this and he thinks the muggles are too barbaric and need to be contained before things really get out of hand. he does this at a time just after the first world war happened in the muggle world which was a gruesome affair and apparently was a massive shock to the wizards, so they're going for a 'never again' like happened in the real world after world war 2 actually went down. And this is why it's a lot worse than you think it is right now, because in short terms this is Wizard Hitler trying to prevent World War 2 from happening by containing the muggles.... Who now has to be stopped by the 'good guys' who will always, no matter what they do now.... cause World War 2 if they succeed. And that's the real story. go back to what he says when this comes out on netflix or something, look at his build up, then the visions, then the response from the crowd. That's the story. Newt Scamander and Albus Dumbledore are personally responsible for World War 2.
Honestly the only way that can happen now is if it turns out that Grindelwald was 1. mind controlling Hitler, which would create a universe where Hitler was innocent. or 2. Hitler and Grindelwald turn out to be in cahoots, which is just a lazy/silly way of writing. The only thing she has actually written so far is that Grindelwald is trying to prevent world war 2 by making muggles subservient to wizards and that the wizarding world due to it's trauma of the previous war is susceptible to this idea.
Grindelwald thinks humans are too barbaric, though he agrees in the killing of a baby for some reason (which was purposely written to portray him as super evil, though it came across as cheesy and unintentionally funny to me) and countless other people??? Oh, because ends justify the means and yadda yadda yadda, which means he's just the same as muggles? It's an semi-interesting parallelism at most.
If they kill Grindelwald and REALLY want to stop WW2 from happening, they can just kill the leaders of the respective countries. There's actually tons of ways to prevent WW2 from a wizarding perspective. Also with how the books are built up, they could just have some magical stuff that tells them a war is coming.
Rowling is not a good writer. The last few Harry Potter books ripped off plots from fan theories. The movie studio straightened out the story and rules in the movies. The entire Harry Potter series needs to be re-written by someone competent.
Love spell aside, the "bad memories" thing was set up, albeit with no explanation. When the Swooping Evil venom is introduced, Newt mentions that when diluted it removes 'bad memories', but there's no explanation as to why the brain-eating creature has venom that removes bad memories when diluted. I guess maybe the venom is supposed to make the prey relaxed and not fight back, and so makes them insensible with happiness and forget all alarm?? But my ability to make up lore is not actually reflective of how decent a plot-point this 'Jacob can remember because fuck you' is. (Hint: it's not decent at all. JUST MAKE NEWT BREAK THE LAW AND HIDE JACOB INSTEAD OF HAVING HIM FORGET. IT'S MORE INTERESTING AND MORE LOYAL TO HIS CHARACTER AS A HUFFLEPUFF PROTAGONIST.)
But would've that be incredibly stupid and make the action of obliviating memories not reliable and sort of pointless? I find it ridiculous in every perspective i've tried to look at it from. They just keep writing themselves into holes and getting out of them with illogical messes of decisions
@@BernardoWLopes Yes, true! It's a fucking mess and would undoubtedly cause problems among other muggles (no-maj is such a stupid term jaofjew), at least some of whom would have no doubt been like "OH SHIT MAGICS REAL THATS SO DOPE" before realizing magic was also wrecking shit and they should run. The entire plot-point makes no sense and is a messy way to keep Jacob in the story. This plot point is less the fabric of the story and more a flimsy net stretched over a gaping pit. However: it is worth noting that the Obliviation spell and the Swooping Evil venom are wholly different magical things, even though the characters and JKR conflate the two later on; normal obliviation does not have the same limitations/exceptions as Swooping Evil venom: it is irreversible and specific only to the caster's intentions and care, not just something that eats (recent??) bad memories. However (take two!): this note is only useful insofar as preserving the integrity of standing lore, rather than the value of the Fantastic Beast series' writing. Obliviate-the-spell was used fairly consistently throughout the original HP books, albeit sometimes in terrifying extremes (see: hermione erasing herself from her parents' lives). Calling all memory erasure "obliviation" cheerfully confuses things, great going JKR.
I just watched the film. The extended version, no less. I'm not a Potterphile. I've seen all the films, but only once and never really dwelt on any of them. This film was NOT meant for me. I spent almost the entire running time utterly confuzzled. Things just seemed to happen, spontaneously, with no rhyme nor reason. And plot points were just kinda sprayed around, like a madman with a paintball gun. I still don't really understand what happened other than 1) Grindelwald is a big boss wizard, 2) he breaks out (even though he was, apparently, never locked-up), and 3) he wants wizards to take over the world to prevent WW2. Oh, and 4) he has a hard-on for Ezra Miller (did Grindelwald see his cringey performance in Justice League?). Everything else was like white noise. For awhile there, I didn't even think Katherine Waterston was even in the film. And when she did show up, she's poof, gone a minute later, as if her image was a mirage or something. It was a really, REALLY bizarre treatment of someone who was a main character in the first film. Queenie's character was breathtakingly inverted, like that poor baboon in Cronenberg's The Fly. After Newt lifts the mesmerizing spell, she just runs off and her motivations are never stated. And the mix-up with Theseus' wedding was another thing that left me confused. You would think someone of Tina's status within the "wizarding world" would know that it was Theseus getting married and not Newt. But, no, that's played as something of a warped running gag throughout much of the film. Ooooookkkkaaayyyyy. I guess I'll mention some positives. Unlike a lot of people, I really like Johnny Depp and thought he did a great job with what little he was given. In fact, he basically held the film together for me (as best he could). A lot of the setpieces were spectacular. Newt was ever his autistically charming self. Jude Law was terrific as Young Dumbledore, though I agree the role really should've gone to Jared Harris (maybe Jared's commitments on The Expanse precluded it). The kid they got to play Young Newt was absolutely PERFECT. Oh, and the girl who played Nagini was super cute. That's about it. The action was incomprehensible most of the time, the film is color graded to hell and back, NOTHING HAPPENS for much of the film, the whole thing about the Lestrange bloodline and family tree and why they were so damned important just zoomed over my head like an F-15 Tomcat, Queenie just going to and fro was a real time waster, and Credence suddenly gaining boss-level spellcasting powers gave me narrative whiplash. I cannot for the life of me envision what Rowling is gonna fever dream up for the third film. I'll watch it, but it'll probably make as much sense to me as one of those PBS Space Time videos on string theory or singularities.
About the Elder Wand ownership. Apparently the script of Fantastic Beasts 1 (released in book form) says that Grindelwald dropped his Wand when Newt bound him with the creature, and Tina just summoned his Wand that was on the ground, so Tina would not be the Elder Wand's new owner. That being said, Newt bound him, which would make NEWT the owner of the Elder Wand, so it's still a gigantic plot hole that makes me think that JK has lost her way
I didn't saw how long the video is and around 29:51 I started to think... isn't it a bit longer than usual? Damn! 40 minutes trashing a movie and i enjoyed every second.
why the fuck isnt anybody wearing mage clothing? in HP PS on day Voldy died mages didnt give a shit and went even publicaly wearing habbits, cloaks and so on, now Dumbledore wears siut in Hogwarts
I read the Harry Potter books 10+ years ago so I honestly can't remember, did the books have all these (arguably failed) attempts to do twist after twist?
There's also the fact that Credence tracked his "adopted mother" to Paris. And thats where the Lestrange family is from and they're a reacuring plot point
Honestly some times fanfictions are better than even source material
So now McGonagall has two inconsistencies. One near the end of her life where she'd supposedly retired and yet is inexplicably headmistress of the school, and one where she's an adult before she was born. Amusing.
Im just waiting for the day JK rowling says, well... there where time turners. so its not imposible for McGonagall to be there
Damian Freeman it's her mum. Get your facts right before you spit out bs
@Tesla-Effect The goddess Hera who inexplicably took on Athena's Roman name.
Gellert Grindelwald I do want to believe you, I'd just like some evidence. So, did someone in the movie state her name, or reference her child Minerva McGonagle?
Gellert Grindelwald Her mother was Isobel Ross, a witch. Her father was a muggle minister. Her mother hid her magic from her father because she didn’t know how to tell him or was prevented from doing it. Once Minerva began showing signs of magical ability (summoning toys for example), she had to tell him the truth. Minerva had two younger brothers. Her father was a muggle, like I said, so the McGonagall name is not associated with magic.
It was either a straight up mistake as attempted fan service or she’ll have a time turner and have gone back to help Dumbledore in his time of need, or whatever. Although that wasn’t supposed to be possible due to the limits of time turners until Cursed Child.
My favorite scenes were the rape scene, the drowning baby and when they murdered that toddler.
A FAMILY FILM
Family Friendly 100% Videos For Kids and Toddlers Funny Colors Learning Elsa and Spiderman Funny Numbers Slime
Sylvasa Windrunner
Its not a family film.
well, it is more toned down then a typical disney movie that is filled with subliminal sexual imagery
This I actually like, I hate stupid happy family movies.
Rape scene?
I watched this movie but I don't remember a rape scene?
The pregancy thing couldn't work, because of the same reason the bloodband plot point doesn't work. Grindelwald, Dumbledore and Aberforth had duel. But in the duel Ariana god hit by a spell, and died. Only nobody knew who's spell it was and that is when the "friendship" between Grindelwald and Dumbledore ended. So there already is a reason for the conflict. And a way Ariana died. But if their friendship ended at that moment. They already made the bloodband before that duel. So this movie screws up the canon again. Because they wouldn't be able to even have that duel because of that bloodband.
The working theory is that despite the blood pact, Dumbledore and Grindelwald still tried to attack each other in anger. The magic they used for the pact being, I assume, rare and, thus, volatile might have caused their spells to bounce off and hit Ariana.
Camelia Berghean but if it was thay simple. Then there wasn't really a duel what was specificly stated. Also Aberforth was involved with it . And if it just bounched of it wouldn't explain how they don't know who's spell hit her
Well, I could see them both losing their tempers and both throwing spells at each other at the same time, only for both of the spells to deflect and hit Ariana. That way they don't know which spell that hit her actually killed her. That's the only thing I can think of that would fix the stupid plot hole that JK made
The only option is to have Aberforth being able to deflect both their spells and NO wizard would have been able to take both of them on.
yeah I agree that the pregnancy couldn't work but having Dumbledore be so deliberately blind about Grindelwald is so much worse than a blood pact. It would have Aberforth's anger make sense because he knew about then and it would give Rita Skeeter's books a bit of legitimacy too. It would have been so appauling to have Dumbledore refuse to fight him and Grindelwald use that to his advantage.
Nagini should have just been a snake that Voldemort named. JK didnt remember that the 7th book happened at all?
I hate to be that jerk who says that it was ghost written but with these last releases I'm starting to buy into it...
Find out next time when you tune into: *everything you loved from your childhood dragged into a dark alley and having the shit kicked out of it for money*
Because fuck the source material right? honestly i loved every second of this video, it made me subscribe because you‘re spot on and funny
Have you seen Disney lately?
I can't wait to see that! ...oh wait-
@The West is the Light YES
_"MuH cHiLdHoOd"_
This rant was probably a lot more entertaining than the movie anyway.
Cassandra Adams moans and moans. Doesn't found that interesting
Colin Farrell is a much better Grindelwald than Depp.
When you started talking about the family tree, my boyfriend and I were dying from laughter because he's super into genealogy and family trees, so we know all too well that that's not how family trees work at all.
Nothing makes me more angry about this movie than the fact that Dumbledore is gay, said the writer herself, but even though he doesn't want to fight his old boyfriend or whatever, the producers explicitly said "No gay in this movie. None." I'm so over J.K. Rowling being fake woke, honestly. If the character is actually gay, then let him be gay.
I was looking forward to a gay sex scene tbh. Would have had some balls.
@@TheBurgerkrieg Only part of the production that would have any
JK essentially decided that the potential money of people in much more conservative cultures was more important to her than standing by her twitter based virtue signalling...and also decided that she'd prefer a rating that wouldn't exclude the younger more dewy eyed Potter fans and their parents from coughing up their money...
@@lollylou22 maybe theres a slim chance she can be saved from sjwism. Despite being orange man bad she isnt so obsessed with the virtue signal, that shed nuke her income.
My favorite JKism so far, is her claiming "There was at least one Jewish student at hogwarts," like really? You can't say this shit 20 years later when it's not written in any of your books. Dumbledore being gay didn't seem like a huge shock to me cuz Grindelwald was supposed to be some super legendary wizard and they were close. I thought it was odd to announce it so long after, but alright, and then she just kept going and I realized she was layering her woke idpol bullshit into the canon as full-on retcons.
Jk Rowling is like a person who likes to pull at loose threads, but harry potter 1-7 had no loose threads so she is cutting it to create loose threads so she can incessantly pull at them.
The books weren't that good after Goblet of Fire. I always thought she started just filling pages with a lot of fluff to make every book as big as goblet of fire yet none of the later ones are actually fun. Everyone is angry and miserable, there's people dying left and right. She fucking kills Hedwig in Book 7. Why? It was like dart board decisions.
@@Antiformed At some point she grew board of Harry Potter. She was done after 7. She wanted to do other things (Things she failed at). Kind of like George Lucas and wanting to do documentaries instead of star wars but his divorce destroyed his nest egg so he had to earn more money so he started milking star wars again.
no there's plenty of loose threads, Rowling's just pulling stuff out of her ass because everything halfway believable is in fanfictions already.
@@DragonLandlord I meant the loose threads thing as a metafore. I am sure 1-7 have their issues but they are solid enough.
@Edohiguma isn't one of the house mascots at the American school basically a house elf?
Next movie... Credens becomes Tom Riddle for no reason!
He's probably gonna turn out to be Voldemort's uncle or something. Also Umbridge will probably appear for no apparent reason.
@@yellowmare8413 Probably!! Because who doesn't want to see that pink bitch? I mean, why not add tralawny as well?
@@HarmoniusLife It will turn out that Trelawney's grandmother was Credence's mother.
@@yellowmare8413 That's a likely possibility !
I always thought Colin Feral was a better fit for the villain role then johnny depp.
They should have cast someone less charismatic than Farrell if they were going to replace him. Talk about trading down.
Grindelwald: "I need to be in power to prevent WW2"
Also Grindelwald: *supports Hitler's rise according to information given by JK Rowling*
You know what impresses me about this review? The fact that you actually remembered most of the movie... To me the movie was so confusing that I had already forgotten the beginning of the movie by the time I got halfway through it.. I love Harry Potter and had high hopes for these fantastic beasts movies, but I was even more disappointed and confused by the second one than I was the first.. I really hope that JK Rowling works with an actual screenwriter in the next one instead of trying to write it herself.. She's a brilliant novelist, but I'm afraid her screenwriting needs some work.. I really want to care and love these new characters she's come up with, but they need to be written better..
A person may just have no intention of watching the movie at all and doesn’t care about spoilers.
Yep I don't like Harry Potter but I like listening to Burger be irritated
@@InternetDrone same.
< Me. I didn't get sucked into the Potterverse but I like critiques.
Ever since the last book was released (the deathly hallows) It has annoyed me greatly that JK Rowling refuses to sit back and leave her creation alone. No she constantly keeps popping up to TWEAK the HP universe and change things - after the book was written. The biggest thing she "tweaked" were James Potters parents. All through the books they were Charlus and Dorea Potter. Now suddenly they are Fleamont and Euphemia!! That is when I was turned off JK Rowling as an author and I have not read anything she claims to have written since then. Whats the point? She will only change and "tweak" it later on!! I have no trouble watching this critique since I was not planning to going to see the movie anyway. My husband went to see it and he HATED the cliffie ending!! I had to explain that the crimes of G movie was the 2nd of 5 planned movies!! He also said the story jumped around a lot but the special effects were spectacular. I think that movie was made JUST for the SFX!!
SereniaSaissa would you be as PO'd if J.K. Rowling had written these movies as novels first, then published them, then gotten them made into movies? Through that outlet would her tweaks have been more palatable?
Also, wow: I wasn't even aware of those tweaks you mentioned concerning James Potters' parents. Honestly, I've read the books multiple times & never noticed that James Potters' parents were named.
19:35
Now this has me thinking. I remember watching BBC America and noticing how that none of the cops in British TV have guns (except for Jack Robinson from Miss Fisher, because he lives in Australia), and presumably that's a happy accident because it means that the British writers can write tense standoffs that don't just devolve into "hey we're cops and have a gun, we can just shoot you". Is there sort of a reverse stereotype when British people watch American TV? Like they watch Law & Order or CSI and think to themselves "well obviously they can just arrest anyone instantly, they're packing tons of guns." The reason I bring this up is because this American auror just walked up and iced this bitch with one shot just like if he had a gun, while the previous Harry Potter stories taking place in Britain, Avada Kedavra is kind of a pain in the ass to use because otherwise it's functionally identical to a gun and would just turn the magic fight into a gunfight
now you know how star wars fans feel.
the curse is spreading, all fandom's will die
Even those of us who were entertained by Last Jedi have to admit it was a fucking mess where none of the writers were on the same page (hell, not even within the same book)
Yeah.
Exactly.
Luckily Game of Thrones will end after the next season. Otherwise it would probably die a cringy death like HP and SW as well
I chose to pretend FBeasts 2 doesn't even exist
JK should never be allowed to write anything to do with a screenplay ever again
"How can she be the richest author in the world?" Because there was a time where she was writing for her audience and not to push her social agenda. #CrimesAgainstGrindelwald
I assume she got a new shitty PR Manager who told her she has to do politically relevant stuff. Which celebrity, musician and artist doesn't get instrumentalized nowadays...
JK never explained anything about the magic systems of the potterverse. There are hints in some of the books, some wizards are more powerful, some spells can be cast with a thought and a wand, some magical wand materials are more magical than others. TBH this makes the story continuity hurt. What are the stakes when a wizard could literally cast all day long with impunity and magic can literally do anything you want it to from changing some text on a page to fitting 3 tons of dragon in as small teapot.
The reason that these movies don't work is because there aren't a long series of thought out novels that can fully explain and give context to the actions, motivations, and feelings of the characters without blurting it out in exposition.
True. Even some fans will say the same thing, "The games, the films, the books, they all differ when it comes to the magic system deal."
@Tesla-Effect You could say that but we never ask whether or not some magic can't be used.
Like is gandalf able to use fire magic onto said ring.
With the Harry Potter films, we just get flashes of light from their wands.
In the books we get to see real kinda of magic you'd expect in other fantasy tales.
Yeah, time magic is an example but that's mainly it.
Harry Potter has always played fast and loose with it's magic. Not really restricting itself.
Even if it's soft magic, the films and books differ on who's powerful at times. Hell, this movie proves my point that magic is whatever the film makers want it to be. You gain feckin' CSI Miami, detective magic bullshit.
As a kid I thought it was a good message that even though they had so much power, to use magic to kill was very firmly and aggressively discouraged. Wizards fighting wasn't supposed to be a super common thing.
@Tesla-Effect both the magic system and the world building in Harry Potter are incredibly soft and shallow. Which works for some stories but not for Harry Potter
Ah, it is so enjoyable to watch someone rant about stuff that annoyed the hell out of me. Thanks !
I think the Queenie plot was the worst part of the movie. She just casually uses a love potion, aka wizard GHB, to get Jacob to marry her... Sure, that's fine, let's create a conflict. But THEN it is frame as if she is just a poor girl in loooove and Jacob is the unreasonable one for thinking (and regretting it in about half a second), that she is crazy.
First, calling her crazy seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given the fact that she tried to marry him against his will. Second, he is way too forgiving of her for that ; how come he takes the blame and we (as an audience) are expected to agree ? Hum, no, sorry. And as you pointed out, it just changes Queenie's character, she does a 180 for no reason. If they wanted her to go to the dark side, have Jacob die, or turn his back on her, make her have a huge fallout with Tina over the whole wizards-can't-marry-muggles issue... It would have been so easy, but no, they had to be stupid about it.
Unless I remember incorrectly, Grindelwald said Credence was actually named Aurelius Dumbledore, and just implied that he was Albus' long lost brother... So I am hoping that he is either lying, or Credence is another Dumbledore but not Albus' brother (because that would make no sense).
Mina M ever since Nagini's premier in the teaser trailer I liked the reveal idea of Credence being Nagini's dead son. Yes, I was upset that they just brought Credence back from the dead.
That actually is a good point about the Elder Wand. Why is the Elder Wand listening to Grindlewald when Tina disarmed him?
T C Yeah, rhey really shouldn't have had Tina disarm Grindelwald. Actually, considering the canon no one should've disarmed Grindelwald.
Because the polyjuce had transfigured his wand relationships so he owned the wand Perceval graves had. So therefore, he is still in power of the elder wand
Bellatrix Lestrange 🤔 Who, New Scamander or Grindelwald? You really need to use a proper noun in this case.
Sorry I meant grindelwald
Bellatrix Lestrange, that's not how polyjuice potion works. I don't think that's how Polyjuice Potion works. Otherwise why didn't Harry & Ron own Crab & Goil's wands after using polyjuice potion to turn into them for a time? Doesn't this go against the canon / the books logic in how potions & magic work?
Why do I love that ultra dark dumbledore story possibility? Oh because it would bring depth to characters they are cheapening and since we’re obviously throwing out the source material, why not make the best story out of this mess as possible? Also repair the horrible no-homo plot device that is the ‘blood pact’ by describing this device containing their shared blood that restrains them from hurting the other as something akin to a symbolic marriage. I mean shared blood, lifelong promise that ties them together, symbolic jewelry that always carried on a partners person, etc... it’s not a hard leap not make with 2 lines in the next film. They can do this and make it mean whatever they want because we’ve never been introduced to this magic before and they clearly made it up
@Rachel Fourie their Love wasn’t onesided
So basically HP got star wars'd
Disney'd by NotDisney.
Can we keep the fandoms apart like honestly some people loved tlj grow up and respect other people's opinions. In comparison, this movie was objectively bad.
@@VeelouC TLJ was objectivly bad. There are literary 6 hour long videos out there analysing that movie. Non of them positive. But that does not mean you can't enjoy it. Same goes for this movie, which was enjoyed by thousands of people. Thats literary true for almost any blockbuster movie. I like the first three transfomers movies. I know people who dislike it as a howl or thing everything after 1 or 2 is garbage. After 3 for me.
Atleast this movie dies on being just incompetant, not being that will telling the fans that every movie/arc before was worthless.
@@VeelouC That was not really a serious ment comparison. But no matter of the quality, I think we can agree that Disney/WB are going to milk the brand recognition to it's death. That they don't care if they build a cohesive univers or not comes to show by the transition from the respectiv first to second movie. By no means does that imply you're not allowed to enjoy them.
Guy is crying because of fucking logo, I dont think his comments are legitimate enough to take them seriously
And I think this guy is of the sort who hates all harry potter franchise because dumbledore is gay
At this point, Rowling is just a confused shadow of what she once was as an artist.
Rowling just struck a nerve back then when the Harry Potter books were released. From a literary stand point she was always a light weight. But that was fine because she put a lot of heart into the story and it were children books after all. HP was about wide-eyed wonder at a world the protagonist never really understood. And it served it's purpose because leaving a lot of information to half-truths and myths was enough to drive the story. Now that Rowling needs to fill the gaps we see that she's not a world-builder in the sense that i.e. Tolkien and GRR Martin are. Deconstructing myth is a very difficult path, because it will likely destroy the magic. And in a story about magic that's self-defeating.
@@Runenschuppe exactly, if Rowling wanted to do world building she should have never put the epilogue in 7. instead of the wrap-up, she should have had Harry leaving Wizarding Britian after the war due to the fame a/o trauma. Globe-trotting Harry could have easily built out the world and given an opening to add more whenever she wanted; each book/movie a different country with different adventures for him.
It's the Trump Curse. Everyone that bad mouths President Trump ends up with a ruined career.
@@Runenschuppe I mean, you can see this tendency in the books already. First books, the carriages that drive them to hogwarts are just magical and drive by themselves. Fifth book suddenly they're drawn by invisible beasts, which harry should have seen in the first place, witnessing his mother's death. Why do port keys exist if people can apparate easily? How far can people even apparate? Are port keys only for minors who aren't allowed to apparate yet?
Should've just left a lot in the fog and just be magical instead of trying to explain things and then create plot holes en masse.
Um, actually, every time he (Grindlewald) is speaking to an audience that isn't just his own followers he speaks in euphemisms and always stops short of his conclusions and solutions. The movie is still trash, but it gets this aspect of gas lighting and manipulation correct.
The gaslighting was spot on, yes.
UM,,,, , ,.
,,,
,
a K c H e L l Y
Fantastic cannon and where to find it: the Crimes of Rowling
This is what corporations always do with everything.
Everything becomes watered down garbage.
How is nobody questioning the half-elf thing???? I just could not stop laughing at the idea in the cinema. Like did the human give birth to the half-elf?? Or the other way round?? Like that's REALLLLLLY funny to me hahaha
I didn't even think about that, i was too busy being confused about the method of conception. Like, aren't elves little ugly slaves? Who'd fuck that? Or did an elf rape a chick?
@@corruptangel6793 Humans have fucked apes, goats and pigs, unfortunately, so that wouldn't surprise me. Still creepy af though and unnecessary. She could've just been an Elf that disguised herself or used a charm to not be noticed on her way to the US. like ugh
Whats the problem? Hagrid was a half giant, his dad was human.
@@highwaygroan Even if that's size-challenged, at least it can be assumed to be consensual. How can sex between a human and a house elf (magically enslaved into servitude fyi, to the point where their obedience can be passed on through wizarding wills!!!) be in any way consensual?
highwaygroan giants weren't enslaved by the Wizarding world, nor did they ever seem like a completely different species to me than Wizards, Witches & 'Muggles' aka Humans. I thpught of Giants as extremely large humans even in the Potterverse. Although after the 4th book it did seem as though all Giants were somewhat retarded.
Although I'm old, I like HP. Nowadays there is a nostalgic quality about the old films. But we have to remember that JKR is an amateur writer who got lucky and now her ego is driving her. I've written sixty-three novels (six best sellers) so I kinda know what I'm talking about. But I believe she is tired. She has reached the top of the mountain and there is nowhere left for her to go. So, she is spinning, frightened of falling. And that produces achingly incompetent storylines. I only can say this: Beware the fate of Marie Corelli.
Considering Dumbledore's Dad is jailed and his Mom was dead when Credence was born, maybe it's a full metal alchemist thing. Albus tried to bring his sister back from the dead but ended up creating a new human instead. So since Credence was repurposed from her body, he's technically a sibling? don't know where the name comes from tho.
40mins of Burger?
*zips*
Unzips
You know it's serious when pacing off camera ensues.
Though your Ariana explanation is admirable and I appreciate you trying to make something better than it was, it is clearly established that she is killed by a stray spell cast by one of the three combatants in the three way dual. BOTH Albus and Aberforth are certain it was themselves who cast the spell. This is what tortures both of them for the rest of their lives. Your theory would break the book Canon, interesting though it is.
I can tell you why it’s because it’s got nearly 40 deleted scenes which is absolutely ridiculous.
You’re hilarious. I enjoyed all 40 mins
Stephanie Harlowe didn’t expect to see you here. Love you
The unbreakable vow to kill the kid doesn't make any god damn sense anyway. If he doesn't he's going to die of age before the kid anyway, he can just live with the vow till he dies. Maybe this vow had a time limit, like a shitty arcade space shooter.
32:32 -- This a very big side note, but your point about the name LeStrange brings up one pet peeve I've always had about the audio books, namely that the otherwise wonderful Jim Dale insists on giving Bellatrix a French accent, even though A) The LeStranges are clearly British, and B) Bella is a member of the House of Black (i.e. cousin to Sirius), and only has a French name by marriage anyway.
0:50
I've heard that 50 years ago this was actually normal. Hell, as recent as Return of the Jedi audiences were willingly spoiling the entire movie for themselves before it even released (no joke, Lucasfilm actually spoiled the whole movie a year before it came out, and in that age that would drive UP ticket sales)
In 1999 the trailer for Star Wars TPM literally explains the entire plot
Lucasfilm did not spoil Return of the Jedi before it came out and certainly not an entire year before. Also, after Empire Strikes Back (the Vader reveal in that movie was one of the best kept secrets ever), no one was going to miss ROTJ. Btw, I stood in line a total of 6 hours at The Egyptian in Hollywood to see Empire twice the first week it came out in 1980 -- no megaplexes in those days -- and I took my 6 year old son with me both times. We didn't get to see Star Wars until 6 months after it came out in 1977 because the lines were so long. I don't think you realize what a phenomenon those movies were when they released. Drive up ticket sales lol.
@@beemoji2280 Of course they were phenomenal. But Lucas has always been a businessman first when it comes to promoting it. He has always pulled stunts to drive up ticket sales and toy sales. And um, you are sadly incorrect that Empire had the best kept secret ever. Check out this news column printed in 1978, over a full year before Empire came out:
s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/6/6/437666_v1.jpg
That's David Prowse, spoiling Darth Vader being Luke's father. Again, before Empire came out.
I love Star Wars. I played the shit out of every Star Wars game I could when I was ten. I would play the battle scenes of Attack of the Clones every day if I could. But Star Wars is not sacrosanct. Star Wars is not holy. Star Wars is a dumb as shit hodgepodge that was made up on the fly and has every flaw behind the scenes you could think of, from actors on drugs to George Lucas literally rewriting his script after shooting has already started because he doesn't give a fuck. That doesn't make me hate it, that makes me love it more.
Well I fell asleep during this film and after watching bunch of reviews I don't even regret it anymore
Hahaha now if only I could of done the same, sadly I can't undo what I've seen
Mary Francze probably not even a HP fan, go and watch your marvel
@@gellertgrindelwald5891 tbh i have consumed much more hp media than marvel (I haven't even seen all marvel movies but I have seen all hp nor have read any comics but I've read all harry potter books) but ok I guess
36:06 bruhh, that caught me so off guard looool
Vee cannot becuz uh he haz a right to preach hiz uh boolzhet
Your scenario for Ariana's death is so f/kin dark... and I love it.
There's a good reason for making Grindelwald have a hint of charisma in the movie, but not real charisma. Because children will see it and if he had actual charisma the children may get convinced that you really are an "untermensch" if you can't use magic and those children will become literal Nazis (according to WB and Rowling at least) because of that movie.
So instead they show that he has charisma, by showing the effect, but don't actually show the charisma itself because that's "dangerous".
2:13 - Killer Queen has already touched Hari Pota! *click*
N-nani!?
Your next line is "Nani! Nani! Nani! Yamete onii-chan!"!
Is that a Jojo's reference?!
dude, for one of your videos, specifically on a topic that arouses your ire like no other, could you do it in German? I understand that next to English, German is one of the greatest languages for expressing hate, and if you're as eloquent in German as you are in English, I kinda wanna hear what lucid shit-talking in another language sounds like, and so long as you don't spontaneously grow a suspiciously narrow mustache, I don't think anyone will have a problem.
The moustache-issue is exactly why I avoid doing this.
vorurteile
Okay, that is funny - before I even saw the german books in the shelf I was already thinking "this speech rhythm - is he german?!" :D
Lass einfach mal alles raus, ich bin sicher, die englischen Fans würden sich köstlich über einen schimpfenden Deutschen amüsieren. Einfach nicht das R rollen ;)
@@steffis9806 Doesn't sound german at all, much more american.
Wow I don’t know how many I’ve watched this video and I still can’t stop laughing. This is just so hilarious. I love how you’re not trying and forcing it to be funny, it’s just genuinely hilarious. Well done sir, this might be my favorite video on UA-cam
also, dumbledore in a grey suit? what?? is this hogwarts or the office?
any why do all of them wear suits and not wizarding robes?? since when?? honestly, that put me off the most.
I wonder when Dumbledore decided to start wearing robes? I mean, I'm not complaining too much because Jude Law looks great in a suit. But it's kinda weird that he starts dressing like old-man freakin' Merlin once he reaches a certain age.
I agree 100%. I remember thinking, after finishing the epilogue of the last potter book for the first time, Gawd, I hope she'll write more. I was so invested in the Potter universe, and I wasn't ready to let it go.
Then, she went on and wrote more. I was so freaking excited !!!
Now, I wish she wouldn't have. And I just don't get it, either. I thought she was a genius, reading the potter books. But all she has done since contradict that, A LOT.
So the movie is basically a huge fashion show with cool visuals?
"Big Dick Man" is fast becoming my favorite character I aspire to be like.
Its a shame that you missed that one of grinderls men had literal SS pants on.
He did? I mean, Hugo Boss was a good designer I suppose...
@@TheBurgerkrieg It was like 5 frames while our edgy boy was doing his speach.
"You may not have noticed it... *but your brain did* "
Initially I thought these films were going to be like a Wizard Indiana Jones type of films with Newt traveling across the world and facing different villains who were threatening magical species. I got none of that. I liked the first film though.
Nagini: because Hollywood really freaking loves China.
*says the thing about Harris*
What?!!??! THEY DIDN'T CAST THE SON WHY NOT?! That would have been SO COOL! payment to the original!!!!
Your use of the words "fuck off" is very pleasing to my soul
He's in love with her
She can read minds
So she puts a love spell on him so that he falls in love with her
Okay.
I can honestly say that I enjoyed your 40+ minutes of very accurately and deservedly destroy 'The Crimes of Grindelwald' way MORE than I did watching the actual movie itself. :)
I'm pretty sure that blue fire is some of the infamous "fiendfyre", which appears in the book of _Deathly Hallows_ but not the film. And I'm guessing, BTW, this is the same type of fire that is utilized in the final chamber before the Mirror of Erised in the first book.
I was a proud potterhead till the Cursed Child came out. And now this shit. Oh JK Rowling... why are you doing this to us
Don't worry, most of us pretend that didn't happen. Literally no one considers Cursed Child cannon.
Uuuuuuuuuuuugh. The entire Queenie plot line made me sooo ANGRY!!! Know how they could have reintroduced Jacob? That she sought him out, and they fell in love again. She could tell him about the memory wipe thing after introducing him to magic, and voila. She didnt even have to put a spell on him!! She could have just suggested that they move to England so they could get married and not deal with the whole American wizard's being dicks! And while they were there she could reintroduce Jacob to Newt. And they could have this funny thing where Jacob doesnt remember them being friends but Newt does but they still get to be cool friends again. AND QUEENIE NEVER GOES TO GRINDLEFUCK BECAUSE NO!!!! NO NO NO NO!!JUST FUCKING NO!
There. I fixed that part. Because it made me so mad.
I saw this film and thought to myself "wouldn't this be more interesting if this movie was about Dumbledore in the same period?" The answer is Yes I don't give a damn about Newt's shenanigans
Hi. Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
Childhood fan of Transformers, Ghostbusters, and TMNT
Jared Haris would be so great as Dumbledore, now that you pointed that I'm even more dissatisfied with this movie. Depp does not work as Grindelwald and Jude Law would be the perfect fit.
At least I'd ship the shit out of Jude Law and anyone who isn't Johnny Depp.
why would hearing everyone in Paris overwhelm Queenie when she grew up in NYC? she should be used to thousands of minds around her.
But how do you really feel about it
Fidget Spinner Golem!!!
i like your ranty posts best.
A lot of the complaints you have can be explained in a simple way: sequel hook.
Many of the elements we saw appearing but not being used for anything during this movie will likely play a key role in the next one, but they had to start here. Prepare for a tragic love story between Nagini and Credence, where she will turn into a snake to help him, fail, regret the wizards and swear to help the next brooding teenager she meets.
It's also why there's a big change in Credence's character from the previous movie, where Gridenwald said he was never gonna be a wizard, but now he's part of the Dumbledore family. The change is strictly to make a more personal and high stakes story that can make sequels and a lot of drama. But since Credence doesn't make for a good villain, they still need Gridenwald and his story.
Explanations can't excuse that Crimes of Grindlewald is really terrible movie story telling. Rowling needs to not be writing the script for these movies because she's really bad at it. Like doesn't have the first clue how to do a movie script.
Hmm...ill be skipping this entry in the wizarding world I think.
blinded journeyman cool. Didn't ask. I love the Serie
Smart choice, I just watched it for the first time. And agree with all these angry people
Holy shit, a forty minute burgerkrieg video? I guess I have nowhere to be right now.
I remember when i watch the film and they killed the toddler, i turned to my friends and said that was a waste if he had left the child alive it would have given him more ambiguity as a villain.
"In a few years' time, it will be a _mercy_ to see Harry Potter finally bite the dust"
Well guys... we made it
Am I the _only one_ who think Dumbledore teaching DADA prior to going after Grindelwald and the blood pact makes perfect sense?
Just think about it, TheBurgerkrieg: We know Dumbledore was remorseful for letting himself be enthralled by Grindelwald's charm and extremist ideology and, more than anything, that his friendship with Grindelwald was what led to Ariana's death. Bitter and full of regret, yet wanting to rectify past mistakes, I think Dumbledore took the DADA job specifically _because_ he foresaw Grindelwald's rise to power and decided that, if nothing else, he could arm successive generations at Hogwarts with the knowledge and skill to defend themselves when the time came. Before Torquil Travers just decided Dumbledore wouldn't teach DADA anymore, (although we know from the books that that not something even the Minister for Magic can do, because there's a system, you know, the headmaster running the school would have to agree to the ban, the Board of Governors might have a thing or two to say about it).
But I mean - come on. When _I_ heard he would teach DADA, I figured he switched to Transfiguration around the time he finally went to confront Grindelwald for their 1945 duel, because he expected that after the duel, he would either be dead, meaning the headmaster would already have a replacement to continue his work to teach students to defend themselves, or he would win, and the danger would be over, meaning he was free from his perceived obligation of protecting successive generations of students by teaching them how to protect themselves, and hence free to teach his favorite subject.
As for the blood pact - I for one think the conditions of the blood pact was subtly twisted in Grindelwald's favor. The pact was, in crude terms, "not to fight each other", but I get the sense that that was more of a crude summary. I think it was more along the lines of "not to stand in the way of the Greater Good". Like, Grindelwald was willing to share his plan of world domination with Albus and would even preferred it if they went on that path together, but ultimately, he knew if one of them were to get a change of heart, it would be Albus. So what was he to do? Well, obviously he would want to take advantage of the fact that Dumbledore was in love with him to convince him to make this oath, which, incidentally, just so happened to constitute a binding, magical contract that would, in the event of Dumbledore abandoning the cause, prevent him from stopping him from rising to power. It would matter very little if he could not fight Dumbledore, (which would also come into play as a condition of the blood pact if Dumbledore felt defeating Grindelwald was for "The Greater Good"), because as long as Dumbledore was actively prevented from trying to stop him by the blood pact, and Grindelwald was free to go ahead with his plan, why would he want to?
Then Newt appeared in New York just as he was busy tracking down the Obscurial, and when he realized the Magizoologist was on Dumbledore's good side, he figured that Dumbledore had decided to oppose him indirectly, and now there was a second reason to get his hands on Credence. I mean -furthering his goals at the expense of someone else seems to me just like the kind of thing Grindelwald would do, and I think that's what the blood pact is for. The three-way duel was a violent, and yes, indeed, deadly scuffle between three people fueled by righteous anger, it was less about stopping Grindelwald and more about stopping Grindelwald from torturing Aberforth with the Cruciatus Curse. So that particular duel didn't meet the conditions/limitations of the blood pact. At least - that's what make sense to me.
Ninclow Doesn’t matter. McGonagall in the books talked about how he was the Transfiguration teacher when she herself was still a student.
So, if McGonagall is indeed older in this series, it makes even less sense since he was teaching DATDA after McGonagall graduated.
@@Mrbluefire95 I don't think she ever mentioned it in the books, but Dumbledore are indeed said to be her Transfiguration teacher on Pottermore. Most likely, Rowling just ignored her own canon for the sake of fan service.
If the blood oath was along the lines of "don't stand in the way of the Greater Good" then why can Dumbledore not fight Grindlewald, if he thinks that his stuff is not for the Greater Good? If it's explicitely about not fighting each other (as it was mentioned in the movie), the three-way duel makes no sense at all. I highly doubt Dumbledore thinks Grindlewalds plans are for the Greater Good at the point of the 2nd beast movie yet he still needs that amulet. Also, why is there even such an item in the first place and why does Grindlewald have it? Don't blood oaths work just like that?
Dumbledore switching stuff he teaches also makes sense to me. Every now and then you also just might want to explore other areas of magic. Still there's no explanation for it though.
Have you seen “The Last Jedi?” Was it good?
i wouldn't follow Johnny Depp as Grindelwald, but hey, i'm not a wizard
man your analogies are so creative
agree completely on the Jared Harris point, total missed opportunity.
5:34 is it me or does this guy look like H.P. Lovecraft?
You know, the time period fits as well...
Lovecraft as a wizard would explain so much...
Where did you get the background picture from the thumbnail?
There's a tutorial on my channel on how to make them.
I always got the impression that Dumbledoor loved Grendelwald but G-wald was just using him
" ...don't give me that Elder wand shit!" lol you read my mind. I feel you man. Sirius-ley:) laughed my butt off.
Seriously, Thank you so much for the explanation of the movie. You were very well forward and direct and firm. My hat goes off to you sir.
This is actually the best review/rant I've seen. Thank you!
I don't think that other person was imprisioned and Grindewald was the auror all along. I think that Grindewald knows some kind of spell that changes body/place with a wizard marked before. Are you sure Grindewald was not the one encaged ?
Me: As an autistic HP fan, I'm so glad we have an autistic wizard protagonist in the series! There's no way this could be given some sort of bad-
Warner Brothers: Newt's role will be increasingly reduced with each new Fantastic Beasts film! While he'll always be there, he'll get less relevant until eventually he becomes a footnote with no real bearing on the plot!
Me: *URGE TO KILL RISING*
Actually I think it's three dragons
I think I missed the part where Grindelwald said Credence was Dumbledores brother
It was at the end, when they are in that castle in Austria.
Just discovererd your account by this video. watched the movie yesterday and it was sooo yawning boring … btw: are you german? spotted some germans treats in your bookshelf ;-)
For some reason it sounds like you didn't get it man... Grindelwald has an idea.
Grindelwald is stopping concentration camps and the atomic bombs from ever happening, he's seen this and he thinks the muggles are too barbaric and need to be contained before things really get out of hand. he does this at a time just after the first world war happened in the muggle world which was a gruesome affair and apparently was a massive shock to the wizards, so they're going for a 'never again' like happened in the real world after world war 2 actually went down.
And this is why it's a lot worse than you think it is right now, because in short terms this is Wizard Hitler trying to prevent World War 2 from happening by containing the muggles....
Who now has to be stopped by the 'good guys' who will always, no matter what they do now.... cause World War 2 if they succeed.
And that's the real story. go back to what he says when this comes out on netflix or something, look at his build up, then the visions, then the response from the crowd.
That's the story. Newt Scamander and Albus Dumbledore are personally responsible for World War 2.
Didn't Grindelwald cause WW2? To quote Rowling: "It's no coincidence that WW2 ended in the same year as Grindelwald was defeated"
Honestly the only way that can happen now is if it turns out that Grindelwald was 1. mind controlling Hitler, which would create a universe where Hitler was innocent. or 2. Hitler and Grindelwald turn out to be in cahoots, which is just a lazy/silly way of writing.
The only thing she has actually written so far is that Grindelwald is trying to prevent world war 2 by making muggles subservient to wizards and that the wizarding world due to it's trauma of the previous war is susceptible to this idea.
Grindelwald thinks humans are too barbaric, though he agrees in the killing of a baby for some reason (which was purposely written to portray him as super evil, though it came across as cheesy and unintentionally funny to me) and countless other people??? Oh, because ends justify the means and yadda yadda yadda, which means he's just the same as muggles? It's an semi-interesting parallelism at most.
If they kill Grindelwald and REALLY want to stop WW2 from happening, they can just kill the leaders of the respective countries. There's actually tons of ways to prevent WW2 from a wizarding perspective. Also with how the books are built up, they could just have some magical stuff that tells them a war is coming.
Rowling is not a good writer. The last few Harry Potter books ripped off plots from fan theories. The movie studio straightened out the story and rules in the movies. The entire Harry Potter series needs to be re-written by someone competent.
Love spell aside, the "bad memories" thing was set up, albeit with no explanation. When the Swooping Evil venom is introduced, Newt mentions that when diluted it removes 'bad memories', but there's no explanation as to why the brain-eating creature has venom that removes bad memories when diluted. I guess maybe the venom is supposed to make the prey relaxed and not fight back, and so makes them insensible with happiness and forget all alarm?? But my ability to make up lore is not actually reflective of how decent a plot-point this 'Jacob can remember because fuck you' is. (Hint: it's not decent at all. JUST MAKE NEWT BREAK THE LAW AND HIDE JACOB INSTEAD OF HAVING HIM FORGET. IT'S MORE INTERESTING AND MORE LOYAL TO HIS CHARACTER AS A HUFFLEPUFF PROTAGONIST.)
But would've that be incredibly stupid and make the action of obliviating memories not reliable and sort of pointless? I find it ridiculous in every perspective i've tried to look at it from. They just keep writing themselves into holes and getting out of them with illogical messes of decisions
@@BernardoWLopes Yes, true! It's a fucking mess and would undoubtedly cause problems among other muggles (no-maj is such a stupid term jaofjew), at least some of whom would have no doubt been like "OH SHIT MAGICS REAL THATS SO DOPE" before realizing magic was also wrecking shit and they should run. The entire plot-point makes no sense and is a messy way to keep Jacob in the story. This plot point is less the fabric of the story and more a flimsy net stretched over a gaping pit.
However: it is worth noting that the Obliviation spell and the Swooping Evil venom are wholly different magical things, even though the characters and JKR conflate the two later on; normal obliviation does not have the same limitations/exceptions as Swooping Evil venom: it is irreversible and specific only to the caster's intentions and care, not just something that eats (recent??) bad memories.
However (take two!): this note is only useful insofar as preserving the integrity of standing lore, rather than the value of the Fantastic Beast series' writing. Obliviate-the-spell was used fairly consistently throughout the original HP books, albeit sometimes in terrifying extremes (see: hermione erasing herself from her parents' lives). Calling all memory erasure "obliviation" cheerfully confuses things, great going JKR.
I just watched the film. The extended version, no less. I'm not a Potterphile. I've seen all the films, but only once and never really dwelt on any of them.
This film was NOT meant for me. I spent almost the entire running time utterly confuzzled. Things just seemed to happen, spontaneously, with no rhyme nor reason. And plot points were just kinda sprayed around, like a madman with a paintball gun.
I still don't really understand what happened other than 1) Grindelwald is a big boss wizard, 2) he breaks out (even though he was, apparently, never locked-up), and 3) he wants wizards to take over the world to prevent WW2. Oh, and 4) he has a hard-on for Ezra Miller (did Grindelwald see his cringey performance in Justice League?).
Everything else was like white noise. For awhile there, I didn't even think Katherine Waterston was even in the film. And when she did show up, she's poof, gone a minute later, as if her image was a mirage or something. It was a really, REALLY bizarre treatment of someone who was a main character in the first film.
Queenie's character was breathtakingly inverted, like that poor baboon in Cronenberg's The Fly. After Newt lifts the mesmerizing spell, she just runs off and her motivations are never stated.
And the mix-up with Theseus' wedding was another thing that left me confused. You would think someone of Tina's status within the "wizarding world" would know that it was Theseus getting married and not Newt. But, no, that's played as something of a warped running gag throughout much of the film. Ooooookkkkaaayyyyy.
I guess I'll mention some positives. Unlike a lot of people, I really like Johnny Depp and thought he did a great job with what little he was given. In fact, he basically held the film together for me (as best he could). A lot of the setpieces were spectacular. Newt was ever his autistically charming self. Jude Law was terrific as Young Dumbledore, though I agree the role really should've gone to Jared Harris (maybe Jared's commitments on The Expanse precluded it). The kid they got to play Young Newt was absolutely PERFECT. Oh, and the girl who played Nagini was super cute.
That's about it. The action was incomprehensible most of the time, the film is color graded to hell and back, NOTHING HAPPENS for much of the film, the whole thing about the Lestrange bloodline and family tree and why they were so damned important just zoomed over my head like an F-15 Tomcat, Queenie just going to and fro was a real time waster, and Credence suddenly gaining boss-level spellcasting powers gave me narrative whiplash.
I cannot for the life of me envision what Rowling is gonna fever dream up for the third film. I'll watch it, but it'll probably make as much sense to me as one of those PBS Space Time videos on string theory or singularities.
First of your videos I've ever watched, but by the 2min mark you already a my Like ;)
About the Elder Wand ownership. Apparently the script of Fantastic Beasts 1 (released in book form) says that Grindelwald dropped his Wand when Newt bound him with the creature, and Tina just summoned his Wand that was on the ground, so Tina would not be the Elder Wand's new owner. That being said, Newt bound him, which would make NEWT the owner of the Elder Wand, so it's still a gigantic plot hole that makes me think that JK has lost her way
I didn't saw how long the video is and around 29:51 I started to think... isn't it a bit longer than usual? Damn! 40 minutes trashing a movie and i enjoyed every second.
A golem made out of fidget spinners made me laugh so hard my stomach hurts.
Kids, remember the days when Harry Potter ended at part 2 of Deathly Hallows....?
why the fuck isnt anybody wearing mage clothing? in HP PS on day Voldy died mages didnt give a shit and went even publicaly wearing habbits, cloaks and so on, now Dumbledore wears siut in Hogwarts
I read the Harry Potter books 10+ years ago so I honestly can't remember, did the books have all these (arguably failed) attempts to do twist after twist?
If we don't get some golem fidget spinner fan art out of this I will be disappointed
Was worth Watching 4 adds (as kinda of support because I don't have debt/credit card )
Really interesting look at destabilised protons
I think France so they can put the Nicolau Flamel cameo (who is french). I know, a dumb motive.
There's also the fact that Credence tracked his "adopted mother" to Paris. And thats where the Lestrange family is from and they're a reacuring plot point