Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (November 2018)

[Calvert28]

5 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

He was awesome.  Though I didn't think Depp was bad, I really wish Colin Farrell were actually playing Grindelwald.  He's a much better actor at this point.

I wonder if the diminishing returns for this will adjust the series from 5 movies to 3.  No matter what, I hope it survives until we get to see Grindelwald vs. Dumbledore.

Yea dont expect that to not be a disappointment. 

Bet it ends up with him talking Grindelwald into submission then they profess their love for each other and Depp just gives up his wand. 

[vikesfan89]

I don't know I think you all are crazy. I thought it was pretty good.

Any way that grindewald made the Dumbledore thing up but some how the kid can use the elder wand?

[Calvert28]

15 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

I don't know I think you all are crazy. I thought it was pretty good.

Any way that grindewald made the Dumbledore thing up but some how the kid can use the elder wand?

Did he give him the Elder Wand? I couldn't tell because my eyes were almost in the back of my head from rolling at Aurelius Dumbledore. 

[vikesfan89]

29 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Did he give him the Elder Wand? I couldn't tell because my eyes were almost in the back of my head from rolling at Aurelius Dumbledore. 

I'm pretty sure it looked different but that wouldn't necessarily mean anything. It does bug me a bit that McGonagall was in the movie since she isn't supposed to be that old, although I don't think the books ever said her exact age.

I think that grindewald could have made it up. He didn't seem to have any idea who he was in the first movie and if he was that close to Dumbledore he should have known the baby unless it's a distant relative. Or he just didn't put 2 and 2 together

[Calvert28]

33 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I'm pretty sure it looked different but that wouldn't necessarily mean anything. It does bug me a bit that McGonagall was in the movie since she isn't supposed to be that old, although I don't think the books ever said her exact age.

I think that grindewald could have made it up. He didn't seem to have any idea who he was in the first movie and if he was that close to Dumbledore he should have known the baby unless it's a distant relative. Or he just didn't put 2 and 2 together

It actually states very clearly when she attended Hogwarts in the books as well as a few other details that confirmed her birth year to the exact number which is why so many fans are in a uproar cause she isn't supposed to be born for another 7 to 8 years. But in this she's like 30.

It's possible he lied. I mean it made it clear in the previous movie he didn't know it was Creedance who was the powerful wizard then all of a sudden in this movie just knew all along who he was? It's also not physically possible for him to be Dumbledore's brother because of the time Dumbledore's father went to jail and when his mother died. But hey JK Rowling is a social media crack addict now and she's already disregarded her own lore so who knows.

[vikesfan89]

6 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

It actually states very clearly when she attended Hogwarts in the books as well as a few other details that confirmed her birth year to the exact number which is why so many fans are in a uproar cause she isn't supposed to be born for another 7 to 8 years. But in this she's like 30.

It's possible he lied. I mean it made it clear in the previous movie he didn't know it was Creedance who was the powerful wizard then all of a sudden in this movie just knew all along who he was? It's also not physically possible for him to be Dumbledore's brother because of the time Dumbledore's father went to jail and when his mother died. But hey JK Rowling is a social media crack addict now and she's already disregarded her own lore so who knows.

I saw a theory that they are going to change Ariana's age and the attack on her will be a rape. That would make no sense but it could be possible for her to get pregnant before dieing I suppose. Not sure if that would line up age wise

[Calvert28]

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

I saw a theory that they are going to change Ariana's age and the attack on her will be a rape. That would make no sense but it could be possible for her to get pregnant before dieing I suppose. Not sure if that would line up age wise

If they do I'm not gonna bother with any of the other movies. This isn't a reimagined story set in a alternate timeline like a bunch of Marvel stories are. The Harry Potter series only has what Rowling put in the original books.

I thought they might say that her obscurious or w/e it's called attached itself to Creedance.

[Broncofan]

The McGonagall retcon is just lazy, bad writing.

I didn't mind the movie overall (a very strong start and final fight sequence), and my preteen daughter loved it..but yeah, it's got flaws.   It's just so poorly written.  Which is a shame, because there are some very interesting characters.  

I hope Rowling takes note - it doesn't have to be strict canon, but mistakes like that shouldn't ever happen.

[Fresh Prince]

We sure its not mcgonagalls grandmother or mother?

[Heinz D.]

1 hour ago, Fresh Prince said:

We sure its not mcgonagalls grandmother or mother?

Nope. 

[seminoles1]

2 hours ago, Fresh Prince said:

We sure its not mcgonagalls grandmother or mother?

Apparently the published screenplay calls her Minerva.

I don't mind slight changes like her birthday being changed...whatever. The problem is, like @Calvert28 said, is she states in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix that she didn't start teaching at Hogwarts until 1956. Those are the things that bother me when characters are turned into idiots or liars or whatever you wanna call them.

I don't like how Queenie was changed. I don't like the Aurelius twist...though there's still time for that to be rectified.

[Calvert28]

2 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Apparently the published screenplay calls her Minerva.

I don't mind slight changes like her birthday being changed...whatever. The problem is, like @Calvert28 said, is she states in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix that she didn't start teaching at Hogwarts until 1956. Those are the things that bother me when characters are turned into idiots or liars or whatever you wanna call them.

I don't like how Queenie was changed. I don't like the Aurelius twist...though there's still time for that to be rectified.

Yea that might be 3rd on my list of biggest problems with this movie. What was the point of her going with Grindelwald? Her whole reason for listening to him in the first place is because she wanted to be free to marry Jacob a muggle which Grindelwald had it implied (manipulation probably) that he didn't care about her being with him and it's the same with Jacob. The vast majority of her story in both movies is centered around being with Jacob, even more so in the 2nd movie. Then towards the end she wants to go with Grindelwald stating it will mean they can just be who they are without any fear which IMO meant she could be with Jacob with no fear of persecution. But at the very last moment she turns away from him when he doesn't want to go when her motivation was him for most of the story. It just doesn't make sense.

[StLunatic88]

On 11/21/2018 at 3:06 PM, Jakuvious said:

I feel like the best thing in these two movies have been the core title, the actual Fantastic Beasts, not the subtitle. The creatures are so well executed, Newt is actually an interesting and well-played character. I'd honestly be 100% down to actually watch a movie series about him finding/helping/releasing creatures,

YES! Newt has been great, he is the most enjoyable thing in both films. He is also the only one I constantly believe is a real person. His adventures are enough to run a Trilogy on its own (throw in a little side story to connect toe the greater Wizarding World for each) But cramming in this Grindelwald story, which seems to be literally a rehash of the Voldemort one (I know he was an inspiration)

I do think Jude Law is giving us a very good Dumbledore, but the problem is, we are already past the most interesting part of his story. His relationship with Grindelwald, his realization of what Grindy wants (genocide) and his break off from the one he loves... THATS the interesting story, not this Blood Oath thing...

[TXsteeler]

On 11/25/2018 at 12:58 PM, Calvert28 said:

Yea that might be 3rd on my list of biggest problems with this movie. What was the point of her going with Grindelwald? Her whole reason for listening to him in the first place is because she wanted to be free to marry Jacob a muggle which Grindelwald had it implied (manipulation probably) that he didn't care about her being with him and it's the same with Jacob. The vast majority of her story in both movies is centered around being with Jacob, even more so in the 2nd movie. Then towards the end she wants to go with Grindelwald stating it will mean they can just be who they are without any fear which IMO meant she could be with Jacob with no fear of persecution. But at the very last moment she turns away from him when he doesn't want to go when her motivation was him for most of the story. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh my god, exactly. This particular storyline has to be amongst the worst written in cinematic history in terms of how stupid and bad it is.

[TXsteeler]

4 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

YES! Newt has been great, he is the most enjoyable thing in both films. He is also the only one I constantly believe is a real person. His adventures are enough to run a Trilogy on its own (throw in a little side story to connect toe the greater Wizarding World for each) But cramming in this Grindelwald story, which seems to be literally a rehash of the Voldemort one (I know he was an inspiration)

I do think Jude Law is giving us a very good Dumbledore, but the problem is, we are already past the most interesting part of his story. His relationship with Grindelwald, his realization of what Grindy wants (genocide) and his break off from the one he loves... THATS the interesting story, not this Blood Oath thing...

Newt is good, but he feels shoehorned into the actual Grindelwald plot they are going with. He doesn't really have a place there and I think he is really only there to sell tickets just like how the "Fantastic Beats" title is only being used for brand recognition, not because it actually makes sense for a good story. He should have gotten his own series and they could have used FB1 as a way to spin it off and create a Dumbledore stand alone film series.