Ugh, whenever I hear that damn tune, I get goosebumps. I was really happy with the first Beasts movie, felt that Eddie gave a great performance, was nice to see competent, adult magical users whilst fleshing out the world.

I don't like the fact that they're making a point of showing Dumbledore being gay rather than just saying 'We will make it clear where his and Grindelwald's relationship has been, and where it's going'.

I'll go see this at midnight probably, it's the last film I'm super excited to see this year.

 

Does it make a difference that the actor is playing a villain? Not to say it excuses the off screen antics, but the argument of 'We hold the actors playing heroes in a franchise/series to a higher standard of off-screen behavior, because these are the traits we want our kids to emulate' shouldn't apply to the villains.

 

Fantastic Beasts: Professor McGonagall Breaks Harry Potter Canon

https://screenrant.com/fantastic-beasts-mcgonagall-timeline-plot-hole/

 

In a way, it's more reverting the series to its previous continuity. Back in the old days, JKR had McGonagall aged at least 80 as of PS, which means a birth date of before 1910.

 

I don't think JK is retconning McGonagalls age. I think she is using Time Travel to get her in the Grindelwald war.

I'm first going to see how this plays out but my first thoughts about this aren't that positive, she seems to bent over backwards to get fan favorites in even if it will damage the canon.

 

Wait, when did this change?

 

I think I remembering hearing late last year a rumor that there might be some kind of flash forward type of scene (I forget if it was some kind of vision or actual scene set in the future though) in the film, set years after the main events of the movie. So if that rumor holds any truth, and this info about McGonagall certainly leads credence to it, this might simply be a part of that.

Though I do wonder why they would even show a flash forward scene now all of a sudden, in the second film of a five part film series, as that feels like something which makes more sense to put in the first film or last film, like the Frodo scenes in the Hobbit. It only kind of makes sense if it's a vision of some kind which we see, which I suppose, thinking on it some more, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility since the first film and the trailers to this one did seem to imply that Grindelwald is some kind of seer or prophet of some kind.

 

So the reviews have started coming in and it's a mixed bag. Here's a round-up:

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/...es-of-grindelwald-review-round-up-1203023949/

While the final rating given varies significantly, most reviewers have similar things to say: that the worldbuilding and acting are excellent, but there are too many characters; there's a lot of filler so that by the end of the film, not much has happened; and a lot of the film's plot is just setting up the next one.

I think it's going to be a film that fans will appreciate a lot more than casual viewers, because stuff like worldbuilding will keep fans happy even without the most compelling plot.

 

Mainstream reviewers loved The Last Jedi. I've stopped paying attention to mainstream reviewers.

 

Funny its the world building I think fans will hate the most, as it seems they are shitting on a lot of pre existing stuff, or just doing stupidity.

 

cough Nagini cough

I'm not passing the final judgment without seeing the film, but it does seem exceptionally retarded in the "absolutely everything has to tie into the original books" way. Because I thought that one of the strengths of Potterverse was that it's such a fun world that you can tell whatever story you want in it and it still has a draw.

 

That‘s pretty much my sentiment as well. I don‘t need references and cameos that are being shoehorned into a perfectly functional film to feel at home in its universe.

——

I‘m still debating whether to go and subject myself to the midnight premiere, the English version of which has drawn ridiculously small numbers so far, according to the cinema‘s seating chart. That alone is something I would count as a surprise, because these things are usually very well-attended where I live. Even more interesting is the fact that the German version is barely filled to a third of its capacity. I mean, I know it‘s not technically a Potter film, but I these numbers are really low. It’s still four days to go, obviously, but IIRC even Solo had better attendance.

 

There are already showings scheduled for the next week that I could book a ticket for, but it's dubbing and 3D and I absolutely refuse to do either. Dubbing, fuck off (only acceptable in animation) and 3D wreaks havoc on my poor eyesight. Plus the image is dark as all fuck in those stupid glasses.

I still lament original audio proper 2D showings because they're subtitled, but I guess I can't expect everyone who doesn't want to watch it dubbed to speak English...

 

I think the Nagini thing pissed a lot of fans off. The Minerva thing was what annoyed me though.

I think this may be the Star Wars Solo movie of the Potter verse.

 

Is it really objectively bad? I mean outside of the silly fanservice like Nagini and Minerva. I am going to watch it with my boyfriend who is not a HP fan, will he hate it?

 

One of the reviews linked above used the Mckrinsky-Kubrick scale (where they use numbers instead of words to say what they liked and what they didn't like) and it came out quite low, when not adjusted for franchise fan-power. So, objectively, it's not great. He probably won't like it, let's say. Reviews on the internet are probably the best judge of your boyfriend's preferences.

 

I'm really looking forward to the movie. I see no real point in making decisions on how good or bad it will be until I actually see it.

 

Yeaaah, this quote from a review is really, really reaching. I really can't take certain reviews seriously anymore.

 

I thought the movie was a thinly veiled jab and the French colonization of Indochina?