While the movie was terrible, it has lots of interesting magical moments. It was like, J.K. read some fanfiction and thought let's make it canon. TARDIS trunk, blue fiendfyre, magical hookah, mountains getting shattered by single ruducto spell. I mean, I love the special effects and it certainly felt like adult wizards are fighting, instead of teenagers. And I love that Hit-wizard dude.

But it seriously contradict HP cannon. I mean, we don't see any Death eaters throwing magic like that left and right.

So what do you think? Do you like magic in CoG? Or not?

 

That was already canon.

 

Wait, really, Where?

Edit :- Moody's trunk, of course.

 

All the 'Obscurial' bullshit really just finished me off. I had to stop at that point, not going to lie. It just got ridiculous, like some Naruto-abused-by-the-village+council type of bullshit. JKR can't write, and I honestly think this is some fundamental truth. Like, after the disaster that was the seventh book, followed up with her Pottermore shite, topped off with the eldritch horror that is Cursed Child...

Please JKR stop. You're already fabulously wealthy, loved and famous. For some reason no one wants to call her out on what she is, the new George Lucas. Idk if that thing about 'you're too old now and the magic is gone' thing is true, but literally every single HP related thing JKR has done, hoping to expand on her magnum opus, has just made it so much worse. Truth be told, I don't think I'm alone in considering everything after the 7th book pseudo-canon.

Or I'm just the grinch now cause I'm old. Not 100% sure. Fantastic Beasts isn't canon tho, best left in the trash.

 

@Deltox, preach brother, preach.

 

You and @Lord Of The Sand Grains sound like edgy teenagers that believes whatever Reddit and twitter tells them.

Have you even read JK Rowling's recent novels? They are quite good. To say that she cannot write is a blatant lie that is massively insulting to her and her fans. Rowling is a decent writer, and one of the best character creators out there.

Not only that, her Pottermore articles weren't shit... she did not write Cursed Child and Yates is just as responsible, if not more so, for the failure of the second Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. If you watch the trailer, there were *loads* of scenes not in the movie. Yates must have massively cut down the film, which could have ruined much of it. The script that was published was after the cut and edits, not before. We have no idea what the original script Rowling created was.

Lastly, most the magic Rowling created in the films were great. The everyday spells and world building were A++. It made me want to see more. Yeah, the storyline was weaker, but I have a feeling it was because she wrote the script like a book, instead of what it was... She should have had help, and the director should have known better. To blame it all on her is wrong.

 

@Lindsey, read my post again, carefully. And when did I say magic in CoG was bad? I said it was inconsistent with HP cannon.

 

@Lindsey

JK certainly sucks monkey ass at scriptwriting, and not all of her prose is gold either. Cut scenes from the script don't make scenes like the Lestrange Exposition not terrible. Though I agree that a blanket statement of "JK is shit" is unfair.

Some of the magic I like, some I don't. I liked that Grindelwald was shown able to solo 20 Aurors, but the way it was shown (the most mundane fizzbang flashes possible) was a wasted opportunity. Also, Grindelwald trying to tickle Newt with electricity in FB1 when he can do stuff like Protego Diabolica (which I maintain that a script-sourced explanation that's not in the film is irrelevant) was also meh. Grindelwald got a plot-mandated powerup between FB1 and 2.

I'm meh on Obscurials, certainly I won't be writing them into any of my HP fanfic.

 

The blue fiendfyre was actually a spell called Protego Diabolica, what is so strange about having a fienfyre level spell, especially if Grindelwald used it.

Surely there are a bunch of these powerful spells which Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort can use, we only saw one very short duell in the Original series between 2 legendary wizards just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean there isn't powerful stuff out their.

The skull hookah is actually fucking awesome a 100 times better than the crappy artefacts in most Fanfics and feels like a proper dark artefact.

I also was confused about Credence being able to blow up a mountain without training, but the screenplay sayed that he was channeling the power of the obsucurial and didn't use a spell.

I think the magic was beefed up for the average wizard but all the abilities seem canon for the more powerful characters.

Honestly the JK Rowling hate is ridiculous (though I think some of the memes are hilarious) like the Last Jedi hyperbole being the worst movie ever stupidity. I say that as somebody who didn't enjoy TLJ at all, think Cursed child is a abomination and agree that Crimes of Grindelwald is a unfocused clusterfuck (eventhough I enjoyed it).

 

I would like to contest this point by way of multiple short arguments.

1. Her crime novels are actually pretty good. They won‘t win her a Nobel prize any time soon, but the characters are fleshed out, the dialogue is as sharp as ever, the overarching plot is engaging and the mysteries are intriguing, even though they are quite varied in how difficult they are to figure out.

2. JKR does know how to write a book. She doesn‘t know how to write

a) a play, which is why she made the mistake of outsourcing the whole thing to an author who bent the rules of a well-established universe to his ideas instead of the other way around and simply slapped her name on it; and
b) a film, which is very much evident in the structure of TCoG, a film that wholly lacks a second act or any kind of overarching perspective.

3. JKR‘s recent controversy had at least as much to do with bad writing as her need for attention paired with an unfortunate tendency towards cultural and societal insensitivity – see her failure to address the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship in the final cut of the film vs. her ill-advised comments on the DVD release.

4. The ”wizards used to shit on the floor“ controversy, OTOH, was already part of Pottermore lore long before it gained the attention it did, so for me that counts less as a recent issue and more as general Pottermore silliness.

In conclusion: Why JKR decided to return to the Potterverse on a more permanent basis we do not know. Is it ego? Boredom? Fear of irrelevance? Greed? What we do know is that so far it hasn‘t really been a successful venture in terms of quality, and has resulted in a number of unfortunate PR incidents. However, these can only partially be traced back to bad writing on JKR‘s part, and also include her failure to properly take care of her universe (looking at you, Mr Thorne) as well as the volatile nature of the contemporary mediascape.


And to contribute marginally to the topic of the thread: I mind the inconsistent visuals for spells across the films much more than the introduction of new aspects of magic, as long as they make sense.

Edit: Cleaned up the third point a bit.

 

I find most of these critisism very unfair or stupid the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship she did adress in COG in the mirror scene and in the dialogue these are also supposed to be 5 movies so she can't just fire her whole load now.

The controvery with the DVD clip was taken completely out of context she sayed they had an intense emotional relationship which had a sexual aspect yet all clickbait articles completely twisted her words.

There are also Nagini being enslaved to white male stuff and cultural appropriation with american magic critisism which are too stupid to be worth a reply.

I think there are just some instances in which the critisism was fully deserved the black Hermione thing was just stupid with her acting as if the books were ambiguous about her colour, the wizard shitting there pants which she probably just did for some whimsy humor is still terrible and I really think it's shitty for her to allow Cursed Child to be considered canon eventhough she had nothing to do with it and it's utter garbage.

It would be ok for her to declare it a different world story but it was a dick move to release the screenplay of this shit and declare it canon to cash in.

However the utter contempt and scorn she now gets is stupid, she is donating millions to charity, wrote some pretty great books and motivated a whole generation of kids to read saying she is a talentless hack only out to line her pockets is wrong.

 

This was social media up in arms over nothing.

Rowling wrote a tweet supporting the black actress of Hermione and included a tongue-in-cheek comment about never explicitly stating Hermione's skin colour. That was all. It had nothing to do with reconning her character or making herself seem more 'woke.' It was Rowling trying to deal with racists and those who don't understand no one cares about race in London plays.

It's very similar to the media trying to blame Rowling for making Dumbledore gay after the series. She has always assumed he was gay, long before releasing Deathly Hallows. The proof is with interviews with the writers of GoF movie, which was a year or so before DH was published. The reason it wasn't blatant in the books was that: 1) It's Dumbledore. 2) It's all second-hand stories. 3) She really doesn't write romance, period.

Everything else you've said I agree with. She made some shitty decisions but so have we all. At least she does massive amounts of charity and tries to please fans unlike most of us.

 

Or, you know, I could just be a literate person with my own ideas and likes/dislikes? Man, you sound like JKR's publicist, at least take her dick out of your mouth before you talk.

I'll respond to you hipster-ass 'if others don't like it then I do' attitude quickly, because the honest truth is that Fantastic Beasts is the Star Wars Prequels. It is the Hobbit 'Trilogy'. It is Matrix Reloaded, and liking something just cause it's unpopular doesn't make you unique:

I have read JKR's new shit. All of it actually, I even bought that stupid Lethal White thing that was trying so hard to be a thriller that it lost me half way through. Don't even get me started on Cuckoos Calling, cause you have to be mentally retarded to like that absolute trash book. Can I write a better mystery novel? I doubt it, but Cuckoos Calling really was one of the worst pieces of literature I've ever read. Compared to an actual mystery novelist, or even compared to their debut work like Sheldon's Naked Face, Cuckoos Calling is just next level bad. Casual Vacancy is on the same level, even though I thought it had a really strong start. That was the book that really hurt me, cause it was her first book after the HP seven, and when people I knew started talking shit about it, I was the first person to tell them to sit the fuck down and shut up. Still, I re-read Casual Vacancy about a year later, and bruh I think I had my nostalgia goggles on the first time I read it.

The Silkworm and Career of Evil were the only books that were even semi-good. So yeah, I would say that except for the HP Series (which is a bit of Divine Inspiration, wherein the true author is the Universe and JKR merely the instrument), JKR can't write. She can't write further novels, plays, films or even her Pottermore 'vanish shit off the floor" articles. Note that when I say 'JKR can't write', I mean that her novels are no better than those of the average writer. 99% of published writers are already good, even some of the people on this website. She's no better than J. P. Beaubien.

She is 100% responsible for Cursed Child. Like, how can you really be defending Cursed Child man? Also, her name is on the movie, and she had stated multiple times she is VERY happy with it. Whatever 'original script' that may or may not have existed has nothing to do with it. We see her work on the fucking IMAX screen, and whatever 'could-have-been' doesn't factor into it when we do a critical analysis of any piece of artwork. As to your point about "most the magic Rowling created in the films were great. The everyday spells and world building were A++". They weren't tho Mr. Shit-on-Floor-and-Vanish.

>TLDR: I love JKR's thick cock down my throat just as much as you do, but in recent years it's started tasting rotten. Being unwilling to call it out doesn't make you 'cool' or hip dude.

>she had nothing to do with it.
>allow Cursed Child to be considered canon
How can JKRetards believe this. Also, the black Hermione thing is literally nothing. It matters less than ANYTHING else in the entire play. Cursed child is trash for a million reasons, and that really unimportant factor has nothing to do with it. Idk why you even mentioned it.

 

Man you really showed everyone you weren't an edgy teen with that one.

 

Can we be friends?

 

After that post, "literate" may be an overstatement. Feel free to take that shit back to 4chan where it belongs.

On topic: the thing that irritates me the most about FB/CoG magic is the fandom's complete misunderstanding of it (so business as usual in the HP fandom). The obscurus is a good example. So many people seem to think that an obscurus is the obscurial's own magic and therefore some kind of exploding magical core.

It's not. The obscurus is considered a magical creature. Yes, it's a parasitic upon a wizard (the obscurial) and its existence is generated under certain conditions rather than it being born biologically (similar to Dementors, boggarts, poltergeists, etc). Nonetheless it is a distinct entity from the Obscurial which hosts it.

The movie/script was fairly clear on this.

ONE: An obscurus is a "dark force" that the child develops, not a manifestation of the obscurial's magic:

TWO: An obscurus is parasitical, i.e. it latches onto the obscurial rather than being the same thing as the obscurial:

THREE: The obscurus is a creature within Credence which takes over his body. It is not the same entity as Credence:

FOUR: An obscurial with unusually powerful magic can use that magic to survive and control the obscurus.

If an obscurial having strong magic allows them to overpower the obscurus, then the obscurial's magic must beseparate from the obscurus. Otherwise that obscurus would possess that same strength.

Despite these clear, consistent statements, idiot fans still love to whine about JKR supposedly having made magical cores canon.

 

Man Taure, for someone who’s really into HP magic, you’re missing something. The obscurus is never defined as a magical creature. It’s not an independent living thing. It’s a manifested magical force.

As for your whole “the obscurus doesn’t make a person a magic ultra wizard because it’s not them”, that’s just simply not true. No one is saying an obscurial is magical core nonsense, I’m just saying that I think it’s a shit concept. It doesn’t even make any sense if you look at the Pottermore stuff she’s put out.

The obscurus is not a magical creature, it’s a manifested magical force that is unstable and related to extreme emotions. Basically, it’s some shonen shit where your emotions get to save the day. It’s a bad concept, and I don’t think that anyone can defend it. Especially when compared to the genius concepts from the original books.

You said it yourself, the obscurus CAN be controlled by the individual. Therefore, the magic isn’t as separate as you’re trying to make it out to be. Dudes. For fucks sake, there has to be a limit to shilling for JKR. And as a side note, I’ve always thought it dumb to reject someone’s arguments just because of mild profanity.

Your whole argument about obscuri only works if you pretend the obvious magical FORCE (manifested BY a wizard) is a living parasitical CREATURE that takes over the wizard. Your comparison of an obscurial with a dementor was mind boggling, because I actually had difficulty trying to imagine how you worked your mind into that knot.

In your own quote, the first one you posted, Newt talks about how the MAGIC of a wizard, when suppressed and not taught, may try to hide itself and form into an obscurus. Ergo, it’s literally a part of the wizard. It’s akin to some shonen manga super technique that you have to learn from youth, and kills most people at 10 years old. But, as per shonen rules, you get the “powers linked to emotions” bullshit and you can now reducto a mountain.

EDIT: imo best comparison with an obscurus is the horcrux that was inside Harry Potter. It didn’t effect him as such and it wasn’t naturally generated, but the comparison sure as hell makes more sense that comparing it to a dementor. It says something when your initial response to any criticism of JKR is to call the critic an edgy teen.

 

Firstly, this is an entirely semantic argument. Whether you call it a force or a creature, the mechanics by which an obscurus works are the same, and those mechanics are clearly established as per my above post. The obscurus is simply not the obscurial's magic, fact.

Secondly, to briefly entertain the semantic argument: the obscurus absolutely is a creature. As quoted above:

It moves, it growls. It is referred to as a parasite, which is a term primarily associated with biological things.

It is also a force. Which is to say, it falls into the type of creatures known as non-beings (more on this below).

This displays your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Firstly, the initial genesis of the obscurus is not so much triggered by emotion so much as a consistent course of action (that of attempting to suppress your own magic as a child). Secondly, once the obscurus has been born within the child, it is "uncontrollable, unstable" and the "bursts out" - that is, the obscurus has its own will, and is not triggered by its host's emotions. It certainly doesn't "save the day" as all obscurials die by their teens, with Credence being the first known wizard to survive an obscurus.

Credence can control his because he is already a powerful wizard. His obscurus doesn't add to his power, though it does give him useful wandless abilities; his power is what allows him to control it and direct its destructive energies.

Correcting someone on their factual errors is not shilling. And your arguments were not rejected for profanity. They were rejected for lack of content. Your post above can be summarised thus:

"Waaaaaaaah!"

All you did was state your (unjustified) opinions about various things. Given the complete lack of reasoning behind those opinions, it seems strange that they are so strongly held as to result in such a vitriolic post.

Regardless, no one here is interested in your opinion. If you can say something with actual content, based on fact and argument, fine. But just listing JKR's works and saying "I don't like them" in a various different ways is a waste of space.

I understand that your mind boggles; even simple concepts can challenge those who struggle with mental disability. So in the pursuit of diversity and respect for the mentally handicapped, I will break it down for you.

Dementors, poltergeists and boggarts are all a type of magical creature known as a non-being:

As non-biological creatures, non-beings are simultaneously a force and a creature. They are not born by biological reproduction, but rather generate under certain conditions. Dementors generate ("breed") under conditions of decay and despair. Boggarts spawn in dark, creepy, or confined spaces. Poltergeists spawn under conditions of chaos:

The obscurus fits in perfectly well with this type of being. It is spawned under conditions of suppression of magic. It is a magical force which manifests as a creature. It is separate from its host, but a powerful host can (unusually) overcome it.

And that's that. This will be my last post on the nature of an obscurus, because every piece of canon evidence has already been referenced so there's not really anything to add, whatever you may say in response. The facts have been established, and that was the goal of my post above.

 

I thought Magic artifact that was the binding of the non-aggression pact between dumbledore and grindlewald was a really elegant solution to the issue of dumbledore's perceived indolence in regards to wizard-hitler.

The veil spell grindlewald cast over the whole of paris was visually satisfying but odd. Not entirely sure what the point of that was.

The blue fiendfyre was again odd, Seemed more like an excuse for spectacle than anything else.

Obscurials are fine, the fact that he was a surprise dumbledore and the whole "only a dumbledore can kill a dumbledore vibe" they had going on was weird and off.

The movie maybe would have made a decent 700 page novel with expansions into the lestrange family and why we should give a shit, or the happy-smily-lady traitor and her descent into nazism or the obscurial or nagini or more about dumbledore but for an ostensibly character driven drama I didn't particularly care about any of the characters.