Spoiler

I mentioned it in my post earlier, but I suspect the reason Ariana died might be because Albus tried to fight Grindelwald despite the blood pact and it backfired. Like perhaps some kind of shield was created, killing her.

 

How is magic portrayed in this film? Are the duels any interesting or are they of the point and shoot variety as in the previous film?

I am planning to watch the film but I am really curious about this.

 

Just finished watching it a few hours ago. It was pretty decent, with some cool graphics and magic. There were a good half dozen things that got my lore nerd riled up, but I'm able to overlook most of it. Still not a huge fan of Newt as a protagonist, Tina was nearly a non-entity, Queenie was pretty obvious as a plotline, Jacob felt like he was tacked on for the whole second half. The mystery wasn't very mysterious, so I never felt the tension of the buildup. The idea of Aurelius is dumb though, just throwing that out there.

All of that said, it was still a 7/10. Jude Law and Johnny Depp had pretty good performances, even if I think they're both a bit too young as portrayed. The magical creatures were interesting, and we got a lot of interesting glimpses of the wider magical world. All in all, I'm looking forward to the next three movies.

 

Newt or Tina is still the true Master of the Elder Wand, just putting it out there. There were a lot of things I liked, some things I didn't, and a few things that disproved my own interpretation of things from the books, like a wand being required to Apparate. British MoM's hitman used magic like a boss - is it definite that the dome was a Protego Shield Charm? I always thought they were translucent.

All in all though, my greatest enjoyment is starting to come more and more from the salt of my fellow fanboys.

 

Spoiler

I suppose that it is possible the blood pact was made in regard to trying to stop each other in the pursuit of the Greater Good if one were to lose faith in said cause and not the other, which does not include a scuffle from righteous anger. If so, then it doesn't have to contradict canon.

Just like with an Unbreakable Vow, there might be conditions involved that apply some times and not others.

Also - the thing were Grindelgraves nodded and turned to face the Aurors, what if he fought them with the intention of being "caught off guard" by a spell and "lose" so that he would be imprisoned, from where he could spread a seed of distrust in the current system among US wizarding government workers. Remember how Grindelwald's guards had been switched thrice because he was so persuasive? What if Plan B was to let himself get arrested and subtly recruit MACUSA Aurors to his cause? Aurors are some of the best and brightest witches and wizards any given magical government has, and one can only imagine why Grindelwald would want the Aurors against the power that be.

 

Just saw it. Overall a perfectly enjoyable experience.

The entire third act was a jumbled mess and the direct canon contradictions nagged me a bit, but the visuals were fantastic and I felt the actors did a pretty bang up job with what they were given. Depp impressed me, and Jude Law was about as good as I hoped. Everyone else was solid.

6/10

 

I don't know why, but Torquil Travers supposedly having the authority to tell Dumbledore he couldn't teach DADA is one of the things that ticked me off the most.

 

So, I've just seen this. As with any new HP thing, the money train puffs on and I'll keep hopping on for just one more sweet huff of that magic pipe.

Spoiler

I definitely felt some impact from this one, and I don't think I feel as negative as the rest of you. That doesn't mean I'm insensible of its flaws, but rather that I genuinely enjoy getting a chance to see more of the world, so much that it has a disproportionate impact on me.

Breaking it down:

Story:

This is the weakest part of the whole experience and I feel it comes under two key categories.

1) Timeline (which can also be called plot contortions)

Now, there's McGonagall, but let's ignore her and her undignified running around (she was young [read: prenatal], I suppose).

No, the timeline issues stem from all the plot relevant information we have from the books and, worse than that, which we have from the previous film, which is ignored here.

• Dumbledore can't fight Grindlewald - literally (surprise) - because of a macguffin. Ok. How did he fight him in the climactic battle that killed Ariana, then?
• Dumbledore has a brother, who is like twenty, but both his mother and father were gone pre 1900s.
• Grindlewald knows Aurelius' heritage, but previously was willing to toss him away in the last film as someone of no importance.
  • I originally thought this was great, it made sense, it wasn't his obscurial powers that made him useful but rather his identity
  • But then, why was Grindlewald just straight up looking for an obscurial in the last film?
  • How did Grindlewald discover his identity if it's new information and he's just been rotting silently in jail with a mute accomplice?
    • If Grindlewald was actually leaning towards the Lestranges and then we discovered this unexpected information that Corvus is dead, and Grindlewald is just lying, then what up with Fawkes?
• Hey Nagini, oh you've met Albus? And she's undoubtedly important to whatever happens with Albus vs. Credence? Great, I can see why he'd never mention anything about her and her origin and role in Tom's development to Harry then.
• The Flamels? No, just Nicholas - a vital addition to the story.
• Obscurials need to develop a sense of family to reign in their self-destructive magics? No they don't (don't get me wrong, I like the idea that his integration into the magical world is his integration of his magic into himself - but don't just call him a different name and have him cast a mountain breaking depulso, otherwise why use that as a call to action if you're not going to follow your own rules)

2) Motivation

Some motivations were good. Some.

The masses? They were probably the best. They're post world war one, where they learned muggles can destroy cities if they must. When Grindlewald presents his vision of ww2 and everyone's horrified. I loved that. I'd like if he'd referenced the statue of secrecy, of the empires wizards could build, the wonders, if they weren't hiding from people who'd kill them all without knowing they're there. But yeah, I got that. I got the sense of horror, and I liked it. It was compelling.

Credence, yeah, his motivation was sensible, if not his means. How did he get to Paris and discover all these magical locations?

Grindlewald was a bit all over the place. They differentiated him from voldemort, and this is much more muggles vs. wizards rather than blood purity in magic society. It's a slightly different flavour for a slightly bigger stage. He's cruel to animals, and babies, top villain marks. But he's also charming to people, but actually never that sympathetic. His goal and his history are still quite hidden from us, but at least his message to the world comes through and his plan - make him look like the non-violent option. But... then he tries to destroy Paris?

Newt, Tina and Jacob didn't have much in the way of arcs.

Newt had two motivations - to find Creedence and save him (as is his way with all strange and lost things that people want to destroy). Makes sense. But also, to find Tina. But also, he's in love with Leta - it definitely felt more like chemistry with those two. How does Newt change as a result of this story - he chooses his side? Well, if you think for one minute in the following films he'll have thrown his lot in with the ICW lot who refused to overturn his travel ban, well, no. His brother will work with Dumbledore, Newt will continue to work for Dumbledore and there we are. He didn't grow, nor did he influence those around him to grow in a positive way. They're all pretty stand up folk. It'd be interesting for JK to subvert her bend towards optimism, for Newts arc to revolve around learning there are some woobies you shouldn't save but should condemn - whether that's Nagini or Credence. But yeah, I doubt it.

Tina - meh, I never got the sense that there was any real romance or drive for her in this. She was just sorta' there, for continuity.

Jacob - the viewer stand in. His ability to enjoy the world he's in more than any witch or wizard will always endear him to me. He's a good comic character, but in this, his arc is more serious. Unfortunately, for its serious subject matter it gets a shallow treatment because he has other plots to be a part of and not enough screentime. His introduction evoked nothing so much as Merope and Tom Sr. I felt it was a trite treatment, because we were also supposed to have some sympathy with Queenie, however, as it progressed I wondered if maybe we weren't meant to sympathise with her but be horrified and see it as foreshadowing of her ultimate choice, and the fact that she's not actually loving but controlling. Still, I did see the last movie, and I hadn't forgotten that unfortunately.

That's why Queenie's the biggest problem here. Her motivations are awful. She was born a natural legilimens which might be how they explain her actions in the long run, but it's not a strong motivation because she's been coping with this her whole life and it was explored in more detail in the last film. She may be ditzy, but she had heart, so why is she date raping her boyfriend and then screaming at him for not wanting muggles to be largely genocided by Grindlewald.

Ultimately, there's a few characters too many in this fic, and mostly it's the recurring bunch. They did not feel an integral part of the plot, that they should have been focussed on here. But who has the courage to diminish Eddie Redmayne and say, 'you're not gonna be in this super much, I'm afraid, go talk quietly and look at the floor over there, please.'

Worldbuilding:

I really liked the visuals and the settings of this story. Perhaps the most of any entry to the cinema HP world, to date.

The French magical world felt much more scattered through the city and much more integrated. No idea what the muggles thought of all those black sheets, though, it wasn't really mentioned. There was definitely a different feel with each ministry of magic, and in France, the circus in their Diagon Alley equivalent was wonderful.

I'm really enjoying following adult wizards in this series. Their magic is used for everything and it's wonderful. Furthermore, it's willing to be charming and human. Dumbledore and his glove, the teapot, the children in bubbles. The circus house elf, the house elf. I could keep going. Every example of magic thrilled me, more than the first FB film. It was more than a way to fight. It was more abstract, and it could be used for things softer than curses and the odd spot of transfiguration.

The shots of Hogwarts absent students, both externally and internally, were beautiful.

I think, as much as I generally dislike prophecy, a whole book of culturally signficant prophecies around the first and second world war, that many have read felt like a nice detail. Something you might use to justify anything in the upcoming immediate future. New York in a storm, and all the various weather magics we saw were brilliant.

Finally, how can I not mention Grindlewalds fiendfyre. The manipulation of it, the uses of it and then the realisation of what it was. For a relatively personable dark lord, it showed why people don't think they can measure up to him. What I'm less clear about is why Dumbledore is so revered, considering this is pre Grindlewald defeat. Surely twelve uses of Dragon blood didn't involve that much combatative skill.

Overall, as someone who's always been much more interested in the world than the series, I enjoyed this entry. I hope in the future stories, it's less twists for the sake of twists, and rehash of things we've already seen (I'm looking at you cupboard boggart) and more a focus on building some compelling character moments. There's a lot of time between the 90s and the 40s, we don't need every cause of the orginal series spelled out for us by the conclusion of this one.

As an aside, I found the initial super close-ups of Newt and Leta staring at one another really uncomfortable. It built intimacy, but as beautiful as Kravitz is and as expressive as Redmayne is, the camera work made me squirm. Was that the same for anyone else?

Yeah, that's probably a reasonable 600th post.

 

I think the majority of the problems in the film relate to one thing: foundation.

1. Many points in the film contradict what we know, or have at least been told, about canon. The major twist is in itself not that bad, but because it contradicts what we believe we know about characters' ages and where they've lived it is tainted. We see flaws in it, because it has a poor foundation.
2. Many viewers have called it boring. I'd say this is because boredom is in itself the lack of care on the part of the audience. If they don't care about the characters, then they're bored. With FB2, the main relationships would be Newt/Tina, the drama of which is largely based on miscommunication; Newt/Leta, which relies on the audience caring about a character we haven't seen before and don't know; Newt and Theseus, which is largely uninteresting until the end of the film; Credence/Nagini, which didn't really go anywhere, and relies entirely on knowledge of the original books/films for any interest; and lastly Dumbledore and Grindelwald, which isn't focused on nearly enough. Any movie requires the audience to be invested in the characters and their relationships, and with this the audience just isn't. Because this part of the foundation is so weak, anything which relies on it collapses.
3. The mystery is way too convoluted. The explanation requires you to pay attention literally every second, and the actual answer comes out of nowhere. Every good mystery should give you the clues to solve it, but here there's not a good enough foundation.

In summary, the majority of the film's problems come from the script- the foundation.
…
That said, I really liked the film! The acting was great, the magic was cool, and Grindelwald's ideology is much more complex than the 'no good and evil, only power' philosophy of Voldemort. There are lots of flaws in the script, and I probably only really enjoy this because I've been really interested/invested in the Dumbledore-Grindelwald drama since I first read the books, but I had a good time.

 

Well, saw this today.

My primary thought after the movie was that it really didn't know what it wanted to be or do, and due to that, the tone of the movie seemed super disjointed. This added to the convoluted plot by Grindelwald made the movie rather messy, and the bad pacing didn't really help with this.

I also have major gripes with the big twist of the movie, namely that it is hard to understand how Grindelwald suddenly knows who Credence is, after he had no fucking idea who he was in the 1st movie and was only interested in his Obscurial powers. This seems like a twist for the sake of twist, and also super stupid without further explanation.

The movie had great visuals though, and the actors for Newt, Tina, Grindelwald and Dumbledore all did their roles more than well. But the disjointed and messy feeling from the story combined with the blatant disregard for previous canon at times really makes it hard to think of this as a good Potter universe movie.

If the movies were completely separate from the larger Potter universe, I would probably give them 3/5 just due to the main actors and the visuals, as those were still enjoyable even if the movie is full of small faults and bad writing/direction decisions. But as a Potterverse movie this was pretty much 1/5 in the end.

Still going to watch the rest of course like the sucker I am.

 

Props to @Blorcyn for pointing out something I'm just now realizing is yet another bit of stupid, except in this case it contradicts the previous film.

Spoiler

Grindelwald goes from "You're unteachable" to "Credence/Aurelius is my anti-Albus weapon". Could've been Grindelwald negging the kid, but it's more likely to just be a fuckup on JK's part. Unless there was someone in the MACUSA prison who conveniently knew about Aurelius and told Grindelwald, which would be a ridiculous asspull.

 

I just assumed that Grindelwald came by the information via his skull of knowledge.

 

One of the main things coming up from these new movies is Divination. Apparently its actually a pretty big thing... that there are even books of prophecy/poetry that people can read. So where the heck does Dumbledore get his almost disdain for divination that is seen in the HP books? He wasn't planning on continuing the subject at Hogwarts at all until he came across Trelawney. Divination seems like such a huge thing, and Grindelwald's prophecy on WWII, which many wizards witnessed, comes true. I would think Divination would be celebrated and embraced, and not looked at so unfavorably by both Dumbledore and Minerva.

Anyone have any ideas on the subject?

 

Dumbledore was always about the choices you make defining who you are.

If people relied to much on prophecy, even if it was somewhat true, it would make people, lazy, they would give up on trying somewhat, why try and work hard, when it is destiny that X should happen?

 

I was thinking the skull was just a device to project Grindelwald's visions, not the source. I don't think the vision explanation holds, he was having visions about Credence in FB1, it seems like a convenient way to fix the problem, not to mention that visions/prophecies are one of the lamest fantasy plot devices. I wouldn't be surprised if someone asks about this in an interview and JK says that he had the vision of Credence's true identity between movies. If that's the case, even a single line in the film could establish this. Really does seem like JK messed up here.

 

I expected the same but I can handwave it as Dumbledore legit just not caring at all. It didn't lock down his magic or some shit it's just like a constantly updating priori incantatem.

Also I am legit fucking fuming at the ending. So, so fucking stupid. Everything else I can handwave. That ending is just retarded.

 

The film was average. 6/10 at best.

The cinematography was great, the magic (which was beefed up by quite a bit) even better and there were other positive things as well such as the blood pact which gives a more plausible explanation as to why Dumbledore didn't confront Grindelwald sooner. Flamel was also a welcome addition and while his character wasn't fleshed out, he was still a breath of fresh air and added humour to the film. Also please tell me I'm not the only one to notice how his trot eerily resembles Pogba's penalty run-ups. And Jude Law was great as Dumbledore.


Unfortunately though that was were the positives ended. The music and score were mediocre. The plot was convoluted, with multiple plotlines serving no purpose but as nods to the HP franchise. The pacing was atrocious with the movie shifting from action to action in a jarring fashion. The exposition was painful to sit through and the entire movie was set up to discover Credence's identity. You would think this magical conflict would be much deeper than an identity reveal and plot twist featuring yet another Rowling ret-con. The entire Lestrange plot line also serves to set up the plot twist and pre maturely kills off Leta Lestrange who was just introduced in this film.

Then there are the bizzare moments with the Ministry who seemingly have the power to do virtually anything including killing wizards, interfering with Hogwarts teaching staff and chasing Grindelwald in another country (where are the French Ministry and their Aurors in all of this.

I see a lot of praise for Depp's performance which I find baffling. The handsome and charismatic revolutionary was distilled to this aloof and cold character. This may have more to do with the writing than Depp himself but Grindelwald was underwhelming. The only saving grace to Grindelwald was his magical puissance.


Overall while still an enjoyable film for any Potter fan, it still suffers from the success of the HP franchise. Even something as benign as having Dumbledore teach DADA seems to be a cheap way to nod at the HP franchise.

 

I loved the film.

I thought it was a fantastic movie with a ton of unique points I didn't see coming. Yes, a lot of it is setting up the following films but I'm okay with that.

The only bit I disliked was how much these films make Harry seem like a retard. Magic is so much more powerful in these films.

I'll write more about my thoughts when I have some time (not on vacation and drunk) but I do think judging many of the unfinished plotlines now is unreasonable. Grindlewald could have been lying.

I will admit this would be ten times better as a TV series and not a movie.

 

In fairness, @Lindsey Harry and co. were 17/18 with six years schooling and Theseus and Newt are minimum late 20s, Theseus having faught a war and Newt travelling having travelled the world.

Also the Ministry scene implied that Newt was someone the auror department really wanted. This could be handwave as saying it's because of the events in New York but it seems like an old standing issue between the brothers. My take on it is that Newt is an exceptionally talented wizard and part of the reason Dumbledore favours him is because Newt is thoroughly unimpressed by his own talent.

 

To be real, if Newt went Sith he'd be a huge fucking problem. His affinity for magical beasts is just off the charts. His wand magic talent is almost incidental to that.