Saw it, mostly enjoyed it. The visuals were great and we saw a lot of new magic. Have to admit that the story was pretty weak though.

Like... why the fuck did they have to go through all that trouble for some family records? Why was baby Credence Dumbledore conveniently on some random boat trip at the same time as the Lestrange baby?

I was REALLY expecting Credence to be a direct descendant of all three Peverell brothers or something. Then the FB series would at least loosely tie in to Deathly Hallows lore, and culminate into something more than a polished First War fanfiction exercise. Him being a Dumbledore is just... I dunno... pointless fanservice? Being a Dumbledore doesn't necessarily mean you're an innately powerful wizard, does it? I mean... is Aberforth ever described as being a great wizard?

Also, I didn't understand the point of Nagini. Like.... why?

 

And that's why I think Credence is somehow really Corvus Lestrange. There's no way they would waste a whole movie on a red herring.

 

I like the new movies more than the original ones. You may now ban me.

On a serious note, many of the so called errors pointed out are somewhat valid - even with them the movie(s) manage to portray a more adult story, pretty naturally considering the original series was aimed at young teenagers. Some of the plot points are strange and subjectively undesired,

• Nagini is only one of them, it's wierd and seems like empty lipservice to convince people it's really Harry Potter. Same thing with McGonnagal, if it doesn't fit please leave it out unless it's actually necessary.
• Am I alone in finding Newt a bit too autistic? The constant cringing is a bit jarring, I feel like social awkwardness is what they're aiming for but I find it too much. When he actually talks he portrays awkwarness excellently, I think it's the hunched shoulder, tilted head muteness that grinds my gears for some reason.
• The most egregious in my opinion is the 'Blood Pact' that removes the human moral dilemma of Dumbledores involvement in the war. It seems to me to turn it into a faux Unbreakable Vow. I'd much prefer it otherwise.

 

Am I the only one who think Dumbledore teaching DADA prior to going after Grindelwald and the blood pact makes perfect sense?

 

Honestly, the way the DCEU seems to try course correcting with every release trying to address complaints about the last one, I can definitely see Warner Bros not having decided yet whether he's a Lestrange or a Dumbledore. They'll just adjust their final answer based on which way audience opinion seems to lean.

I mean, Dumbledore's obviously qualified to teach almost anything at Hogwarts, barring Divination. Still, we know for sure he'll end up teaching Transfiguration instead, and we also know that Professor Merrythought was supposed to be teaching during this period. So from the Watsonian perspective, there's nothing wrong with saying that she's on sabbatical or something, but we have to ask ourselves: why? Does the story need this retcon? At least the blood pact fills a clear need, regardless of one's opinion on how well it does that.

 

Saw it, mostly enjoyed it, though with significant reservations. They've mostly been covered, so I won't go into depth.

I will say that given Depps performance, which I adored but remember absolutely dreading at the end of 1. With most of the open questions - "Dumbledore", and so on - I feel they've therefore earned goodwill for me to wait and see what happens there.

Speaking of that, did anyone get the first DVD? Did it have extra deleted scenes?

 

I will add that despite my reservations I thought both Depp's and Law's performances were fantastic and really highlight how different they've become at that stage of their relationship.

The last thirty seconds did fuck that out the window so... Iunno.

 

http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/crimes-of-grindelwald-deleted-scenes/

Honestly, it seems like there are a ton of deleted scenes, and this is why the movie felt jerky from scene to scene. Just think of the trailer, half the trailer was made up of now deleted scenes. I feel the need to read the script now as I'm beginning to think that a lot of the flaws the movie has was less to do with the screenplay and more to do with things that were cut.

Actually... do we know if the screenplay includes everything? Or when a scene is cut they remove it from the screenplay as well?

 

Hopefully we get some kind of extended edition with all those scenes put back in.

 

No, what I meant is that if you think about it, it's completely in character for Dumbledore to want to teach DADA, and the blood pact makes perfect sense.

The blood pact, for example - 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.

As for the DADA job? 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.
--- Post automerged ---
The screenplay only include that which is in the movie, for some dumb reason...

 

You can postulate a scenario where the 'Blood Pact' makes sense without it being the better choice. You're essentially removing a complex human moral dilemma for a deus ex machina.

 

The problem is that Dumbledore's decision as originally depicted was neither believable nor moral. Let's consider the facts:

• Dumbledore knew Grindelwald for the span of two months, i.e. the summer of 1899.
• Dumbledore was infatuated with Grindelwald but it is unclear whether there was any kind of relationship or reciprocated feelings.
• Grindelwald's actions (regardless of who landed the killing blow) resulted in the death of Dumbledore's sister.
• Dumbledore shortly afterwards completely renounced Grindelwald's philosophy.
• 40 years later, Dumbledore is still refusing to fight Grindelwald.

I'm sorry but this just does not qualify as a "complex human moral dilemma". People do not remain infatuated with an unrequited summer crush for 40 years, especially when the object of that crush caused a death of a family member and you consider them to be evil. And if somehow a person did retain such infatuation, it would not be considered a moral dilemma. There's nothing complex to it, it would simply be a clear example of moral weakness and emotional immaturity.

The blood pact redeems what was always an incredibly weak element of Dumbledore's backstory by replacing something unbelievable with something of substance: a genuine barrier to taking action borne of a single moment of youthful foolishness, rather than a 40-year infatuation.

 

For argument's sake, Dumbledore still sees the making of the blood pact with Grindlewald in the mirror of Erised at this point. He doesn't see his family, whole and happy. He doesn't even see Grindlewald and himself as romantic partners. He sees himself making the pact with Grindlewald, I think likely a slightly different pact or a different result.

I think the context of who these people are - titans among wizards - mean it is not as simple as that, without the macguffin, his motivation was X and shallow, rather than a blend of conflicting motivations that could've been satisfying if expressed well and their complexity shown well.

Firstly, love is powerful, and I disagree with you in some respects (if Dumbledore has never known romantic love again) as he seems to hold in high regard a tangible and deep power in love, and this is reflected in canon, even if it is semantically a moral failing rather than a moral dilemma. Secondly, I would suggest it is not entirely romantic love that would comprise his failing, nor why we see this scene in the mirror: Dumbledore is ashamed, that much is clear from canon, but if he had swayed Grindlewald with this pact rather than vice versa they could've been a tremendous force for good or innovation, or whatever it is that Dumbledore really wants.

Ultimately, romantic love or not, the fact that he has no near-equal beyond Grindlewald or not, they mix well with the most important failing which is his shame. Shame at how it went down, and who killed Ariana. I think this is, most of all, where the mirror scene comes from, to truly avoid and have avoided conflict, and the conflict he must know is inevitable.

I think the macguffin simplifies things, absolutely (excepting the fight that killed Ariana, without the specifics). However, I think we're mostly in this ride for Dumbledore, as an audience. I don't think it would've been a weak backstory if they'd had the confidence to relate that his shame over the outcome of his infatuation, his fear that he killed his sister and his baseless hope that Grindlewald might be redeemed and a force for good would've made a good arc to overcome. Having a Dumbledore learning the wisdoms he shares with Harry, experiencing with him how he learns to chose what is right rather than what is easy, could've been a deeply satisfying film series.

In my opinion.

I've always enjoyed that Dumbledore is the most ardent supporter of the power in love, and its strength, even though his own was misplaced, shallow and caused terrible events, in any case.

 

It just further underlines how dumb JKR's literal Power of Love is as a plot device.

 

I think most people don't remember the facts. They remember that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were lovers and therefore Dumbledore didn't want to fight him. At least that's what I remembered before I read Taure's post.

In the books Dumbledore tries to preserve Harry from prophecy somewhat, doesn't want to deprive him of the childhood completely. So he is not strictly above putting single person over the greater good for a bit. But Harry is not Grindelwald, so I am also pleased with the existence of the blood pact. I always thought that Dumbledore would fight Grindelwald regardless if he loved him or not anyway. Or at least fight, while trying to get him to stop.

I also don't like the thought of Dumbledore being hung up on Grindelwald like Snape was on Lily. I think he is a stronger person than that, so I would take his visions in Mirror of Erised as an evidence that his feelings were reciprocated. Two months isn't much, but they are pretty extraordinary people, and in magic world truth and emotions are way more tangible than in normal world.

I also think that at seventeen Grindelwald didn't do anything strictly evil yet. And he really "only" looked down on people he considered beneath him, but Albus was probably different, special even. Albus might have thought he could "save" Grindelwald, put him on less murderous path at least. (You can kinda see that from his letter). But then realized he couldn't control him at all, way too late.

I think that pact might have been a way of trying to reign Grindelwald in, which backfired. And the Mirror of Erised scene could imply he still believes he could have done it, still might do it. Maybe that will come up in the next movies.

That also maybe the reason he treated Tom Riddle with much more "respect". Watched him, but didn't get too close. Once was enough.
And why he seems to like naturally good-hearted people like Harry so much now.

And for some reason, I don't believe Dumbledore blames Grindelwald for Ariana's death that much. He is seems to blame strictly himself.

 

This man right here would've been perfect as Grindelwald.

 

What I was hoping would happen didn't, but we have a few more movies left, so who knows...

Credence gets cursed/injured in such a way that his heart stops.

Because Rowling can't resist her compulsion to make the entire Wizarding World related to her OG cast, one of Penelope Clearwater's ancestors resuscitates him.

Credence. Clearwater. Revival.

And if you think that's a long way to go for a joke, I'd like to point out that it took over 2 hours for this movie to culminate in what was one case of amnesia and one daytime talk show commercial away from being a soap opera.

 

I'm still of the opinion that Grindelwald shouldn't be here at all. Who can really care about Fantastic Beasts with him and Credence hogging the spotlight?

 

You'd rather study Bowtruckles than see Grindelwald?

 

I'd rather have Grindelwald without the ill-fitting FB shoved into that story.