I'd prefer studying Bowtruckles to pretending Bowtruckles have anything to do with Grindelwald, at least.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred it if Fantastic Beasts went Indiana Jones on us: go on crazy adventures in cool locations to find some form of Magical creature, with Grindelwald and his henchmen after Newt and/or the Magical creature.

I actually liked the movie, but I agree that it seems silly to call it "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" when they seem way more interested in Grindelwald.

 

Which is why it's called Fantastic Beasts? I don't know, I like the way they were integrated into both of these. Newt is still the main character, and it's mostly surrounding him, but it also reflects his approach to the world.

 

Credence is Corvus Lestrange, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

1)If Credence is not Corvus Lestrange , then they wasted a whole movie on a red herring, really? I refuse to believe that.

2) If Credence is not a Lestrange, then who exactly is the father of Rabastan and Rodolphus? We didn't see any other Lestranges around, did we? It didn't seem like Leta had any other brothers. Sure there could have been a cousin that became the father of Rabastan and Rodolphus, but wouldn't they have been mentioned at least once? The movie made it seem like they had nobody else.

 

I dunno. It seems to me that a measure of how forced the Beasts concept is is how they've introduced not one, but two "magical creatures" that are essentially people, to connect that tagline into a story where it doesn't belong.

 

Theory: Dumbledore is Corvis Lestrange.

Proof? I dunno, who gives a fuck about timelines.

 

There was a Lestrange in Tom Riddle's gang in HBP, born about the same time as Tom I am assuming:

“Good gracious, is it that time already?” said Slughorn. “You’d better get going, boys, or we’ll all be in trouble. Lestrange, I want your essay by tomorrow or it’s detention. Same goes for you, Avery.”

 

Was Leta Lestrange's father dead as of CoG? Not impossible for him to father another child, even if the mentioned Lestrange peer of Riddle's should have already been born. Could also have been a cousin of Leta's.

 

Here be spoilers.

I agree. The movie made a point of showing Leta as isolated. She could have much older/younger relatives maybe, but...

Also, why did Leta go to Hogwarts at all? She was on her way from Paris to ‘Murica so they just dumped her in Britain cos it was in the middle after her father didn’t want her? The loose ends bother me. How did Leta go from L+N to being betrothed to Theseus?

Did Credence have the chick in the first movie? I don’t remember, but if he did than that would be a bit +Dumbledore. As it is the chick shows up in the same scene Grindelwald talks to Credence for the first time this movie. Reeks of a plant.

About the movie as a whole; I enjoyed it. Flamel and McGonagall being underused/undersold bothered me more than them showing up in the first place and I’m withholding judgement on Nagini. The movie did feel rushed/sloppy at points and the 3D really wasn’t all that but looking past that we had good acting, nice effects, fun beasts and great world building in places.

Now if only madam president of the ‘Muricans didn’t show up in a book from far left field to urge Flamel to go be the saviour of Paris.
--- Post automerged ---

LolTimelinecontinuity.

 

Maybe there are few lines of Lestranges and the ones supporting Voldemort do not come from Corvus nor Leta? I understand that Rowling seems to be scared of the concept of cousins carrying the same surname, but it's possible.

One of the problems that wasn't yet mentioned was forensics, it looked cool as hell, but why wasn't it used in books to solve some riddles? You can hand-wave Pettigrew's "death", because nothing was proper about procedure in this case. But what about Barty Jr.'s attack on Moody? What about basilisk attacks? What about Dark Mark on Quidditch World Cup? What about Barty Jr. killing Barty Sr.? What about people ransacking Snape's potion supplies? In CoS you can say that they were unable to determine who wrote on the wall, because hundreds of people walked all over crime scene, but with Newt's forensic spells they would be able to deduce who killed Hagrid's chicken and catch Ginny.

 

1. Newt invented that forensic magic

or

2. JK is wrecking her own lore wih FB because she has never been great with cohesive worldbuilding

Pick one.

 

Just Watched Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald, I'll share some of my thoughts.

Spoiler: My list.

Things I did not like:
Too many characters and sub-plots, Jacob felt incredibly out of place and not just because he is a muggle, I liked him in the first movie but not in the 2nd.

It would have been better if Tina and Newt were dating from the very beginning.

Leta Lestrange's death felt unnecessary, I wish we had seen more of her instead of Queenie, Jacob, and Nagini. Her death also diminishes the number of interesting characters.

The Credence and Blood-Pact reveal was anti-climatic. Even though the blood-pact makes sense, I wish they had mentioned it when Dumbledore was looking at the Mirror of Erised.

Things I liked:

Colin Farrell made me agree with him at the end of the first movie, I would have joined him if I was a Wizard. But the Grindelwald in the second movie felt a lot more cruel, manipulative and selfish, now I disagree with his methods and see him as a villain.

Grindelwald is incredibly powerful! Did he use long-distance wandless magic to make the Ministry worker grab his wand while falling and then cast a spell FOR him in order to save his life just for giggles? He also parried a curse from behind his back at the end of the movie.

I loved all of the new spells, weather magic, Newt's "Ventus", Dumbledore casually covering a very large area with mist, Accio being used to manipulate the Niffler, Newt altering the shape of his wand.

Spirit Cats creating clones of itself after being hit by a spell. Does that mean that gemino can be used to clone sentient creatures?

The Bounty-Hunter/Hitman, i like how he seemed to know his stuff. First, he goes inside the walls, then quickly immobilizes Nagini, next he swiftly kills Irma (The half-elf) and when Credence loses control the Hitman simply conjures a Shield Charm around himself and Disapparate from inside of it.

Just one of Grindelwald's spells could have destroyed all of Paris if left unchecked.

I enjoyed the movie.

Obs: I think J.K. Rowling will nerf Avada Kedavra, it does not seem impressive anymore. I thought you had to pronounce the words for this spell since it's so powerful, I thought only the likes of Voldemort could cast it non-verbally. And I'm talking about how that auror killed that redhead girl at the Mausoleum, he was like "WOAH *Avada Kedavra* ... my bad, she scared me :/". Maybe now Avada Kedavra can be blocked by a magic shield instead of one with physical substance.

 

There was a copy of the screenplay at my library, so I flipped through it today. Interesting fact was the fire in the end of the movie was supposed to be black. Not sure why they changed that. Also that Leta's strike destroyed Grindelwald's bong skull which I somehow didn't catch during the movie.

The fire protection... going by the incantation was that just fiendfyre shaped into a protection spell? Protego Diabolica. I don't know if we saw the incantation for fiendfyre in the actual books or not. Another interesting line was that Credence, via the wand, was able to channel the power of his obscurus and cause the huge explosion. Mildly interesting there. I do have hope for the future movies. I just hope they don't let Rowling write the screenplay all by herself like this one.

 

Going by the screenplay, it was not fiendfyre rather an entirely different protective spell. And no, we don't have any canon incantation for fiendfyre.

Spoiler: Excerpt from the screenplay

GRINDELWALD Protego diabolica.

He spins and draws a protective circle of black fire around himself. The exits close.

ABERNATHY, CARROW, KRAFFT, MACDUFF, NAGEL, and ROSIER walk through the flames into the circle.

ANGLE ON KRALL, hesitating.

Then he decides the circle is the better option, braces himself, runs into the fire—and is consumed.

 

Not sure whether to make a new thread for this one, but the third entry‘s title and moved-up release date has just been confirmed:

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore to be released globally 15th April 2022

Here‘s the blurb:

Spoiler

Professor Albus Dumbledore knows the powerful Dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald is moving to seize control of the wizarding world. Unable to stop him alone, he entrusts Magizoologist Newt Scamander to lead an intrepid team of wizards, witches and one brave Muggle baker on a dangerous mission, where they encounter old and new beasts and clash with Grindelwald’s growing legion of followers. But with the stakes so high, how long can Dumbledore remain on the sidelines?

 

Blurb sounds like it could describe CoG.

 

Don't know about anyone else, but I definitely won't be watching this. Even though I really enjoyed the first one (probably my favourite HP film), the second was just such an absolute mess and even worse it seemed to have no respect for everything that came before it. I'm still annoyed about Credense apparently being a Dumbledore and Newt really doesn't have any business being involved at this point either.

 

I'm mostly hoping for some good memes at the moment, to be honest. A decent trailer could work wonders, but I'm very wary after the last one.

 

I just want 15 minutes of Anakin vs Obi-wan style Albus vs Grindlewald. This movie, next movie, don't care.

 

I still hold out hope that Creedence Dumbledore was a lie by Gellert to manipulate him.