Hey Guys, I hope you liked today's video. If you want to support me in creating these essays then please consider supporting me on patreon. You'll find a bunch of cool rewards there like early access to my videos and a patron exclusive discord where I'm very active and we can chat rubbish about movies. There's a link in the description. I look forward to seeing you there :) Have a great day, - Henry
The problem with your solution is Dumbledore never really says anything to anyone because he likes to keep secrets so telling Newt about his blood pact would be extremely out of character for him.
Tysvm for explaining how to use show don't tell properly. After all the writing teachers, articles, and TH-cam videos I've encountered, you're the first I've seen to critique the "show don't tell" strategy. You're a big help. Thanks 😊
I haven't seen the movie, so I have no opinion on the movie or the accuracy of your analysis here. But I appreciated so much your in depth discussion and how you provide concrete and objective reasons as to your thoughts on it.
Why couldn't this have just been a comfy series about taming and caring for Fantastic Beasts? the main cast is so good too but it feels like they're wasted. The whole Grindelwald thing could have been a completely separate prequel movie.
Exactly! Thats what I wanted from this series. Small Stories about Fantastic Beasts and their Carer while on the sideline some major things happen. This is how the first one was structured and it worked well and this is what I expected of the second one. But instead of that they almost completely dumbed Newts Story Arc as an Explorer and instead made him into some Warrior for Dumbledores Cause who has to fight through a whole bunch of exposition non-sense. The Movie comes across more as a history book instead of being an actual movie.
Max Kehm honestly having him go after grindlewald makes 0 sense it’s like if we had recruited Steve Irwin to hunt osama bin laden. Newt isn’t a fighter
@@luanagullotta6218 i knooowww right, i hate it to this day, that whole movie was muted, so many shots were monochrome and especially neutral colours like grey and beige, that I feel like it must have been deliberate. Idk why tho, for what Purpose™??
"Now, it's important to protect yourself from magic, and computers are a lot like magic. But since there aren't any magic spells in real life, I use NordVPN..."
@@zakc2340 I was paying attention. Titling your movie The Crimes of Grindelwald makes it sound like you're talking about previous crimes. The movie didn't show the crimes of Grindelwald it showed what makes him dangerous.
One of my big gripes with this film is that it took everything from the first Fantastic Beasts ending and reset it at the beginning: Credence is gone -> Credence is back (unexplained), Newt and Tina are on good/affectionate terms -> they aren't talking to each other, Jacob loses his memory -> Jacob has his memory back (sort of), Grindelwald is captured -> Grindelwald escapes (ok this one was obviously going to happen at the beginning, but when combined with all the other resets it's just annoying).
Jacob gaining his memories alongside Grindelwald escaping are the only acceptable resets for me tbh, the reason why jacob didnt lose his memories were , for me, valid as Newt used a different potion than what MACUSA usually uses. though i would like if they include a small foreshadow like Tina complaining to Newt about how some No-Maj's remember the events (mostly kids) and Newt explains why while Queenie just listens in, knowing about Jacob
except we knew credence alive at the end of FB, newt watches the particle disappear, Newt and Tina not talking to each other was explained, and so was Jacob's memory. Watch the bloody movie for once
@@adityabhalekar3506 Did watch the movie. Just because "we knew" some these things happened doesn't make them satisfying story decisions. Making a sequel by reversing everything important in the first movie isn't the best way to go about it in my opinion. A sequel should build upon developments not cheaply reverse them. This is just my opinion though. You are very welcome to disagree.
What works about the first Fantastic Beasts movie is that it doesn't feel like the first part of some grand movie trilogy. Its an isolated story within the Harry Potter universe. Every character's arc finishes and all plot points end nicely. Newt isn't portrayed as the chosen one or the awesome hero, he's just a weird eccentric guy who likes animals. The beginning of this movie is quite literally the ministry forcing Newt to take part in the plot for seemingly no reason. He's not an extremely powerful wizard and this situation doesn't call for his expertise with magical animals. They essentially get a Zoo Keeper to help them fight an extremely dangerous, homicidal dark wizard. The movie should have been about Young Dumbledore because this entire movie is built around a reference to a duel he and Grindelwald had and apparently they're lovers so that would had some character motivation. But nah just have Dumbledore lean against the desk for 5 minutes, its fine.
@@zegrasisinnocent except people do that when they actually need money none of these people need money they are just making a bad product because they think it's what people want right now
Seriously. Why didn't they just make a Young Dumbledore movie? I feel like that would have solved all their issues. 1) More HP stuff. 2) Cash Grab. 3) Nostalgia, 4) You can add all the sex changes and orientation changes you want.
Tangerine Tech maybe their relatinship twist would have been received better if it was about dumbledore and jk didn't push it so hard. I would have probably loved their romance if it didn't feel like pandering. I mean, if you are going to make dumbledore being gay into a big thing the at least make it about him
Newt Scamander is an eccentric, but fairlu normal wizard who wants to write textbooks. Why does he need to be a key figure in in wizard world war 1? Seriously, cramming minor characters into major events like this is something I associate with fanfics based around oc's, not a professionally made movie.
You're right. Fantastic Beasts 1 did it well in that he was introduced to the story properly, in a way that fit his character. He actually would have had an interest in what was going on. However, in the 2nd film, his character had nothing to do with the events going down. He was the last person to actually be fighting in the war.
@@themage1016 Exactly. What led to this massive change in character? He's a magical creature conservationist for God's sake, not a fighter or anything.
Awesome comment! He does feel like a poorly written OC character in a fanfic written by a kid. Or rather, poorly *integrated* . There's nothing wrong with Newt originally, but Rowling shouldn't have forced him into this other storyline.
Fantastic Beasts 1 should have been a single, one off installment. It would make so much more sense that way. But then again, making only one film doesn't make the big bux. I really liked Newt Scaramander in the first film, but dumping him in this one does far more harm to his character than good. More of a character is not always better.
In the other films she was not the screenwriter. She took advice apparently on the first Beasts movie, but the flaws of the second screenplay are all her own missteps.
@@tornyiegrace1696 Exactly! People, who question why character A has not a scene with character B in the potter movies like he had in the book, don't understand that film writing is completely different from book writing. Fantastic Beast 2 is a prime example what happens when you try to write a movie in the way you would write a book. It comes out as clusterfuck with too many characters, too many useless plots and unnecessary character work (character work, which lead to absolute nothing!).
She forgot that in HP series she said Animagus could willingly transform, even the permanent transformation is a choice. Sirius says something on this line to Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban. Even Snape taught them so in his class. In FB2, suddenly animagus can transform only upto a number of times after that it becomes permanent automatically. If that were true why would Sirius ask Harry to stay with him after school in Order of Phoenix. He would be dog by then by fantastic beast 2 logic. She should read her books before writing anything related to it.
She should've written books, and that movies were based on those, not directly from her pen. She wants a compelling story with many, many characters, but on the big screen that is just not possible (Unless you make a tv series like GoT). She should've just taken her time and written another bookseries, not movies.
What if we view this franchise as a series with very long episodes and not individual movies? There are some more films planned as far as i know, so maybe the story was planned to work better over several movies.
@@Cyliandre441 Then it should be advertised as such; now it's a franchise. A franchise in cinema. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them, Fantastic Beasts: the crimes of Grindelwald, and so on. Also, in cinema one movie tells a story. It should stand alone respectively, and form one arch or more to satisfy the audience. This movie just didn't deliver, and threw in a bunch of characters with some sort of odd climax. I felt no empathy nor sympathy for any of them, purely because it was so poorly set up. Even if we were to view it as a part of a bigger story, it's still bad.
@@Jiskpirate It'll be better when you can binge watch all of them back to back. It reminded me of an old DBZ tactic of right when it starts to get interesting, "NEXT TIME, ON FANTASTIC BEASTS!"
Wow, I had the same reaction, except I really did think the end was only the end of the second act. When the new dumbledore brother shot a blast and took out a mountain side I leaned over to my friend and actually said, "Could you imagine if the movie just ended right here." Then the movie ended right there lol
I think its probably cause the writers dont look at it like 5 storys but like 1 and we have only seen the 1st act and startup of the second act with that thought the next movie should have no 1st act exposision and just feel like a "seconden act movie" zo a movie with no exposision and no payoff at the end that would then be only 2 movies later
You know in Fellowship of the Ring when Frodo and Samwise are just walking away? Yeah, loads of people in the cinema when I watched it obviously hadn't read the books and were shocked it ended there.
I’m American and I say film instead of movie sometimes. It’s common. Everyone in America has different levels of vocabulary and even some who have a decent amount of vocabulary knowledge don’t always use it.
This is the breakdown of the plot of both Beasts and Crimes so far. Beasts: Where is Credence? Crimes: Who is Credence? Movie 3: Why is Credence? -Summary courtesy of Drax
Not to mention: Leta has all that flashback stuff then just straight up dies, nobody cared about her anyway. And nobody really cares about Credence. Not sure why they're focusing on him so much.
I agree they spent way too much time on Credence - I assumed he would have a few minutes of screen time after Fantastic Beasts but wow they went deep into his character
@@HeyNonyNonymous "Show, don't tell" is universal advice for storytelling, regardless of medium. It's also fusion of at least two important pieces of advice; so it's efficient but obscurers some nuance. One piece is that action is more engaging than dialogue. If something can be conveyed to the audience through actions rather than be explained directly, that's more engaging. Note that this doesn't mean "dialogue is bad". If something can be portrayed through how a character participates in dialogue (showing wit or charisma or feelings), that's dialogue serving as action. The second big piece is that action is more believable. If the audience gets some info by having it played out (flashback to background info or seeing a character act in a way that demonstrates a character trait) the audience knows that's a thing that exists in the story. If a character says that X-is-a-thing, then it's only true so far as that character is being honest and right. A BIG corollary of this is that if the audience is told that something is true but actions contradict that statement, the actions are going to be believed. If the story is supposed to be about a shy protag breaking out of their shell and stepping up to a challenge, the character usually needs to behave shyly in actions in the beginning and probably face some loss or hardship as a result. This is avoiding what TVTropes calls an "Informed Attribute".
@@HeyNonyNonymous The concept of "show, don't tell" was drilled in all my English classes, when we were reading books. It, ironically, makes more sense with more modern forms of storytelling, like cinema, but the phrase very much originated with novels.
When they wrote the Lord of the Rings screenplay(imo the greatest adaption of a book ever made) Fran, Philippa and Peter were incredibly firm and removed anything, no matter how cool and popular they were to the fanbase, that wasn't directly important to Frodo or the Ring. An unenviable task since that book is huge and the established fanbase built over decades would be hyper critical. But it was necessary for the sake of making a coherent movie. Yeah they got loads of Oscars but I still don't think they got the recognition they deserved. Especially Fran and Philippa , I feel like Peter Jackson gets most of the credit because he directed as well but the three of them wrote one hell of a screenplay. Rowling sadly does not have those writing chops. AND shes pulling it all out of her ass as she goes since she doesn't have a well written book to go from.
@@ooooneeee Jackson wanted the Hobbit to be a single movie though, he fought tooth and nails to have it be done in a single movie, but the executive producers didn't want to and were all for the new trilogy. It was not his fault
Rowling should've had an actual screenwriter to handle her ideas. It's so obvious she's a book author and I feel like her cool ideas could've been turned into a way better movie if she had worked with someone who actually knows how to script one.
I think the most criminal thing about Fantastic Beasts 2 was how it's a horrible sequel. Fantastic Beasts 1 had it's flaws certainly but the ending with Credence's Death and Kowalski being forced to forget his adventure and go back to his mundane normal life were tragic. It gave the film a melancholic, sombre ending and you really felt sorry for these characters. Then Fantastic Beasts 2 comes along and completely retcons both of those emotional hooks within the first ten minutes of the film. What a way to ruin the ending of Fantastic Beasts 1.
Rawpowered The first film teased Credence’s survival and never confirmed that he died and as for Jacob retaining his memories, that was also teased in the first film.
Don skeng Except both of what he said weren’t true The Crimes of Grindelwald is a film with an actual story to tell and actual character development. Fantastic beasts is a mess of ideas that never stick and a plot that has absolutely no stakes
I don’t mind that they “retconned” Credence and Kowalski. I mind the way they went about it. It did ruin Fantastic Beasts which I enjoyed despite a couple of flaws. I can see how Credence could survive and expected it. Same with Kowalski remembering. The end scene at his bakery had to come to something. I don’t like that they didn’t show how Credence escaped or got to the circus. How he formed a friendship with Nagini. It’s just foisted on us. It spoils her character also because she doesn’t even speak and just mopes around yet they made such a big deal about Nagini in publicity. Also, I’m so sad and mad about what they did with Queenie. I don’t get why she’d have to use a love spell on Kowalski? Why couldn’t they just move somewhere else like the UK? There were mixed relationships there even if it was in the low. It wasn’t illegal. Then she drops it the moment she listens to Grindelwald. I’m doing all this for us so I’m leaving you for someone who wants to kill your kind. Makes sense!
it makes me really sad to see how jk is destroying her own universe trying to create this series when she clearly isn't doing it because she loves it. the difference between the Fantastic Beasts series and Harry Potter is glaring. Harry Potter was clearly written because she loved the story and the characters. fantastic beasts just isn't it
@@lorrainem.swartzentruber3077 The Hobbit was an absolute tragedy. In another universe we could have had a single great Hobbit Adaption faithful to the tone of the book instead of three drawn out miserable lotr prequels. Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, it’s a pity he wasn’t the main character
@@lorrainem.swartzentruber3077 wait, was "lord of the ring" first and than the sequal "the hobbit". Even like what is happening with the harry potter series and fantasric beast follow up? Or is the hobbit and LOTR like not intent do be a follow up or something?
@@polymerasiecondens6857 basically the hobbit takes place before lord of the rings and has little to do with lord of the rings aside from Bilbo finding the ring and meeting Gollum. Everything else in the hobbit has nothing to do with LOTR
@@happyllama1160 I think the hobbit were good film. I agree they were drawn out too long, but I enjoyed everything in them. So, I will unfortunately have to disagree with you.
The problem is that it's easy to write exposition dumps like this into a long book, but it doesnt work in a 3 hour movie. Youre right that the entire movie feels like an exhausting exposition, then everything explodes, followed by wild, out-of-left-field plottwist that only exists to set up the next movie. Youd think the 2nd movie of a proposed trilogy would have the most rising action, not the most exposition. I felt like there was going to be a quiz after about all the characters.
The 2nd movie of a trilogy in hollywood circles the way it is usually done. Ends with the protagonist(s) losing something, or ending up in a worse position than when they started, but left with a glimmer of hope. Like for example; The Empire Strikes Back, LoTR: The Two Towers, The Dark Knight, all end on a cliffhanger or with the main protagonist at their lowest point. Were they will have to find a way to redeem or reinvent themselves.
Honestly, it feels like Rowling has broken the films themselves into the structure beats. She has 5 movies planned. And so far they seem to fit that theory. Movie one is the opening. The hook to get you interested. Something that is usually only a chapter long in a book, or the first 5 to 10 minites of a film. Movie two is ACT 1. The characters were established in the hook and now we establish the world the story will take place in. That of the wizarding world in the 1920s, and how the world is devided on Grindalwald. Ending with the inciting incident (or plot point 1) and the choice that goes along with it. If the films continue in this manner, then the next film, Movie 3, will be the conflict of the series. As you put it, the rising action. Or Act 2. This is where the main characters are dealing with the conflict, but usually playing catch up to the antagonist. It will then end at the Midpoint (or plot point 2) Movie 4 would then be the second half of ACT 2. More rising action, but different from the previous as the main characters are actively trying to wrestle control back from the antagonist. This fill would then end at either the Crisis or just before it durring the calm before the storm. Which leaves the fifth and final film being ACT 3, the climax and resolution. Where we have our final showdown with the antagonist. If this is how Rowling is writing these films, its a nasty way to do it. It is possible to write this way, but its increadably complicated. I would say a master craft, which Rowling is not a master writer. She had a successful run with Harry Potter, but that was increably simple writing. I'm not saying shes a terrible writer. Harry Potters success shpuld speek for itself. What I am saying, is that shes not a screenwriter. And that trying to write a complicated 5 part screenplay is not something you should attempt on your first pass at screenwriting.
this was exactly the thought that I had while watching this video. it has only one act, because it IS only one act. with how this movie only exists to set up for the next movie I believe that is the case.
Something that also bothered me is how each new movie in the Harry Potter universe drifts further and further away from spells. Most of the spells cast in the film are done without magic words. It feels like an important part of the world building is the magic and how it works, and that it's being thrown out for some reason.
THANK YOU! Finally someone talked about that. I find it really annoying.... in the Harry Potter movies, casting spells without saying the magic words wasn't easy for "normal" wizards. But in these movies, they just cast spells without saying a fucking word. Wtf!! And that's something nobody talks about on yt
In fairness, the characters are adults, not children, and many of them are *highly* skilled. Non-verbal magic was explicitly taught at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter novels, with the impression being given that adults don't speak their spells as much as kids do because they have mastered them to the point where they no longer need to. Most of the Hogwarts teachers didn't need to speak spells aloud and only did so for the purpose of demonstrating spells to their students. So it's a case where a large part of the change is because the characters are years or decades older than most of the characters in Harry Potter.
@@DannyEXE31 Maybe because some people - like me - think that's a rather good adjustment. The Harry Potter books and movies told a story about students. But Fantastic Beasts is not a story about students anymore, it's a story about "complete" wizards. So they do the stuff not exactly the way they were teached to but in a less formulaic way. I mean the same can be seen in the Order of the Phoenix in the battle between the Order and the Death Eaters: the spells are mostly cast without words. That the teachers at Hogwarts cast spells by using words is not contradicting this. I mean that's a typical behavior for teachers in the real world as well: doing all the stuff exactly the way they teach them. Once you drop out of school but find yourself in the need of some long division you wouldn't write it down like in school, would you? You would just scrawl it down until you have your result. But most teachers I know wouldn't. They would stick to the "correct form" under all costs.
@//Cassiopeya Plus\\ - As mentioned below, this is actually shown in the Harry Potter novels, particular with regards to Defense Against the Dark Arts. In a duel, it is very important to not reveal to your opponent what you are doing by shouting spells out loud. At one point Harry gets called out in that he uses Expelliarmus so much that it's become his recognizable "signature move" and that his penchant for saying the spell out loud attracts attention. Learning to cast spells non-verbally is part of the Hogwarts curriculum for students during their later years.
Regarding "show, don't tell"... to steal a phrase from Barbossa, it's a guideline rather than an actual rule. Same is true for most of the "rules" of storytelling, whether in novels, movies, or otherwise. You _can_ break the "rules," as long as you know what you're doing.
Wise Words. All 'rules' in Writing Fiction Exist only to prevent Writers from Embarrassing themselves, Ruining their work or Offending too much. All Of them Can be Broken, if One knows how to Break them and 'Live', So to speak.
You seriously left a comment explaining that the literary "rules" aren't actual rules.... So, do you think most people actually believe these rules are enforced by some kind of literature P. D.? "Sir, you broke a literary rule, heres your fine.". Of course they're not actual rules, of course they're just guidelines which can be broken or bent. Everyone understands the subtleties of communication, like expressions. Not every single word is always meant literally. And what I find more bizarre is how you worded it like you're correcting him or educating him, but the video talks about how different "rules" work for different stories, it's not a one size fits all approach, so all you did was repeat something the video already covered. Then someone said "Wise words"... Really?!?! My IQ is so low that I cannot fathom the wisdom of your comment. To me, I read common sense stuff that was explained better in the video and needed no further explanation. TH-cam video: we all know that the sky is blue. I like blue. Nothing says a nice day like a blue sky. But the sky is also black at night and sometime orange during sunsets, those can also be nice... " Comments: actually the sky isn't always blue. That's just a generalization and not a rule, the color actually changes throughout the day. During sunsets the sky may be orange and look more beautiful than when the sky is blue. Replies: that is such an interesting take which adds much to the conversation. I hadn't heard anyone put it that way (especially not this very video) Thank you for such a thought provoking comment. Me: bitching at other people because I'm unhappy with my life. But also because the comment was stupid.
@@frauleinhohenzollern We know, the name Hoenzollern already hints at a lvl of inbread most people don't even know is possible. We know that you cannot help yourself. If you'd be more inbred you'd be a sandwich.
No joke for a really long time I planned on calling this video "Fantastic Fails: The Crimes Of J.K. Rowling" but in the end I realised that was maybe a bit too clickbaity.
@@TheCloserLook To be fair, that can be spin into politicized sensation since J.K Rowling herself are known to be very politically driven on her social media presences in the internet
J.K. Rowling: "hermione was black all time along" also J.K. Rowling: "proceed to create and kill the useless character played by one of the most attractive black woman i've ever seen"
@@selobee4831 Besides maybe 5-10 minutes of padding in the beginnimg with Kowalski helping Newt out, literally every instance of a fantastic beast was a plot device and just to go "ooh, look at the thing oh wait it's trying to kill us nevermind."
The problem with the FB films is instead of either doing a more lighthearted series about Newt looking after his animals or a darker toned one about Grindlewald's rise to power and Dumbledore finally deciding to stop him they tried to push those 2 different stories and tones into 1 series.
JK Rowling: I can't canonize the gay character I announced to get praise because the studio won't give me full control over the script Also JK Rowling: Let's make a movie with no conflict
@@genma986 Sexuality is a spectrum. That's why bi-sexuals, pansexuals, and asexuals exist. Honestly, I think that purely straight people are in the minority when you factor in the number of bi-sexuals and people with deviant sexualities that don't fall into the LGBT categories. I've been saying for a while now that the next big thing will be transspecies people and transspecies rights when the technology is there. Tell me you can't picture it. "In this era where people are transforming themselves into cats and marrying non-cats. I would just like to say that McGonagall embraced her sexuality and became a transspecies person before it was cool. Therefore, I'm the most progressive writer in the world!" - J.K.Rowling
When i saw this film in the cinema, someone cried when the characters died in that climax. Like, they cried out loud, i couldn't even remember the names of the characters, it was so funny.
@@chinuaalibatya7345 he is saying that the characters are so forgettable, it ain't worth remembering their name, although you could be sarcastic with that comment lol
@You’re Late! I he wasn't talking about the important character's, that comment of his made no sense. There were important and unimportant people who died in that climax, and Garbodor Appologist couldn't've had any way of knowing which character that person was crying about. At that point his story doesn't add up. I liked this film, and I think it's getting too much hate. But anyway I'm not going to discuss about that.
@@pieterd3408 My goodness, you took the original comment wayyy too literally... Sorry I have to explain the joke but they were making a hyperbolic juxtaposition for comedic effect. Someone who cried over the characters vs. someone who didnt even know their names. Because these two items are so unlike one another, it creates a disconnect and therefore is humorous. You may now laugh.
This sequel hurt me as I loved the first film fully and then there’s just this... like there was NO story ... I mean there was but it was all contradicting itself
Besides the missing second act, it had a climax that resolved an other build up than what we saw. Felt like watching a movie and then stopping it before climax and watching the end of an other movie that has a similar topic.
Maybe it's Johnny Depp's slow downfall by lack of acting talent. I think the salt water dried it up during his time with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
@@LuisEsparza0526 so...what kirklechoake ! said is true in a sense...the backstory to Harry Potter (his parents) would take place during the cold war. ('70s-80s)
The narrator's critique boils down to: Rowling needed to write a book form of the crimes of grindelwald and have someone write the screen play based on the manuscript.
im sorry i just had to say, when people wright lmao with lots of o's i think of LAUGHING MY ASS OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF maybe the last 5 off's are meant to be coughs because of laughing too hard
March 22, 2019 In reality Dobby was the Chosen One. And he was terminally ill which is why he let Harry become the Chosen One. That's why he was so obsessed with him. He was vicariously living through him. WHERE IS MY PAYCHECK?
I already have, collectively. It's about a 50/50 as to which is more entertaining after the sixtieth watch. It's infinitely less insulting to fans, though, and that's coming from a non-fan
And here my biggest problem was that Dumbledore, who was previously defined by his accomplishments, competence, and compassion now comes from some legendary line of wizards who have prophecies about them and an affinity for Phoenixes. It's easy to be a great person when it's setup for you. Kind of cheapens the whole thing.
Stranger haven’t seen the movie, I’ve absolutely no interest, but that’s a pretty fucking stupid inclusion. Also, does this bloodline and prophecy just ignore siblings. You would think a legendary bloodline would at least let his brother do more than manage a bar.
Alex Nunes and with what happened to his sister and father. And his mother. But yeah they were all legendary... My god why does this movie suck so much?
Stranger --Also that the explanation for Ariana was she had ‘turned her magic inward’ but the most powerful wizard couldn’t do anything to keep her safe!!?? Hell, Voldemort protected Nagini more!
@@triblasterdude9406 nope, the real plot twist is halloween nightmare on elm street and friday the thirteenth is a combined role play game the 3 are playing
yes, same here. But it's so sad to see how his characters gets each movie more and more ruined. I love the Newt from Fantastic Beasts 1, who doesn't chose sides etc, but now suddenly he choses sides and starts to behave more and more not like Newt. It makes me really sad honestly, because I really enjoyed having a male protagonist who was a bit different from what we normally get to see, if you know what I mean. I hope that J.K. Rowling won't ruin his character more in the next movies.
@@a.matuszewska7758 And they did ruin him in 3rd part. They completely broke his arc from 1rst film. Because in 1rst movie Jacob was for him a family & in 3rd movie he treated him poorly.
i definately agree, dumbledore is smart and manipulative, he does things for his own gain(most of the time) and him helping newt made some sense but just straight up saying this shit to someone not that important is NOT his character and is not the dumbledore that was first written
I think one of the main reason for J K Rowling messing up the script is that she is an book author, there should have been a scriptwriter like on every harry potter movie, the studio obviously had to much confidence in her writing ability that she would be able to write a script and that's not a dig at Rowling she is having to do something completely different working within film run times and thinking about limits in budget etc. Also David Yates as the director she have some more blame then you place on him here, as he could have changed some things around to fit a film format better.
@@InfernoBlade64 I mean making nagini a human and other things doesn't really take much brain power or time and generally are just spur of the moment things. So it is obviously something different
Agreed, I blame David Yates a lot more. He is the director, he should DIRECT the creative energy instead of letting JKR do whatever... she is new at this, and Yates did a shit job of guiding any of it. The filming was horrible, felt like a roller coaster camera.
I also think that the characters were really lost in this film. For example, Newt doesn’t seem the type to fight with his brother. So the fact that this was one of the main plot points of the movie really threw me off. I feel like the character’s personalities weren’t consistent from movie to movie.
I don't feel like Newt, the human Hufflepuff puppy, is the guy you recruit to fight your war against the most powerful evil wizard of that time in your stead just because you can't fight them yourself because of reasons.
Also in the movie, the romantic subplot between Newt and whats her name was out if left field cause he showed NO INTEREST in her whatsoever (and vice versa) yet they added it in and it pissed me off. So another pointless addition.
I agree! I also think my main problem with the movie is that this is not a stand alone film. Every movie-- regardless if it is a franchise or not, needs to be able to stand on its own. The movie should not rely solely on the past or future movies in that universe. All this movie does is set up future plot points for the next installment of Fantastic Beasts, and does not focus on the ones it was supposed to fulfill in this movie.
Chris Hahn that’s not the problem, the timeline of credence being a Dumbledore makes no logical sense AND mcgonagall being a teacher at that time also makes no sense, realistically she would’ve been a student herself at that time. That’s the continuity that pisses me off the most, let alone this stupid “blood bond” between Albus and grindelwald. It completely removes any complexity and empathy towards their connection.
to me the worst thing about the movie is that one inclusion to use the meme No one: I would really like to see some of the other teachers of Harry in this fantastic beast franchise JK Rowling: I got you, I am just going to wiggle a young McGonagall in there. Everyone: But she used to be born in 1935 JK Rowling: Yes I know. Everyone: But the movie takes place in 1927 right JK Rowling: Yeah it takes place like a year after the first movie Everyone: So that is 1927 JK Rowling: I think it is, I am not that good at math, remember that one time I said Dumbledore was 150 only for him to turn out to be 115 at his death. Everyone: Yeah we remember, you're really bad at this plot consistency and internal logic stuff, aren't you? JK Rowling: *crickets*
Dumbledore spent 35 years repeatedly going back in time to try to prevent Grindelwald from turning evil and his sister from being mentally crippled and then killed. That means that chronologically he was born 115 years before his death but physically he'd lived 150 years. And yet, he doesn't look a day over 80.
"There's no way J. K Rowling could forget to have a second act in her movie" Well she forgot to make Ron not a joke, forgot to make Slytherin a house that wasn't just "bad guy house" and a couple other things. Whatever your opinions on her, like we need to be realistic here: She didn't become the super star because she wrote amazing books. She wrote good books, with good characters and good world building around the wizarding world. Especially now, this doesn't feel like a passionate writer wanting to expand the world she's written. it felt like her wanting to line her deep pockets a little more
And it works. Even if she makes bad productions, people are still going to go and pay her money to buy tickets to it. The second movie was a mess and just dreadful. But people are excitedly waiting to see the next one in the theatres. Yay.
I mean, the Slytherins kind of got a bit more compelling with the Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Malfoy finally got a bit more developed to be more than just a racist bully with his desire to kill Dumbledore to save his family, Snape's backstory was pretty interesting, and the entire sequence with the Gaunts and Voldemort's past life added a bit more meat to his character as a whole. And the entire thing with the various Hogwarts Ghosts and how Rowena's daughter connected with the diadem and the Bloody Baron was actually a pretty compelling segment that should have been built up more. But then again, these were the final two books in the entire series.
@@catherine.marial The movies screwed him up by giving his lines to Hermione - like explaining what mudblood means - and making him just comic relief. So why is the genius Hermione falling for this idiot? In the books they have a good dynamic where she's booksmart and he's streetsmart
She was always like this... It's just that in Harry Potter books she managed to create emotional rollercoaster that overshadowed all the worldbuilding inconsistencies and nonsensical characters.
I was so excited as those dark shrouds started to fly around and they said "Grindelwald is gathering his followers' thinking that something was about to go down band that the villain had made the first move toward conflict as the heroes were yet un-prepared-- but then the sheet blew away and nothing happened.
FB1 is a stand-alone movie. FB2-5 will be one movie divided into 4. Go figure. I still wish that JK would actually get herself together. She's a great book author. I hope she remembers that that's her strength. Screenwriting isn't her forte.
Maybe she could be if she wasnt so focused on writing it as a series instaid of good individual movies. I only watched the first one. Im realy scared for this one
@@ontos8534 in the hp and the orden of the Order of the Phoenix she said that she became a teacher in 1956. When in this movie (1920s) she was presented like a young teacher at Hogwarts.
@@попугай-к1н No, the quote from the book says she had been teaching for 39 years. Of course people would naturally assume those would be consecutive years, but in theory she could've started teaching in the 1920s, left for a period of time, and then come back to teach a total 39 non-consecutive years. It's a bit of a silly reach, but there have been worse reaches. I mean, Rowling legit retconned Dumbldore's age while she was writing the original series and people didn't get up in arms about that, so not sure why out of all things this is a massive problem now.
@@ksolveig7263 Her whole backstory has been listed on Pottermore. Actually, her birth year was also on there until people started haranguing her for this flop. Gonny worked at the ministry right after leaving school with high honors and voted "most promising transfiguration" something or other. She worked there for 3 years if I remember correctly. Then dumbledore coerced her to take over transfiguration so he could be headmaster. She went directly from the ministry and stayed at hogwarts as uninterrupted head of house and transfiguration teacher. This is cross-referable in her pottermore page, the Gryffindor head of house page, Dumbledore's page, and the ministry pages. She legitimately wasn't born yet, and we've many frames of reference why she can't be there, especially as Dumbledore has to still teach transfiguration leaving no room for Gonny. Additionally, Pomona is a school contemporary of Gonny (on both Gonny's page and Sprout's page), and Pomona isn't born yet, either. She was also mentioned in-book as "a sprightly 70" in Harry Potter's years in the general narration, versus Dumbledore's age which was spoken (with uncertainty) by fred/george. Sure, Rowling bungles all math, always, but she's been remarkably consistent with Gonny until now, and she's tangled Gonny into too many time-reliant events. Dumbles' age she buggered from day 1, with f&g guessing "over 100" which is correct, then in interviews early on she claimed "150" which doesn't fit, later claiming his big peak was during world war II, etc. While Dumbles was essentially just a plot device rather than a character until pretty much book 6/7, she'd flopped all over about his age, so no one was bothered. Later when he became important and actually posessed a backstory, people did take digs at her for all the fumbling. It's like if she changed filtch's age in Harry Potter's age to "40", but later in FB series he turned out to be in his 60's, and some fantastic hero (or villian) with a 2-movie plot all about him. Suddenly the age matters more because the character actually has a purpose and, well, character. Rather than a generic antagonistic force or plot device to move the protagonist. Without a backstory, no age really has relevance. Hagrid has to be a certain age because of Riddle, Flitwick has to be old enough to have taught Snape & Marauders, etc. Yet Sinistra just has to be an adult as of HP's school years. You get me? Gonny breaks existing canon, and at the time of breakage (now) we are aware of the flaw so it draws attention. Dumbledore's age flumps were all before he had a backstory, so it didn't draw as much ire (though she still does get shit for it).
The midpoint of Jurassic Park is the T-Rex breaking out of its paddock, stepping between the cars, and giving us our first earful of her glorious roar.
"Show Don't Tell" Doesn't refer to exposition or scene setting. It's about characterization. If a character is sad, don't have them say "I'm sad" SHOW them sad. If a villain would give up anything to get the widget, don't have them say "I'd give anything to have that thingamabob". SHOW them choosing to get the whatchamacallit rather than saving their beloved friend. It's a really basic concept, and I'm getting tired of critics missusing it.
?? Some of the best storytelling moments in contemporary film and television rely on the omission of dialogue and verbal confirmation. For example, back when Game of Thrones was still respected at the end of Season 6, Jon Snow is revealed to be a Targaryen almost entirely without dialogue, which raised the stakes for not only his character but also the wider implications on the *narrative* (that is until the butchery that was S7-8). Adversely speaking of GoT, one of the more prominent criticisms of the writing in Seasons 7-8 was the switch of dialogue language from characterised perceptions and observations to unnecessary exposition of events that had already happened, or things that could have been communicated much more effectively through pictorial or visual storytelling. "Show don't tell" isn't just restricted to characterization as a principle, and the film major who is presenting his argument here is much more convincing than your criticism of that very argument.
From the very first time I watched the movie I thought that flashback-exposition dump was so weird. We get a bunch of characters together, one tells a story, then the other tells and even longer story and we basically learn nothing of significance, then one of them dies. Like, what was that for?? So we know what Leta's greatest fear was, the fact that she got sick of her brother crying so she swapped him with another baby and her real brother died? But her brother apparently isn't dead, he's Credence, or is he? No he's not her brother, he's not the baby she swapped her brother with either, how is he connected to any of this? IDK I mean he says it himself if I remember right, he says "So who am I?" or sth like that. We literally learn nothing, we just wasted time.
5:46 "Now I am no artist, says every teacher who's ever written on a whiteboard, ever." LOL'd, he's right.... as a professor myself, I legitimately say that when I write on the whiteboard and so do all my colleagues, trololol. Instant like for you, Mr. video maker.
Sad thing, I loved the first Fantastics Beast movie. This one was horrible. Execution was terrible, writing was terrible, and they had characters that served no purpose really to the plot. They dragged Queenie and Jacob (two favorites from the first) into this film just to character assasinate Queenie who everyone loved. It was ridiculous. You lacked a core cast of heroes. You have Gary Stu still (only gripe about first film) and his comedic relief Jacob. They also introduced major retconns to both the books and the first movie. Main character was an "agent of Dumbledore". Dumbledore is a "major player" and considered a "great wizard" at that time. Dumbledore was not any of those things, he was at the start of his career. He was considered brilliant, but it wasn't until his defeat of Grindelwald that people considered him great. It's also suggested that he didn't become a player until later in life. Grindelwald was the player. They also retconned why Dumbledore didn't face him, which was just retarded (as he could have just told the Aurors that he had a blood oath). In the books it is heavily implied that Dumbledore feared to face him due to not knowing who killed his sister. He finally faced him when there was no other choice. I think the lack of suspense is the main character lacks agency and worry. He's also a gary stu. There are scenes when trained Aurors are getting completely owned by Grindelwald, yet Gary Stu is able to deflect his attatcks. The guy spent his lives studying magical creatures, yet he's a duelist that surpasses his brother and any of the aurors in the film? Even his love interest from America lacks this fear, which she had a lot of in the first film. So while Gary Stu wasn't afraid in the first film, you had Jacob and her providing that tension for you. They anchored you in how serious and amazing the situations were. Gary Stu lacks emotions and is able to over come the situation with random ass pull creature that is effectively an extension of his will. So she ends up owning a high ranking auror, where in the first film we are led to believe that she was a mid ranking auror from the American society (as in not incredibly powerful, and some what of a screw up).
I usually don't upvote comments that have exactly 69 likes on them (I don't want to ruin something beautiful), but damn that made me tempted. What you said is really true.
I completely agree, when it reached the climax I legit thought it would be a 3h movie, cause it felt like it was the middle of the movie and not the end, and I was like "Wait, that's it ?"
"A house that diverges from the norm can be exciting and different, but a house without a good foundation will just fall apart", is sadly not a direct quote of my old English teacher because I was dumb back then and didn't commit it to memory. But it still somewhat stuck with me even to this day. He had a whole lesson early on where he went over the basic rules of story writing and split it into two parts. He first listed what he called "the basics of writing" and he then listed a bunch of "rules of writing". And his punchline was that the basics of writing are just about absolute, there are a few specific examples (that I can't remember) where breaking them doesn't make the story crash and burn, but this never adds anything. However, the rules could relatively often be broken to achieve something good. So there are rules (like "show don't tell") and then there are basic fundamentals (like having some sort of rising tension) and you never break the foundations but you should always look out for clever ways to break the rules.
I love how you are trying to sound intellectual, but unfortunately, the fact that you are starting your sentences with conjunctions, miss-using periods, and in many places you are blatantly not using punctuation, (where you should be), makes me believe that you maybe should've paid more attention in those English classes. I'm just going to leave this comment here because the more I read, the more grammatical mistakes I find. I honestly wouldn't place this writing above the 8th-grade level. The lesson to be learned is that "A house that diverges from the norm can be exciting and different, but a house without a good foundation will just fall apart". In this case, your argument is a house that is trying to be exciting, but it falls apart due to the lack of proper grammar, (the foundation). In summary, your argument falls apart because of all the silly mistakes. The substance itself is not bad, but if you don't have the basics down, you won't be taken seriously by people who are smart enough to notice. Sorry for being this harsh, but your use of that quote was too ironic for me to pass.
@@cloudrepdom Let me start off by saying that I was certainly not “trying to sound intellectual”, this is simply how I write. Secondly, you seem to be under the assumption that my intention was to show off my intellect or something to that effect. Which of course is an understandable misunderstanding seeing as how based on your inability to write constructive criticism I assume that is the only reason you are here for. I did not put any particular effort into my post because my goal was not to write a fucking essay but instead to write a somewhat interesting comment about a related topic. If I wanted to be noticed by people “smart enough to notice” then I wouldn’t have been here on TH-cam but would instead have written a scholarly article on the subject. Oh and while I have you here, there is nothing inherently wrong with starting a sentence with conjunctions. It is lazy writing for sure, but we have already established that this was lazy writing. It is most likely not you fault seeing as how this myth has been taught by several teachers who were taught so themselves. Even though there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it, one should still try to avoid it IN ACADEMIC WRITING. This is simply because it is safer to avoid it all together instead of risking overdependence. So please, get you head out of your ass. You were clearly trying to sound intellectual but to be honest you just sounded like a dick
@@cloudrepdom Grammatical accuracy is not the foundation... linguistic coherency and rational argumentation is, and I understood the comment just fine.
I agree with the other replier, ultimately George was creating a visual movie. The overarching plot and themes were supposed to be beats of the original, but he seems to have focused too much on the bigger picture and the visuals (which are, in fact, amazing, even if the CGI didn't age that well) but overall failed to make the smaller details such as dialogue less woody (and even relationship progression, see anidala) and that is what often people critique the movies for. But with the prequels, you *can* enjoy them. They had fantastic worldbuilding and beautiful characters with great arcs that subverted expectations in a much better way than some recent SW movies have been doing (did anyone ever truly expect to see Vader as a child? An Vader who struggles with being too emotional? Who *cries* on screen, unlike most male leads?). This... This HP thing is an absolute mess. It has no plot or screenplay structure or themes (the thing the PT succeeded at), and it also fails in every single little thing, from relationships to worldbuilding to continuity. It's such a horrifying mess idk how anyone could ever green-light Rowling's work. What a shame.
At least the star wars prequels were about something. I don't even know what the point of this movie is. It's like a 2 hours sequence of shots that begins and ends, that's it.
Second that, but I think they have given the damage they wanted to. Since when copy strike gets removed subscribers doesn't receive a notification nor the algorithm puts the video back on sub feed.
I enjoyed this movie.... until when what i thought was the mid point of the movie was when the credits appear The only thing i could say at the end was "wait its over?"
I feel like a movie set in the time Voldemort was reigning would have been a lost more interesting than 5 movies about some author during grindelwalds time.
What upset about this movie was that in the first FB film, there was this beautiful ending between Kowalski and Queenie. In the second movie, in the payoff to that scene, they use it as cheap comic relief and just kind of completely gloss over it, ruining the emotional impact that scene could have had.
She could have written the story of fantastic beasts in prose and get a screenwriter like Kloves for example and adapt it into a screenplay, and the writing credits would have gone to both. I think she doesn't quite understand the medium of filmmaking and also this could've have been fixed sort of, if Warner Bros. dare to hire a director with better vision and skills in directing, meaning they need an auteur. In The Prisoner of Azkaban Cuarón worked alongside Kloves to improve the story and combine visual storytelling, motives and symbolism to deliver a more engaging and substantial story, which today is the best in the series.
Eh, POA looks the best, I'll grant you, but they cut out everything essential to the actual story. Movie-only fans don't know who the Marauders really are, why Harry's Patronus is a stag, that his dad was even an animagus, etc. The film looks pretty, but those Whomping Willow transition scenes could have been replaced with some actual plot or necessary information. Also, they gave Hermione Ron's "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too" line, which is unforgivable.
@@emersonandrews7308 It's a different medium, you just can't expect that everything happens the same way in the books. When the movie was released 15 years ago, I had already read the book so, I was a little dissapointed that they didn't show the story behind marauder's map, but after many years and improving my perspective on filmmaking, I understood many decisions they took story wise. Cuarón loves to show but don't tell, Harry read who made the map and your paying close attention the four members are shown in the film as their animal form so you can connect the dots. The film concentrate to tell the story visually and not just the overall story but the arc of Harry Potter and his path from childhood to adolescence, his changes in humor and how he rebels againts the Dursleys, how he isolates himself from others watching through windows, how he faces his fears and get through them. At the end we watch him flying away from Hogwarts alone but redeemed. PS. Yes, that line by Hermione was awful.
I always believed that the flashbacks to Letha’s flashbacks as wel as the conversation with Dumbledore was an attempt of Rowling to make people like Letha and that way feel bad about her dying. I tought she would know that good actions would make us like her. Instead of standing there looking emotionless and you know, killing her brother and all.
But those are all male we can't have that. Henceforth, Newt is a woman. - Rowling, probably. While typing frantically, sitting in Hermine's wheel chair.
Hey Guys, I hope you liked today's video. If you want to support me in creating these essays then please consider supporting me on patreon. You'll find a bunch of cool rewards there like early access to my videos and a patron exclusive discord where I'm very active and we can chat rubbish about movies.
There's a link in the description. I look forward to seeing you there :)
Have a great day,
- Henry
i luv ur vids honestly, but im gunna have to wait a bit to watch this till i finish the movie. i got to the 3rd act and just stopped watching
The problem with your solution is Dumbledore never really says anything to anyone because he likes to keep secrets so telling Newt about his blood pact would be extremely out of character for him.
Hey mate, I hope your problem with Tinnitus has gotten better. Great video btw.
Tysvm for explaining how to use show don't tell properly. After all the writing teachers, articles, and TH-cam videos I've encountered, you're the first I've seen to critique the "show don't tell" strategy. You're a big help. Thanks 😊
I haven't seen the movie, so I have no opinion on the movie or the accuracy of your analysis here. But I appreciated so much your in depth discussion and how you provide concrete and objective reasons as to your thoughts on it.
At the end, the movie left me asking a very important question: What were the crimes of Grindelwald?
That haircut
He has sinister music and lighting following him around.
Johnny Depp’s performance
As a comment on Jenny Nicholson's review of this movie put it:
Assembly without a permit
Having a gay lover in 1928
His hairstyle
Murdering a lizard
Um...oh he..killed some..people
Why couldn't this have just been a comfy series about taming and caring for Fantastic Beasts?
the main cast is so good too but it feels like they're wasted.
The whole Grindelwald thing could have been a completely separate prequel movie.
I’d watch a magical nature documentary of Newt. It’d probably be super adorable and funny
Exactly! I don't give a hoot about Dumbledore or Grindledepp. Just give me friendship and lethifolds.
This series could have been Magical Steve Irwin going around the world saving magical creatures from poachers or something.
And it should have been.
Exactly! Thats what I wanted from this series. Small Stories about Fantastic Beasts and their Carer while on the sideline some major things happen. This is how the first one was structured and it worked well and this is what I expected of the second one. But instead of that they almost completely dumbed Newts Story Arc as an Explorer and instead made him into some Warrior for Dumbledores Cause who has to fight through a whole bunch of exposition non-sense. The Movie comes across more as a history book instead of being an actual movie.
Max Kehm honestly having him go after grindlewald makes 0 sense it’s like if we had recruited Steve Irwin to hunt osama bin laden. Newt isn’t a fighter
Honestly the thing that pissed me off most about this movie is that they changed Newt's coat from that nice royal blue peacock colour to grey.
Ikr?!?! Blue was HIS colour. It looked gorgeous on him.
Super late, but his whole outfit was muted. Brown suit is now grey. Canary yellow waistcoat is now dark/mustard. Bright blue coat is now grey.
@@luanagullotta6218 i knooowww right, i hate it to this day, that whole movie was muted, so many shots were monochrome and especially neutral colours like grey and beige, that I feel like it must have been deliberate. Idk why tho, for what Purpose™??
@@luanagullotta6218 I think what's worse is that none of the wizards wear robes.
Yes the blue was so much better
ACT 1: Explain the common structure of storytelling
ACT 2: Apply that Structure to the film in question
ACT 3: Let me tell you about NordVPN
NordVPN? You pleb, a chad would use Virtual Shield.
Brilliant!
"Now, it's important to protect yourself from magic, and computers are a lot like magic. But since there aren't any magic spells in real life, I use NordVPN..."
absolutely horrible how all those "content creators" just promote shamelessly their small advertisement partners for some extra cash.
@@ulfheitzmann1021
Nobody's complaining about it you tit
I didn't like "The Crimes of Grindelwald" because it wasn't about the crimes of Grindelwald.
Nor was it about fantastic beasts
@@Melkje Fact
The only crime I cared about was him killing that beast by tossing him out a window.
You clearly weren’t paying attention.
@@zakc2340 I was paying attention. Titling your movie The Crimes of Grindelwald makes it sound like you're talking about previous crimes. The movie didn't show the crimes of Grindelwald it showed what makes him dangerous.
One of my big gripes with this film is that it took everything from the first Fantastic Beasts ending and reset it at the beginning: Credence is gone -> Credence is back (unexplained), Newt and Tina are on good/affectionate terms -> they aren't talking to each other, Jacob loses his memory -> Jacob has his memory back (sort of), Grindelwald is captured -> Grindelwald escapes (ok this one was obviously going to happen at the beginning, but when combined with all the other resets it's just annoying).
That's why the movie lost right from the start.
Ayo, pretty much like Star Wars episode VII
Jacob gaining his memories alongside Grindelwald escaping are the only acceptable resets for me tbh, the reason why jacob didnt lose his memories were , for me, valid as Newt used a different potion than what MACUSA usually uses. though i would like if they include a small foreshadow like Tina complaining to Newt about how some No-Maj's remember the events (mostly kids) and Newt explains why while Queenie just listens in, knowing about Jacob
except we knew credence alive at the end of FB, newt watches the particle disappear, Newt and Tina not talking to each other was explained, and so was Jacob's memory. Watch the bloody movie for once
@@adityabhalekar3506 Did watch the movie. Just because "we knew" some these things happened doesn't make them satisfying story decisions. Making a sequel by reversing everything important in the first movie isn't the best way to go about it in my opinion. A sequel should build upon developments not cheaply reverse them. This is just my opinion though. You are very welcome to disagree.
What works about the first Fantastic Beasts movie is that it doesn't feel like the first part of some grand movie trilogy. Its an isolated story within the Harry Potter universe. Every character's arc finishes and all plot points end nicely. Newt isn't portrayed as the chosen one or the awesome hero, he's just a weird eccentric guy who likes animals.
The beginning of this movie is quite literally the ministry forcing Newt to take part in the plot for seemingly no reason. He's not an extremely powerful wizard and this situation doesn't call for his expertise with magical animals. They essentially get a Zoo Keeper to help them fight an extremely dangerous, homicidal dark wizard. The movie should have been about Young Dumbledore because this entire movie is built around a reference to a duel he and Grindelwald had and apparently they're lovers so that would had some character motivation.
But nah just have Dumbledore lean against the desk for 5 minutes, its fine.
It's a 5 movie cash cow milkeroo
@@zegrasisinnocent except people do that when they actually need money none of these people need money they are just making a bad product because they think it's what people want right now
@@tangerinetech5300 doubt
Seriously. Why didn't they just make a Young Dumbledore movie? I feel like that would have solved all their issues. 1) More HP stuff. 2) Cash Grab. 3) Nostalgia, 4) You can add all the sex changes and orientation changes you want.
Tangerine Tech maybe their relatinship twist would have been received better if it was about dumbledore and jk didn't push it so hard. I would have probably loved their romance if it didn't feel like pandering.
I mean, if you are going to make dumbledore being gay into a big thing the at least make it about him
Newt Scamander is an eccentric, but fairlu normal wizard who wants to write textbooks.
Why does he need to be a key figure in in wizard world war 1? Seriously, cramming minor characters into major events like this is something I associate with fanfics based around oc's, not a professionally made movie.
You're right. Fantastic Beasts 1 did it well in that he was introduced to the story properly, in a way that fit his character. He actually would have had an interest in what was going on. However, in the 2nd film, his character had nothing to do with the events going down. He was the last person to actually be fighting in the war.
BlitzBurn well they did say that he help in the hunt for Grindelwald fir many years😊
@@themage1016 Exactly. What led to this massive change in character? He's a magical creature conservationist for God's sake, not a fighter or anything.
Awesome comment! He does feel like a poorly written OC character in a fanfic written by a kid. Or rather, poorly *integrated* . There's nothing wrong with Newt originally, but Rowling shouldn't have forced him into this other storyline.
Fantastic Beasts 1 should have been a single, one off installment. It would make so much more sense that way. But then again, making only one film doesn't make the big bux.
I really liked Newt Scaramander in the first film, but dumping him in this one does far more harm to his character than good. More of a character is not always better.
One can say that JK Rowling has lost her...
...magic.
In the other films she was not the screenwriter. She took advice apparently on the first Beasts movie, but the flaws of the second screenplay are all her own missteps.
She's a bookwriter, not a screenwriter.
@@tornyiegrace1696 Exactly! People, who question why character A has not a scene with character B in the potter movies like he had in the book, don't understand that film writing is completely different from book writing. Fantastic Beast 2 is a prime example what happens when you try to write a movie in the way you would write a book. It comes out as clusterfuck with too many characters, too many useless plots and unnecessary character work (character work, which lead to absolute nothing!).
She forgot that in HP series she said Animagus could willingly transform, even the permanent transformation is a choice. Sirius says something on this line to Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban. Even Snape taught them so in his class.
In FB2, suddenly animagus can transform only upto a number of times after that it becomes permanent automatically. If that were true why would Sirius ask Harry to stay with him after school in Order of Phoenix. He would be dog by then by fantastic beast 2 logic.
She should read her books before writing anything related to it.
@@tessaricha that has something to do with one's magic core? I think not every wizards have a stable Magic core so that's why it leads to some mistakes like Nagini and also perhaps all Animagus concepts have not been improved accurately enough as appeared in Harry potter Era? 🤔 Im really curiousreally.
Btw, I never watch the film but your comment do have a point here.So im curious whether JK gives any explain or not why she put the different ideas abt Animagus, 😅.
She should've written books, and that movies were based on those, not directly from her pen. She wants a compelling story with many, many characters, but on the big screen that is just not possible (Unless you make a tv series like GoT). She should've just taken her time and written another bookseries, not movies.
What if we view this franchise as a series with very long episodes and not individual movies? There are some more films planned as far as i know, so maybe the story was planned to work better over several movies.
@@Cyliandre441 Then it should be advertised as such; now it's a franchise. A franchise in cinema. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them, Fantastic Beasts: the crimes of Grindelwald, and so on.
Also, in cinema one movie tells a story. It should stand alone respectively, and form one arch or more to satisfy the audience. This movie just didn't deliver, and threw in a bunch of characters with some sort of odd climax. I felt no empathy nor sympathy for any of them, purely because it was so poorly set up. Even if we were to view it as a part of a bigger story, it's still bad.
I hope this comment gets to the top
@@Jiskpirate It'll be better when you can binge watch all of them back to back.
It reminded me of an old DBZ tactic of right when it starts to get interesting, "NEXT TIME, ON FANTASTIC BEASTS!"
@@skyrasmus4760 I hope so! Still, I would've loved to have another book series with each character carefully developed.
Wow, I had the same reaction, except I really did think the end was only the end of the second act. When the new dumbledore brother shot a blast and took out a mountain side I leaned over to my friend and actually said, "Could you imagine if the movie just ended right here." Then the movie ended right there lol
personally i think the speech scene was the start of the second act and as you said i couldnt believe it ended when it did
Yeah i was like, “IT ENDED?!”
I think its probably cause the writers dont look at it like 5 storys but like 1 and we have only seen the 1st act and startup of the second act with that thought the next movie should have no 1st act exposision and just feel like a "seconden act movie" zo a movie with no exposision and no payoff at the end that would then be only 2 movies later
You know in Fellowship of the Ring when Frodo and Samwise are just walking away? Yeah, loads of people in the cinema when I watched it obviously hadn't read the books and were shocked it ended there.
I think it isn't Dumbledores Brother.
Harry Potter was in a passionate physical relationship with his broom 🧹 and that is why he found quidditch so exhilarating.
Broom: he sweeps me off my feet
Bruh
Dad, there's a J. K. Rolling in the comment section!
Dose anyone remember the broom 🧹 toy 😂😂
I bet he had to wash the broom handle off after he was done with it.
“Girl no, that is not the end of the film!” - the person next to me in the theater😂
Remini Roush 🤣😂🤣😂
Martin Mooney I don’t mean to be rude, but apparently some people do. I know what I heard
@Martin Mooney People who speak real English in England do.
I’m American and I say film instead of movie sometimes. It’s common. Everyone in America has different levels of vocabulary and even some who have a decent amount of vocabulary knowledge don’t always use it.
@@tiredeyes759 I'm English and I have to say I agree on how you Americans spell certain words. Realise for example to me makes sense with a z.
This is the breakdown of the plot of both Beasts and Crimes so far.
Beasts: Where is Credence?
Crimes: Who is Credence?
Movie 3: Why is Credence?
-Summary courtesy of Drax
movie 4: what is Credence?
movie 5: who the ****** cares about Credence?
Aaron Page
Movie 6: How is Credence?
@@alexanderinoa7850 one movie too far
Movie 7: The remake
We need to talk about Creedance.
Those hogwarts scenes were "LOOK! HOGWARTS! You remember this from harry potter right? This is to do with Harry Potter! Look! By the merch!"
They paid attention to all the brain dead hype and praise that the lazy and awful Disney Star Wars movies get.
I clapped! I clapped when I saw Hogwarts!!
*buy
I was actually really excited for the Hogwarts scene, particularly the Newt & Leeta flashback.
But it turned out to be so pointless...
vizualnoizz If I could give you all the thumbs up that I have ever given on TH-cam for that reference, I would.
Not to mention: Leta has all that flashback stuff then just straight up dies, nobody cared about her anyway. And nobody really cares about Credence. Not sure why they're focusing on him so much.
I cared about Leta :(
Nobody:
JK: You are gae.
Irrapture x because he’s getting an arc setup where he realizes he can use his ass as a mangina
I agree they spent way too much time on Credence - I assumed he would have a few minutes of screen time after Fantastic Beasts but wow they went deep into his character
Only characters the public has/had attachment: Newt, Tina, Jacob and Queenie. Focusing on dozens of characters was a great way to fail.
People shouldn't be thinking of it as "show don't tell", too many take it literally. We should be saying "prove, don't assert".
I may have to put that on a poster and hang it on my wall.
I really really like this idea
Actually, "show don't tell" is very literal. Film is a visual art. Showing is what a film does. Telling works better in literature.
@@HeyNonyNonymous
"Show, don't tell" is universal advice for storytelling, regardless of medium. It's also fusion of at least two important pieces of advice; so it's efficient but obscurers some nuance. One piece is that action is more engaging than dialogue. If something can be conveyed to the audience through actions rather than be explained directly, that's more engaging. Note that this doesn't mean "dialogue is bad". If something can be portrayed through how a character participates in dialogue (showing wit or charisma or feelings), that's dialogue serving as action.
The second big piece is that action is more believable. If the audience gets some info by having it played out (flashback to background info or seeing a character act in a way that demonstrates a character trait) the audience knows that's a thing that exists in the story. If a character says that X-is-a-thing, then it's only true so far as that character is being honest and right. A BIG corollary of this is that if the audience is told that something is true but actions contradict that statement, the actions are going to be believed. If the story is supposed to be about a shy protag breaking out of their shell and stepping up to a challenge, the character usually needs to behave shyly in actions in the beginning and probably face some loss or hardship as a result. This is avoiding what TVTropes calls an "Informed Attribute".
@@HeyNonyNonymous The concept of "show, don't tell" was drilled in all my English classes, when we were reading books. It, ironically, makes more sense with more modern forms of storytelling, like cinema, but the phrase very much originated with novels.
When they wrote the Lord of the Rings screenplay(imo the greatest adaption of a book ever made) Fran, Philippa and Peter were incredibly firm and removed anything, no matter how cool and popular they were to the fanbase, that wasn't directly important to Frodo or the Ring. An unenviable task since that book is huge and the established fanbase built over decades would be hyper critical. But it was necessary for the sake of making a coherent movie. Yeah they got loads of Oscars but I still don't think they got the recognition they deserved. Especially Fran and Philippa , I feel like Peter Jackson gets most of the credit because he directed as well but the three of them wrote one hell of a screenplay. Rowling sadly does not have those writing chops. AND shes pulling it all out of her ass as she goes since she doesn't have a well written book to go from.
Love to see this love for the LotR writing team. My fav part that Phillipa and Fran wrote was Sam’s monologue at the end of TTT. Incredible work.
Peter Jackson also tarnished a fictional universe with a second series of movies set in the same universe as a first much better series though.
@@ooooneeee Jackson wanted the Hobbit to be a single movie though, he fought tooth and nails to have it be done in a single movie, but the executive producers didn't want to and were all for the new trilogy. It was not his fault
Rowling should've had an actual screenwriter to handle her ideas. It's so obvious she's a book author and I feel like her cool ideas could've been turned into a way better movie if she had worked with someone who actually knows how to script one.
She’s actually not a good book author tbh. The number of plot holes is just maddening and they’re only getting bigger despite 20 years of theories.
This movie was 70% flashbacks so you could "understand" what is happening. No.
basically this movie existed so you could understand what was happening in it
@@bigladsubaru3523 But instead of helping us understand what was happening in it, it confused us.
I didn't understand the first
@@bigladsubaru3523 It's like that pole with a sign on it telling me to not walk into it.
That's when you go back to the drawing board and set the story during when the flashbacks happened previously lol.
All the teleporting onto Hogwarts grounds was driving me insane
Maybe the spell that prevented Apparation into Hogwarts wasn't cast yet? Mayb...
Eh, probably not.
@@triblasterdude9406 it is said in pottermore that the Protection charm against apparation was cast since hogwarts creation, so it was just a plothole
Aren't they from the ministry!? So can't they.....
@@WarWolfeX no they cant :)
You can't apparate on the bridge?
This series should’ve been a series of documentary-style movies about Newt training magic creatures. Like What We Do In The Shadows.
YEA. I love what we do in the shadows! That would have been amazing with magical beasts
Bat!
pls bring me a drink of water im thirsty 🥵
Professor Snape is a single mom
God this made my day
Thank you Herbert, very cool
@@luukas6063th-cam.com/video/LKxpwlKRQ2U/w-d-xo.html Is from here
Herbert Vander Thank you so much for this
... And That's A Good Thing!
I think the most criminal thing about Fantastic Beasts 2 was how it's a horrible sequel. Fantastic Beasts 1 had it's flaws certainly but the ending with Credence's Death and Kowalski being forced to forget his adventure and go back to his mundane normal life were tragic. It gave the film a melancholic, sombre ending and you really felt sorry for these characters.
Then Fantastic Beasts 2 comes along and completely retcons both of those emotional hooks within the first ten minutes of the film. What a way to ruin the ending of Fantastic Beasts 1.
Rawpowered
The first film teased Credence’s survival and never confirmed that he died and as for Jacob retaining his memories, that was also teased in the first film.
Your understanding of an 'emotional hook' is faulty.
A 'HOOK' is somerhing that recurrs over and over again, reminding youbof what has cone before.
Exactly, I didn’t really like the first one, but fuck me this shower of shite made it look like a masterpiece
Don skeng
Except both of what he said weren’t true
The Crimes of Grindelwald is a film with an actual story to tell and actual character development. Fantastic beasts is a mess of ideas that never stick and a plot that has absolutely no stakes
I don’t mind that they “retconned” Credence and Kowalski. I mind the way they went about it. It did ruin Fantastic Beasts which I enjoyed despite a couple of flaws. I can see how Credence could survive and expected it. Same with Kowalski remembering. The end scene at his bakery had to come to something. I don’t like that they didn’t show how Credence escaped or got to the circus. How he formed a friendship with Nagini. It’s just foisted on us. It spoils her character also because she doesn’t even speak and just mopes around yet they made such a big deal about Nagini in publicity. Also, I’m so sad and mad about what they did with Queenie. I don’t get why she’d have to use a love spell on Kowalski? Why couldn’t they just move somewhere else like the UK? There were mixed relationships there even if it was in the low. It wasn’t illegal. Then she drops it the moment she listens to Grindelwald. I’m doing all this for us so I’m leaving you for someone who wants to kill your kind. Makes sense!
it makes me really sad to see how jk is destroying her own universe trying to create this series when she clearly isn't doing it because she loves it.
the difference between the Fantastic Beasts series and Harry Potter is glaring. Harry Potter was clearly written because she loved the story and the characters. fantastic beasts just isn't it
Should have learned from The Hobbit. Why ruin a good series by doing a greed grab prequel???
@@lorrainem.swartzentruber3077 The Hobbit was an absolute tragedy. In another universe we could have had a single great Hobbit Adaption faithful to the tone of the book instead of three drawn out miserable lotr prequels. Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, it’s a pity he wasn’t the main character
@@lorrainem.swartzentruber3077 wait, was "lord of the ring" first and than the sequal "the hobbit".
Even like what is happening with the harry potter series and fantasric beast follow up? Or is the hobbit and LOTR like not intent do be a follow up or something?
@@polymerasiecondens6857 basically the hobbit takes place before lord of the rings and has little to do with lord of the rings aside from Bilbo finding the ring and meeting Gollum. Everything else in the hobbit has nothing to do with LOTR
@@happyllama1160 I think the hobbit were good film. I agree they were drawn out too long, but I enjoyed everything in them. So, I will unfortunately have to disagree with you.
Nobody:
JK: Want to know what else was 9 and 3/4's?
Harry Potter's wand ?
No. I don’t.
The train in Harry Potter that leads to Hogwarts!
Someone's willie?
Her decaying writting skills??
Nobody:
JK: Hagrid was called Fagrid by a school bully who was gay for him.
because.
Unnecessary.
The part that's really going to make you cringe is when she tells you Hagrid was the bottom.
😖😭 Sticky, hairy, Cheeks.
Fernanda Sena unnecessarily funny lol
And troubled students will be punished via bondage, experiencing auto erotic asphyxiation, and be his bottom
Fantastic Beasts and How to Milk Them
A movie I would thoroughly enjoy, considering my history on a ranch. If watch that five times before watching this one twice
Yeah i would rather watch that
@@shikiaura pretty sure this was a clever joke at how the Terf Queen was handling her series.
😂 true
This could have 2 meanings
The problem is that it's easy to write exposition dumps like this into a long book, but it doesnt work in a 3 hour movie. Youre right that the entire movie feels like an exhausting exposition, then everything explodes, followed by wild, out-of-left-field plottwist that only exists to set up the next movie. Youd think the 2nd movie of a proposed trilogy would have the most rising action, not the most exposition. I felt like there was going to be a quiz after about all the characters.
I ready that it's a 5 part film series. That would explain why so little happened in this second movie.
The 2nd movie of a trilogy in hollywood circles the way it is usually done. Ends with the protagonist(s) losing something, or ending up in a worse position than when they started, but left with a glimmer of hope.
Like for example; The Empire Strikes Back, LoTR: The Two Towers, The Dark Knight, all end on a cliffhanger or with the main protagonist at their lowest point. Were they will have to find a way to redeem or reinvent themselves.
A picture is worth 1000 words, but a 10 minute scene is worth 1 line of dialogue
Somebody please make this a t-shirt
Honestly, it feels like Rowling has broken the films themselves into the structure beats. She has 5 movies planned. And so far they seem to fit that theory.
Movie one is the opening. The hook to get you interested. Something that is usually only a chapter long in a book, or the first 5 to 10 minites of a film.
Movie two is ACT 1. The characters were established in the hook and now we establish the world the story will take place in. That of the wizarding world in the 1920s, and how the world is devided on Grindalwald. Ending with the inciting incident (or plot point 1) and the choice that goes along with it.
If the films continue in this manner, then the next film, Movie 3, will be the conflict of the series. As you put it, the rising action. Or Act 2. This is where the main characters are dealing with the conflict, but usually playing catch up to the antagonist. It will then end at the Midpoint (or plot point 2)
Movie 4 would then be the second half of ACT 2. More rising action, but different from the previous as the main characters are actively trying to wrestle control back from the antagonist. This fill would then end at either the Crisis or just before it durring the calm before the storm.
Which leaves the fifth and final film being ACT 3, the climax and resolution. Where we have our final showdown with the antagonist.
If this is how Rowling is writing these films, its a nasty way to do it. It is possible to write this way, but its increadably complicated. I would say a master craft, which Rowling is not a master writer. She had a successful run with Harry Potter, but that was increably simple writing.
I'm not saying shes a terrible writer. Harry Potters success shpuld speek for itself. What I am saying, is that shes not a screenwriter. And that trying to write a complicated 5 part screenplay is not something you should attempt on your first pass at screenwriting.
I'm hearing Netflix series, but I guess their standards were too high *ba dum tish*.
this was exactly the thought that I had while watching this video. it has only one act, because it IS only one act. with how this movie only exists to set up for the next movie I believe that is the case.
Thank God there will be no 3rd movie 🙏
I agree with this
true
For a movie titled "the crimes of grindelwalde"
grindelwalde is only in the movie for like 10 mimutes
Yeah. I was expecting to learn more about Grindelwald. Who he was, what he did to become so infamous as a dark wizard.
@@MelonTartVA he had a minion kill a baby then summoned some blue fire
Thats about it
For a movie headed by "Fantastic beasts" there sure aren't many beasts either
@@hamiltonmcelhannon3707 what you didn't like the lazy ass CG cats?
I think that title was used just so we could rename it Crimes of J.K. Rowling
Something that also bothered me is how each new movie in the Harry Potter universe drifts further and further away from spells. Most of the spells cast in the film are done without magic words. It feels like an important part of the world building is the magic and how it works, and that it's being thrown out for some reason.
THANK YOU! Finally someone talked about that. I find it really annoying.... in the Harry Potter movies, casting spells without saying the magic words wasn't easy for "normal" wizards. But in these movies, they just cast spells without saying a fucking word. Wtf!! And that's something nobody talks about on yt
In fairness, the characters are adults, not children, and many of them are *highly* skilled. Non-verbal magic was explicitly taught at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter novels, with the impression being given that adults don't speak their spells as much as kids do because they have mastered them to the point where they no longer need to. Most of the Hogwarts teachers didn't need to speak spells aloud and only did so for the purpose of demonstrating spells to their students. So it's a case where a large part of the change is because the characters are years or decades older than most of the characters in Harry Potter.
@@DannyEXE31 Maybe because some people - like me - think that's a rather good adjustment. The Harry Potter books and movies told a story about students. But Fantastic Beasts is not a story about students anymore, it's a story about "complete" wizards. So they do the stuff not exactly the way they were teached to but in a less formulaic way. I mean the same can be seen in the Order of the Phoenix in the battle between the Order and the Death Eaters: the spells are mostly cast without words.
That the teachers at Hogwarts cast spells by using words is not contradicting this. I mean that's a typical behavior for teachers in the real world as well: doing all the stuff exactly the way they teach them. Once you drop out of school but find yourself in the need of some long division you wouldn't write it down like in school, would you? You would just scrawl it down until you have your result. But most teachers I know wouldn't. They would stick to the "correct form" under all costs.
@@lonestarr1490 *taught*
@//Cassiopeya Plus\\ - As mentioned below, this is actually shown in the Harry Potter novels, particular with regards to Defense Against the Dark Arts. In a duel, it is very important to not reveal to your opponent what you are doing by shouting spells out loud. At one point Harry gets called out in that he uses Expelliarmus so much that it's become his recognizable "signature move" and that his penchant for saying the spell out loud attracts attention. Learning to cast spells non-verbally is part of the Hogwarts curriculum for students during their later years.
Regarding "show, don't tell"... to steal a phrase from Barbossa, it's a guideline rather than an actual rule. Same is true for most of the "rules" of storytelling, whether in novels, movies, or otherwise. You _can_ break the "rules," as long as you know what you're doing.
Wise Words.
All 'rules' in Writing Fiction Exist only to prevent Writers from Embarrassing themselves, Ruining their work or Offending too much.
All Of them Can be Broken, if One knows how to Break them and 'Live', So to speak.
You seriously left a comment explaining that the literary "rules" aren't actual rules.... So, do you think most people actually believe these rules are enforced by some kind of literature P. D.? "Sir, you broke a literary rule, heres your fine.". Of course they're not actual rules, of course they're just guidelines which can be broken or bent. Everyone understands the subtleties of communication, like expressions. Not every single word is always meant literally.
And what I find more bizarre is how you worded it like you're correcting him or educating him, but the video talks about how different "rules" work for different stories, it's not a one size fits all approach, so all you did was repeat something the video already covered. Then someone said "Wise words"... Really?!?!
My IQ is so low that I cannot fathom the wisdom of your comment. To me, I read common sense stuff that was explained better in the video and needed no further explanation.
TH-cam video: we all know that the sky is blue. I like blue. Nothing says a nice day like a blue sky. But the sky is also black at night and sometime orange during sunsets, those can also be nice... "
Comments: actually the sky isn't always blue. That's just a generalization and not a rule, the color actually changes throughout the day. During sunsets the sky may be orange and look more beautiful than when the sky is blue.
Replies: that is such an interesting take which adds much to the conversation. I hadn't heard anyone put it that way (especially not this very video) Thank you for such a thought provoking comment.
Me: bitching at other people because I'm unhappy with my life. But also because the comment was stupid.
@@frauleinhohenzollern We know, the name Hoenzollern already hints at a lvl of inbread most people don't even know is possible. We know that you cannot help yourself. If you'd be more inbred you'd be a sandwich.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of J.K. Rowling
No joke for a really long time I planned on calling this video "Fantastic Fails: The Crimes Of J.K. Rowling" but in the end I realised that was maybe a bit too clickbaity.
@@TheCloserLook To be fair, that can be spin into politicized sensation since J.K Rowling herself are known to be very politically driven on her social media presences in the internet
I think someone used that title already too
Lmaoo
Fantastic Beasts: Attack of Grindelwald
Several people in my theater went to sleep during this film and it was both hilarious and sad.
omg, i thought it was only me :D
My brother and dad fell asleep and i was struggling not to.
My wife fell asleep and shes a huge Potter fan.
I did too! I was soo confused of what was going on.
There's nothing really exciting about it. It's just a huge disappointment.
J.K. Rowling: "hermione was black all time along"
also J.K. Rowling: "proceed to create and kill the useless character played by one of the most attractive black woman i've ever seen"
what about about the Asian girl that had basically no point to her character whatsoever
J.K. Rowling: Newt was Jewish all along... and he identified as a No-Maj.
@T Doran Ridiculous, and how disappointed was that intervention. Really man be racist for yourself don't share it.
T Doran Considering the name Nagini isn't from Scotland, that makes 0 sense. 🙄
You should be more respectful i think
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald...
Felt more like "Grindelwald 2: Also There Might Be A Fantastic Beast Somewhere In The Background Maybe"
Idk it felt more about the beasts than Grindlewald XD
@@selobee4831 Besides maybe 5-10 minutes of padding in the beginnimg with Kowalski helping Newt out, literally every instance of a fantastic beast was a plot device and just to go "ooh, look at the thing oh wait it's trying to kill us nevermind."
grindelwald 2: electric boogaloo
The problem with the FB films is instead of either doing a more lighthearted series about Newt looking after his animals or a darker toned one about Grindlewald's rise to power and Dumbledore finally deciding to stop him they tried to push those 2 different stories and tones into 1 series.
Its like: so this guy is Grindelwald, and......he exists,oh! And there is some beasts in the background
JK Rowling: I can't canonize the gay character I announced to get praise because the studio won't give me full control over the script
Also JK Rowling: Let's make a movie with no conflict
Not a single movie and tv show is without gay and lesbian characters these days
@@talentleesdorito9771 It's quite hilarious considering how small percentage gay, lesbian & transgender is of the total population.
@Bouddica The Sleeping Lion ?
@@Gyvulys Ah the youtube comments section at its finest
@@genma986 Sexuality is a spectrum. That's why bi-sexuals, pansexuals, and asexuals exist.
Honestly, I think that purely straight people are in the minority when you factor in the number of bi-sexuals and people with deviant sexualities that don't fall into the LGBT categories. I've been saying for a while now that the next big thing will be transspecies people and transspecies rights when the technology is there.
Tell me you can't picture it.
"In this era where people are transforming themselves into cats and marrying non-cats. I would just like to say that McGonagall embraced her sexuality and became a transspecies person before it was cool. Therefore, I'm the most progressive writer in the world!" - J.K.Rowling
When I first saw the big climax I audibly said "no. This isn't it. It can't be"
My mother thought it was good, but then again there were pretty colours and I am a fan she didnt want to insult.
Jk said: what we learn at the end of the movie may not be the truth For me it just means plot twist
When i saw this film in the cinema, someone cried when the characters died in that climax. Like, they cried out loud, i couldn't even remember the names of the characters, it was so funny.
Lol that's sad. You should at least remember one character or two after watching a movie
@@chinuaalibatya7345 he is saying that the characters are so forgettable, it ain't worth remembering their name, although you could be sarcastic with that comment lol
Maybe you should pay more attention to the film then.
@You’re Late! I he wasn't talking about the important character's, that comment of his made no sense. There were important and unimportant people who died in that climax, and Garbodor Appologist couldn't've had any way of knowing which character that person was crying about. At that point his story doesn't add up.
I liked this film, and I think it's getting too much hate. But anyway I'm not going to discuss about that.
@@pieterd3408 My goodness, you took the original comment wayyy too literally... Sorry I have to explain the joke but they were making a hyperbolic juxtaposition for comedic effect. Someone who cried over the characters vs. someone who didnt even know their names. Because these two items are so unlike one another, it creates a disconnect and therefore is humorous. You may now laugh.
This vid is literally 19 minutes of roasting Rowling lol
I think you mean *16 minutes of roasting Rowling and 3 minutes of talking about NordVPN 😏
Roasted Rowling sounds like some kind of cooked game bird
That could be summed up in a single line of exposition?
She deserves it
Let's face it. She deserved it
This sequel hurt me as I loved the first film fully and then there’s just this... like there was NO story ... I mean there was but it was all contradicting itself
It's almost like Rowling is a book writer, not a movie producer
Book structure and movie structure are basically the same with a few exceptions. Even as a book, this would be painful to read.
All wizards used to shit themselves
Doesn't change the fact this movie sucks
*children's book writer
Scriptwriter*
That graph killed me lol, great vid, totally agree because something just felt really off with this movie
Besides the missing second act, it had a climax that resolved an other build up than what we saw.
Felt like watching a movie and then stopping it before climax and watching the end of an other movie that has a similar topic.
Maybe it's Johnny Depp's slow downfall by lack of acting talent. I think the salt water dried it up during his time with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
J.K. killed all of her stories by herself. She's the living example of "can't leave well enough alone".
Deathly Hallows Part 2 should have been the last Harry Potter related thing ever made.
Nobody:
JK Rowling: The Harry Poter Storyline actually took place during the Cold War.
Haha when did it actually take place and when did the fantastic beast take place
Harry Potter takes place during the 1990's desde. Fantastic Beasts is set the 1920's. :)
@@LuisEsparza0526
so...what kirklechoake ! said is true in a sense...the backstory to Harry Potter (his parents) would take place during the cold war. ('70s-80s)
Maybe I don't understand the format, but shouldn't it be
Everybody:
?
Dont give her any ideas.
Can't Dumbldore keep his hands out of his pockets?
That is why he abandoned pockets later on in his life.
Makes me wonder what he's hiding there.
No. He's too cool for that.
What has it got, in its pocketses?
pocket pool
The narrator's critique boils down to: Rowling needed to write a book form of the crimes of grindelwald and have someone write the screen play based on the manuscript.
"The _real crime_ is Rowling's for doing such a poor job at structuring the whole thing " lmaoooooo
im sorry i just had to say, when people wright lmao with lots of o's i think of
LAUGHING MY ASS
OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF
maybe the last 5 off's are meant to be coughs because of laughing too hard
March 22, 2019
In reality Dobby was the Chosen One.
And he was terminally ill which is why he let Harry become the Chosen One.
That's why he was so obsessed with him. He was vicariously living through him.
WHERE IS MY PAYCHECK?
How much ma'am? I'm curious
give this man a bilion
I tried. I really tried. I would rather kill two hours by watching this review on repeat 6 times.
I already have, collectively. It's about a 50/50 as to which is more entertaining after the sixtieth watch. It's infinitely less insulting to fans, though, and that's coming from a non-fan
And here my biggest problem was that Dumbledore, who was previously defined by his accomplishments, competence, and compassion now comes from some legendary line of wizards who have prophecies about them and an affinity for Phoenixes. It's easy to be a great person when it's setup for you. Kind of cheapens the whole thing.
Stranger haven’t seen the movie, I’ve absolutely no interest, but that’s a pretty fucking stupid inclusion. Also, does this bloodline and prophecy just ignore siblings. You would think a legendary bloodline would at least let his brother do more than manage a bar.
Alex Nunes and with what happened to his sister and father. And his mother. But yeah they were all legendary...
My god why does this movie suck so much?
Stranger --Also that the explanation for Ariana was she had ‘turned her magic inward’ but the most powerful wizard couldn’t do anything to keep her safe!!?? Hell, Voldemort protected Nagini more!
Agreed.
"Voldermort's plan was to make everyone pregnant"
no it wasn't, it was to bring back disco
Wrong again! it was to cut Harry's nose off.
@@triblasterdude9406 that was Freddy Kruger
@@aaron75fy Plot twist - Freddy Krueger was Michael Myers ALL ALONG!
@@triblasterdude9406 nope, the real plot twist is halloween nightmare on elm street and friday the thirteenth is a combined role play game the 3 are playing
I'm just watching these for Newt at this point. I sincerely love his character, but it is a shame he's not being featured in better stories.
yes, same here. But it's so sad to see how his characters gets each movie more and more ruined. I love the Newt from Fantastic Beasts 1, who doesn't chose sides etc, but now suddenly he choses sides and starts to behave more and more not like Newt. It makes me really sad honestly, because I really enjoyed having a male protagonist who was a bit different from what we normally get to see, if you know what I mean. I hope that J.K. Rowling won't ruin his character more in the next movies.
@@a.matuszewska7758 And they did ruin him in 3rd part. They completely broke his arc from 1rst film. Because in 1rst movie Jacob was for him a family & in 3rd movie he treated him poorly.
This film seems like a single episode in the middle of a Netflix series that only really works if you binge watch the whole series in a single day.
So 5 years from now this trash 'might' make some sense. I cannot wait.
It doesn't even work as that
dumbledore isnt the type of person to just tell newt about the bloodpack
jo's Overwatch Well that was an example, surely there are better ways than a 10 minutes run time of conveying a single piece of information?
i definately agree, dumbledore is smart and manipulative, he does things for his own gain(most of the time) and him helping newt made some sense but just straight up saying this shit to someone not that important is NOT his character and is not the dumbledore that was first written
Also, show don't tell?
Except, he didn’t “just tell Newt about his bloodpact”. Newt figured it out himself.
SuperDelph4 did you watch the video because that’s what he’s talking about.
Fantastic beasts 2: where not to find them.
I think one of the main reason for J K Rowling messing up the script is that she is an book author, there should have been a scriptwriter like on every harry potter movie, the studio obviously had to much confidence in her writing ability that she would be able to write a script and that's not a dig at Rowling she is having to do something completely different working within film run times and thinking about limits in budget etc. Also David Yates as the director she have some more blame then you place on him here, as he could have changed some things around to fit a film format better.
We can only hope Warner Bros has learnt a lesson from this.
We say no to pay to win or she lost her mojo after the deathly hallows and started to focus on arbitrary characteristics of her characters
@@InfernoBlade64 I mean making nagini a human and other things doesn't really take much brain power or time and generally are just spur of the moment things. So it is obviously something different
@@tiaaaron3278 well it's been done before unfortunately and I think the bottom line is the only thing that could change there mind.
Agreed, I blame David Yates a lot more. He is the director, he should DIRECT the creative energy instead of letting JKR do whatever... she is new at this, and Yates did a shit job of guiding any of it. The filming was horrible, felt like a roller coaster camera.
I also think that the characters were really lost in this film. For example, Newt doesn’t seem the type to fight with his brother. So the fact that this was one of the main plot points of the movie really threw me off. I feel like the character’s personalities weren’t consistent from movie to movie.
I don't feel like Newt, the human Hufflepuff puppy, is the guy you recruit to fight your war against the most powerful evil wizard of that time in your stead just because you can't fight them yourself because of reasons.
@@Cheshiregrinn91 Indeed. He would be the guy to have at your side when you want to talk things over and hug it out, fighting? Not so much.
It was weird too, because Newt says he and his brother always fight...yet they seemed to get along every time they were on screen together.
@@razzle2429 That was indeed kind of weird. They hugged and did things I expected from newt, yet they were still fighting or something? Huh.
Also in the movie, the romantic subplot between Newt and whats her name was out if left field cause he showed NO INTEREST in her whatsoever (and vice versa) yet they added it in and it pissed me off. So another pointless addition.
In my opinion Fantastic Beasts 2 is just a lump of solid filler and exposition that serves no other purpose besides allowing the 3rd film to happen.
I hope that the 3rd film is better than the 2nd one
I'm honestly hoping that's what it was, because that means the third film will be better.
The third film basically ignores the entirety, except perhaps the climax, of FB2. Since, nothing actually happened in “Crimes of Grindelwald”.
I agree! I also think my main problem with the movie is that this is not a stand alone film. Every movie-- regardless if it is a franchise or not, needs to be able to stand on its own. The movie should not rely solely on the past or future movies in that universe. All this movie does is set up future plot points for the next installment of Fantastic Beasts, and does not focus on the ones it was supposed to fulfill in this movie.
I agree. Unfortunately that has become a norm in modern day movies. Fantastic Beasts: the Crimes of Grindelwald is the new Amazing Spider-Man 2
I’ve read each book at least 20 times so this movie’s insane lack of continuity makes it entirely unwatchable for me
Same, it’s TLJ of Harry Potter in terms of awfulness for me.
Where in the books do they talk about what happened in Fantastic Beasts?
Chris Hahn that’s not the problem, the timeline of credence being a Dumbledore makes no logical sense AND mcgonagall being a teacher at that time also makes no sense, realistically she would’ve been a student herself at that time. That’s the continuity that pisses me off the most, let alone this stupid “blood bond” between Albus and grindelwald. It completely removes any complexity and empathy towards their connection.
@@kayundae4411 How do you know the McGonagall in the movie wasn't Minerva's mother? (idk if she was married)
@@kayundae4411 actually she technically wasn't even born yet
At the end of the movie, I was like: “this literally just felt like filler” and two weeks later, my dad was like: “did we even watch that movie?”
to me the worst thing about the movie is that one inclusion to use the meme
No one: I would really like to see some of the other teachers of Harry in this fantastic beast
franchise
JK Rowling: I got you, I am just going to
wiggle a young McGonagall in there.
Everyone: But she used to be born in 1935
JK Rowling: Yes I know.
Everyone: But the movie takes place in 1927
right
JK Rowling: Yeah it takes place like a year
after the first movie
Everyone: So that is 1927
JK Rowling: I think it is, I am not that good
at math, remember that one time I said Dumbledore was 150 only for him to turn
out to be 115 at his death.
Everyone: Yeah we remember, you're really bad
at this plot consistency and internal logic stuff, aren't you?
JK Rowling: *crickets*
OnePieceNation But... MAGIC.
🤗 Time Turners...🤗
Dumbledore spent 35 years repeatedly going back in time to try to prevent Grindelwald from turning evil and his sister from being mentally crippled and then killed. That means that chronologically he was born 115 years before his death but physically he'd lived 150 years. And yet, he doesn't look a day over 80.
What i disliked: Queenie being like Voldemorts Mum, way too many HP references, not enough beasts.
xs_ fox plot twist, queenie was voldemord’s mom all along
Read it as not enough breasts. And I agree, when it comes to Queenie
@@Gyvulys 😂👍
@@starryskies8445 It almost fits. I think J.K will be bending cannon again by changing some names.
The difference is that Jacob really loves her, not Like Tom.
God, hearing Lily's theme really brings back memories.
You using the music from the good Harry Potter films is honestly making me saaaaaad
Back when J.K made a perfect story .
Some of the tracks he has in the background are from the Fantastic Beasts movies
I know, right? I was barely able to concentrate on what he was saying!!
"There's no way J. K Rowling could forget to have a second act in her movie" Well she forgot to make Ron not a joke, forgot to make Slytherin a house that wasn't just "bad guy house" and a couple other things. Whatever your opinions on her, like we need to be realistic here: She didn't become the super star because she wrote amazing books. She wrote good books, with good characters and good world building around the wizarding world. Especially now, this doesn't feel like a passionate writer wanting to expand the world she's written. it felt like her wanting to line her deep pockets a little more
And it works. Even if she makes bad productions, people are still going to go and pay her money to buy tickets to it. The second movie was a mess and just dreadful. But people are excitedly waiting to see the next one in the theatres. Yay.
Ron was more than a joke in the books, he was a good character with some great moments, it’s the films that turned him into a joke
I mean, the Slytherins kind of got a bit more compelling with the Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Malfoy finally got a bit more developed to be more than just a racist bully with his desire to kill Dumbledore to save his family, Snape's backstory was pretty interesting, and the entire sequence with the Gaunts and Voldemort's past life added a bit more meat to his character as a whole. And the entire thing with the various Hogwarts Ghosts and how Rowena's daughter connected with the diadem and the Bloody Baron was actually a pretty compelling segment that should have been built up more. But then again, these were the final two books in the entire series.
Ron in the books isn't a joke, he's a valuable and complex character and he's nothing like in the movies
@@catherine.marial The movies screwed him up by giving his lines to Hermione - like explaining what mudblood means - and making him just comic relief. So why is the genius Hermione falling for this idiot? In the books they have a good dynamic where she's booksmart and he's streetsmart
This should have been a book or a series. JK Rowling can’t write screenplays.
Amen. I miss Steve Kloves.
Is all the Hp saga not writen screnplay by her ? Or is she not written screenplay before?
@@Beraksekebon21 No, Steve Kloves wrote the Harry Potter screenplays, Rowlings first screenplay was for the mediocre first fantastic beast.
@@christianschmidt8476 I really enjoyed the first Fantastic Beasts. Especially when compared to this sequel.
@@megashark1013 Everything is good compare to this shit. XD
At this point I genuinely think someone replaced JK Rowling with a clone with only a very minimal idea of how humans think
She was always like this... It's just that in Harry Potter books she managed to create emotional rollercoaster that overshadowed all the worldbuilding inconsistencies and nonsensical characters.
No, it's definitely her lol.
I was so excited as those dark shrouds started to fly around and they said "Grindelwald is gathering his followers' thinking that something was about to go down band that the villain had made the first move toward conflict as the heroes were yet un-prepared-- but then the sheet blew away and nothing happened.
She was too busy writing fan fictions for her own characters, about intense sexual relationships and what not.
Gray Fox that’s not true tho
Ontos it’s obviously a joke
She was probably too busy counting the literal tons of money this franchise has been printing since I was in elementary school lol.
I know youre joking. But honestly.... yeah I may think it happened like that EXACTLY
@@DANEMAN5 She's the first author of all time that became a billionaire. But she's not a billionaire anymore due to her engagement in charity.
fantastic beast 2 better know as:
*when you stole a fanfic and said: yeah this will doit just fine~*
Fanfictions are better though. At least, 80% of them.
She did. It's called the cursed child.
Regulus Black absolutely. Have you read Casting Moonshadows? If not, you should. It’s so good.
I was so pissed off by this movie that I was literally embarrassed to have dragged some friends to see it, based on the great trailer...
FB1 is a stand-alone movie. FB2-5 will be one movie divided into 4. Go figure.
I still wish that JK would actually get herself together. She's a great book author. I hope she remembers that that's her strength. Screenwriting isn't her forte.
Maybe she could be if she wasnt so focused on writing it as a series instaid of good individual movies. I only watched the first one. Im realy scared for this one
Not to forget, the redconning of McGonagall
That Hogwarts scene really does suck
JugglingSword why tho?
@@ontos8534 in the hp and the orden of the Order of the Phoenix she said that she became a teacher in 1956. When in this movie (1920s) she was presented like a young teacher at Hogwarts.
@@попугай-к1н No, the quote from the book says she had been teaching for 39 years. Of course people would naturally assume those would be consecutive years, but in theory she could've started teaching in the 1920s, left for a period of time, and then come back to teach a total 39 non-consecutive years. It's a bit of a silly reach, but there have been worse reaches. I mean, Rowling legit retconned Dumbldore's age while she was writing the original series and people didn't get up in arms about that, so not sure why out of all things this is a massive problem now.
@@ksolveig7263 when was this retcon? how was it changed?
@@ksolveig7263 Her whole backstory has been listed on Pottermore. Actually, her birth year was also on there until people started haranguing her for this flop.
Gonny worked at the ministry right after leaving school with high honors and voted "most promising transfiguration" something or other. She worked there for 3 years if I remember correctly. Then dumbledore coerced her to take over transfiguration so he could be headmaster. She went directly from the ministry and stayed at hogwarts as uninterrupted head of house and transfiguration teacher. This is cross-referable in her pottermore page, the Gryffindor head of house page, Dumbledore's page, and the ministry pages. She legitimately wasn't born yet, and we've many frames of reference why she can't be there, especially as Dumbledore has to still teach transfiguration leaving no room for Gonny. Additionally, Pomona is a school contemporary of Gonny (on both Gonny's page and Sprout's page), and Pomona isn't born yet, either. She was also mentioned in-book as "a sprightly 70" in Harry Potter's years in the general narration, versus Dumbledore's age which was spoken (with uncertainty) by fred/george. Sure, Rowling bungles all math, always, but she's been remarkably consistent with Gonny until now, and she's tangled Gonny into too many time-reliant events. Dumbles' age she buggered from day 1, with f&g guessing "over 100" which is correct, then in interviews early on she claimed "150" which doesn't fit, later claiming his big peak was during world war II, etc. While Dumbles was essentially just a plot device rather than a character until pretty much book 6/7, she'd flopped all over about his age, so no one was bothered. Later when he became important and actually posessed a backstory, people did take digs at her for all the fumbling.
It's like if she changed filtch's age in Harry Potter's age to "40", but later in FB series he turned out to be in his 60's, and some fantastic hero (or villian) with a 2-movie plot all about him. Suddenly the age matters more because the character actually has a purpose and, well, character. Rather than a generic antagonistic force or plot device to move the protagonist. Without a backstory, no age really has relevance. Hagrid has to be a certain age because of Riddle, Flitwick has to be old enough to have taught Snape & Marauders, etc. Yet Sinistra just has to be an adult as of HP's school years. You get me? Gonny breaks existing canon, and at the time of breakage (now) we are aware of the flaw so it draws attention. Dumbledore's age flumps were all before he had a backstory, so it didn't draw as much ire (though she still does get shit for it).
The midpoint of Jurassic Park is the T-Rex breaking out of its paddock, stepping between the cars, and giving us our first earful of her glorious roar.
THANK YOU FOR BEING SMART. It gets worse when you realize the main character had no effect on the plot whatsoever.
"Show Don't Tell" Doesn't refer to exposition or scene setting. It's about characterization. If a character is sad, don't have them say "I'm sad" SHOW them sad. If a villain would give up anything to get the widget, don't have them say "I'd give anything to have that thingamabob". SHOW them choosing to get the whatchamacallit rather than saving their beloved friend.
It's a really basic concept, and I'm getting tired of critics missusing it.
?? Some of the best storytelling moments in contemporary film and television rely on the omission of dialogue and verbal confirmation. For example, back when Game of Thrones was still respected at the end of Season 6, Jon Snow is revealed to be a Targaryen almost entirely without dialogue, which raised the stakes for not only his character but also the wider implications on the *narrative* (that is until the butchery that was S7-8). Adversely speaking of GoT, one of the more prominent criticisms of the writing in Seasons 7-8 was the switch of dialogue language from characterised perceptions and observations to unnecessary exposition of events that had already happened, or things that could have been communicated much more effectively through pictorial or visual storytelling. "Show don't tell" isn't just restricted to characterization as a principle, and the film major who is presenting his argument here is much more convincing than your criticism of that very argument.
im sorry but thingamabob made me laugh more than it should
From the very first time I watched the movie I thought that flashback-exposition dump was so weird. We get a bunch of characters together, one tells a story, then the other tells and even longer story and we basically learn nothing of significance, then one of them dies. Like, what was that for?? So we know what Leta's greatest fear was, the fact that she got sick of her brother crying so she swapped him with another baby and her real brother died? But her brother apparently isn't dead, he's Credence, or is he? No he's not her brother, he's not the baby she swapped her brother with either, how is he connected to any of this? IDK I mean he says it himself if I remember right, he says "So who am I?" or sth like that. We literally learn nothing, we just wasted time.
5:46 "Now I am no artist, says every teacher who's ever written on a whiteboard, ever."
LOL'd, he's right.... as a professor myself, I legitimately say that when I write on the whiteboard and so do all my colleagues, trololol. Instant like for you, Mr. video maker.
Sad thing, I loved the first Fantastics Beast movie. This one was horrible. Execution was terrible, writing was terrible, and they had characters that served no purpose really to the plot. They dragged Queenie and Jacob (two favorites from the first) into this film just to character assasinate Queenie who everyone loved. It was ridiculous.
You lacked a core cast of heroes. You have Gary Stu still (only gripe about first film) and his comedic relief Jacob.
They also introduced major retconns to both the books and the first movie. Main character was an "agent of Dumbledore". Dumbledore is a "major player" and considered a "great wizard" at that time. Dumbledore was not any of those things, he was at the start of his career. He was considered brilliant, but it wasn't until his defeat of Grindelwald that people considered him great. It's also suggested that he didn't become a player until later in life. Grindelwald was the player. They also retconned why Dumbledore didn't face him, which was just retarded (as he could have just told the Aurors that he had a blood oath). In the books it is heavily implied that Dumbledore feared to face him due to not knowing who killed his sister. He finally faced him when there was no other choice.
I think the lack of suspense is the main character lacks agency and worry. He's also a gary stu. There are scenes when trained Aurors are getting completely owned by Grindelwald, yet Gary Stu is able to deflect his attatcks. The guy spent his lives studying magical creatures, yet he's a duelist that surpasses his brother and any of the aurors in the film?
Even his love interest from America lacks this fear, which she had a lot of in the first film. So while Gary Stu wasn't afraid in the first film, you had Jacob and her providing that tension for you. They anchored you in how serious and amazing the situations were. Gary Stu lacks emotions and is able to over come the situation with random ass pull creature that is effectively an extension of his will. So she ends up owning a high ranking auror, where in the first film we are led to believe that she was a mid ranking auror from the American society (as in not incredibly powerful, and some what of a screw up).
I usually don't upvote comments that have exactly 69 likes on them (I don't want to ruin something beautiful), but damn that made me tempted. What you said is really true.
True the movie was super bad
What they did to Jacob and Queenie was irredeemable. One of the worst examples of character assassination I've ever seen
I completely agree, when it reached the climax I legit thought it would be a 3h movie, cause it felt like it was the middle of the movie and not the end, and I was like "Wait, that's it ?"
"A house that diverges from the norm can be exciting and different, but a house without a good foundation will just fall apart", is sadly not a direct quote of my old English teacher because I was dumb back then and didn't commit it to memory. But it still somewhat stuck with me even to this day. He had a whole lesson early on where he went over the basic rules of story writing and split it into two parts. He first listed what he called "the basics of writing" and he then listed a bunch of "rules of writing". And his punchline was that the basics of writing are just about absolute, there are a few specific examples (that I can't remember) where breaking them doesn't make the story crash and burn, but this never adds anything. However, the rules could relatively often be broken to achieve something good. So there are rules (like "show don't tell") and then there are basic fundamentals (like having some sort of rising tension) and you never break the foundations but you should always look out for clever ways to break the rules.
That sounds like a good teacher!
I love how you are trying to sound intellectual, but unfortunately, the fact that you are starting your sentences with conjunctions, miss-using periods, and in many places you are blatantly not using punctuation, (where you should be), makes me believe that you maybe should've paid more attention in those English classes. I'm just going to leave this comment here because the more I read, the more grammatical mistakes I find. I honestly wouldn't place this writing above the 8th-grade level. The lesson to be learned is that "A house that diverges from the norm can be exciting and different, but a house without a good foundation will just fall apart". In this case, your argument is a house that is trying to be exciting, but it falls apart due to the lack of proper grammar, (the foundation). In summary, your argument falls apart because of all the silly mistakes. The substance itself is not bad, but if you don't have the basics down, you won't be taken seriously by people who are smart enough to notice.
Sorry for being this harsh, but your use of that quote was too ironic for me to pass.
@@cloudrepdom Let me start off by saying that I was certainly not “trying to sound intellectual”, this is simply how I write. Secondly, you seem to be under the assumption that my intention was to show off my intellect or something to that effect. Which of course is an understandable misunderstanding seeing as how based on your inability to write constructive criticism I assume that is the only reason you are here for. I did not put any particular effort into my post because my goal was not to write a fucking essay but instead to write a somewhat interesting comment about a related topic. If I wanted to be noticed by people “smart enough to notice” then I wouldn’t have been here on TH-cam but would instead have written a scholarly article on the subject. Oh and while I have you here, there is nothing inherently wrong with starting a sentence with conjunctions. It is lazy writing for sure, but we have already established that this was lazy writing. It is most likely not you fault seeing as how this myth has been taught by several teachers who were taught so themselves. Even though there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it, one should still try to avoid it IN ACADEMIC WRITING. This is simply because it is safer to avoid it all together instead of risking overdependence. So please, get you head out of your ass. You were clearly trying to sound intellectual but to be honest you just sounded like a dick
@@cloudrepdom Grammatical accuracy is not the foundation... linguistic coherency and rational argumentation is, and I understood the comment just fine.
I think rowlings suffering from Lucas Prequel syndrome, clearly nobody is critiquing her submission or telling her no.
but the sw prequels were still satisfying movies plot wise only the dialogue and cgi killed em
I agree with the other replier, ultimately George was creating a visual movie. The overarching plot and themes were supposed to be beats of the original, but he seems to have focused too much on the bigger picture and the visuals (which are, in fact, amazing, even if the CGI didn't age that well) but overall failed to make the smaller details such as dialogue less woody (and even relationship progression, see anidala) and that is what often people critique the movies for. But with the prequels, you *can* enjoy them. They had fantastic worldbuilding and beautiful characters with great arcs that subverted expectations in a much better way than some recent SW movies have been doing (did anyone ever truly expect to see Vader as a child? An Vader who struggles with being too emotional? Who *cries* on screen, unlike most male leads?). This... This HP thing is an absolute mess. It has no plot or screenplay structure or themes (the thing the PT succeeded at), and it also fails in every single little thing, from relationships to worldbuilding to continuity. It's such a horrifying mess idk how anyone could ever green-light Rowling's work. What a shame.
At least the star wars prequels were about something. I don't even know what the point of this movie is. It's like a 2 hours sequence of shots that begins and ends, that's it.
And she get it worse than Lucas
Jar Jar has more impact to the plot in episode III than Dumbledore in this film. Let that sink in.
I would rather relive my parents divorce than watch this movie again
Came here just to see if Warner had removed the copystrike already. Glad to see it's gone.
Second that, but I think they have given the damage they wanted to. Since when copy strike gets removed subscribers doesn't receive a notification nor the algorithm puts the video back on sub feed.
I enjoyed this movie.... until when what i thought was the mid point of the movie was when the credits appear
The only thing i could say at the end was "wait its over?"
same
I feel like a movie set in the time Voldemort was reigning would have been a lost more interesting than 5 movies about some author during grindelwalds time.
They should've made 3 movies about Grindewald, then 3 movies about Voldemort.
Or a TV series.
He finally remembered his password
Only took me a few dozen tries ;D
I've seen this on a few places now,is it a meme?
@@xtzyshuadog it's kind of like that "Thank you Vsauce, very cool!" thing but less funny and original
I remember watching this movie and just thinking JK Rowling needs to know when to stop. Not everything needs to be connected or have a back story.
She's a good author just not a good screenwriter
What upset about this movie was that in the first FB film, there was this beautiful ending between Kowalski and Queenie. In the second movie, in the payoff to that scene, they use it as cheap comic relief and just kind of completely gloss over it, ruining the emotional impact that scene could have had.
She could have written the story of fantastic beasts in prose and get a screenwriter like Kloves for example and adapt it into a screenplay, and the writing credits would have gone to both. I think she doesn't quite understand the medium of filmmaking and also this could've have been fixed sort of, if Warner Bros. dare to hire a director with better vision and skills in directing, meaning they need an auteur. In The Prisoner of Azkaban Cuarón worked alongside Kloves to improve the story and combine visual storytelling, motives and symbolism to deliver a more engaging and substantial story, which today is the best in the series.
Yes. Thank you. Been saying for years Yates is such a bland and predictable director
Eh, POA looks the best, I'll grant you, but they cut out everything essential to the actual story. Movie-only fans don't know who the Marauders really are, why Harry's Patronus is a stag, that his dad was even an animagus, etc. The film looks pretty, but those Whomping Willow transition scenes could have been replaced with some actual plot or necessary information.
Also, they gave Hermione Ron's "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too" line, which is unforgivable.
@@emersonandrews7308 It's a different medium, you just can't expect that everything happens the same way in the books. When the movie was released 15 years ago, I had already read the book so, I was a little dissapointed that they didn't show the story behind marauder's map, but after many years and improving my perspective on filmmaking, I understood many decisions they took story wise. Cuarón loves to show but don't tell, Harry read who made the map and your paying close attention the four members are shown in the film as their animal form so you can connect the dots. The film concentrate to tell the story visually and not just the overall story but the arc of Harry Potter and his path from childhood to adolescence, his changes in humor and how he rebels againts the Dursleys, how he isolates himself from others watching through windows, how he faces his fears and get through them. At the end we watch him flying away from Hogwarts alone but redeemed.
PS. Yes, that line by Hermione was awful.
I liked the film despite its deep flaws, which are unfortunately true. She should have never been allowed to write the script.
I always believed that the flashbacks to Letha’s flashbacks as wel as the conversation with Dumbledore was an attempt of Rowling to make people like Letha and that way feel bad about her dying.
I tought she would know that good actions would make us like her. Instead of standing there looking emotionless and you know, killing her brother and all.
Suddenly I wonder if Rowling has been watching too much anime lol
Also the only important characters are Newt, Dumbledore, Credence and Grindelwald, the rest add absolutely nothing
But those are all male we can't have that.
Henceforth, Newt is a woman.
- Rowling, probably. While typing frantically, sitting in Hermine's wheel chair.
True, but why then does it feel like none of the affects the non-existing plot at all?
@@ETBrooD what, because he's not the stereotypical manly main character?
Kornel Paroczai i do really like Jacob though, and it grates on me that he had nothing yo do here other than be shocked and the love interest.
Dumbledore is irrelevant in this film.
This movie is like my essays. All exposition with little actual important information to build off of.
Years later, I'm still wondering what the crimes of Grindelwald actually are.
His makeup and bleached hair.
Wifebeating 😂
@@nm9688that comment didnt age well did it
@@guitaoist no it aged amazingly actually. Johnny depp is a wifebeater, proven in a court of law
And IGN gave this movie an 8😂😂😂😂😂
Ign also gave alien isolation a 5.9
@@masonshipton6996 I was about to mention that lol embarrassing.
I hope that it was 8/100 (jk)
@@masonshipton6996 yess they are one the worst reviewers out there
Probably paid by Disney.