One more sin. The heroes were gonna be killed for one murder they didn't even commit. The government catches Grindelwald, a known mass murderer, and they just lock him up?
Kai Rider I would assume the difference is the amount of influence they have. Newt and Tina were charged with the murder of a single non-magic person.. Grindelwald is a mass murderer of magic and non-magic alike with a huge following. I would assume they'd keep him to see what kind of information they could get out of him about all the people that would potentially continue his work after his incarceration or death. The other two are considerably less useful to them..
Kai Rider Except that casting that spell required extreme amounts of hatred, and even then, only the most twisted and evil wizards can ever really use it all the time and reliably. It's sort of like shooting someone versus death by lethal injection. Sure, the injection is more costly, but given that it's cleaner, it's still the best method for execution.
I guess it's because he has to be put on trial in britain for his crimes since that was done there otherwise there is like a diplomatic accident but that's still dumb because they don't seem to care that much about the inistry of magic uk
16:58 In the Deathly Hallows, when Hermione oblivietes her existence from her parents, she also disappears from every picture in the house so yes the spell does affect the pictures too
Actually, the movie got it wrong. She didn't use obliviate she used the forgetting spell so she could eventually undo it. The movie added the photo disappearing thing for effect, but was not in the books.
The reason that Jacob didn't lose all this memories on the magical beasts is because Newt had said that they remove "bad" memories. So everyone who had seen the Obcurial would have thought it as bad. But Jacob had been inside the case, there for having some good memories on the beasts, so he was not completely memory wiped.
Puppy Z.A.P. He also got bit by a murtlap, which messes with memories. (And if you see the part at the end of the movie when Queenie walks into his bakery, he grabs the bite scar).
I thought it was because of Queenies kiss and because of the fact that she temporarily covered him with her umbrella? But then he got rained on more so that doesn't work...
Am I the only person that watches these for fun? He has sinned some of my favorite movies & I've laughed through them all. After I watch the news hell I dive into some of my faves just to cleanse my mental palate 😃
Blanche Me too. I enjoy seeing him pick movies apart and I've watched him do some of my favorites, like Jurassic Park and Star Wars. I actually have more fun if I've seen the movie beforehand, but I don't have to have seen it to watch the sins video. These are just for fun. People really need to lighten up.
The way some of these comments read it seems like there are those that are almost personally affronted. Me? I just want a good laugh. I go to the Win channel to feel all fuzzy about my films lol
5:13 Reparo (obviously Newt uses a more complex form, but i think it's kind of the same) and it's introduced in the first HP movie before they even are at Hogwarts
Also another sin. Can the American wizardry court subject a British wizard to death? Wouldn't they need to talk to the British ministry before they just lay a death charge on a dude.
In real life, no not really. You are subject to the laws of the nation you are IN, not the one you came from. There might still be political wrangling involved, but that's diplomacy and only if there a greater issues would intervention actually succeed.
Firstly, Newt went through the immigration offices, baggage search, and he's IN AMERICA and Britain hates him because he was expelled from a very prestigious school. Secondly, when has Murica ever been good at these things?
International law says a country doesn't necessarily get a say if a citizen is imprisoned or prosecuted in a foreign state, but governments tend to speak out if they feel their citizens are being unfairly treated by the foreign stat. The prosecuting government is sometimes encouraged to levy less heavy handed punishments to keep up diplomatic relations. A long time ago an american tourist was tricked into smuggling drugs into singapore and the american embassy pleaded with them for weeks not to execute the guy, iic they did it anyway. A couple years ago Obama sent Clinton to north korea to negotiate the release of some journalists who had been ambiguously sentenced to hard labor for crimes against the state. international law might apply differently for wizards but the same should apply, Newt would be subject to American wizarding laws unless the British ministry objected to his right of due process, but then again we all know how the Wizarding world overall feels about due process.
The niffler wanted to escape the suitcase because it knew that there were a TON more shiny things outside of it than inside. There guys . you're welcome
Rowling not knowing how different writing a book and writing a film script are fucked it up. Then there's the fact that the Fantastic Beasts films are just a way to drag her one idea out longer because she can't think of anything else and knows she'll never write anything as successful ever again.
@@Xehanort10 I think if she just wrote the stories in novel form like she did with HP and then had others adapt it to film, it would be way better than what we got now
"Legilimency doesn't exist in the Harry Potter world." ...except when Voldemort was using it to torture and find Harry, thus causing the main plot of the Order of the Phoenix.
Hermione didn’t actually use the obliviate spell. It was said that way in the movie, which confuses many people, but Hermione didn’t obliviate her parents. She used a different spell I can’t remember the name of. The spell changed their memories so they didn’t remember they had a daughter. She also made them want to move to Australia, which they did. After the Battle of Hogwarts, she fixed her parents’ memories.
in regards to numbers 15 and 111, At this point in the magical world, there is no "history of magical animal wranglers", and there are no "fellow beastmasters". The fact that Newt literally wrote THE book on the subject means he was the first one to study it. He was the first person who tried to protect magical creatures rather than just killing them. On an unrelated note, that niffler is definitely my spirit animal(I love duckbilled platypuses and all things shiny and sparkly.)
The funny thing is that I think audiences would have genuinely loved it if it had been like a David Attenborough documentary but about fictional creatures in their natural habitats.
Magical creatures are allowed in the USA but they are protected by MACUSA. You cannot bring one into the country, as you risk exposing muggles to it but there are most definitely magical creatures in the United States.
And the reason why at the end he's making pastries in the shapes of the creatures is because earlier in the movie Newt explained that the venom? only removed BAD memories. However he experienced the good side of magic too unlike the normal citizens who only saw the attack.
Remember though that there wasn't only people dying, I'm sure there would be a fair few people (even if just a small percentage) who saw something that wasn't necessarily bad, like a platypus kinda thing sniffling around the bank and shouldn't get the memories removed by that reasoning. I know I'm probably nitpicking but that's what we do when in the presence of cinemasins.
+Breathe-Think-Dream Yeaaaah... I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that selling little and disgusting non-existent monster shaped pastries is a horrible idea! I mean, I would never put one of those near my mouth!
@Josh H Yes. Yes it was. Did you miss the entire ending somehow? Newt sending up the thunderbird with a phial of the venom to distribute it through the rain? They only used that. So when Jacob steps into the venomous rain, he too will only lose bad memories. Which he didn't have.
What about alll the people who probably died in those destroyed buildings? Magic doesn't bring the dead back. Does the obliviate spell just make everyone accept that hundreds died suddenly for no apparent reason?
I'd like to imagine it uses the same "obliviate" magic that Hermoine used to remove herself from her parents' memories. It'd be as if those dead never existed, as Ashby Laws said.
Which was actually a whole lot of bullshit on its own. Did she go change all public records and hack government databases to erase herself? Did she also change the memories of every single relative and every single person who knew her parents and thus knew they had a kid? Did she also go through and alter every single photo in the house, attic and relative/friend's albums? ... if so, then wow, that's a very time-consuming task. It's a good thing she didn't have anything better to do, like, oh help her friends take down an evil wizard. Unless she's actually the evil genius all along. I mean, her morals are clearly questionable since she's apparently willing to brainwash her own parents, but I didn't think she was quite THAT far gone... Hm. I should maybe clarify that I'm not trying to attack you here. The mechanics of the obliviate spell have just always seemed quite poorly thought-out to me. The human brain is quite a complex thing and the obliviate just seems like much too simple a spell to do everything it supposedly does.
If you watched the beginning of the Deathly Hallows part one, the obliviate spell does affect pictures so ding, sin on you for seeing the movie and still not knowing that.
Also that "ability to reconstruct destroyed buildings" was introduced in Half Blood Prince when Dumbledore restored the house Slughorn was hiding out in
“Doesn’t Newt have fellow beastmasters....?” No..... He explains earlier in the movie that one of the things he’s trying to do is change attitudes towards magical creatures...everyone else either exploits them or doesn’t care. It’s right there in the freaking movie....
There's unfortunately a lot Jeremy gets wrong in this video. He says Legilimens weren't introduced in the franchise before this movie (Voldemort and Snape were) and that Obliviate doesn't affect photography (which it does, as shown when Hermione Obliviated her parents).
I would excuse the sin about how graves as Grindelwald is obvious cause 1) Graves is an actual person but Grindelwald kidnapped the real graves to transform into him. 2) At that time in the American wizarding world, hating/dislike muggles were the norm
@@TazorNissen There is but its the screen play but if youve ever seen a screen play it goes into deeper emotions and actions that dont get seen,which makes no damn sense but I guess they do it for the benefit of the actor and their performance not the viewer. But even if there wasnt,you couldnt figure that out? Graves had been doing that job for years there is no way he was always Grindelwald all along. How'd Newt figure it out is what I'd like know... Maybe its because he knew who Dumbledore was.
I wouldn’t excuse it because after seeing all the trailers, that one shot of Grindelwald at the beginning WITH THE SAME HAIRCUT completely spoiled that twist and ruined the movie for me lol
"Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort were legilimens" yes, but only book readers know that because lbr the movies never bothered to explain what legilimency was. The 5th movie made it look like it was just a spell. Also, legilimens in this movie are nothing like the book's portrayal. In the book, legilimens are able to tell when people lie and they can sometimes read people's true intention but they're not full on telepaths. Legilimency is a skill, not a superpower. Legilimens CAN read minds but it requires making the conscious decision to do so (also they often need to make eye contact and it doesn't work on everyone). Think about how horrifying it would be if Snape and Dumbledore spent their daily lives eavesdropping every of their students' thoughts. This movie turned legilimens into Jean Greys.
The second I saw a Kerbal face was your avatar, I went "THIS BITCH KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT *points vigorously at screen and nods head spastically*"
Not to mention that Legilimency isn't MIND READING!!! According to Snape, "The mind is not a book that can be opened at leisure." A sh*t ton of Muggles think this, and those Muggles and this movie are WRONG
I think the implication is that snape isn't very good at legilimency, I think at some point they said that if harry couldn't keep snape out he wouldn't stand a chance. Also I wouldn't be surprised if she turns out to be the best at legilimancy, just cause that happens a lot in this series.
@Cameron Breeze: cause--a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect 'cause--contraction of "because" The More You Know
Because the erumpant was magical and Jacob was not. The erumpant already showed it had physical abilities that normal humans (and hippos / rhinos would not)
The sin at 19:18 is wrong, it made him forget all the bad memories, if you watch the movie again Newt explains that the juice from the beast makes people forget recent bad memories
So are you telling me that literally all the people that saw the magic happening during that night were considering it "bad memories"? Not one freak except Jacob was like "FUCK YEAAAH, MAGIC IS REAAAAL!!!" ??? Bullshit! But hey, why exactly do I expect a Rowling story to be consistent in any way whatsoever, right? I mean look at HP franchise...
Strudels and boners and magic and witches Eddie Redmayne in a show with no snitches Wizards who chase little creatures with wings These are a few of our Sins-worthy things!
I never saw it sadly. However, I am trying to figure out a version for Robocop. The downside is I forgot what all the movies plots and key points and shizzle are, and I don't have any of the movies on disc or anything.
The origami pets tearing eachother apart - I just assumed that was the wizard equivalent of a shredder. I doubt they'd do that to any important document that they actually need.
17:01 the photographs would be affected, we saw this effect in Deathly Hallows part 1 when Hermione obliviated her parents, she disappeared from all her photos her family had
You know, one of these days I really should get around to watching/reading Deathly Hollows. I gave up on the franchise after reading Half-Blood Prince.
The movie handled that scene differently than the book (which was told second-hand in the book, too). Hermione modified their memories to think they were other people who really wanted to live in Australia, where they quickly went. After Voldemort was defeated, she put it all back to normal. The photo disappearing thing was kind of dumb, and was more of a visual cue to the viewers which has apparently become an actual magical ability now.
Swiftbow - I thought the visual was better than the book in that case because they implied that she'd lose her parents forever which is a much bigger sacrifice.
Yeah, that was a bad implication, though, because she didn't. I'm not saying it was a bad scene, those last two movies were quite good (and paced a bit better than the book, too), there's just a few scenes (like that one) that I get nitpicky about. The other big one was Harry snapping the Elder Wand at the end. (Though, again, I understand why they did that.)
At 6:57 I thought Graves was making up the vision. He was using information known to all about the Obscurial. That they were young because most didn't live past 10, they were powerful because of all the magic bottled up and it was someone close to the mother because all the attacks happend near her or whoever she claimed were evil.
I also thought that he was making up the vision! His supposed plan still doesn't make any sense though... (at least for now, they haven't shown it actually).
He was probably planning to take the obscurial and make it into a weapon the things powerful it could destroy the entire MACUSA if he got them off guard
ok i havent watched the movie but i fiund a problem from this first tho can u guys answer this to make sure i hav my facts straight first . so an obscural is someone is someone who doesnt use there powers and they usually die before age of 10 right ?
These movies show how great these actors are at their jobs! If these were casted differently, they probably would have died by the end of the second one!
5:16 YOU DO SEE IT IN HARRY POTTER. GAWD!! Sixth movie, Harry Potter and the half blood prince. Dumbledore reverses the damage in the muggle house where slughorn is hiding out. They have an entire accidental magic reversal squad, remember? But obviously you don't see Harry and his friends do it, cause I'm pretty sure this is some advanced level magic. Probably taught in the NEWTS. Harry and his friends only took a single NEWT year in the series and also didn't need to reverse any major damage in those 2 years
Also when he talks about no mention of a Legilimens in the movies (I know he doesn't acknowledge the books), there was a very clear mention of them with Snape and Harry doing Occlumency training in Half Blood Prince. These aren't serious videos
No, I'm pretty sure the billywig appeared over the city at the end of the movie or something. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen…Like, I don't quite remember it, the memory is there but I just can't tell if I manufactured it from how obvious it is…Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. >.
I Mean, I've seen the theatrical version and the DVD version and I don't remember anything like that, but I can easily imagine it happening and how it happens (in a cliche way).
Accio! (This spell seems to have given you a bit of a headache.) There are good reasons why he isn't trying to summon his creatures with the accio charm. 1) Only affects inanimate objects. (Harry can summon his broom, but not say, Ron or Hermione with accio. Newt can accio the treasures INSIDE the niffler's pouch, not the actual niffler himself. That's why it was seen tumbling over the jewelery as it was streaming out of the bellypouch!) 2) If a person is actively holding something, you can't accio it out of their hands, you'd need to use a disarming charm for that. (i.e. Another wizard's wand, the suitcase, etc...)
it's almost as if, reading about accio, that Rowling just wrote a bunch of contradictory shit and you're really trying to fit it as gospel. it's been used canonically both on objects actively held, and on creatures
Could you accio hagrids umbrella wand as it’s an everyday object (umbrella) that is also a wand. Also could Harry and Ron not just of acciod (don’t know if that’s correct way of typing it) the car from the beginning in Harry Potter and chamber of secrets which luckily they didn’t or they dead also could they not have acciod buck beak or chain if there was one forgot also sword of godric griffindore or philologist stone or horcruxes (not to shire If they mention in books about that one) could someone just debunk any I got wrong?
@@gretegutzer97 Dumbledore's parents didn't die before 1899. Dumbledore dies at age 106 (I think) in 1997 which means he was born in 1891. In the books it is clearly stated that his mother died when he had just finished school, which'd be 1908
As for sin #116, actually, as we saw in Deathly Hallows part 1 obliviating certainly does affect photographs because Hermione obliviated her parents and disappeared from the photos.
I'm pretty sure she literally modified the pictures separately herself; she describes how she dealt with her parents in the books and mentions both obliviating them AND modifying the pictures, and the way it is written seemed to imply (from what I recall) that she did these two SEPARATE magical acts. As in, she used two different actions or spells - one to modify their memories, one to erase evidence of her from the home/pictures/etc. That said, to be fair I have seen nothing to suggest that a particularly powerful witch/wizard using an obliviate spell COULDN'T necessarily effect all elements of the obliviated person's life which include instances/occurrences of the erased element... So still going to agree with OP, ultimately, that it's possible. :)
@@thedolphin602 why is that confusing if i had a leopard as a personal pet and just released it in the suburbs - that'd be a major fucking issue i'm pretty sure releasing magical beasts you may or may not have legal access to in the first place without any sort of laws or regulations or an ok from a government presumably watching for this sort of shit - would indeed be an isuee we're not talking about an animal like a housecat out in the wild or whatever (which is actually extremely damaging)
No, dementors exsist alrady, they were created (possibly unintentionaly) by a cruel dark wizard who used to live on Azkaban before it was a prison. If you care about that universe, you can read more: www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/azkaban
Lucía Kaminski no i don't believe that's how it works because dementor's are like the embodiment of terrible feelings and forgotten good memories I think and obscurial's are like a wizard or scribbis (idk how to spell it) depression and anxiety formed into a slowly killing parasite
Fantastic Beasts is definitely a movie for fans of the books. There's a lot of stuff that relies on extensive knowledge going into it. Having said that I still enjoyed both the movie and this video.
Yes, I enjoy the movie, but I am disappointed that this is the kind that will not be able to stand on its own without background knowledge of the universe. They did a bad job at introducing the characters and the world settings.
You made a comment about obliviating and photographs but Hermione literally uses the spell on her parents IN THE MOVIES and it makes her disappear from all of their photos...
More importantly than that, how did he miss the moment where Newt says that he is gay in a hilariously unnecessary way? I mean, just the way that whole conversation went was so fucked up. They even cut it from some versions of the movie.
Matthias Strøm That can't be true because in the textbook (Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them) in the autobiography area it says that Newt got married to Tina. So he is bisexual or pansexual at best
Like, Hermione literally would point her wand at Harry's glasses and magic him some new snazzy lenses out of the crappy old ones he had with it, at age what? 11? without any previous formal magical training, is it that surreal that fully grown adult magic users might be able to repair extensive damage done to a thing with magic? All of this in a world where we've established that basically, magic's only limits are an actual resurrection that is not done with a tether to the person's soul (which still come at the cost of madness in canon because you're fracturing your soul), generating food and water out of thin air and making true gold and goods/possessions out of thin air (which actually you can solve the gold thing by adding Flamel's Philosopher's Stone and lead to the mix); and well limits in healing damage from dark magic past a certain point and a couple of natural magical ailments or learning knowledge/abilities faster via magic (unless you discount using the Time Turner to obtain extra hours to exercise, train or study).
@@lexwolfhale1729 I would argue that repararing a pair of glasses its different than reparing an entire city or even building and even in the books/movies its pointed out Hermione is NOT an average wizard to make comparassions; she is way too advanced for her age because she has read -on the summer- all the books needed for her classes and its really interested in learning. The video didnt say it was impossible by Wizarding World rules, it say it was plot convenience and erased all consecuences of the actions which...true. (It also contradicts itself with the book it was originally from but thats another story for another day)
@@heyyou193 Its not entire cities at a time just parts of the city by many aurors. We see magic like this in the half blood prince when the go to convince slughorn they also do this
A slight reminder, earlier in the movie he quite specifically says bad memories when referring to the Swooping Death venom, and of course that would work with people witnessing mass destruction with no visible cause. Kowalski saw the wondrous side of the magical world along with the destruction, so it would make sense he at least remembered the creatures. Edit: I remembered this because I thought it would be important to state and when it ended, I thought they would bring Kowalski back using that loop hole.
Right, at 9:50 onwards, Newt doesn't use his Summoning Charm on the Niffler itself - he casts it on the items in the Niffler's pouch. HENCE WHY ALL THE ITEMS IN SAID POUCH START FLYING OUT AND HOW THE NIFFLER WAS ABLE TO SPIN ON THE LAMPPOST AND HIT THE WINDOW! ALSO, THE SUMMONING CHARM CANNOT WORK ON ANIMALS! And for the sin directly after that one, NEWT HAS MAGIC, SO HE CAN USE THAT TO DEFEND HIMSELF, JACOB CANNOT!
It works on animals. I don't have any specific examples from the books, but I do remember it being used on creatures a couple times in the novels. Also, explain what charm Newt used on Jacob to pull him over to Newt before they apparated into the basement if it was not the summoning charm.
To answer your Progressive Laws problem, in England the segregation laws did not exist. Mostly because people were not worried about being black or white, it was rich vs poor. Also, there weren't very many people of colour in England at that time. The muggle/wizard segregation represents the USAs Jim Crow Laws.
Grace Deakin Well GB simply didnt have more than a few colored people in the 1920s. They did however, rule over them with the excuse that africans, indians and basically everyone else arent intelligent enough too rule themselves.
One of the biggest reasons Britain didn't have legally enforced racial segregation was because it was impractical while running an empire. The British empire required non-white Brits to help in administration, defence etc. There's also the fact the Victorians in particular; liked to tell themselves they were civilising our colonial subjects. Making them good Christians that value freedom, exploration, science, industry etc. Again, it's hard to do that when you're legally barring them from certain things. Lastly the abolitionist movement in Britain was extremely popular and won the public over with the idea "We are all sons of Adam" to over simplify things. It's hard to free black people from bondage with that argument and then immediately pass a bunch of laws restricting their access to society.
@@walsh9080There were no anti-discrimination laws in the UK until the Race-Relations Act of 1965. Before then it was legal and common for hotels, restaurants, buses, employers etc. to discriminate against or refuse service to non-whites in the UK. There were also race riots across the country, like in 1919, with white dock workers refusing to work with black employees...employers solution was to fire all the blacks. Here is a listing of some events in regards to racism in the UK, from the British National Archives: 1919 uprisings in London, Cardiff and Liverpool 1931 Dr Harold Moody establishes the League of Coloured Peoples 1948 British Nationality Act 1948 SS Empire Windrush arrives at Tilbury 1958 uprisings in London and Nottingham 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1958-1966 Notting Hill Carnival begins (exact date is disputed) 1963 Bristol bus boycott 1965, 1968 and 1975 Race Relations Acts 1967 British Black Panther party established 1970 Trial of the Mangrove Nine 1979 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (led to repeal of the ‘Sus laws’) 1981 Brixton uprisings and Lord Scarman report 1999 Macpherson Report published following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/black-british-social-and-political-history-in-the-20th-century/#2-key-events-organisations-and-legislation Eventually the government stepped in, but there was a lot of trouble, and reaction from whites against the legislation protecting Black UK citizens. Pretending that racism wasn't a thing in the UK, especially around the turn of the 20th century, is ridiculous.
Saying 'there was no legally enforced segregation' could be interpreted as there being no NEED for such laws. I didn't imply you didn't know that, but that some people might misinterpret your statements. Pernicious racism was present in the UK just like in the US...less than in the US South, but more than in US Northern cities. Some here want to pretend that the UK was a colour-blind utopia for race relations. That was not the case.
@@Ocrilat Oh right I see what you mean now mate. Although personally I wouldn't say the Northern US states were better than the UK because of things I've read like the works of Frederick Douglass for example. Yeah the people thinking Britain was some kind of egalitarian paradise are kidding themselves. To Britain there was money in not having Jim Crow laws because of the empire. It was motivated by greed more than any progressive desires.
6:23 Legilimency was in the Harry Potter books and movies. In the fifth book, when Harry had to learn how to block his mind from Voldemort, Snape trained Harry by looking through Harry's mind because SNAPE IS A LEGILIMENS
They are, but in the movies, they were just mentioned a bit, with Snape showing one or two times. Thats it for 8 movies. We knew they are there, but thats it for nearly all of the time.
Dyonus Vision is stronger than them, maybe in the future if we get stronger versions of Hulk and Thor they probably could surpass Vision but for now in the MCU Vision is stronger than them, he is made of vibranium, can become intangible, can wield Mjolnir and has an Infinity stone.
Are we talking about Strength of invulnerability? I have a list of what each hero can lift. Granted it's the comics and not MCU, but it has Vision listed as being able to lift 5 to 50 tons. I guess I was wrong about Spider-Man 'cause he can only lift 25 tons. The Hulk varies. Thor is listed at around 100 tons. I'm not sure if the infinity Stones have increased strength, but I haven't seen anything to imply it. Mjolnir has more to do with his purity and not his strength.
Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp all played the same character in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus where they replaced Heath Ledger. It's not too surprising if you know they're all actors at the top of their field who seem to be decent people. Also I legitimately can't wait to see people making fanart of Law and Depp. I don't need to see it, but there will be fans wanting that soon if not already. Just their characters may have been lovers.
The way Newt uses his magic to reconstruct the building literally blew my mind. That is VERY VERY VERY powerful magic, let alone what’s inside his suitcase. Oh, maybe he can gain super-powerful magic from those creatures?
I have to say, you missed a sin opportunity! When the President arrests Tina (which you do sin) she says Tina should have handed him in immediately and not let him run around for 24hrs. But she tries to, but the President immediately dismisses her.
but he also messed one up. he says the girl is was the first ligimens in NY for the first time in Harry Potter, but Voldemort was one and it was important to the Harry Potter plot
I'm sinning you for not using the Jurassic Park Theme when it's showing of Newt's Suitcase. It was a perfect and obvious opportunity and you didn't take it.
5:10 - Actually, it isn't "teen angst" as you call it, because A) it's caused by a combination of traumatic experiences and feelings of self hatred and possibly guilt, and B) it's most common in children aged 4-10 years old because usually the Obscurus KILLS IT'S HOST BEFORE THEY CAN REACH AGE ELEVEN.
@@books2438 not really, she wasn't shamed or made to hate herself for having magic. She had two older brothers who were wizards in training, so she was most likely familiar with it as well. The only traumatic event was that time with the muggles boys, and from what I understand, developing an obscurial would take repeated trauma and suppression of magic.
@@effiethefey idk if it was Gryffindor's hat but I'm pretty sure it was Slytherin who enchanted it. I'll try and find the source to check. Gryffindor's sword was definitely hidden in the hat tho
8:33 This this this. So much this. I would have loved this movie so much more if they had focused on the many magical creatures and having Newt and Jacob use creative ways to soothe and/or subdue them instead of the whole thing with Credence. Instead of making an attempt at cramming two movies into one, just make them into two separate movies. The entire Harry Potter franchise makes far more than enough money for this to be done.
No babe u dont understand. The title is based on book thats why it contains 'fantastic beasts'. It is prequel of harry potter. It satisfies us who really into hp franchise, solve many plot holes (sometimes creating contradictory plot too- XD) So the beasts are just complimentary
@@lyrahazel2079 The book this is based on was a supplementary work, written as if it was an actual textbook (has Ron writing anecdotes in the margins, which was a nice touch) but has no story or plot. It's a textbook! They could have done so much more with this! I'd have wanted to watch a documentary style film about magical creatures than this garbage. That would have been more fun than this!
@@3872864 when he catched all the creatures it will be the ********* end. The climax would ideally be something different that actually has to do with the creatures themselves, like releasing that one beast in Arizona You'd have to rework the whole film and it might be more focused then For what it's worth, this movie lacks focus
You'd think by now people would understand how CinemaSins works. People are getting so upset because "You're giving a sin for something that isn't a sin" as if the sins he gives actually matter and will effect this movie forever. It's a comedy channel, he does the same thing to every movie.
Jessica Cooper ikr, even if Jeremy has some favorite movies he would still sin them like he hated them because those movies gave him and his entire family cancer. Everything is just for fun but people treated this channel like some professional movie critic non sense.
Jessica Cooper They are probably just new to the channel. When I first saw Cinema Sins I got pissy about the non sense sins like "no lap dance sin" but I quickly caught on lol
Jessica Cooper When I first got a vid by cinemasins on my recomended I thought it was some weird shit and never bothered to even try and watch it...Until,I somehow, watched my first video and got addicted to it.. It's propably just because they are new..(some people don't get this is humorous though,despite knowing what this channel is,but that's an exception)
yes, however, the one constantly recurring sin I hate is "Guy/Girl X would be good at cinema sins" like well yea they pointed out a characters stupid idea. And this bad because??? That one gets on my nerves. Everything else is pretty fine
6:28 although legilimens were never mentioned in the movies they were mentioned multiple times in Harry Potter, someof the most known legilimens that were mentioned to be legilimena in the books are Snape, Voldemort and Dumbledore. Also there is a counter to the art of legilimance called Occlumency which Snape tries to teach Harry in hope he can shut of his mind from voldemort visions.
"there are no stakes to this final confrontation" Except, you know, death. Lots of death. No spell can fix death. Not even the resurrection stone, which has a mildly misleading name. "The only way your character is truly dead is if you're Robert Pattinson" Or Brendon Gleeson Or Gary Oldman Or David Thewlis Or Natalia Tena Or James Phelps Or Jessie Cave Or Toby Jones Or Hazel Douglas Or Michael Byrne Or Ian Hart Or Roger Lloyd Pack Or (at least one character portrayed by) Warwick Davis
Or Helena Bonham Carter Or Alan Rickman Or Ralph Fiennes Or Richard Harris and Michael Gambon Or Alfred Burke Or Hebe Beardsall Or Carolyn Pickles Or Gizmo, Kasper, Oops, Swoops, Oh Oh, Elmo and Bandit (Hedwig owls) Or Bill Nighy Or Nick Moran Or Jamie Waylett Or Nagini
David Tennant can stay dead. I mean his take on Barty Crouch Jr. Worse Character adaptation in the series. I mean, Brendan Gleeson pulled off fake moody and real Moody just fine. It's because Fake Moody pullled off Moody so well, so he wasn't really playing a separate character. But when David Tennant played BCJ, it was awful.
I'm surprised that they didn't sin the part where the boss chick was all like "Why didn't you inform us of this dude's magical case?" When that was EXACTLY what Tina had been trying to do when she burst in earlier? Why didn't Tina protest and SAY that that was what she was trying to do but they had ignored her?
Can we also talk about in the Harry Potter movies it was established that performing wandless magic was extremely difficult, yet in this movie, almost everyone does it flawlessly???
theyre adults... obviously its hard for kids learning it, but every wizard in this film that uses magic without a wand is an adult... with a job in the ministry (except newt) which weak wizards would be very unlikely to get a job in
Levi Ackerman I only noticed Graves using wandless magic? And the reason he can do it is because he is Grindelwald (it's another hint that he is not the original Graves).
Do you mean wordless magic? In the Potterverse wordless magic is difficult for students but not so much for adults. However, wandless magic is extremely difficult to learn and only the most skilled wizards manage to perfect it
Levi Ackerman, in America, wizards and witches were more cautious about kibbles (or no-majs) finding out that they could do magic, so it's easier for them to do wandless magic
6:23 Legilimens was introduced in the Harry Potter movies. Snape teaches Harry to defend against Voldemort's Legilimens attacks. The fact that Voldemort can do this is the entire reason Dumbledore doesn't speak to Harry for the first half of The Order of the Phoenix.
Alex yeah, but that was a spell, not some gift a wizard/witch can have, and Snape says you can only extract feelings and memories, not actual thoughts, like Queenie does
Alex I know-!! That bothered me quite a bit since it's supposed to be just a spell to read minds not something "you can't control", that's just intrusive
No, sorry but you are incorrect, it is a gift. In the novels Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore and Bellatrix are all Legilimens. Not that they know a spell to read feelings and memories, it is a trait that they have. This is how Voldemort is able to plant the image in Harry's mind of Mr. Weasley being tortured in the department of mysteries.
Alex that last bit is absolutely not true, you can't use legilimency from a distance, and planting a vision is not legilimency!!! When Voldemort experiences a strong emotion, Harry notices, and he feels which emotion Voldemort feels, and sometimes he slips into Voldemorts mind and looks through his eyes, but the Harry-Voldemort connection is very difficult, because part of Voldemort lives inside Harry, Voldemort can't read Harry's mind or emotions from a distance, only the other way around
Calgary8889 That was a vision repairing spell made by Hermione on the magic train to the boats which took Harry and Ron and Hermione to Hogwarts as well from the philosophers stone.
Philosopher's stone, not sorcerer's stone (i know that's the american version, but I'm sure you don't buy into the "it's a too complicated word for children" bullshit)
9:00 Newt later clearly says that the Obscurial would die the second it leaves that bubble, it’s harmless and he keeps it around to study it and try to find a way to remove one without killing the host
yeah but legilimency, according to the books, allows you to sift through memories and search through minds- it doesn't have to be things they're thinking at that particular moment.
Yeah, but the way her powers were portrayed showed her to be able to know what they're thinking which is searching through their mind because it is what thought is on their mind.
“The only time anyone is actually dead in this series is when he’s Robert Pattinson”
Ok, I’m fine😭
and the over 70 people + hedwig in part 7
Im not crying ! You're crying !
Back when Robert Pattinson was hawt
Memento Mori 🖤🤍
No he wasn’t
One more sin. The heroes were gonna be killed for one murder they didn't even commit. The government catches Grindelwald, a known mass murderer, and they just lock him up?
Kai Rider I would assume the difference is the amount of influence they have. Newt and Tina were charged with the murder of a single non-magic person.. Grindelwald is a mass murderer of magic and non-magic alike with a huge following. I would assume they'd keep him to see what kind of information they could get out of him about all the people that would potentially continue his work after his incarceration or death. The other two are considerably less useful to them..
Well, we all see what happens when you do that though. Just watch Kung Fu Panda. Shit blows.
Kai Rider Maybe because Grindelwald was the one ordering the execution? I'm not sure though.
Kai Rider Except that casting that spell required extreme amounts of hatred, and even then, only the most twisted and evil wizards can ever really use it all the time and reliably. It's sort of like shooting someone versus death by lethal injection. Sure, the injection is more costly, but given that it's cleaner, it's still the best method for execution.
I guess it's because he has to be put on trial in britain for his crimes since that was done there otherwise there is like a diplomatic accident but that's still dumb because they don't seem to care that much about the inistry of magic uk
I have a feeling Jeremy doesn't like that suitcase and everything it represents,
LaserCustard WHAT!? Nooo. What gave it away?
I'm getting that feeling too but I'm not really sure
Where did you get that idea?
Yeah, there was something in the tone of his voice.
Did I miss something? What does the suitcase represent?
“This movie is one Jude Law away...”
That moment when Jude Law is cast as dumbledore in the sequel.
I think you missed the joke
alternate name: Put that thing back where it came from or so help me
Omg, well done. Best comment haha!
Maniacal Ghoul 😳😳😳
This comment. It changed my life.
Mike Wazowski: Sheeesss out of our haaaaair!
Excellent reference.
what movie at 20:07 ?
16:58 In the Deathly Hallows, when Hermione oblivietes her existence from her parents, she also disappears from every picture in the house so yes the spell does affect the pictures too
Emilie Wttqnd yup
Only in the movie.
That's some convenient bullshit
Actually, the movie got it wrong. She didn't use obliviate she used the forgetting spell so she could eventually undo it. The movie added the photo disappearing thing for effect, but was not in the books.
kevin k only because pictures of her were never addressed in the books
*Goes to form an Emo band named Obscurus*
Can I join? I play guitar.
Yeah, now we just need a drummer and pianist
I can be a singer, or a drummer.... or a pianist..... or just stand in the audience and go WOOOOOOOO
Imagine if this became legit and this was our origin story.
I'll be the pianist
"The Perks of Being an Obscurial" I see what you did there lol
What did he do there ?
Aaaaah! I've been looking for this comment!
@@morejemmex6367 Ezra Miller (Credence) starred in a movie called The perks of being a wallflower. (great movie btw)
Screen junkies' honest trailers made one about "we need to talk about Kevin"
There's a theme I tell ya
@@meetaverma8372 as a 7th grade student that movie disturbed me and my twin.
The reason that Jacob didn't lose all this memories on the magical beasts is because Newt had said that they remove "bad" memories. So everyone who had seen the Obcurial would have thought it as bad. But Jacob had been inside the case, there for having some good memories on the beasts, so he was not completely memory wiped.
Puppy Z.A.P. He also got bit by a murtlap, which messes with memories. (And if you see the part at the end of the movie when Queenie walks into his bakery, he grabs the bite scar).
That would be true.
Puppy Z.A.P. but he doesn't remeber her, or the case or magic. so no, this excuse doesn't work.
Puppy Z.A.P. OKAY SO I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S BEEN SAYING THIS
I thought it was because of Queenies kiss and because of the fact that she temporarily covered him with her umbrella? But then he got rained on more so that doesn't work...
"one Jude Law away..."
-Jude Law gets cast as Dumbledore.
Haha true!!
I would not be mad about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mind over Mindfuck he actually did
yeah he probably knew that
It was announced well before this video was put out lol
Am I the only person that watches these for fun? He has sinned some of my favorite movies & I've laughed through them all. After I watch the news hell I dive into some of my faves just to cleanse my mental palate 😃
I'm the same!
Blanche Me too. I enjoy seeing him pick movies apart and I've watched him do some of my favorites, like Jurassic Park and Star Wars. I actually have more fun if I've seen the movie beforehand, but I don't have to have seen it to watch the sins video. These are just for fun. People really need to lighten up.
Blanche who the hell doesnt watch them for fun
The way some of these comments read it seems like there are those that are almost personally affronted. Me? I just want a good laugh. I go to the Win channel to feel all fuzzy about my films lol
Валерия Петухова - Get a job ya fake russian
5:13 Reparo (obviously Newt uses a more complex form, but i think it's kind of the same) and it's introduced in the first HP movie before they even are at Hogwarts
This is what I got from this vid:
"Fuck this suitcase and everything it represents."
NiceRsProductions I got "standing there with his niffler dick out"
NiceRsProductions I read this while he said it. Fucking creepy.
NiceRsProductions I wanted this to be mentioned every time 😁
Really? I got: "Fuck this suitcase and everything it represents."
Get in the bag Nebby!
Also another sin. Can the American wizardry court subject a British wizard to death? Wouldn't they need to talk to the British ministry before they just lay a death charge on a dude.
In real life, no not really. You are subject to the laws of the nation you are IN, not the one you came from. There might still be political wrangling involved, but that's diplomacy and only if there a greater issues would intervention actually succeed.
The Jabbawok well no..if say you get arrested in China, you go by their rules..not by American laws if you're American. ..
The Jabbawok Grindewald is russion. He also never terrorized Britain.
Firstly, Newt went through the immigration offices, baggage search, and he's IN AMERICA and Britain hates him because he was expelled from a very prestigious school.
Secondly, when has Murica ever been good at these things?
International law says a country doesn't necessarily get a say if a citizen is imprisoned or prosecuted in a foreign state, but governments tend to speak out if they feel their citizens are being unfairly treated by the foreign stat. The prosecuting government is sometimes encouraged to levy less heavy handed punishments to keep up diplomatic relations. A long time ago an american tourist was tricked into smuggling drugs into singapore and the american embassy pleaded with them for weeks not to execute the guy, iic they did it anyway. A couple years ago Obama sent Clinton to north korea to negotiate the release of some journalists who had been ambiguously sentenced to hard labor for crimes against the state.
international law might apply differently for wizards but the same should apply, Newt would be subject to American wizarding laws unless the British ministry objected to his right of due process, but then again we all know how the Wizarding world overall feels about due process.
The niffler wanted to escape the suitcase because it knew that there were a TON more shiny things outside of it than inside.
There guys . you're welcome
SHINYYYYYYYYY
Nifler is still lame. What kind of seal is on that suitcase if a nifler can just get out that easily?
“Movie doesn’t know what its primary storyline is”
Oh boy just you wait...
This is confusion at Shyamalan levels , not the good one , the "After Earth" one
Rowling not knowing how different writing a book and writing a film script are fucked it up. Then there's the fact that the Fantastic Beasts films are just a way to drag her one idea out longer because she can't think of anything else and knows she'll never write anything as successful ever again.
@@Xehanort10 I think if she just wrote the stories in novel form like she did with HP and then had others adapt it to film, it would be way better than what we got now
"Legilimency doesn't exist in the Harry Potter world."
...except when Voldemort was using it to torture and find Harry, thus causing the main plot of the Order of the Phoenix.
Eas that explained in the movies? No it was not this is CINEMAsins not booksins. How can you fanbois not understand this really somple concept.
John Doe It's pretty damn obvious in the movies.
Also Snape
Salazar Slytherin is a legilimen if you want to close this debate.
IzzyArcadeGamer Youre incorrect. Snape details how voldemort used to show his victims horrifying images to make them go insane.
17:00 hermione disappeared from her parents' photos when she obliviated them.
how does the obliviate spell affect neighbors or friends or anyone who came in contact with her? it doesnt.
Troy Walker
They moved to Australia, right? So they didn’t have a chance to talk with them
@@-soph-1630 that i dont know, ive only seen the movies
@@troywalkertheprogressivean8433 one of the many reasons why you should read the books
Hermione didn’t actually use the obliviate spell. It was said that way in the movie, which confuses many people, but Hermione didn’t obliviate her parents. She used a different spell I can’t remember the name of. The spell changed their memories so they didn’t remember they had a daughter. She also made them want to move to Australia, which they did. After the Battle of Hogwarts, she fixed her parents’ memories.
in regards to numbers 15 and 111, At this point in the magical world, there is no "history of magical animal wranglers", and there are no "fellow beastmasters". The fact that Newt literally wrote THE book on the subject means he was the first one to study it. He was the first person who tried to protect magical creatures rather than just killing them. On an unrelated note, that niffler is definitely my spirit animal(I love duckbilled platypuses and all things shiny and sparkly.)
I'll be sure not to invite you to my Grandmother's yearly Christmas party.
So it's almost poetic that Newt's grandson would marry Luna, who is as passionate about animals as Newt.
@@thepickygamer4450username checks out.
The funny thing is that I think audiences would have genuinely loved it if it had been like a David Attenborough documentary but about fictional creatures in their natural habitats.
Ye thats what i was expecting from this movie
Yeah the dumbledore story is a different film
Maybe if you were like 70 yrs old
@@vojtecc
Or 7 - my brother and I *loved* watching Attenborough's stuff on VHS.
Omg yes! Just like these dinosaur movies, combined with Avatar (blue world). Would be so cool and interesting 🤗😄
3:15 Dude of course it's illegal. Fantastic Beasts are forbidden/technically not allowed in the USA
he is a fukung idot it says that in the movey somewhere
Magical creatures are allowed in the USA but they are protected by MACUSA. You cannot bring one into the country, as you risk exposing muggles to it but there are most definitely magical creatures in the United States.
Then how come the Clintons and Obamas are here? Har har har.
Obama is magical? Sure, but not the Clintons.
Well, Bill is the mysterious Skeazle.
And the reason why at the end he's making pastries in the shapes of the creatures is because earlier in the movie Newt explained that the venom? only removed BAD memories. However he experienced the good side of magic too unlike the normal citizens who only saw the attack.
That actually makes so much sense. I can't believe I didn't realize that
Remember though that there wasn't only people dying, I'm sure there would be a fair few people (even if just a small percentage) who saw something that wasn't necessarily bad, like a platypus kinda thing sniffling around the bank and shouldn't get the memories removed by that reasoning. I know I'm probably nitpicking but that's what we do when in the presence of cinemasins.
+Breathe-Think-Dream Yeaaaah... I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that selling little and disgusting non-existent monster shaped pastries is a horrible idea! I mean, I would never put one of those near my mouth!
That's how I interpreted the Chekhov's Gun poison as well.
@Josh H Yes. Yes it was. Did you miss the entire ending somehow? Newt sending up the thunderbird with a phial of the venom to distribute it through the rain? They only used that. So when Jacob steps into the venomous rain, he too will only lose bad memories. Which he didn't have.
Should've added another counter for all the times he said "F- this suitcase!"
And all it represents.
"Legilimens have never been introduced before"
*cough cough* Snape *cough cough* Voldemort *cough cough*
Yeah I was just thinking: has this guy read the books or for that matter watched the movies
Ikr
It was even an important part of the plot towards the end
And he blatantly references them in the "Order of the Phoenix" video
Ravenclaw Thestral. I was just about to say the same thing. It’s like he forgets a movie right after he makes a video about it😂😂😂
@@rasmuspetervammenrsns3353 if the movies are forgetable, yes
What about alll the people who probably died in those destroyed buildings? Magic doesn't bring the dead back. Does the obliviate spell just make everyone accept that hundreds died suddenly for no apparent reason?
it makes them forget they even existed at all
Ashby Laws thats sad as fuck 😂😂😂
I'd like to imagine it uses the same "obliviate" magic that Hermoine used to remove herself from her parents' memories. It'd be as if those dead never existed, as Ashby Laws said.
Вероника Давыдова un
Which was actually a whole lot of bullshit on its own. Did she go change all public records and hack government databases to erase herself? Did she also change the memories of every single relative and every single person who knew her parents and thus knew they had a kid? Did she also go through and alter every single photo in the house, attic and relative/friend's albums?
... if so, then wow, that's a very time-consuming task. It's a good thing she didn't have anything better to do, like, oh help her friends take down an evil wizard. Unless she's actually the evil genius all along. I mean, her morals are clearly questionable since she's apparently willing to brainwash her own parents, but I didn't think she was quite THAT far gone...
Hm. I should maybe clarify that I'm not trying to attack you here. The mechanics of the obliviate spell have just always seemed quite poorly thought-out to me. The human brain is quite a complex thing and the obliviate just seems like much too simple a spell to do everything it supposedly does.
Legilimency was introduced in Harry Potter. Example: Snape, Order of the Phoenix.
Yeah butt Queenie was a born legimens (sp?) Not like Snape who learned the art
but that was looking into his memories and not Reading his toughts
RIGHT. It's in the book OotP. HUGE plot point, in fact. Check the book if you don't believe me.
James D I was talking about the actual book. Obviously some things are going to be left out in the movie.
It's implied that Dumbledore was a Legilimence too
If you watched the beginning of the Deathly Hallows part one, the obliviate spell does affect pictures so ding, sin on you for seeing the movie and still not knowing that.
aaaand they do say what a legilinens is ! Snape was one and tried to teach harry occlumency!
Despoina K Snape is an occlumens, not a legilimens
Also that "ability to reconstruct destroyed buildings" was introduced in Half Blood Prince when Dumbledore restored the house Slughorn was hiding out in
Hailey that's not being rude, it's honesty ._.
Too true! And that after saying those movies were better than this one.
“Doesn’t Newt have fellow beastmasters....?”
No.....
He explains earlier in the movie that one of the things he’s trying to do is change attitudes towards magical creatures...everyone else either exploits them or doesn’t care.
It’s right there in the freaking movie....
He literally has someone looking after them in the very next movie
Also, they find him annoying
@@SidPil people respect him more now. That was the movie arc.
Yeah that cuz he’s so busy super extra critiquing everything simple details like this escapes him in order to find sins to give lol
There's unfortunately a lot Jeremy gets wrong in this video. He says Legilimens weren't introduced in the franchise before this movie (Voldemort and Snape were) and that Obliviate doesn't affect photography (which it does, as shown when Hermione Obliviated her parents).
In Newt`s defense, the Obscurus would die as soon as it got out of the bubble.
Don't know about anyone else but...
Plus 100 sins for not showing where to find a Crumple Horned Snorkack, a Nargle, nor a Blibbering Humdinger
Not to mention kranklewing bumwranglers, galloping twinkletongue klapwrinkles, fastbottom plumwarts or pilcherpot hillhoppets. This game is fun!
I would excuse the sin about how graves as Grindelwald is obvious cause 1) Graves is an actual person but Grindelwald kidnapped the real graves to transform into him. 2) At that time in the American wizarding world, hating/dislike muggles were the norm
Alexandra Lu
Is there a Fantastic Beasts book? Or how do you know that? :)
@@TazorNissen There is but its the screen play but if youve ever seen a screen play it goes into deeper emotions and actions that dont get seen,which makes no damn sense but I guess they do it for the benefit of the actor and their performance not the viewer. But even if there wasnt,you couldnt figure that out? Graves had been doing that job for years there is no way he was always Grindelwald all along. How'd Newt figure it out is what I'd like know... Maybe its because he knew who Dumbledore was.
There is a book, but it’s more like a textbook that just tells about the different fantastic beasts.
And, yes, there’s also the screenplay book.
I wouldn’t excuse it because after seeing all the trailers, that one shot of Grindelwald at the beginning WITH THE SAME HAIRCUT completely spoiled that twist and ruined the movie for me lol
"Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort were legilimens" yes, but only book readers know that because lbr the movies never bothered to explain what legilimency was. The 5th movie made it look like it was just a spell.
Also, legilimens in this movie are nothing like the book's portrayal. In the book, legilimens are able to tell when people lie and they can sometimes read people's true intention but they're not full on telepaths. Legilimency is a skill, not a superpower. Legilimens CAN read minds but it requires making the conscious decision to do so (also they often need to make eye contact and it doesn't work on everyone). Think about how horrifying it would be if Snape and Dumbledore spent their daily lives eavesdropping every of their students' thoughts.
This movie turned legilimens into Jean Greys.
The books doesn't matter 🙄
MegaSombra7 sometimes it does
@@MegaSombra7 hOW dare you! Books are ALWAYS better than movies!
The sad thing is JK wrote the screenplay for this “prequel”
@@kirke_daydreams It's a rule from CinemaSins. A decent and fair rule.
Wait, so he didn't sin the bullsh*t scene where he THREW the INSECT directly INTO the POT?
That was some sinful crap right there.
Yeah, that needed a "Bullshit."
l3utterl3oy I had that exact same thought!!
The second I saw a Kerbal face was your avatar, I went "THIS BITCH KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT *points vigorously at screen and nods head spastically*"
Plus, wouldn't the cockroach just fly away? We've had flying roaches before.
0:22 "Welcome to the wonderful world of Harry Potter, now with 100% less Harry Potter"
6:28 THAT IS A MOTHER F#€|
Not to mention that Legilimency isn't MIND READING!!! According to Snape, "The mind is not a book that can be opened at leisure." A sh*t ton of Muggles think this, and those Muggles and this movie are WRONG
Gabi Garzon Jesus christ dude, im a potterhead to, but chill out
I think the implication is that snape isn't very good at legilimency, I think at some point they said that if harry couldn't keep snape out he wouldn't stand a chance. Also I wouldn't be surprised if she turns out to be the best at legilimancy, just cause that happens a lot in this series.
@Cameron Breeze:
cause--a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect
'cause--contraction of "because"
The More You Know
"the perks of being an obscurial" DEAD
royal mermaid being dead is one of said perks indeed
royal mermaid was he referencing "the perks of being a wallflower"?
Yea he was the actor Ezra Miller who plays Credence was also in that
That took me a second to get, but now I'm crying 😂😂😂😂😂
when was that?
You missed a sin...
How was that huge hipo creature able to get in the suitcase but the No-Maj got stuck trying to get in??
Because the erumpant was magical and Jacob was not. The erumpant already showed it had physical abilities that normal humans (and hippos / rhinos would not)
im a gøner it’s magic idiot
He was bigger
Exactly what I said!
none magic muggle :/
The sin at 19:18 is wrong, it made him forget all the bad memories, if you watch the movie again Newt explains that the juice from the beast makes people forget recent bad memories
I always thought it was because he was only in the rain for a moment before Q came with the umbrella
If it's true, then he should have recognized Newt when they bumped into each other at the end and gave him the shells for his bakery.
Wow this mans knew the reveal in Crimes of Grindelwald before they started filming. Gg
So are you telling me that literally all the people that saw the magic happening during that night were considering it "bad memories"? Not one freak except Jacob was like "FUCK YEAAAH, MAGIC IS REAAAAL!!!" ??? Bullshit!
But hey, why exactly do I expect a Rowling story to be consistent in any way whatsoever, right? I mean look at HP franchise...
Fanda Korejs Except it does make sense. They’re all scared and the city just got ripped apart before their eyes. Pretty bad memories.
Strudels and boners and magic and witches
Eddie Redmayne in a show with no snitches
Wizards who chase little creatures with wings
These are a few of our Sins-worthy things!
xingcat 😂😂😂👏👏👏👏👏
You my good fellow are a poetic GENIUS!
What other movies can you make poems about I wonder?
P.S. Can you do one for Robocop?
LOL, this was a parody of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music. :)
I never saw it sadly.
However, I am trying to figure out a version for Robocop. The downside is I forgot what all the movies plots and key points and shizzle are, and I don't have any of the movies on disc or anything.
"Movie is one Jude Law away from being The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnasus II: Fantastic Boohaloo." I swear, wait till next year
I’m seeing this the day Crimes of Grindelwald comes out and he said that and I just yelled “He predicted it!!”
The origami pets tearing eachother apart - I just assumed that was the wizard equivalent of a shredder. I doubt they'd do that to any important document that they actually need.
17:01 the photographs would be affected, we saw this effect in Deathly Hallows part 1 when Hermione obliviated her parents, she disappeared from all her photos her family had
You know, one of these days I really should get around to watching/reading Deathly Hollows. I gave up on the franchise after reading Half-Blood Prince.
The movie handled that scene differently than the book (which was told second-hand in the book, too). Hermione modified their memories to think they were other people who really wanted to live in Australia, where they quickly went. After Voldemort was defeated, she put it all back to normal.
The photo disappearing thing was kind of dumb, and was more of a visual cue to the viewers which has apparently become an actual magical ability now.
Definitely, more for the visual audience. I would think they would keep up with the same idea atleast for the movie audience in FB about the photos
Swiftbow - I thought the visual was better than the book in that case because they implied that she'd lose her parents forever which is a much bigger sacrifice.
Yeah, that was a bad implication, though, because she didn't.
I'm not saying it was a bad scene, those last two movies were quite good (and paced a bit better than the book, too), there's just a few scenes (like that one) that I get nitpicky about. The other big one was Harry snapping the Elder Wand at the end. (Though, again, I understand why they did that.)
At 6:57 I thought Graves was making up the vision.
He was using information known to all about the Obscurial. That they were young because most didn't live past 10, they were powerful because of all the magic bottled up and it was someone close to the mother because all the attacks happend near her or whoever she claimed were evil.
I also thought that he was making up the vision! His supposed plan still doesn't make any sense though... (at least for now, they haven't shown it actually).
Bunniworth Yeah I also think he knew it was her because she is the head of the 2nd Salemers.
He was probably planning to take the obscurial and make it into a weapon the things powerful it could destroy the entire MACUSA if he got them off guard
ok i havent watched the movie but i fiund a problem from this first tho can u guys answer this to make sure i hav my facts straight first . so an obscural is someone is someone who doesnt use there powers and they usually die before age of 10 right ?
"what are you? some kind of investigator?"
"we're some kind of suicide squad."
I personally really love these movies. Newt Scamander stole my heart. He's honestly my favorite character in the whole HP universe.
CJ Gerwig Honestly, he’s amazing!
I have to agree he is amazing, but I love all 4 of the main characters.
@@MissKitae yup. Why couldn't we just get Newt and Jacob's wacky animal adventures? Tying it up with Dumbledore and Grindelwald was so unneeded.
These movies show how great these actors are at their jobs! If these were casted differently, they probably would have died by the end of the second one!
randy K15 harry is boring
5:16 YOU DO SEE IT IN HARRY POTTER. GAWD!! Sixth movie, Harry Potter and the half blood prince. Dumbledore reverses the damage in the muggle house where slughorn is hiding out. They have an entire accidental magic reversal squad, remember? But obviously you don't see Harry and his friends do it, cause I'm pretty sure this is some advanced level magic. Probably taught in the NEWTS. Harry and his friends only took a single NEWT year in the series and also didn't need to reverse any major damage in those 2 years
Also when he talks about no mention of a Legilimens in the movies (I know he doesn't acknowledge the books), there was a very clear mention of them with Snape and Harry doing Occlumency training in Half Blood Prince. These aren't serious videos
Rufeyda Hassan he said the Harry Potter kids
He said the kids, If you use your brain correctly
Rufeyda Hassan That's to much reading
shook
*sees floating apple*
Ok who the fuck has a death note
Haha, same!
Best comment I've read so far xD
just how short would the original series had been if one existed
Dumbledore : hey Harry find the hocruxes
Harry : Why waste time....
Shit they're onto me.
what movie at 20:07 ?
anyone else notice that the hummingbird creature was never recaptured?
it probbaly did, offscreen
offscreen means it didn't happen
No, I'm pretty sure the billywig appeared over the city at the end of the movie or something. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen…Like, I don't quite remember it, the memory is there but I just can't tell if I manufactured it from how obvious it is…Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. >.
I Mean, I've seen the theatrical version and the DVD version and I don't remember anything like that, but I can easily imagine it happening and how it happens (in a cliche way).
Maybe the Billywig showed up again as inspiration for a baked good?
I absolutely love his fixation and connection on apples and assholes. Kudos. Makes me laugh every time.
Accio! (This spell seems to have given you a bit of a headache.) There are good reasons why he isn't trying to summon his creatures with the accio charm.
1) Only affects inanimate objects. (Harry can summon his broom, but not say, Ron or Hermione with accio. Newt can accio the treasures INSIDE the niffler's pouch, not the actual niffler himself. That's why it was seen tumbling over the jewelery as it was streaming out of the bellypouch!)
2) If a person is actively holding something, you can't accio it out of their hands, you'd need to use a disarming charm for that. (i.e. Another wizard's wand, the suitcase, etc...)
True
it's almost as if, reading about accio, that Rowling just wrote a bunch of contradictory shit and you're really trying to fit it as gospel. it's been used canonically both on objects actively held, and on creatures
@soph gutzer i thought he used accio on the jewelry in the niffler's pouch
Could you accio hagrids umbrella wand as it’s an everyday object (umbrella) that is also a wand.
Also could Harry and Ron not just of acciod (don’t know if that’s correct way of typing it) the car from the beginning in Harry Potter and chamber of secrets which luckily they didn’t or they dead also could they not have acciod buck beak or chain if there was one forgot also sword of godric griffindore or philologist stone or horcruxes (not to shire If they mention in books about that one) could someone just debunk any I got wrong?
@@gretegutzer97 Dumbledore's parents didn't die before 1899.
Dumbledore dies at age 106 (I think) in 1997 which means he was born in 1891.
In the books it is clearly stated that his mother died when he had just finished school, which'd be 1908
As for sin #116, actually, as we saw in Deathly Hallows part 1 obliviating certainly does affect photographs because Hermione obliviated her parents and disappeared from the photos.
Also, Newt said the venom they're using to obliviate everyone only removes bad memories - that's why Jacob still remembers little bits
th-cam.com/video/kf_hHlrqf9w/w-d-xo.html Actually, she did use obliviate (1:07)
I'm pretty sure she literally modified the pictures separately herself; she describes how she dealt with her parents in the books and mentions both obliviating them AND modifying the pictures, and the way it is written seemed to imply (from what I recall) that she did these two SEPARATE magical acts. As in, she used two different actions or spells - one to modify their memories, one to erase evidence of her from the home/pictures/etc.
That said, to be fair I have seen nothing to suggest that a particularly powerful witch/wizard using an obliviate spell COULDN'T necessarily effect all elements of the obliviated person's life which include instances/occurrences of the erased element... So still going to agree with OP, ultimately, that it's possible. :)
"Uh f*ck that suitcase by the way"
These little things are why i love you Jeremy
3:15 Yes, it’s illegal! They make that astronomically clear throughout the entire movie!
6:23 WHAT?! You can’t be serious!
the first one brings confusion. why would letting a wild creature go be illegal?
@@thedolphin602 why is that confusing
if i had a leopard as a personal pet and just released it in the suburbs - that'd be a major fucking issue
i'm pretty sure releasing magical beasts you may or may not have legal access to in the first place without any sort of laws or regulations or an ok from a government presumably watching for this sort of shit - would indeed be an isuee
we're not talking about an animal like a housecat out in the wild or whatever (which is actually extremely damaging)
@@thedolphin602 The whole conflict of the movie is that everyone views it as something like freeing a murderer.
Sirius: I CAN be Sirius.
Technically legilimens were never mentioned in the movies, only books.
So Cinemasins is right about this, and hell I didn't even knew that term was
The Obscurial in his bag is harmless because he seperated it from a human
But ... did he create something that's eventually going to evolve into a dementor?
Lucia: oooooooooooooooooooooh nice!
No, dementors exsist alrady, they were created (possibly unintentionaly) by a cruel dark wizard who used to live on Azkaban before it was a prison. If you care about that universe, you can read more:
www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/azkaban
Lucía Kaminski that are 2 different things.
Lucía Kaminski no i don't believe that's how it works because dementor's are like the embodiment of terrible feelings and forgotten good memories I think and obscurial's are like a wizard or scribbis (idk how to spell it) depression and anxiety formed into a slowly killing parasite
"Voldebubble."
Never in my life did I think I'd hear that. xD
i love your name
ikr?! Best Sin Ever
it's nebby. it's made of gas clouds and it belongs in a bag
Zeldonyx Skypotter, sorry, I didn't get your reply until now. Thank you
Fred and George could have said that.
Fantastic Sins where to find them.
Jack Cedeno
Dude the number of edges you have is unhealthy. YOU ARE A DODECAHEDRON WITH ALL OF THOSE EDGES
deffdefying So many edges it becomes a sphere...
Introduced baby groot without marvels approval lol
Comment written a year ago, and i just now see it. Bravo fellow internet stranger 😂
Fantastic Beasts is definitely a movie for fans of the books. There's a lot of stuff that relies on extensive knowledge going into it. Having said that I still enjoyed both the movie and this video.
Rhiannon Yeadon what. How. I Love the books and hate the movie. So many plotholes and aaargh. Just watched it. So disappointed.
Rhiannon Yeadon hi! It’s always fun seeing another Rhiannon!
right now, there's as many likes on this comment as sins for FBAWTFT
Yes, I enjoy the movie, but I am disappointed that this is the kind that will not be able to stand on its own without background knowledge of the universe. They did a bad job at introducing the characters and the world settings.
If it was for fans of the books it would be a book not a movie. Fantastic beasts is a half assed money grab.
We did see people reconstructing a house or destroyed building in the beginning of Half-Blood Prince when Dumbledore and Slughorn did it
Reema Rachakondar "The kids have never done it".
Nexus Wolf Does that matter?
Dave All indeed it does. The sin stays valid.
Albus fixed it
You made a comment about obliviating and photographs but Hermione literally uses the spell on her parents IN THE MOVIES and it makes her disappear from all of their photos...
you're right, and that's a whole new can of bullshit just opened lol.
Charles Crofts No, in the real lore, she had to manually change those
Obligatory, "This is CinemaSins not NovelSins."
Charles Crofts OOOOO NICE BURN
Cubemaster THE BOOKS DO NOT MATTER (the same goes for any other extra material)
"This thing is one Jude law away from..." oh, Jeremy, how do you keep doing this? Too many correct predictions.
The sentence should've been just "fuck that suitcase and everything it represents"
More importantly than that, how did he miss the moment where Newt says that he is gay in a hilariously unnecessary way? I mean, just the way that whole conversation went was so fucked up. They even cut it from some versions of the movie.
Matthias Strøm wait, when did that happen?
yeah matthias what do you mean?
Matthias Strøm That can't be true because in the textbook (Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them) in the autobiography area it says that Newt got married to Tina. So he is bisexual or pansexual at best
Matthias Strøm
What the fuck, Matthias, tell us more!
If the producers had a sense of humor, they would have Eddie explaining the Theory of Everything to each beast.
HAS THIS MAN NEVER HEARD OF REPARO????
THANK YOU
Like, Hermione literally would point her wand at Harry's glasses and magic him some new snazzy lenses out of the crappy old ones he had with it, at age what? 11? without any previous formal magical training, is it that surreal that fully grown adult magic users might be able to repair extensive damage done to a thing with magic? All of this in a world where we've established that basically, magic's only limits are an actual resurrection that is not done with a tether to the person's soul (which still come at the cost of madness in canon because you're fracturing your soul), generating food and water out of thin air and making true gold and goods/possessions out of thin air (which actually you can solve the gold thing by adding Flamel's Philosopher's Stone and lead to the mix); and well limits in healing damage from dark magic past a certain point and a couple of natural magical ailments or learning knowledge/abilities faster via magic (unless you discount using the Time Turner to obtain extra hours to exercise, train or study).
@@lexwolfhale1729
I would argue that repararing a pair of glasses its different than reparing an entire city or even building and even in the books/movies its pointed out Hermione is NOT an average wizard to make comparassions; she is way too advanced for her age because she has read -on the summer- all the books needed for her classes and its really interested in learning. The video didnt say it was impossible by Wizarding World rules, it say it was plot convenience and erased all consecuences of the actions which...true.
(It also contradicts itself with the book it was originally from but thats another story for another day)
Guess so
@@heyyou193 Its not entire cities at a time just parts of the city by many aurors. We see magic like this in the half blood prince when the go to convince slughorn they also do this
A slight reminder, earlier in the movie he quite specifically says bad memories when referring to the Swooping Death venom, and of course that would work with people witnessing mass destruction with no visible cause. Kowalski saw the wondrous side of the magical world along with the destruction, so it would make sense he at least remembered the creatures.
Edit: I remembered this because I thought it would be important to state and when it ended, I thought they would bring Kowalski back using that loop hole.
Right, at 9:50 onwards, Newt doesn't use his Summoning Charm on the Niffler itself - he casts it on the items in the Niffler's pouch. HENCE WHY ALL THE ITEMS IN SAID POUCH START FLYING OUT AND HOW THE NIFFLER WAS ABLE TO SPIN ON THE LAMPPOST AND HIT THE WINDOW! ALSO, THE SUMMONING CHARM CANNOT WORK ON ANIMALS!
And for the sin directly after that one, NEWT HAS MAGIC, SO HE CAN USE THAT TO DEFEND HIMSELF, JACOB CANNOT!
TheTARDISLegilimens accio works on animals, hermione uses it once in class to get a frog back that harry should silence
TheTARDISLegilimens
It can work on animals. In the Deathly Hallows, Ted, Griphook, and Dean Thomas use the Accio charm on the salmon in the river
It works on animals. I don't have any specific examples from the books, but I do remember it being used on creatures a couple times in the novels.
Also, explain what charm Newt used on Jacob to pull him over to Newt before they apparated into the basement if it was not the summoning charm.
17:22 *JUDE LAW* was casted for the next Fantastic Beasts movie to be young Dumbledore. ding
Nomster i
I'm starting to think that Heath Ledger would have been Grindelwald but it takes all these guys to fill his shoes.
Nomster I saw this comment in an article about cinemasins
It’s cast
If you dare sin that logo -
You sinned it.
You SINNED it!
Lawl
He should get a son for sinning it
To answer your Progressive Laws problem, in England the segregation laws did not exist. Mostly because people were not worried about being black or white, it was rich vs poor. Also, there weren't very many people of colour in England at that time. The muggle/wizard segregation represents the USAs Jim Crow Laws.
Grace Deakin Well GB simply didnt have more than a few colored people in the 1920s. They did however, rule over them with the excuse that africans, indians and basically everyone else arent intelligent enough too rule themselves.
One of the biggest reasons Britain didn't have legally enforced racial segregation was because it was impractical while running an empire. The British empire required non-white Brits to help in administration, defence etc. There's also the fact the Victorians in particular; liked to tell themselves they were civilising our colonial subjects. Making them good Christians that value freedom, exploration, science, industry etc. Again, it's hard to do that when you're legally barring them from certain things. Lastly the abolitionist movement in Britain was extremely popular and won the public over with the idea "We are all sons of Adam" to over simplify things. It's hard to free black people from bondage with that argument and then immediately pass a bunch of laws restricting their access to society.
@@walsh9080There were no anti-discrimination laws in the UK until the Race-Relations Act of 1965. Before then it was legal and common for hotels, restaurants, buses, employers etc. to discriminate against or refuse service to non-whites in the UK. There were also race riots across the country, like in 1919, with white dock workers refusing to work with black employees...employers solution was to fire all the blacks. Here is a listing of some events in regards to racism in the UK, from the British National Archives:
1919 uprisings in London, Cardiff and Liverpool
1931 Dr Harold Moody establishes the League of Coloured Peoples
1948 British Nationality Act
1948 SS Empire Windrush arrives at Tilbury
1958 uprisings in London and Nottingham
1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act
1958-1966 Notting Hill Carnival begins (exact date is disputed)
1963 Bristol bus boycott
1965, 1968 and 1975 Race Relations Acts
1967 British Black Panther party established
1970 Trial of the Mangrove Nine
1979 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (led to repeal of the ‘Sus laws’)
1981 Brixton uprisings and Lord Scarman report
1999 Macpherson Report published following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/black-british-social-and-political-history-in-the-20th-century/#2-key-events-organisations-and-legislation
Eventually the government stepped in, but there was a lot of trouble, and reaction from whites against the legislation protecting Black UK citizens. Pretending that racism wasn't a thing in the UK, especially around the turn of the 20th century, is ridiculous.
Saying 'there was no legally enforced segregation' could be interpreted as there being no NEED for such laws. I didn't imply you didn't know that, but that some people might misinterpret your statements. Pernicious racism was present in the UK just like in the US...less than in the US South, but more than in US Northern cities. Some here want to pretend that the UK was a colour-blind utopia for race relations. That was not the case.
@@Ocrilat Oh right I see what you mean now mate. Although personally I wouldn't say the Northern US states were better than the UK because of things I've read like the works of Frederick Douglass for example. Yeah the people thinking Britain was some kind of egalitarian paradise are kidding themselves. To Britain there was money in not having Jim Crow laws because of the empire. It was motivated by greed more than any progressive desires.
6:23 Legilimency was in the Harry Potter books and movies. In the fifth book, when Harry had to learn how to block his mind from Voldemort, Snape trained Harry by looking through Harry's mind because SNAPE IS A LEGILIMENS
Voldemort and the sorting hat are legilemens
Cady Potter Also Snape is a very skilled Legilimens.
Bing!
They are, but in the movies, they were just mentioned a bit, with Snape showing one or two times. Thats it for 8 movies. We knew they are there, but thats it for nearly all of the time.
It's well explained in the Vth and VIth movies
Zacharie Guillerey I know I was just using them as examples
You sir are being suitcacist !
I am sorry to have made your shitty miserable life even shittier ..
Kowalski still remembers all that because the potion was supposed to forget all BAD memories and seeing all magic was not a bad memory to him
Visions aren't always bad... he's probably the strongest Avenger.
I don't know...Spider-Man and The Hulk are probably stronger. Thor, too. GiAntMan, maybe.
Visions might also let you see how to prevent an event or dodge an attack. But only if you're really feeling it.
Dyonus Vision is stronger than both Thor and Hulk and Spider-Man is not an Avenger but he's stronger than all 3 combined
Dyonus Vision is stronger than them, maybe in the future if we get stronger versions of Hulk and Thor they probably could surpass Vision but for now in the MCU Vision is stronger than them, he is made of vibranium, can become intangible, can wield Mjolnir and has an Infinity stone.
Are we talking about Strength of invulnerability? I have a list of what each hero can lift. Granted it's the comics and not MCU, but it has Vision listed as being able to lift 5 to 50 tons. I guess I was wrong about Spider-Man 'cause he can only lift 25 tons. The Hulk varies. Thor is listed at around 100 tons. I'm not sure if the infinity Stones have increased strength, but I haven't seen anything to imply it.
Mjolnir has more to do with his purity and not his strength.
"One Jude Law away..."
Ask and you shall receive Jeremy.
Andy BCE
Jesus fucking Christ how did he manage to foresee that?!
Because this was already known way before the video was uploaded?
Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp all played the same character in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus where they replaced Heath Ledger. It's not too surprising if you know they're all actors at the top of their field who seem to be decent people.
Also I legitimately can't wait to see people making fanart of Law and Depp. I don't need to see it, but there will be fans wanting that soon if not already. Just their characters may have been lovers.
6:31 Snape was a legilimens, and voldemort was too
thank you for saying that
Justin Davenport But Snape used a spell. Queenie aparently is a natural.
Justin Davenport just like Tonks could shape shift there are ways to know all sorts of spells but some people are just gifted
you are half true, queenie is a natural but Snape trained just like harry kinda trained his occulemency
Justin Davenport Dubledore was the one too
The way Newt uses his magic to reconstruct the building literally blew my mind. That is VERY VERY VERY powerful magic, let alone what’s inside his suitcase. Oh, maybe he can gain super-powerful magic from those creatures?
Reparo
That’s a simple reparo spell, dumbledore uses it in half-blood prince i think, any adult wizard can do it
I have to say, you missed a sin opportunity! When the President arrests Tina (which you do sin) she says Tina should have handed him in immediately and not let him run around for 24hrs. But she tries to, but the President immediately dismisses her.
but he also messed one up. he says the girl is was the first ligimens in NY for the first time in Harry Potter, but Voldemort was one and it was important to the Harry Potter plot
Nerdiology so was Snape
+Dancing Troll!! they werent ligimens, they just knew the occlumancy spell :v
I'm sinning you for not using the Jurassic Park Theme when it's showing of Newt's Suitcase. It was a perfect and obvious opportunity and you didn't take it.
5:10 - Actually, it isn't "teen angst" as you call it, because
A) it's caused by a combination of traumatic experiences and feelings of self hatred and possibly guilt, and
B) it's most common in children aged 4-10 years old because usually the Obscurus KILLS IT'S HOST BEFORE THEY CAN REACH AGE ELEVEN.
I was thinking about this and wouldn’t Ariana Dumbledore have developed one
@@books2438 not really, she wasn't shamed or made to hate herself for having magic. She had two older brothers who were wizards in training, so she was most likely familiar with it as well. The only traumatic event was that time with the muggles boys, and from what I understand, developing an obscurial would take repeated trauma and suppression of magic.
Nia Rich yeah, but that event made her incapable of controlling her magic. And she was also afraid of it if I remember correctly.
@@braingutz_ But in canon she did develop an obscurial that killed her mother
BFFforu it isn’t confirmed if it’s an obscurial, but the way it’s describe is similar to what happens with Credence
6:24 fun fact: Salazar slytherin enchanted the hat with legilimency and that's how it knows what houses people belong in
I thought it was Godrick Gryffindor's hat and he did it? And later his sword was hidden inside...
@@effiethefey idk if it was Gryffindor's hat but I'm pretty sure it was Slytherin who enchanted it. I'll try and find the source to check. Gryffindor's sword was definitely hidden in the hat tho
@@F00L_Of_A_Took Oh, ok. I read the books a long time ago, so I may remember some details the wrong way😅
But seriously though, fuck that suitcase.
AND EVERYTHING IT REPRESENTS!
I'm Just A Phan I Think You Spelled movie wrong.
Katrine Petersen What are you talking about? He didn't spell movie at all...
The joke is she is referring to the word suitcase, as in 'Fuck that movie'. Get it?
8:33 This this this. So much this. I would have loved this movie so much more if they had focused on the many magical creatures and having Newt and Jacob use creative ways to soothe and/or subdue them instead of the whole thing with Credence. Instead of making an attempt at cramming two movies into one, just make them into two separate movies. The entire Harry Potter franchise makes far more than enough money for this to be done.
No babe u dont understand.
The title is based on book thats why it contains 'fantastic beasts'. It is prequel of harry potter. It satisfies us who really into hp franchise, solve many plot holes (sometimes creating contradictory plot too- XD)
So the beasts are just complimentary
@@lyrahazel2079 The book this is based on was a supplementary work, written as if it was an actual textbook (has Ron writing anecdotes in the margins, which was a nice touch) but has no story or plot. It's a textbook! They could have done so much more with this! I'd have wanted to watch a documentary style film about magical creatures than this garbage. That would have been more fun than this!
Hmm then it wont be interesting after Newt catches all his creatures cuz theres no climax. The movie needs to be intresting duh.
Agreed
@@3872864 when he catched all the creatures it will be the ********* end. The climax would ideally be something different that actually has to do with the creatures themselves, like releasing that one beast in Arizona
You'd have to rework the whole film and it might be more focused then
For what it's worth, this movie lacks focus
You'd think by now people would understand how CinemaSins works. People are getting so upset because "You're giving a sin for something that isn't a sin" as if the sins he gives actually matter and will effect this movie forever. It's a comedy channel, he does the same thing to every movie.
Jessica Cooper ikr, even if Jeremy has some favorite movies he would still sin them like he hated them because those movies gave him and his entire family cancer. Everything is just for fun but people treated this channel like some professional movie critic non sense.
Jessica Cooper They are probably just new to the channel. When I first saw Cinema Sins I got pissy about the non sense sins like "no lap dance sin" but I quickly caught on lol
Jessica Cooper
When I first got a vid by cinemasins on my recomended I thought it was some weird shit and never bothered to even try and watch it...Until,I somehow, watched my first video and got addicted to it.. It's propably just because they are new..(some people don't get this is humorous though,despite knowing what this channel is,but that's an exception)
Jessica Cooper startin to gate this man farrk why can't he keep he's feelings to him self, can he make better movie? anyone know
yes, however, the one constantly recurring sin I hate is "Guy/Girl X would be good at cinema sins" like well yea they pointed out a characters stupid idea. And this bad because??? That one gets on my nerves. Everything else is pretty fine
6:28 although legilimens were never mentioned in the movies they were mentioned multiple times in Harry Potter, someof the most known legilimens that were mentioned to be legilimena in the books are Snape, Voldemort and Dumbledore. Also there is a counter to the art of legilimance called Occlumency which Snape tries to teach Harry in hope he can shut of his mind from voldemort visions.
"That's Britcist..." I lol'd and now everyone in the office is looking at me :D
Gu4rdiaanAngel Say hi to everyone.
"there are no stakes to this final confrontation"
Except, you know, death. Lots of death. No spell can fix death. Not even the resurrection stone, which has a mildly misleading name.
"The only way your character is truly dead is if you're Robert Pattinson"
Or Brendon Gleeson
Or Gary Oldman
Or David Thewlis
Or Natalia Tena
Or James Phelps
Or Jessie Cave
Or Toby Jones
Or Hazel Douglas
Or Michael Byrne
Or Ian Hart
Or Roger Lloyd Pack
Or (at least one character portrayed by) Warwick Davis
Or Helena Bonham Carter
Or Alan Rickman
Or Ralph Fiennes
Or Richard Harris and Michael Gambon
Or Alfred Burke
Or Hebe Beardsall
Or Carolyn Pickles
Or Gizmo, Kasper, Oops, Swoops, Oh Oh, Elmo and Bandit (Hedwig owls)
Or Bill Nighy
Or Nick Moran
Or Jamie Waylett
Or Nagini
The salt is real with this one.
bobtheduck or David Tennent
Ryn Thomas damn a lot of people died in the Deathly Hallows
David Tennant can stay dead. I mean his take on Barty Crouch Jr. Worse Character adaptation in the series. I mean, Brendan Gleeson pulled off fake moody and real Moody just fine. It's because Fake Moody pullled off Moody so well, so he wasn't really playing a separate character. But when David Tennant played BCJ, it was awful.
I'm surprised that they didn't sin the part where the boss chick was all like "Why didn't you inform us of this dude's magical case?" When that was EXACTLY what Tina had been trying to do when she burst in earlier? Why didn't Tina protest and SAY that that was what she was trying to do but they had ignored her?
Eccentric Apples Bureaucracy
The "character can't protest to avoid misunderstanding" situation happens in almost every movie. Literally.
Omg
Reading minds was in Harry Potter
That is what snape was doing to Harry when he could see what Voldemort could.
Still waiting for Rogue One tbh
Congrats, you're the only person in this comment section at the moment who isn't talking about how early they are!
very refreshing
I'm already dying to see Fate of the Furious.
Probably doing it on either May 4th or May 25th (the 40th Anniversary of the first Star Wars movie).
Use the song Music Sounds Better With You by Stardust in the outtakes. You know because of the nickname.
Can we also talk about in the Harry Potter movies it was established that performing wandless magic was extremely difficult, yet in this movie, almost everyone does it flawlessly???
Levi Ackerman
I think it's been said that American wizards were especially good at wandless magic.
theyre adults... obviously its hard for kids learning it, but every wizard in this film that uses magic without a wand is an adult... with a job in the ministry (except newt) which weak wizards would be very unlikely to get a job in
Levi Ackerman I only noticed Graves using wandless magic? And the reason he can do it is because he is Grindelwald (it's another hint that he is not the original Graves).
Do you mean wordless magic? In the Potterverse wordless magic is difficult for students but not so much for adults. However, wandless magic is extremely difficult to learn and only the most skilled wizards manage to perfect it
Levi Ackerman, in America, wizards and witches were more cautious about kibbles (or no-majs) finding out that they could do magic, so it's easier for them to do wandless magic
6:23 Legilimens was introduced in the Harry Potter movies. Snape teaches Harry to defend against Voldemort's Legilimens attacks. The fact that Voldemort can do this is the entire reason Dumbledore doesn't speak to Harry for the first half of The Order of the Phoenix.
Thanks, I was just about to comment on this. Their research on this movie was less than stellar.
Alex yeah, but that was a spell, not some gift a wizard/witch can have, and Snape says you can only extract feelings and memories, not actual thoughts, like Queenie does
Alex I know-!! That bothered me quite a bit since it's supposed to be just a spell to read minds not something "you can't control", that's just intrusive
No, sorry but you are incorrect, it is a gift. In the novels Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore and Bellatrix are all Legilimens. Not that they know a spell to read feelings and memories, it is a trait that they have. This is how Voldemort is able to plant the image in Harry's mind of Mr. Weasley being tortured in the department of mysteries.
Alex that last bit is absolutely not true, you can't use legilimency from a distance, and planting a vision is not legilimency!!! When Voldemort experiences a strong emotion, Harry notices, and he feels which emotion Voldemort feels, and sometimes he slips into Voldemorts mind and looks through his eyes, but the Harry-Voldemort connection is very difficult, because part of Voldemort lives inside Harry, Voldemort can't read Harry's mind or emotions from a distance, only the other way around
6:35 “no one has ever been a ligellimens. Oh yeah I forgot Voldemort, snape, and everyone else that was one in Harry Potter didn’t exist
Even Bellatrix was a death eater and Regulus Black too
Gotta say, when Newt is repairing the house, I'm pretty sure that was just Reparo: a spell that was in Sorcerer's Stone.
Dumbledore also used that spell to repair Slughorn's house in Half-Blood Prince
And the more specific, "occulus reparo" from 1 + 2.
Calgary8889 That was a vision repairing spell made by Hermione on the magic train to the boats which took Harry and Ron and Hermione to Hogwarts as well from the philosophers stone.
Philosopher's stone, not sorcerer's stone (i know that's the american version, but I'm sure you don't buy into the "it's a too complicated word for children" bullshit)
blood dragon 🙄 oh get over it. Stupid argument is stupid.
Boy, he sure does HATE that suitcase.
You should add a sin for Credence's hair
LMFAO! Too true dood...too true.
Remove*
Ian Chok Wow, someone's oversensitive. It's called, "Credence's look and overall demeanor make it very hard to feel bad for him"
+Ian Chock Yes, the hair of a fictional character who was designed to have this kind of hairstyle.
blah blah lol
9:00 Newt later clearly says that the Obscurial would die the second it leaves that bubble, it’s harmless and he keeps it around to study it and try to find a way to remove one without killing the host
When they spoke to the goblin, why didn't Queenie just read his mind instead of trying to pay him?
yeah but legilimency, according to the books, allows you to sift through memories and search through minds- it doesn't have to be things they're thinking at that particular moment.
Yeah, but the way her powers were portrayed showed her to be able to know what they're thinking which is searching through their mind because it is what thought is on their mind.
cant plug usb into hdmi
Moartem S Okayyyyy
cylrim He's a goblin
Obliviating does affect photos. When Hermione obliviated her parents, she disappeared from all the family pictures.
Romelo Woods but he didn't used the obligation spell he used the potion
Ferdinand Herrmann It was stated that the potion has the same effect as the spell.
Romelo Woods but it wasn't a spell lol
Y B A charm
Only in the movie
"Something Disney"
":DDDD IS HE FINALLY DOING MOANA!?"
*Releases Everything wrong with Planes*
Sids MyName Its Cars 2 obviously...do you even know how many sins that thing has? 100 sins off the bat for the movies existence
Our Lord and Saviour Nicolas Cage
I mean...
...Speak for yourself
Either way your profile name and picture are top notch
Nah, it'll be Moana. Should be Doctor Strange.
Sids MyName
They crash
Sids MyName i
Legilimens has never once been introduced in the entire world of Harry Potter before now.
Snape be like: "Am I a joke to you?"