What went wrong with this film? Very simple: 1. There were barely any Fantastic Beasts 2. Besides lizard murder, I still don't know what the Crimes of Grindelwald are
he did not murder the lizard, he just threw it into the sea it could survive I dont even know what beast that was. His crimes : terrorized Britain by killing multiple muggle families including the ones he killed to take their house as his headquarters. same scene showed him allowing the murder of a child. He killed every auror who came after him. Is promoting wizarding exposure to the muggle world which goes against their most sacred law. the movie was trash but let's not overdo it.
Nobody:... J.K. Rowling: There is nowhere written that Harry is heterosexual Fans: Well... he had like at least 3 or 4 female crushes and he has wife plus few children Internet: Any bisexual people can't have heterosexual relations?
A little girl gets sick of her brother's crying, so she switches him for a random ass baby on a ship who just so happens to be the long lost 2nd brother of Dumbledore. Just tell me that doesn't sound like bad fanfiction.
Okay... Credence is NOT Dumbledore's brother. Grindelwald states in the movies that he is the only chance they have to kill Dumbledore (because no one else than Grindelwald could stand his ground against him but they are linked and can't harm each other) and Credence is driven by hatred towards those who abandoned him making him feel alone. That's why Grindelwald tells him that, because he then comes to hate Dumbledore who is part of the family that left him
“Newt Scamander...Johnny Depp...this, detective woman.” Not sure if this was intentional, but that line humorously outlines the forgettability of the characters in such a wonderful way.
This movie title is already missing its purpose. "The Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald". Yeah sure, there are some fantastic beasts here, but what crimes Grindelwald do related to these fantastic beasts, enslaving them, making them in near-extinction, trafficking, etc.? Maybe the film will be a little bit more sense if it was only a spin-off of what already a spin-off series of Harry Potter, like only "The Crimes of Grindelwald" or "Dumbledore: The Crimes of Grindelwald", in which it will do more justice to Newt as a hero who gonna-catch-them-all and just happen to pass by Grindelwald or his henchmen in Newt's journey but not making Grindelwald himself as the main problem/antagonist.
Once I've met fool who tried to convince me that Black's face can turn white if frightened. Mainly because they've translated this sentence as "blady" (more like pale) not "biała" (white as White people or color of sheet of paper).
I didn’t know she actually wrote the movie, I mean she forgot her own canon. Like minerva was not old enough to be a teacher, albus wasnt the defense against dark arts teacher. And the ending was just pure shit. There is no way that emo kid is part of the dumbledore family, the timelines do not match.
Minerva can be seen wearing the time Turner. Maybe the next part we can see what actually happens. After all this is not the last film. They still got to defeat Grindelwald.
I was looking for this comment So in Deathly Hallows we get a book about Dumbledore's past and there is nothing about another brother that Dumbledore had? A brother that destroyed half of New York? Also, after seeing how wizards develop their power in 7 books plus 8 movies, a kid who has never had a wand in his hand can simply explode a mountain pointing a random wand somewhere. This movie was confusing even for me, who have read the books at least 7 times.
The "you are part of the Dumbledore family" didn't bother me because the source of that information. For all we know Grindelwald (and I hope it is the case) can be lying just to get on the good side of edgy mc eviddude (I can't even remember his name) so that he is resentful and therefore wishes to kill Albus. However if they go with "yeah that is right and he IS the lost brother" that is going to be plain bullshit. I loved Dumbledore's backstory on the book and was very disappointed that it wasn't in the movie. It was my favourite part of it in fact.
Why Grindelwald really, really liked Dumbledore? Because he had really cool, big, black "wand". Special message from J.K. Rowling: It's clearly said that Dumbledore is Black in the books.
not really. Most people refer to all the characters that Arnold Schwarzenegger plays as just arnold and they're not bad at all because arnold outshines all of them.
How amazing would it be if these 5 movie were a little Indiana Jones - esque? Every movie we have our lovable protagonist Newt going into adventures in different cultures searching for and studying different magical creatures while writing his book. We see a little love with Tina, the amazing Jacob and Queenie, maybe some badass Jude Law Dumbledore, his cool older brother and the girl he had a crush in the past... ... but none of this Grindelwald bullshit that makes no sense in Newt's story. This whole series is a mess. Such a disappointment. Now the whole Rowling-Depp-Ezra thing just made it even more of a shit storm.
i know right? or this could even have been a tv series, and maybe it would tie in a LITTLE bit to the grindelwald story, but still be its own thing, separate from dumbledore and grindelwald. i mean that would literally make more money than having them both be in the same series for no fucking reason lmao
and why dumbeldore choose newt to defeat grindelwald, i mean he is not strong wizard or the chosen one like harry, he just an animal lover, it doesnt make any sense.
Newt's story could still tie into Grindelwald and Dumbledore's story if there were space for Dumbledore to come to Newt for assistance in tracking down Grindelwald. Perhaps there's a tracking beast? But as time goes on, Grindelwald becomes more and more aware that Newt is playing a big role in tracking Grindelwald down (which doesn't have to be true necessarily) and sends hit teams after Newt. I'm spitballing, but there were betters ways to tie the plot together.
@@efulmer8675 yea. You could have newt and dumble bond over a respect for the others field and a general love of figuring stuff out. Newt could be that cool researcher friend dumps occasionally goes for favors and vice versa
*JK Rowling reveals the moviegoers were gay all along!* Edit: ok well this got way more likes than I expected...how about y’all go check out my channel and drop a sub for more epic comments: th-cam.com/channels/4q0PcDBWJ5CWFjN9AJMVNw.html
Rowling: "They had an incredibly intense physical relationship" Movie: *Shows them holding hands once.* Me: "Omg, that's intense. I wonder if they'll see each other's ankles in the next movie, shit gonna be restricted 😳😳"
The thing is, Rowling has changed how she talks about the relationship over the years (even over the span of an interview) to the point that I'm not surprised that she's keeping it vague within the movie. A few years back she said that the relationship was one-sided on Dumbledore's end (with Grindelwald taking advantage), now it was a "love relationship" but also possibly not because "you never really know what the other person is feeling." The only consistent point is that their relationship was "intense." So what do you do in-movie? Just have them hold hands to imply _something_ is going on...nothing specific mind you, just _something_. Can't wait for the next movie where Dumbledore describes their physical passion then we cut to a flashback of Grindelwald patting his leg in a vague manner.
No. That is normal pretty boy gayness..what's NEXT!?...them skipping in a field, rolling down a hill laughing. XD! Am all for their ship. But she brought it up! produce!
No one: Rowling: I just always viewed Buckbeak not as a beast, but as an independent individual. I wrote Buckbeak into the story to represent the unwarranted hate and stigma toward Furry culture.
@@silvermushroom-gamifyevery6430 It's showing that no one asked for that information. As in No one: [question not asked.] Rowling: [Answers Question no one asked or wanted to know about] Like, she legitimately told us Remus has a big dick and needs extra underwear support. literally no one asked about that.
hockeater no it’s mediocre. As in it doesn’t belong with literary greats, nor is it trash. Its entertaining. It achieved mass appeal and like a lot of pop culture that does so it’s fans oversell it’s importance/greatness. But objectively she is a mediocre writer. And the stories aren’t anything crazy original. Pokemon caught kid’s imagination around the same time and is more of an original concept and yet nobody tries to sell it as high art. It just is what it is. So is Harry Potter. And what it IS is mediocre 🤣
@@michaelmiranda178 Spoken like a true art snob. Pokemon won over the world. That's greatness pure and simple. True it may be a while before the people of the general public take the positions of the old people who endlessly debate what counts as "literature" or literature equivalent in various different art forms, but mark my words it's going there.
@@pca1987 It was meh compared to the first two but the first two were absolute masterpieces when it comes to animated movies. It's not fair to compare KP3 to shit like Crimes Of Grindlewald.
She realised only after finishing the seven books that there are gaps and inconsistencies in the history of her world building, and is now trying to fix it in retrospect. Basically aspiring to be Tolkien without the substance.
This might be a weird comparison but i watched Fate and play FGO, it explains its world very well. Was it like a history book? Yes kinda but it keeps the story interesting for me anyway so i like it. This on the other hand, its just a lame history book with inconsistency within itself.
@@silverdo2102 To be honest Fate franchise is also filled with plot holes and retcons for the sake of fan service and the author knows it that's why he is using constantly the same excuse of paralel universes.
I don't mind a lot of information in books, as long as it's spaced out, and given enough space proportionate to their impact on the story. The problem is Rowling gives that space in interviews and social media. If she wanted people to know that shit, it should've went in the books themselves. People shouldn't have to do supplementary research for a book series.
As a Tolkien fan, my knee-jerk reaction is: "And what's wrong with that?" But then I remember that Tolkien actually had a) a unique language, b) a world he created to house that language he made, and c) characters and a story to tell within that world. In that order. Rowling I guess wanted to tell a story, made a superficial world to house that story, is trying to give it depth without undermining what is already there, and is failing horribly. My enjoyment of Harry Potter opened the door to the Fantasy genre, and for that I will forever be grateful to her, but as I'm typing this, I'm noticing a video titled "What Went Wrong With Harry Potter and the Cursed Child?" which is a play that had her full support and backing and the only thing I can compare this to is a Jedi watching Anakin fall to the Dark Side. I'm watching a tragedy occur that I can't do anything about, so I'm turning my back so I can remember her for what she once was, an author that sparked the imaginations of millions upon millions of children around the world.
@@sociallyineptspider-man2366 Yes because she literally is like that .-." Like that one time when she was like: "ey I never said that Hermione was white in the books, she was black all along." - Nobody. Cares. Nobody and it's so annoying when she says that her characters are progressive 10000 years after the books and movies are done and she doesn't show any of those progressive characters in Fantastic beasts or allude in any way shape or form that they are either LGBTQ+ either black in books or movies.
two advices to JK: 1) Let your work speak, not you 2) Hire the best people in their respective jobs. You're a billionaire, just get Jonathan Nolan or a screenwriter in that level to honor your books.
She should've gotten Michael Goldenberg. The screenwriter for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. He's amazing. I'd argue that Steve Kloves would've done a better job writing the movie than her but eh he made questionable decisions on his time writing the harry potter movies as well.
"honor your books" Dude there are no books for this. She literally pulled it out of her ass. This story was never implied this way in the original HP saga and significantly changes the canon of both the books and the movies. Her "I've been holding on to this part of the lore for 20+ years" is some massive bs. But that's just the way she operates. Like with her fake minority representation tweets.
@davidls187 I love how she does minority representation. "I forgot to put any of this in the book in any interesting way that shows I did any research about said minority group. Have this fun fact about random side character 44b"
3. If you can’t or won’t get the best screenwriters to write for your films, go to film school and take some screenwriting classes. Writing a screenplay is worlds apart from writing a novel. And for god’s sake, get someone to check over your screenplay and make sure that it doesn’t contradict your established continuity!
Honestly, if they are making this something like a 5/6 part story like the previous Harry Potter installments, this movie should have just been a biopic of Johnny Depp's character and what drove him to be like this.
I disagree. She got so caught up in her movie she forgot her own mythology. That's why there are so many instances of her contradicting herself in these films.
She wrote a bad fanfic really. Many things contradict the mythos and rules of the original series. Appearating in Hogwarts, people who haven't been born yet being teachers, character history changing drastically... And other things just happening. She doesn't stick to her own lore and universe.
Hagrid was dealing with eating disorder and body image problems his entire life. Oh, and Harry's mom was trans, that's the real reason Voldemort killed her.
noooo what do you mean i cant make no mention of their sexuality in the canon and then reveal it on twitter years later to get diversity points??!?!?!?!
It’s so easy, you could’ve just had him tell Harry “I was in love once Harry, I understand how you’re feeling. I just hope you are as happy with her as I was with him” or something like that, it doesn’t have to be big, in fact it shouldn’t be because it normalizes people to it and no one cares
Absolute worst thing this "movie" did was to bring Creedence alive. I cried at his death in a first movie, because he was an innocent child, who got undesirably hit by the world over and over again to the point he finally snapped. HE was the one who received the worst punishments, even if he never deserved it. It was a very deep and sensitive topic - child abuse and mental disorders. But, who needs that shit, right?!
I remember watching this movie for the first time and screaming at my tv the following: "POLYJUICE POTION IS SUPPOSED TO LAST AN HOUR!" "YOU CAN NOT APPERATE TO OR FROM THE HOGWARTS GROUNDS!" Then I found out J.K. Rowling wrote this and part of me died inside, she *made* these rules she should remember them.
Polyjuice potion was never stated to last an hour only you made this up. In COS hermione makes enough to last an hour when was that rule made? Are you certain it wasn't after the first wizarding war? Stop making future rules apply to the past
@@adityabhalekar3506 There's a term for future rules not applying to the Past: Terrible Continuity. If the rules you have established across your previous works do not apply to all of them then you are a terrible writer *period.*
@@Guntherson220 unfortunately idc what you think is a good writer. Its not terrible continuity if said rule is applied AFTER a certain event to prevent it from happening again
The problem with Dumbledore and Grindelwald's "intensely sexual" relationship is that modern big-budget Hollywood movies have to appeal to the Chinese market, and homosexuality doesn't fly with Chinese censors, so any movies Hollywood wants to distribute over there can't have overt homosexuality in them. Aren't movies magical?
I am Chinese. The censorship will not cut everything which looks gay,only the kisses and sex part. For instance they keep the part which Dumbledore and G. G. holding hands and breathing. But I still hate the censorship,fuck that shit.
I would have really liked to see more about their relationship of love and hate. It didn't have to be explicit content, I'd actually find it more intriguing if such a relationship was narrated giving us viewers hints
@@Velereonics The first movie was a romp with enjoyable main characters and fun beasts, held together by a thin but adequate plot. The second movie was overstuffed with plot, and little time to enjoy any of the characters, neither the ones we already knew nor those we were just introduced to.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984 Idk I wasn't invested in Newt because he had no stake in the actual plot. He was just accidentally along for the ride. It was like watching two separate movies happening during the same period of time and then twice in the movie smashing them together. I didn't enjoy it at all I was just confused like i was watching a 2 hour prologue
"Show it, don't tell it" - it's one of the first rules of writing, and it applies to both books, short stories, stageplays, screenplays and even poems!
“Show it, don’t tell it” is for visual media since you have the ability to do that and it’s more engaging. While in written media since you can’t show you have to tell the reader about it. Like describing how a character looks.
@@NeinDao Yeah sometimes you have to describe with telling facts. But it applied just as much to written media. Sure you can’t show that a character has green eyes, that’s something you have to tell. But say I have a character who when she sings every note is as delicate as butterfly wings and makes anyone who hears it fall silent in wonder. There I just SHOWED you how beautiful her voice is, instead of just telling you. :)
@@knaengt okey then I see your point, we just had a different idea of what show and not tell means. When I talk about show not tell, it only applies when written media turns to visual media. I read allot of manga(comics from Asia) then you see this problem allot when a light novel becomes a manga as when people use a certain ability for example then there is often some random character on the side that says “ wow that is the blablabla ability” and then someone else says “ yeah it’s this and that much stronger then something that has been used before and it has this and that ability, like it can’t be stopped by any defence” this is kinda what you did with the butterfly thing. You had to tell me the effects that this “ability” has. instead of telling with text just show it in the images. This was my understanding of what “show and not tell” means. Hence it’s basically impossible to show and not tell in written media
The first mistake you made was recognizing that this was J.K. Rolling, the author who has to be corrected by her own readers: "I wrote all my character vaguely, so Hermione can be any race or color(even gender)." she said in a few interviews. "Hi, miss Rolling, that's not right. Look here, in your very first book, you said she is white with curly brown hair." said her reader. "Oh right...(Shut up you kids! I swear I'm never writing a kid in my story ever again!)"
@@jakewhite3132 That's true mostly she does that for reasons like defending Hermiones actress or the fact that she got attacked about how much/little focus there was on Dumbledores sexuality in the books but the amount of hate she is getting in return is ridiculously overblown. I mean its practically an unspoken truth that it is okay to cyberbully her on the internet now and that is terrible.
@@nicks.2612 That's because she's shitting all over her writing by cramming in "progressive" idealisms where they don't fit. I called out her falseness way back then, I didn't care if it was an all black or all asian ensemble, it was the fact she kept claiming it was that way in the books. Almost yelling at little girls in costume that their books Must have misprints. The social justice idiots Just caught on Now, recently, years after her first bullshit. They will not stand by and let this privileged billionaire pretend she was one of them the whole time. Worst of all, her writing would have been dogshit with the kid gloves and limitations of what you can and can't write when you're "progressive".
You guys are all right, lmao. Who cares what color the actress is, it's a play, not the canon films. I understand peoples attachments to the main 3 cast but nobody seems to care that Crabbe was replaced with a black guy after his first actor was jailed. So, good for her for standing up for anyone's right to play any character. But also at the same time JK DOES in fact just spread progressive idealism into the cracks in her work. Nobody likes a ret-con.
You hit the nail on the head when you explained the guy falling from the carriage in the beginning should have been Newt's brother. Because that is what many good movie adaptations do; they fuse to or more characters into one.
Even worse for this movie, there is no novel to adapt; the story ONLY exists as a movie. There was no need to introduce this character at all, just make it Newt's brother and be done with.
Exactly. Good screenwriters know when to fuse characters or to remove them entirely. Yeah, you always get some book purists complaining about minor characters not appearing in movies that are well over three hours, but smart writers ignore that and create streamlined narratives that balance and utilize their characters well.
The worst problem with this film is that it completely fails at being a sequel to the first Fantastic Beasts movie. It takes everything that made it great, and throws it into the bin to instead try to be more like the original Harry Potter, without having any of the qualities.
YEP. Spot on. That, and with Rowling as the writer, she wrote the script for the movie as if it was one of her books (on top of completely forgetting/ignoring her own damned canon).
@@adityabhalekar3506 Like the magical beasts. In this movie, they were just tools. In the first one, they were integral to the plot, and there was a lot of focus on explaining and exploring their world. Newt was, first and foremost, an handler of these beasts, who dealt with issues they (and he himself) directly caused. Only by chance during his search for the beasts did he get entangled in a bigger plot concerning wizard politics and evilness. In the second, the plot of the movie purely revolves around the political plot, which while nice, was far better left for a different movie.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 well you can't expect the beasts to be set loose in every single movie. He is entangled in those events by chance yes, but he's the one who catches Grindelwald so it makes sense Dumbledore would give him a mission
No one: Filmento: "Writing a movie is easier than writing a book" I would argue that writing a bad movie and a bad book are equally easy, just as writing a good movie and good book are equally hard.
I mean... For the bad movie and bad book, sure. But why do you argue writing a good book is just as hard as writing a good movie? Like, address some of Filmento's point of having more freedom and time when writing a book.
Let me guess... "...and to make abortion illegal because he's a *mi-soggy-knees nazi right-wingers... [insert more generic leftist insults and propaganda]* "
Voldermort became a dark wizard because he failed art school and had one testicle and a micro penis as well as being jealous of muggles because they have high verbal IQs. Also he was gay and and secretly a transgender black woman.
@@chefhitler7709 ''was gay and and secretly a transgender black woman'' You must have read Russian version of Harry Potter:/ We joke here, but in their version, THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
@@prasannahraman2230 100% serious. They even made a trash of a movie based on those books, it offended everyone and everything. And animation alone made me blind in my left eye; You thought food fight was bad.
@@jalifritz8033 - But the amuptee part? Also, I'm pretty sure Rowling said she never explicitly states Hermoine's race, so she could be whatever race. I don't buy it, of course.
I kid you not, I know somebody who said that this is their favorite Harry Potter movie and the best movie that he saw in 2018. And said person hated Infinity War for how it ended.
I liked the movie and it is actually one of my favourites in the series purely for the last part with Grindelwald's rally, but to even compare it to Infinity War, or to love this and hate IW, that's just dumb
My favorite author/screenwriter example is William Goldman. Princess Bride has the book as a framing device but he never uses the narration as a crutch.
Its nothing to do with adapting the work. Much more to do with the poor quality of her books. In that regard she has adapted them perfectly. They are poor books and they make poor movies
Interesting choice. As someone who did not read the book, I have been told that the book *Gone Girl* is considerably better because in the book you see that the husband is actually impressed by Amy at points and is shown to be just as cruel as her, a sort of "they are meant for each other" type thing. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then the movie (and her adaptation) completely failed
No one: Still no one: J.. Rowling: Greedo and Han Solo had intense relationship and everybody who think Greedo can't be Black is imbecile. BTW it's quite funny as Greedo can be played by Black actor,b ut can't be Black. He's Rodian.
Lol maybe Rowling is just a little too confident in her own abilities... I mean yeah she's a good book writer, but I think she underestimated screenwriting... and I doubt anybody told her that
She knows she can't write anything else so she's trying to keep the Harry Potter series going and get as much money out of it as possible. Rowling got lucky with one idea but she's not a very good writer.
@@Xehanort10 my sister read harry potters and I asked her if it was a nice writing. She said it was average and that she didn't enjoy it as someone who enjoys the aesthetics and ambiance like Tolkien and Austen give.
The same thing happens with a certain video game that I used to love. It didn't happen becauae the creator is money hungry, but he doesn't how to write a story. I'm not goint to write down its name, the triggered kids will kill me with pitchforks.
Pretty sure the scene with the water kelpie (?) was there almost entirely because someone realised that a film called "Fantastic Beasts" had very little to do with fantastic beasts. So here you go audience, here's one! You're happy now, right?
Arguably yes, but to me (and the only point I don't really agree with Filmento on) I think the scene was important to show that Newt was knowledge and comfortable with large dangerous beats. It was more of a lead up to the tiger-snake creature encounter and gave the viewer confidence that the hero could pull through.
@@TheDeadkrow in a way, its not a setup for the water creature, its a setup for Newt AS knowledgeable regarding to Magical Creatures. Yeah that one makes sense
@@hotlinesanzensekai7084 agree, we already establish Newt character from the first movie. So we can just cut the water monster scene altogether to make room for... I don't know, newt relationship with his brother?
I like what she did to Queenie more than everything else.. Look, tbh, this is just the fun stuff, I know she may be your favorite so you don't want her to be on the wrong side but this is how good drama is made, this is conflict and this is reality, they say Grindelwald is great at making people take his side, so how is it possible that he doesn't turn a single important person into his side? If they say someone is powerful they must show his power
@@juska4235 Bullshit. The case of Queenie is another instance of "to showcase a character's abilities, make everyone else incompetent". You can't make a character that can read minds so easily influenced just because you want to show that Grindelwald has a great ability with propaganda. It is NOT good drama when it's incoherent with the character that was presented in the first movie; that just makes the narrative unreliable by accident, which shows the negligence of the writer. And what reality? It's a fucking wizard world.
@@mex_I.M Harry: ''You were after my mum's booty!'' Snape: 'MISTER POTTER! ....I was after your father's booty as well, and your aunt, and your grandparents... and you once you are 18...'' Harry: ''😮.''
Funny enough Harry Potter did not cover multiple characters except for in a few exceptions. The vast majority of the tale was from Harry Potter's point of view. JK Rowling has become obsessed with other characters and view points due to Pottermore I would think.
Agreed, one of the best decisions she made was to limit the 'main' cast to Harry, Hermione and Ron, plus Dumbledore, Snape, Draco and Voldemort. Everyone else is a minor character at most and even with some of the above their involvement in the plot is severely limited.
I suspect Rowling's strategy is to throw around numerous characters so she can expand on them continuously. The goal is to create a universe like Marvel or Star Wars and make an endless string of movies about minor characters consumers may wonder about or not.
I suspect it's even easier: write fanfic-shipping material by creating a lot of characters. Then look at the more egregious/"diverse" ones and buy them to expand them. She made money past the point of caring about the work.
I disagree with the point about fiction writers always having the luxury of time on their hands. Pacing is just as important a concept when writing a book as it is for writing for a film. You do have greater control of time, but you still have to be aware of how that time is filled. Spend too much time on one thing, and your story starts to lag. While I’m here, this also erodes the point about screenwriting being harder than fiction writing. With film, a single frame can convey the same amount of information as entire pages in a novel. Showing rather than telling is universally less cumbersome in film. An author is also wholly responsible for all of this, while a screen writer generally just provides the framework for the director and actors to work off of. This can either make your job easier or harder depending on who you’re working with. It seems like the point about screenwriting being harder than fiction writing is largely rooted in bias. It’s perhaps more accurate to say that they are as different to each other as they are to something like journalism. It’s safe to say Rowling has demonstrated that a good (“good”) fiction writer is not automatically a good screenwriter, and vice versa.
I think he makes those points in the video. You have more leeway with timing in a novel (Grapes of Wrath...) than you do a film. While there isn't limitless luxury, screenwriting has little/less luxury. I think the point though isn't that books always have the luxury of spending time on things but rather it has more luxury to explore more thing simultaneously (i.e. Wheel of Time and the fact at some point we get 5+ different stories at once). I agree that neither is necessarily harder than the other though. Still, I think it's important to note that "writing" a screenplay and having abstract concepts like personality translate visually is challenging without showing. Writing a book has more leeway in the sense of perspective. I do not need to just show, but rather I have the ability to tell a lot more about abstract concepts (this person looks kind). On the flipside, visual descriptions in a novel need to be carefully given so as to not be cumbersome (looking at Les Mis for this one) but still adequately provide a scene. Both have challenges unique to their medium.
I still think the worst offender there was Cursed Child for literally supporting the arguments of people who said the time turner from Prisoner of Azkaban should've been used to retroactively stop Voldemort. I was with you, Jo, why'd you help your enemies?!?
7:34 "If your story introduces a weapon, that weapon at some point must be used" I'd argue the lesson is actually the reverse. "If you use a weapon, that weapon must have been set up first." The first rule prevents red herrings, or cold trails. These are fine if used well. The second prevents Deus ex Machinae, which im sure everyone is in agreement is a good thing.
the idea with chekovs gun is that a setup must have a payoff. a red herring has a payoff when you learn it was a red herring. while i agree with ur point i think you should use both at the same time; if you set up something, use it, and if you plan on using something, set it up.
@@squibble311 No, OP is spot on. "If you show a weapon, it needs to be used" is BS that leads to Hollywood level predictable and thus boring movies. "if a weapon is used, it needs to have been shown first" is mainly true, in contrast. Nothing destroys a movie like deus ex mechanica, and this rule is how to prevent this.
R.K Rowling has the same problem as George Lucus. She is probably surrounded by Yes Men who are too afraid to say no to her. Imagine working on this Film and saying "sorry Jo you should probably edit that out, it might be better if you condense those two points into one" I think you would be kicked out the door before you even got halfway through the sentence.
@@MikhailPashkovski I could not agree more, at least regarding the Star Wars part... However, not to step on anyone's toes (something easily done with all the entitled 'curling' kids out there), but I do believe the proper term is '(V/W)amen' power. As in a vapid, shallow, spoiled (my ego bruises easily, and if you disagree with me, I pull the victim card and demand censorship), kind of way. - Just my point of view, not sure if my definition is accurate, but then the again, English is not my first language :)
I really wanted to like Grindelwald, because I loved the scene in the last film where he tries to fight the entire ministry by himself in the tunnel, and I thought it was a nice change of pace from Voldemort who is a perpetual coward despite being immortal, but he seems to do things for no reason but to make himself unlikeable by the audience. Like throwing the lizard out the window, lighting Paris on fire, letting his minion kill the muggle baby etc. Villains should do bad things otherwise they wouldn't be villains, but the bad things he does are either pretty minor (lizard murder) or don't seem to advance his goals in anyway (Paris Dragon Fire). He says he wants to rule over the muggles for their own good to prevent them from destroying the world with their warfare. That's a valid evil goal, but almost nothing he does in the film furthers that goal to the point you suspect he doesn't actually want to do it and it's just a smokescreen for something else. The heroes likewise do very little to stop him and seem to spend most of their time trying to solve the mystery of what happened to the Lestrange baby. I think if they cut out Leta Lestrange and the French Wizard searching for Credence the whole film would have been better. Grindelwald could have just told Credence he was a Dumbledore and had a Darth Vader moment. Honestly Nagini could have stayed in since she does seem to have some sort of relationship with credence and does reference back to the original series.
I'm so annoyed that Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald. He looked like a far more formidable opponent and villain. And I like Johnny Depp, but the makeup and his direction just don't scream "this man was in a relationship with Dumbledore and now wants to murder muggles". Voldemort had the luxury of being played by the incredible Ralph Fiennes who mastered the combination of intense brooding with fast-paced action. I don't blame Johnny Depp, I blame J.K. Rowling. That final line in the first film, "Will we die, just a little?" was so completely unnecessary and still doesn't make any sense to me. Colin Farrell was clearly directed to be more active and engaging in combat and in emotional scenes like we get with Credence in the alleyway, and I wish we got his version of Grindelwald all the way through.
@Austin The reason why he "does more things" in this movie then Voldemort in the real Harry Potter movies, is because this movie is (evidentely) not about the story, but about how to make cool shit appear on the tv-screen. That's also why all his moves seem so random. :P And no, we should burn this Nagini and forget she ever existed.
@@BioLivbanon there was no need to make nagini a girl but they had to go ahead and make it a girl to satisfy the Chinese market. Otherwise they could have just let it be a snake. So many movies have been ruined because they shoehorned in a completely unnecessary chance or a character just to appease the Chinese.
Seems pretty clear, she should have just written her books and have other people make it into a movie script. Script writing really isn't her thing apparently.
masterjoda999 to be fair, she is one of the most financially successful writers of all time and then wrote a series of successful books under a different name.
@@choreomaniac Didn't she have to tell the publisher who she was for them to even touch that second thing? And being financially successful as a writer does not indicate being a _good_ writer, just look at the twilight series.
And Rowling has never lived up to that standard. She does lots of tell and little show. We're TOLD that Voldemort was charismatic enough in the previous war to gather a large following yet after he's reborn we see a raving lunatic who belittles and tortures his minions at a whim, while plenty in his ranks are thinking about (or already have resorted to) betrayal. We're TOLD that Moody's hardened and competent yet every single fighting scene he appears he's beaten senseless, in custody, or killed. We're TOLD that Dumbledore's wise yet pretty much every decision he has made is suboptimal at best and outright stupid at worst, starting from him setting Harry's adoption by the Dursleys (instead of just putting him in a loving wizard foster family with a fidelius charm put around the house; same goes with the protection of the Potters and the Stone).
I never got around watching breaking bad (it's been on my 'to watch' list forever) so what could the roomba possibly do to be better than a somewhat human character?
Benzaiten it’s the “es”, for me it pops up automatically, ‘cause I’m Spanish and wiki’s have started picking the language for you when you click. I thought it would fix it for you since it auto-fixes it for me even when I specifically put another language but maybe it doesn’t do that for some countries. Probably depends on national law or some shit I’m no expert. I guess I can’t help ya ‘cause as I said, it won’t let me search on English unless there just isn’t a Spanish version out there. And yes that is incredibly annoying. So quick summary: the roomba ate the drug and the fact the drug was missing was a plot point for the episode, hence it literally affected that episode’s plot more than dumbledore this movie’s.
JK Rowling: Look at me! My books are filled with characters from all kinds of races and sexuality! It doesn't matter that I never actually wrote in the books or movies that they're diverse, I'm sooo progressive! Rick Riordan: *Laughs in group of main characters with Latino guy, indigenous girl, black girl and Chinese guy, gay side characters, bi god main character, lesbian couple with a kid, muslim girl, deaf guy, trans guy/girl, etc., all of which are established to be this way on the books*
I know. That's why I don't get close to people who think that she's a genius and are currently obssesed with HP. I respect all authors except her and Anna Todd.
@@gunnerr8476 That's only IF these next movies even make enough to warrant followups. I'd say after the dumpster fire of CoG, we won't be seeing anymore movies to follow whatever trash Rowling brews up for round 3.
Badlaama Urukehu, I never said she was a good writer. I was stating that novelists don’t get a free pass to ramble on about things that don’t further the plot just because they don’t get a time limit. If your book is 400k words long, you better have a good reason for needing that many words, otherwise you’re a bad writer who can’t discriminate what is necessary for the story and what is there for your own personal gratification just because you wrote it. Same applies if your book is 70k words. Although it’s a short book, you still have to justify the need for every word. Can you tell the same story with fewer scenes and less characters? Is your plot clean? This is one element which I think distinguishes good writers from bad writers. I think a good novelist who values the reader’s time will transition to make an excellent screenwriter after adapting to the different requirements.
@Ironclaw XII I don't think it is just that she is trying to stroke her ego but that she is trying to move into a field she thinks she can get more money out of without realizing that the skills don't transfer over as well as she thinks.
Even in books the rule is "show don't tell", you can't say to the reader why they should like a character, you need to show them in action. It is not so easy to write a book Filmento, and it is not so different from a movie. Jk Rowling did a poor job even for a book standard in that regard.
“Show don’t tell” applies more heavily to visual media because in visual media you are dealing with 2 forms of information, verbal and visual, so if you simply “Tell”, you are completely pushing the visual to the wayside, however in a book the same thing doesn’t apply. Obviously it is still an important thing to keep in mind when writing, as you can have the whole book be the author telling you why characters are important, but because it’s harder to represent information only through words and not visually as well, you can get away with a lot of telling For example, it’s a lot harder to have a “cutaway” or “flashback” in a book and for it to make sense, but in movies that’s common practice, and often how they develop characters not yet interacting with the main character, especially “bad guys”. But I’m books, those types of characters need someone to TELL everyone else or one other person about their importance, if the author wants that character to be on our minds
I saw it in 4D as well and honestly all the flashing lights and water made it impossible to tell how bad the movie actually was until I got home to think about it later... so it kinda(?) made it more enjoyable
My teachers always say “it’s always harder to write short than to write long” because when you’re made to write short, you have to be smart about what you choose to focus on
The author of Gone Girl did an amazing job with the screenplay for that movie, JK should take a lesson from her. Edit: My point is that both Gillian Flynn and Jk Rowling are book writers who made a transition into screenwriting and Flynn did it much better.
paula haha ikr fuck this person for providing an example of a relevant and good screenplay from a book author that can contrast against this terrible screenplay from a book author
well, in no defense to JK, Gone Girl at least had a book as a foundation to work from, where these movies are just plucked from the air and JK probably falls under the Lucas spell (no pun intended) where no one says no to them because of their power. JK probably had barely any reins holding her back (and no one pointing to the book HEY WTF).
@@button9 You're kinda right but Jk "planned it all" (including the Nagini twist but I don't believe this) so what I am saying is that she failed to adapt her own body of work(some of it having roots in the main saga, other stuff she just made it up) into a cohesive well structured screenplay.
The main problem I had with this movie was the amount of new characters and plot twists that they had in this movie! New characters is not a bad thing but having so many characters and showing their "missions" and stuff is a pretty hard thing to pull off, especially in a 2 hour film and of course, as expected, it all got jumbled up in the end, and all we understood was: Newt and Letta something something, grindelwald is walking on the streets, All the people are chasing The Flash, Queenie became bad, Final Battle, The Flash is also a Dumbledore
Jk Rowling wanted so bad to make us feel nostalgic by putting all these bunch of characters from Harry Potter movies that she forgot the main story: the war against Grindewald. It doesn't even feel like it is the plot of the movie anymore, it's just there to make it feel like theres an objetive but there isnt. Its just a movie about other characters that she didnt talk about so much in the books.
I had the same problem, I don't mind Nagini changing from human to snake- that's a cool thing and unique, I don't mind all the new characters either but so many are introduced and never seen again like that keeper lady that helped Newt with his beasts or are killed off before we get to know them better, and there were waaaaay too many plots and characters to follow, I got lost half way through the movie and when certain characters came on screen I was literally like: "wait who is that person again?" + I really think that they wasted Jacob in this movie.
Verena_fcb8 1. How many times did you watch the movie? 2. Everything was pretty easy to follow? This movie has like hundreds of subplots and those subplots make you forget what is even happening in the movie! Most people found it very confusing... 3. a)Agent after The Flash b)Flash's mom (she had less screen time but was still there and took up a small part of Nagini's and Flash's journey) c)Letta d)Newt's brother e)A new dumbledore f)a human version of nagini g)The Yusuf Agent - These are your *few new* characters? Also the characters aren't even a problem if they are handled properly... Like Infinity War handled all the characters properly and succeeded... The problem is each character have their own subplot and Letta and Credence have so many plot twists that any person can get confused, unless they have watched the movie 5 times...
I agree with all the points you made in this video, except 1, that being writing a screenplay is more difficult than writing a novel, that is simply not true. While they both require the ability to come up with and tell good stories, they are both very different and require different skill sets. Some aspects of writing a screenplay is more difficult, some aspects of writing a novel are more difficult, both share many of the same principles, like show not tell, both have their strengths and weaknesses. To sit there and say writing a novel is easier, tells me you have only really ever successfully written screenplays, and have no appreciation for a well-written novel. The same would be true in reverse
The clearest giveaway was the claim that in a book, you can just claim what character traits a character has. Of course you can't. Also, you can't headhop like the video claimed (I mean, it _can_ work if you're exceptionally good. Usually, it gets confusing. And writing from multiple perspectives, even in a structured way, is insanely difficult, because all characters need a recognizably distinct thought process)
Just in book you can write as much as u want but in screen there is only 1 or 2 or 3 hour to tell everything that why novel write is easier than movie writer
@@tuddy1000 you can also write a very short book and put in all important aspects like world building and character development as well a good plot. but write a very long long movie (series) and completely fail. The same applies vice versa. Bad writing is just bad writing.
@@gernottiefenbrunner172 Filmento is pointing out a bunch of things that would still be bad writing in a book, and coming to the incorrect conclusion that books must be easy to write for if you can get away with all of this garbage. When the actual takeaway should be "J.K. Rowling desperately needs an editor."
J. K. Rowling was Rita Skeeter in the AU Harry Potter took place in. She fled because so many people were suing her for libel and defamation of character. So she wrote up the events as fiction, deliberately trashing the characters of everyone in the lawsuit.
Jk should've done like Gaiman with Coraline: write the fucking book, hire a director that she admires and let him/her do the necessary changes to make it a good movie. The end. 🙄
I feel the Fantastic Beasts films were an unnecessary attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the HP series among people who were kids and teens in the 2000s and are now in college and/or adulthood-and not a good one at that. The seven books and eight movies were-and always will be-classics in their respective fields, but we didn't need this much further divulging into the Wizarding World universe (honestly it's things like this that I feel are responsible for a growing backlash against HP and it's fanbase over the last few months in online circles)
I do not ever want to read or see the play ever the first seven books and 8 films are perfect everything else is wrong and money grabbing of course a d decade later at some point it might have been nice to have a series set at Hogwarts or an 8th film but JK f**k*k that up it hurts she controls the rights so heavily
@@wesleywyndam-pryce4081 really though. i hated how much the cursed child (and the fantastic beasts movies) just fucked with the lore and time mechanics. she seriously had so much she could've done better with the albus-grindelwald story and it hurts to see it get blatantly destroyed and then be called "canon". sucks man.
JK Rowling might have overstayed her welcome in the stage of fiction. She made an amazing world, but now she’s letting the weeds just take over, and instead of refining it, she’s just adding gasoline on to the fire.
@@blablablabla1878 No, it was just really really badly structured. Seriously when the black guy started to talk about his backstory near the end, I was shocked. It's a movie, why does a character stands around for fucking 10 minutes spilling expositions??? It's not even relevant to the villain to be defeated or feared. I mean, a lots of stuffs didn't make sense so of course people are going to be confused.
Same. Nothing really happened, everyone traveled around the world talking, but not doing anything. And when that black dude revealed his and Leta's story at the end I was like "who the fuck even are you?" And why was Nagini in this, she basically had no purpose.
The limits of time and perspective in film just makes what Peter Jackson did with the LOTR that much more impressive. Its already difficult to manage 2-3 characters now imagine 9 key characters along with a multitude of other side characters and locations. He was somehow able to take one of fantasy's greatest and expansive stories and condense it down to a 12 hour experience that didnt ruin the heart of the story. Thats fuckin insane.
The funny thing about that "incredibly intense sexual relationship", is that earlier she said it was completely unrequited on Grindelwald's side. I suppose one can have an intense sexual relationship without giving two shits about the other person, but she makes it sound like they were very much in love. Which is it?
Polyjuice Potion, duh. Grindelwald slept with many women and didn't know that all those ladies were just a Dumbledore in disguise. So, these two kinda had "intense sexual relationship" with all that passion n' shit and at the same time they didn't. Easy.
JK Rowling wringing Harry Potter: Acknowledges that drugging/forcing anyone into a relationship is gross and wrong JK Rowling wringing Crimes of Grindelwald: Hah! Its fine if it happens to a guy tho LMAO! Are'nt i progressive?!
She doesn't really, not in any concrete sense. I have always been quite disturbed how love potions are shown to be joke shop commodities, sold by perfectly nice people like the Weasley twins, that anyone can buy. Even adult teachers refer to love potions callously (Lockhart) and demonstrate them in the classroom as objects of study (Slughorn). The real world equivalent is staggering. Imagine a chemistry teacher demonstrating a date rape drug in class and asking "who can tell me what chemical this is, and how do you identify it?" Or the drug being sold in joke shops alongside other prank items. The only instance where she condemns the love potion is Merope, but then conveniently turns the blame onto Merope's individual tragedy and moral.weakness. rather than the existence of such a troubling love potion in the first place.
@@KabirChattopadhyay1991 Same time law of my country: "Kodeks Karny Art. 197 § 1. Kto przemocą, groźbą bezprawną lub podstępem doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 12." roughly translated by myself: "Crime Code Art. 197 § 1. Who, using force, threat or deceit, causes other person making sexual act, will be sentenced for prison for 2-12 years" Using drugs that makes you feel in love is deceit.
Actually I think the movie blame the woman who did it (forgot her name). The guy realized she is crazy at the end. Though it is true it is not treating the same way it would have been if it was man who did it. Also, I always felt like she was somehow trying to blame the fact that Merope raped Tom Jedusor Senior on Tom Jedusor, and never really acknowledged it was a rape. Also why do people can buy love potion like it is nothing?
I just don’t care about Newt at all. I had no problem with him in FB1, I actually liked him. But now his scenes seem so forced and for comedic value and to make him seem “quirky and adorable”. I.don’t.care. Grindelwald is one of the best characters in the Harry Potter canon. I cared far more for the villain than the main good guy. Just move on from Newt and his boring arc and give me Dumbledore and Grindelwald.
I fear Dumbledore will remain a side-character/extended cameo for the next three movies,till the last part in which he fights Grindlewald. That would be a slap in the face for fans.
@@tiaaaron3278 To be fair though he kinda was a side character during Grindlewald's war, i'm pretty sure he joined the conflict properly near the end and then defeated Grindlewald and was given disproportionate political power because he's magically powerful.
@@MoffatLee ...which is dumb and unconvincing. He can't stay aside till the end. He has a personal connection to Grindlewald and he just can't let him go around and start chaos.
@@tiaaaron3278 Thats what bothers me the most about introducing this shitty "blood pact thing", this is a device to keep Dumbledore from interfering with Grindelwald until its convenient for the plot. When i heard that they both were lovers i was like, hell thats an interesting story: The all mighty Dumbledore cant fight G. because hes mad in love with him and first has to accept that no one else is able to stop him and G. used him for whatever reason. But no we get a shitty plot devioce that needs to be destroyed, why do we have those scenes with D infront of the Mirror when apparently the only thing stopping him from confronting G is that godforsaken Pact. And dont get me started on Mr. Aurelius Dumbledore and his so mighty familiy of Dumbledores losing him and somehow drowning in something that seems to be the fucking Titanic.
@@GrandpaHolzz The way to fix this is to have Albus confront Grindelwald at least once _before_ the pact is broken. I mean Grindelwald is responsible for destroying Dumbledore's family and he is still what Albus desires the most. It would be ridiculous and lazy to keep them from interacting till the last moment before their legendary duel which will take place 18 years after this movie. There is also the thing with Credence...
„Screenwriting is mire difficult than bookwriting“ You cant compare the two they are completely different arts! You may have certain limitations with screen writing but book writing requires entirely different verbal skills. You can never say that any artfrom is hader than the other.
In fact it is. Writing 4-strip comics is easier than writing good comics, way easier than writing a book anbd certainly easier than making a film. PWND much?
uhhh yeah you can? Screen writing is harder than book writing BECAUSE of those limitations. And what "entirely different verbal skills" are you even talking about? What? What examples are there? You have more freedom to do what you want in many different styles and forms when book writing when screen writing you heavily limited. Screen writing is an FACT harder than book writing, you can certainly say one art form is harder than the other. It doesn't mean it's quality, just the level of difficulty.
When Rowling was just telling a story, she did a great job and people loved it. Now, she is trying to go all "woke", at the expense of the story, and people hate it.
@@luizabianco She did it because she wasn't sold out. Harry Potter got her addicted to fame and riches, and she saw Fantastic Beasts as a way to fuel that addiction.
The "Snake Woman" is a very important Character in Harry Potter, but not in Fantastic Beasts. In Harry Potter, this "Snake Woman" is called Nagini, and she is the Snake of Lord Voldemort, the main bad Guy in Harry Potter. In Harry Potter, this "Snake Woman" also is One of Voldemort's Horcruxes. A Part of his Soul is in her. He has a few Horcruxes, which prevent him from dying. In Fantastic Beasts, this "Snake Woman" is just that..... a "Snake Woman". Which creates this weird Moment..... where every Harry Potter Fan will be like : So THAT is Nagini. And every other Person will be like : Oh, interesting.
I think having Nagini turn out to be or have been human makes her later story worse. The books clearly established multiple times, that Voldemort never had friends and didn't trust anyone. He can speak to Nagini. Of course he would have known that she's been human. Him giving her part of his soul to keep save makes less sense then giving it to a random snake he keeps as a pet he can mind control.
My mom has seen all eight of the HP films and I had to explain what was going on to her. Thankfully, I’m a Potter nerd so I could help her with that. 😅
Honestly though... The visuals weren't really that good. The CGI looks WORSE than the CGI from the Deathly Hallows. It's more cartoonish, more obvious. There's a fucking problem if your effects look worse than a movie you made eight years ago.
@@blablablabla1878 I'll admit that there were a couple moments that looked good. That fire dragon at the end was pretty impressive. But just for an example of what I'm talking about, compare the animation for Nagini in Crimes of Grindelwald to the animation for Nagini in Deathly Hallows. It looks fucking cartoonish by comparison.
What went wrong with this film? Very simple:
1. There were barely any Fantastic Beasts
2. Besides lizard murder, I still don't know what the Crimes of Grindelwald are
he did not murder the lizard, he just threw it into the sea it could survive I dont even know what beast that was. His crimes : terrorized Britain by killing multiple muggle families including the ones he killed to take their house as his headquarters. same scene showed him allowing the murder of a child. He killed every auror who came after him. Is promoting wizarding exposure to the muggle world which goes against their most sacred law. the movie was trash but let's not overdo it.
Are you kidding me? Lizard murder is one of the highest offenses! So high that it can count as every crime known to.. wizard.. kind.
It was a baby chupacabra according to the internet.
Lmao
Using bleach on his hair was a Sirius crime.
Nobody:
J.K Rowling: *Draco has given Harry a lap dance more than once*
I'm a Potato I honestly don’t even find that hard to believe though 😂😂. It would actually be one of the more believable things she has or could say.
Nobody:...
J.K. Rowling: There is nowhere written that Harry is heterosexual
Fans: Well... he had like at least 3 or 4 female crushes and he has wife plus few children
Internet: Any bisexual people can't have heterosexual relations?
LMAO
*_master has presented draco with a cock..._*
I would like to see that
Spoiling Harry Potter 6 was easy: "Snape killed Dumbledore"
To spoil Grindelwald I had to bring the whole screenplay and read it out loud.
I couldn't have said it better
I tried to summarize the plot of this film to my roommate. Took me 45 minutes
😂😂😂
Thank you for your service.
...and couldn't do it.
A little girl gets sick of her brother's crying, so she switches him for a random ass baby on a ship who just so happens to be the long lost 2nd brother of Dumbledore.
Just tell me that doesn't sound like bad fanfiction.
JK Rowling has been writing her own bad fan fiction since The Cursed Child.
@@HerHollyness the cursed child was not written by JK Rowling but yes this is bad fanfiction i agree
@@nameiguess3675 she was a co writer - and she approved it all. So .... yea :)
I know, I watched that and was like... "Wait, that's it? No, no, I must be missing something."
Okay... Credence is NOT Dumbledore's brother. Grindelwald states in the movies that he is the only chance they have to kill Dumbledore (because no one else than Grindelwald could stand his ground against him but they are linked and can't harm each other) and Credence is driven by hatred towards those who abandoned him making him feel alone. That's why Grindelwald tells him that, because he then comes to hate Dumbledore who is part of the family that left him
“Newt Scamander...Johnny Depp...this, detective woman.”
Not sure if this was intentional, but that line humorously outlines the forgettability of the characters in such a wonderful way.
It's official. Johnny Depp plays Johnny Depp
@@fabbyy7253 What? Newt is cool and all but he is not a good hero character. He plays no role in the conflict but is rather thrown into it.
Catervus
Newt has nothing to do with Grindlewald and Dumbledoor and their battle, I agree, he was thrown into it
This movie title is already missing its purpose. "The Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald". Yeah sure, there are some fantastic beasts here, but what crimes Grindelwald do related to these fantastic beasts, enslaving them, making them in near-extinction, trafficking, etc.? Maybe the film will be a little bit more sense if it was only a spin-off of what already a spin-off series of Harry Potter, like only "The Crimes of Grindelwald" or "Dumbledore: The Crimes of Grindelwald", in which it will do more justice to Newt as a hero who gonna-catch-them-all and just happen to pass by Grindelwald or his henchmen in Newt's journey but not making Grindelwald himself as the main problem/antagonist.
yeah if you have attention span of a goldfish
JK: I never said Hermione was white
The books: "Hermione's white face peeked out from behind the tree"
She just identified as white, duh.
@@Ackalan HAHHAHAHAHA
@@Ackalan genius! XD
Once I've met fool who tried to convince me that Black's face can turn white if frightened. Mainly because they've translated this sentence as "blady" (more like pale) not "biała" (white as White people or color of sheet of paper).
@@Ackalan I identify as John D. Rockefeller. May I get my money back?
*Snape was a single mother*
Thot Slayer “Hagrid, Yeah, he’s transgender. He used to go by Hergrid but he changed it, but, yeah...”
Hermione was in a wheelchair!
H-hey, guess which characters are gay?
...I don't know wh--
ALL OF THEM!!!!
😂
*Change My Mind*
I didn’t know she actually wrote the movie, I mean she forgot her own canon. Like minerva was not old enough to be a teacher, albus wasnt the defense against dark arts teacher. And the ending was just pure shit. There is no way that emo kid is part of the dumbledore family, the timelines do not match.
Minerva can be seen wearing the time Turner. Maybe the next part we can see what actually happens. After all this is not the last film. They still got to defeat Grindelwald.
I was looking for this comment
So in Deathly Hallows we get a book about Dumbledore's past and there is nothing about another brother that Dumbledore had? A brother that destroyed half of New York?
Also, after seeing how wizards develop their power in 7 books plus 8 movies, a kid who has never had a wand in his hand can simply explode a mountain pointing a random wand somewhere.
This movie was confusing even for me, who have read the books at least 7 times.
The "you are part of the Dumbledore family" didn't bother me because the source of that information. For all we know Grindelwald (and I hope it is the case) can be lying just to get on the good side of edgy mc eviddude (I can't even remember his name) so that he is resentful and therefore wishes to kill Albus. However if they go with "yeah that is right and he IS the lost brother" that is going to be plain bullshit. I loved Dumbledore's backstory on the book and was very disappointed that it wasn't in the movie. It was my favourite part of it in fact.
Well, she's already forgotten pretty much everything she wrote a while ago, just look at her Twitter and compare it to the books...
I thought Dumbledore was a transfiguration teacher before. When he became headmaster, Minerva took the job.
"If the robotic vacuum cleaner in Breaking Bad serves a bigger purpose than Albus Dumbledore in your movie..."
ABSOLUTELY SAVAGE
Yep🤣🤣
i don't get this reference since i still have to watch breaking bad
@@studioplopmemes2985 well, you have a whole quarantine to binge watch it during...
I was about to comment on that too, the line actually made me exhale through my nose forcefully O.O
@@studioplopmemes2985 and don't forget to watch better call soul too
Well, there's a reason Dumbledore was called headmaster
I ged it
Why Grindelwald really, really liked Dumbledore?
Because he had really cool, big, black "wand".
Special message from J.K. Rowling: It's clearly said that Dumbledore is Black in the books.
XD
This comment wins
The reason? He had removed his lower ribs so he could go down on himself
You can tell a character is pointless or bad when people refer to them as the actor playing them, and not using the character's actual name.
@@boynotatreus Thats fair Mr friend of a popular person pants
@@nemtudom5074 no not like personally know the actor ofc
its difficult not to do that when your talking about Edward Scissorhands...
no wait... that's not his name...
@@greedfox7842 Or captain Jack sparrow, iron man, Joker....
no wait...that still isn't right...
not really. Most people refer to all the characters that Arnold Schwarzenegger plays as just arnold and they're not bad at all because arnold outshines all of them.
How amazing would it be if these 5 movie were a little Indiana Jones - esque? Every movie we have our lovable protagonist Newt going into adventures in different cultures searching for and studying different magical creatures while writing his book. We see a little love with Tina, the amazing Jacob and Queenie, maybe some badass Jude Law Dumbledore, his cool older brother and the girl he had a crush in the past...
... but none of this Grindelwald bullshit that makes no sense in Newt's story.
This whole series is a mess. Such a disappointment. Now the whole Rowling-Depp-Ezra thing just made it even more of a shit storm.
i know right? or this could even have been a tv series, and maybe it would tie in a LITTLE bit to the grindelwald story, but still be its own thing, separate from dumbledore and grindelwald. i mean that would literally make more money than having them both be in the same series for no fucking reason lmao
and why dumbeldore choose newt to defeat grindelwald, i mean he is not strong wizard or the chosen one like harry, he just an animal lover, it doesnt make any sense.
Newt's story could still tie into Grindelwald and Dumbledore's story if there were space for Dumbledore to come to Newt for assistance in tracking down Grindelwald. Perhaps there's a tracking beast? But as time goes on, Grindelwald becomes more and more aware that Newt is playing a big role in tracking Grindelwald down (which doesn't have to be true necessarily) and sends hit teams after Newt.
I'm spitballing, but there were betters ways to tie the plot together.
@@efulmer8675 yea. You could have newt and dumble bond over a respect for the others field and a general love of figuring stuff out. Newt could be that cool researcher friend dumps occasionally goes for favors and vice versa
*JK Rowling reveals the moviegoers were gay all along!*
Edit: ok well this got way more likes than I expected...how about y’all go check out my channel and drop a sub for more epic comments: th-cam.com/channels/4q0PcDBWJ5CWFjN9AJMVNw.html
Not surprising tbh
Well, all the bullies in school said reading Harry Potter made you gay. Guess they had to be right once, statistically speaking.
Puerto Rico falg?
@@clockstomper what ? how ridiculous !! in my school everyone was reading it .
This meme was stolen and extremely slightly changed by,”Tato ISR”
Rowling: "They had an incredibly intense physical relationship"
Movie: *Shows them holding hands once.*
Me: "Omg, that's intense. I wonder if they'll see each other's ankles in the next movie, shit gonna be restricted 😳😳"
The thing is, Rowling has changed how she talks about the relationship over the years (even over the span of an interview) to the point that I'm not surprised that she's keeping it vague within the movie.
A few years back she said that the relationship was one-sided on Dumbledore's end (with Grindelwald taking advantage), now it was a "love relationship" but also possibly not because "you never really know what the other person is feeling." The only consistent point is that their relationship was "intense." So what do you do in-movie? Just have them hold hands to imply _something_ is going on...nothing specific mind you, just _something_. Can't wait for the next movie where Dumbledore describes their physical passion then we cut to a flashback of Grindelwald patting his leg in a vague manner.
No. That is normal pretty boy gayness..what's NEXT!?...them skipping in a field, rolling down a hill laughing. XD!
Am all for their ship. But she brought it up! produce!
The next movie is going brokeback mountain all the way, with Dumbydore taking G's wand up the flue chute!
HOLDING HANDS? On a MOVIE? I thought this was a family friendly franchise.Where hath the morals of the world gone?
Hahaha. Go read fanfictions.
Not only ankles, but shoulders as well, holy crap!!
No one:
Rowling: I just always viewed Buckbeak not as a beast, but as an independent individual. I wrote Buckbeak into the story to represent the unwarranted hate and stigma toward Furry culture.
Lorenzo C. Sereno this is my favorite now
This is actual gold.
I do not like being that guy, but doesn't "No one: " mean that everyone was saying things?
@@silvermushroom-gamifyevery6430 It's showing that no one asked for that information. As in
No one: [question not asked.]
Rowling: [Answers Question no one asked or wanted to know about]
Like, she legitimately told us Remus has a big dick and needs extra underwear support. literally no one asked about that.
@@folfelit thank Merlin, for that was a CollegeHumor photoshop. But I wouldn't put it past her.
nobody:
JK Rowling: Voldemort goes to korea to do a nose job, but went horribly wrong.
Nosejob? Never seen that. How big were his nostrils?
@@Petaurista13 not sure, but they were a lot bigger afterwards.
@@Petaurista13 he didn't like how the tip of his nose looked
🤣😂🤣😂
That does explain so much tho
No one: ...
JK Rowling: Sirius Black and Hagrid had an intense sexual relationship.
I've read that series lol
The good old crack ship.
But only when Sirius was a dog
No one:
JK rowling: your future kids are gonna have the big gay
No one:
Jk Rowling: how Sirius black got his name, is due to the color and state of his asshole, after hagrid shoved his massive slong into him.
It's okay to insult JK Rowling because she's been insulting our intelligence of a while now
You could argue even when she was actively writing her books.
That's what happens when people elevate mediocre work above where it should realistically be.
@@dyveira A work of highs and lows is not mediocre. There's a difference.
hockeater no it’s mediocre. As in it doesn’t belong with literary greats, nor is it trash. Its entertaining. It achieved mass appeal and like a lot of pop culture that does so it’s fans oversell it’s importance/greatness. But objectively she is a mediocre writer. And the stories aren’t anything crazy original. Pokemon caught kid’s imagination around the same time and is more of an original concept and yet nobody tries to sell it as high art. It just is what it is.
So is Harry Potter. And what it IS is mediocre 🤣
@@michaelmiranda178 Spoken like a true art snob. Pokemon won over the world. That's greatness pure and simple. True it may be a while before the people of the general public take the positions of the old people who endlessly debate what counts as "literature" or literature equivalent in various different art forms, but mark my words it's going there.
Maybe J.k. Rowling should watch Kung Fu Panda to learn how good movies work.
Don't compare Kung Fu Panda with this shit
@@shosty575 Did you even read what Goblin said?
Or maybe just CASABLANCA?
Really? Because that third Kung Fu Panda movie was really lame. Not nearly as bad as these fantastic beasts movies, but anyway.
@@pca1987 It was meh compared to the first two but the first two were absolute masterpieces when it comes to animated movies. It's not fair to compare KP3 to shit like Crimes Of Grindlewald.
No one:
JK Rowling: JK Rowling reveals that you, the reader, were gay all along.
@@luizabianco You always have been
She revealed that I was straight and therefore should not have read the Harry Potter series.
😂
😆
😂
The problem with JK Rowling is that she's always trying to expand the Wizarding World in information. It's no longer stories, but history books.
She realised only after finishing the seven books that there are gaps and inconsistencies in the history of her world building, and is now trying to fix it in retrospect. Basically aspiring to be Tolkien without the substance.
This might be a weird comparison but i watched Fate and play FGO, it explains its world very well. Was it like a history book? Yes kinda but it keeps the story interesting for me anyway so i like it. This on the other hand, its just a lame history book with inconsistency within itself.
@@silverdo2102 To be honest Fate franchise is also filled with plot holes and retcons for the sake of fan service and the author knows it that's why he is using constantly the same excuse of paralel universes.
I don't mind a lot of information in books, as long as it's spaced out, and given enough space proportionate to their impact on the story.
The problem is Rowling gives that space in interviews and social media. If she wanted people to know that shit, it should've went in the books themselves. People shouldn't have to do supplementary research for a book series.
As a Tolkien fan, my knee-jerk reaction is: "And what's wrong with that?" But then I remember that Tolkien actually had a) a unique language, b) a world he created to house that language he made, and c) characters and a story to tell within that world. In that order. Rowling I guess wanted to tell a story, made a superficial world to house that story, is trying to give it depth without undermining what is already there, and is failing horribly.
My enjoyment of Harry Potter opened the door to the Fantasy genre, and for that I will forever be grateful to her, but as I'm typing this, I'm noticing a video titled "What Went Wrong With Harry Potter and the Cursed Child?" which is a play that had her full support and backing and the only thing I can compare this to is a Jedi watching Anakin fall to the Dark Side. I'm watching a tragedy occur that I can't do anything about, so I'm turning my back so I can remember her for what she once was, an author that sparked the imaginations of millions upon millions of children around the world.
Nobody:
J.K. Rowling: Hermione was colorblind
We, the readers, were colorblind and racist all along. She is white as a charcoal.
Is this just a meme now? In seeing it everywhere
@@sociallyineptspider-man2366 Yes because she literally is like that .-." Like that one time when she was like: "ey I never said that Hermione was white in the books, she was black all along." - Nobody. Cares. Nobody and it's so annoying when she says that her characters are progressive 10000 years after the books and movies are done and she doesn't show any of those progressive characters in Fantastic beasts or allude in any way shape or form that they are either LGBTQ+ either black in books or movies.
@@MrWereWolfGirl funny fact, she actually did say hermione was white
@@sociallyineptspider-man2366
It is already a dead meme. People are repeating it like maniacs.
No one:
Rowling: When writing, I always envisioned the reader as gay,”
Media: J.K. Rowling Reveals That You, The Reader, Were Gay All Along
Cool
Please, bisexual.
She had planned that for 20 years
So, we're just stealing jokes from The Onion now? Cool.
Thanks for for the laugh....and the shocking info about myself.
two advices to JK:
1) Let your work speak, not you
2) Hire the best people in their respective jobs. You're a billionaire, just get Jonathan Nolan or a screenwriter in that level to honor your books.
She should've gotten Michael Goldenberg. The screenwriter for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. He's amazing. I'd argue that Steve Kloves would've done a better job writing the movie than her but eh he made questionable decisions on his time writing the harry potter movies as well.
"honor your books"
Dude there are no books for this. She literally pulled it out of her ass. This story was never implied this way in the original HP saga and significantly changes the canon of both the books and the movies. Her "I've been holding on to this part of the lore for 20+ years" is some massive bs. But that's just the way she operates. Like with her fake minority representation tweets.
@davidls187 I love how she does minority representation. "I forgot to put any of this in the book in any interesting way that shows I did any research about said minority group. Have this fun fact about random side character 44b"
3. If you can’t or won’t get the best screenwriters to write for your films, go to film school and take some screenwriting classes. Writing a screenplay is worlds apart from writing a novel. And for god’s sake, get someone to check over your screenplay and make sure that it doesn’t contradict your established continuity!
I saw this movie in the theatre and after it ended I just thought “That’s it?”
Did you not react to the retcon?
@@turtleanton6539 You should retcon as little as possible. Mostly mistakes and stuff that makes no sense.
Really ? I was more like "finally it's over" lmao
@@benschmitt7035 My reaction was something in words of: "What the fuck was that?"
I thought something was off when I left the cinema
She got so caught up in her own mythology she Forgot to make a movie.
Honestly, if they are making this something like a 5/6 part story like the previous Harry Potter installments, this movie should have just been a biopic of Johnny Depp's character and what drove him to be like this.
She also got caught up in 'her own' ideology...
She wants to keep laying golden eggs but perhaps she needs to write these films as actual books first and let a pro turn into a screenplay.
I disagree. She got so caught up in her movie she forgot her own mythology. That's why there are so many instances of her contradicting herself in these films.
She wrote a bad fanfic really. Many things contradict the mythos and rules of the original series. Appearating in Hogwarts, people who haven't been born yet being teachers, character history changing drastically... And other things just happening. She doesn't stick to her own lore and universe.
Hagrid was dealing with eating disorder and body image problems his entire life. Oh, and Harry's mom was trans, that's the real reason Voldemort killed her.
Hagrid father was Bi that is why he married a tran giant woman
Voldemort was transphobic, homophobic, straightpople phobic, neo nazi, muglephobic and harrypotterthrboywholivedphobic
Krombopulous Michael also Voldemort was a Nazi Trump supporter
@@TheViolinMan19 hagrid secretly had a pet spider that was the orginal chosen one
@@TheViolinMan19
The no insult dark lord by connecting him to trash like trump.
jk Rowling: “Dumbledores was super gay and had a romantic SEXUAL relationship with Grindlewald.”
Me, a gay, watching the movie: “..?? Where??”
🤣🤣🤣
Actually the whole movie has Dumbledore fellating Grindelwald...they're just using an invisibility spell
Well the blood pact scene wasn't exactly subtle.
Of course I'm Japanese, so to me hugging is seen as a sexual and inappropriate activity.
@@tokutickler Ah yes, japanese, where hugging is sexual... of course! And all the other super weird shit in japanese porns is ... um... wait... :D
@@leocurious9919 *tentacles and slime creatures sliding into various human orifices intensify greatly*
Edit: That just sounds wrong :D
Normal People:
JK Rowling: I wasn’t the writer all along!!!
Jk Rowling: The reader was gay all along!!
The sad thing is that right now, that statement would be 100% believable.
JK Rowling: My name was "Just Kidding" the whole time.
JK Rowling: Just Kidding
TKinfinity n
filmento: when you say your characters are gay, you have to write them being gay
jk rowling: wh. what
This.
noooo what do you mean i cant make no mention of their sexuality in the canon and then reveal it on twitter years later to get diversity points??!?!?!?!
@@rebekahmikaelson1198 I know right?!Im to lazy to actually write them being LGBTQ+ characters!what am I going to do?
It’s so easy, you could’ve just had him tell Harry “I was in love once Harry, I understand how you’re feeling. I just hope you are as happy with her as I was with him” or something like that, it doesn’t have to be big, in fact it shouldn’t be because it normalizes people to it and no one cares
@@whiskeyshaw8818 This!!! Full agree.
Absolute worst thing this "movie" did was to bring Creedence alive.
I cried at his death in a first movie, because he was an innocent child, who got undesirably hit by the world over and over again to the point he finally snapped. HE was the one who received the worst punishments, even if he never deserved it.
It was a very deep and sensitive topic - child abuse and mental disorders.
But, who needs that shit, right?!
Eh I mean it was heavily implied in the first movie that Credence survived, so you can't really blame this movie for that.
Yeah, I clearly remember Newt spotting a dark wisp floating above the rubble and into the streets in the 1st film.
That doesn't make it good.
i really enjoyed the movie and i didn’t find it confusing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the only thing that did bothered me was bringing Creedence alive
@@em-to6no Credence alive makes sense if you saw the 1st film's final battle closely.
I remember watching this movie for the first time and screaming at my tv the following:
"POLYJUICE POTION IS SUPPOSED TO LAST AN HOUR!"
"YOU CAN NOT APPERATE TO OR FROM THE HOGWARTS GROUNDS!"
Then I found out J.K. Rowling wrote this and part of me died inside, she *made* these rules she should remember them.
Polyjuice potion was never stated to last an hour only you made this up. In COS hermione makes enough to last an hour
when was that rule made? Are you certain it wasn't after the first wizarding war? Stop making future rules apply to the past
@@adityabhalekar3506 There's a term for future rules not applying to the Past: Terrible Continuity. If the rules you have established across your previous works do not apply to all of them then you are a terrible writer *period.*
@@Guntherson220 unfortunately idc what you think is a good writer. Its not terrible continuity if said rule is applied AFTER a certain event to prevent it from happening again
@@bankerduck4925 Peter Jackson never breaks the rules of LOTR.
Just want do add one, okay? "MINERVA MCGONAGALL IS NOT FUCKING BORN YET HOW CAN SHE ALREADY TEACH IN HOGWARTS?"
Nobody:
Jk Rowling: Hagrid was one of the plotters for 9/11
Potter for 9/11?
@@alexander1055 harry potter and the 2 towers
@@sethleoric2598 omg genius comment :))) i die
@@hellgirl1512 man your name sounds familiar
ALBUS ACKBAR
The problem with Dumbledore and Grindelwald's "intensely sexual" relationship is that modern big-budget Hollywood movies have to appeal to the Chinese market, and homosexuality doesn't fly with Chinese censors, so any movies Hollywood wants to distribute over there can't have overt homosexuality in them.
Aren't movies magical?
I am Chinese. The censorship will not cut everything which looks gay,only the kisses and sex part. For instance they keep the part which Dumbledore and G. G. holding hands and breathing.
But I still hate the censorship,fuck that shit.
And that's why I respect Quinton Tarantino.. his movies are offensive af but he doesn't give a shit about Chinese..
@@yqin5599 well, have you seen sino-russian friendship posters.. they are the most unintentionally gay imagery ever seen😁😁
I would have really liked to see more about their relationship of love and hate. It didn't have to be explicit content, I'd actually find it more intriguing if such a relationship was narrated giving us viewers hints
Dr Shaym, I really like your videos
After watching Fantastic Beasts I was really impressed. After watching Crimes of Grindelwald I was simply confused. Really, really confused.
I finally saw FB: COG on HBO since I wasn’t impressed with the first film. That may have been your problem.
Me too, buddy.
You were impressed by the first one? Why??
@@Velereonics The first movie was a romp with enjoyable main characters and fun beasts, held together by a thin but adequate plot.
The second movie was overstuffed with plot, and little time to enjoy any of the characters, neither the ones we already knew nor those we were just introduced to.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984 Idk I wasn't invested in Newt because he had no stake in the actual plot. He was just accidentally along for the ride. It was like watching two separate movies happening during the same period of time and then twice in the movie smashing them together. I didn't enjoy it at all I was just confused like i was watching a 2 hour prologue
"Show it, don't tell it" - it's one of the first rules of writing, and it applies to both books, short stories, stageplays, screenplays and even poems!
It even aplies to our lives!
“Show it, don’t tell it” is for visual media since you have the ability to do that and it’s more engaging. While in written media since you can’t show you have to tell the reader about it. Like describing how a character looks.
@@NeinDao Yeah sometimes you have to describe with telling facts. But it applied just as much to written media. Sure you can’t show that a character has green eyes, that’s something you have to tell. But say I have a character who when she sings every note is as delicate as butterfly wings and makes anyone who hears it fall silent in wonder. There I just SHOWED you how beautiful her voice is, instead of just telling you. :)
@@knaengt okey then I see your point, we just had a different idea of what show and not tell means. When I talk about show not tell, it only applies when written media turns to visual media. I read allot of manga(comics from Asia) then you see this problem allot when a light novel becomes a manga as when people use a certain ability for example then there is often some random character on the side that says “ wow that is the blablabla ability” and then someone else says “ yeah it’s this and that much stronger then something that has been used before and it has this and that ability, like it can’t be stopped by any defence” this is kinda what you did with the butterfly thing. You had to tell me the effects that this “ability” has. instead of telling with text just show it in the images.
This was my understanding of what “show and not tell” means. Hence it’s basically impossible to show and not tell in written media
@@NeinDao Ah, I see you are a man of culture
The first mistake you made was recognizing that this was J.K. Rolling, the author who has to be corrected by her own readers:
"I wrote all my character vaguely, so Hermione can be any race or color(even gender)." she said in a few interviews.
"Hi, miss Rolling, that's not right. Look here, in your very first book, you said she is white with curly brown hair." said her reader.
"Oh right...(Shut up you kids! I swear I'm never writing a kid in my story ever again!)"
That’s so true though
I mean, she worded it poorly, but she was coming to the defense of people crying fowl at a black woman being hired for the play.
@@jakewhite3132 That's true mostly she does that for reasons like defending Hermiones actress or the fact that she got attacked about how much/little focus there was on Dumbledores sexuality in the books but the amount of hate she is getting in return is ridiculously overblown. I mean its practically an unspoken truth that it is okay to cyberbully her on the internet now and that is terrible.
@@nicks.2612 That's because she's shitting all over her writing by cramming in "progressive" idealisms where they don't fit. I called out her falseness way back then, I didn't care if it was an all black or all asian ensemble, it was the fact she kept claiming it was that way in the books. Almost yelling at little girls in costume that their books Must have misprints. The social justice idiots Just caught on Now, recently, years after her first bullshit. They will not stand by and let this privileged billionaire pretend she was one of them the whole time.
Worst of all, her writing would have been dogshit with the kid gloves and limitations of what you can and can't write when you're "progressive".
You guys are all right, lmao. Who cares what color the actress is, it's a play, not the canon films. I understand peoples attachments to the main 3 cast but nobody seems to care that Crabbe was replaced with a black guy after his first actor was jailed. So, good for her for standing up for anyone's right to play any character. But also at the same time JK DOES in fact just spread progressive idealism into the cracks in her work. Nobody likes a ret-con.
You hit the nail on the head when you explained the guy falling from the carriage in the beginning should have been Newt's brother. Because that is what many good movie adaptations do; they fuse to or more characters into one.
Even worse for this movie, there is no novel to adapt; the story ONLY exists as a movie. There was no need to introduce this character at all, just make it Newt's brother and be done with.
Exactly. Good screenwriters know when to fuse characters or to remove them entirely. Yeah, you always get some book purists complaining about minor characters not appearing in movies that are well over three hours, but smart writers ignore that and create streamlined narratives that balance and utilize their characters well.
The worst problem with this film is that it completely fails at being a sequel to the first Fantastic Beasts movie. It takes everything that made it great, and throws it into the bin to instead try to be more like the original Harry Potter, without having any of the qualities.
YEP. Spot on. That, and with Rowling as the writer, she wrote the script for the movie as if it was one of her books (on top of completely forgetting/ignoring her own damned canon).
like what?
@@adityabhalekar3506 Like the magical beasts. In this movie, they were just tools. In the first one, they were integral to the plot, and there was a lot of focus on explaining and exploring their world. Newt was, first and foremost, an handler of these beasts, who dealt with issues they (and he himself) directly caused. Only by chance during his search for the beasts did he get entangled in a bigger plot concerning wizard politics and evilness. In the second, the plot of the movie purely revolves around the political plot, which while nice, was far better left for a different movie.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 well you can't expect the beasts to be set loose in every single movie. He is entangled in those events by chance yes, but he's the one who catches Grindelwald so it makes sense Dumbledore would give him a mission
@@jeremyf2720 first move was great adventure.
Nobody:
J.K. Rowling: Ron has been married with more then 8 men at once
Hes also Hispanic
He's also an Orphan who got adopted by the Weasleys
@@ariiyy8662
He dyed his hair red to fit in with his family.
As if JK Rowling would ACTUALLY represent a gay relationship lol
No one:
JK Rowling: Sirius Black is actually black
@Boneheade You saw your window and you took it. Bravo.
He was a dog that transformed into a human. Not the other way around.
And he is gay, that is why he never seemed to have any interest of them.
michael jackson: i feel offended
Black family: Old Noble British Wizard Family , one of the most racist family in UK is black. Lol this will be epic.
The movie should be named fantastic beasts and the crimes of JK Rowling
hah yess
Fanciful Beastshit: The Crap by JK Rowling
@@wavingdragon yaa
There weren't really many fantastic beasts in it though.
Nailed it 😂
Also, why Ezra Miller would even speak to Johny Depp after what happened in the 1st part? This confused me immensely.
You mean the Flash and Jack Sparrow? Isnt it obvious? They have a long and intense history of fucking up things.
@@niedermitderjagd1968 Fucking up logic, in this instance.
I thought you were gonna say "they have a long and intense history of fucking" (as quoted by JK)
And Credence speaking to anyone in general after what happened in the 1st part.
Pretty much everything that happened at the end of the first movie was retconned in this.
No one:
Filmento: "Writing a movie is easier than writing a book"
I would argue that writing a bad movie and a bad book are equally easy, just as writing a good movie and good book are equally hard.
I mean... For the bad movie and bad book, sure.
But why do you argue writing a good book is just as hard as writing a good movie? Like, address some of Filmento's point of having more freedom and time when writing a book.
"Voldermort's plan was to make everyone pregnant"
Let me guess... "...and to make abortion illegal because he's a *mi-soggy-knees nazi right-wingers... [insert more generic leftist insults and propaganda]* "
Voldermort became a dark wizard because he failed art school and had one testicle and a micro penis as well as being jealous of muggles because they have high verbal IQs. Also he was gay and and secretly a transgender black woman.
@@chefhitler7709
''was gay and and secretly a transgender black woman'' You must have read Russian version of Harry Potter:/ We joke here, but in their version, THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
@@jeckjeck3119 are you SERIOUSLY SERIOUS right now?
@@prasannahraman2230
100% serious. They even made a trash of a movie based on those books, it offended everyone and everything. And animation alone made me blind in my left eye; You thought food fight was bad.
I really wish Lockhart would be a bro and obliviate this series from my memory :/
He tried to, but he forgot that his new wand doesn't like that spell...
@@theapexsurvivor9538 he "forgot" oh my god that's brutal
Nah man Lockhart blowing up opera and went into time inversion now (no hate I love that movie and everyone's performance)
*"Obliviate!"*
@@SiddharthShenoy you were meant to destroy the sith not join them
oh wait wrong chosen one nvm continue on
And of course no one told Rowling the script can't work as a movie. Try telling someone that powerful no.
Challenge accepted
Maybe someone told her and consequentially got fired. How could we know?
Star Wars prequels again
This movie made me understand why her first draft of Harry Potter was rejected fifteen times
mcisco9 idc how “powerful” you are I’ll still tell you off
JK Rowling : Actually, Hermione was black and an amputee, I just forgot to write it.
This is not a joke, she has genuinely said this.
Bruh, she can’t have, is that really true?
SpetZemas yes that is why Hermoine is played by an black actress in Harry Potter and the cursed child.
Jali Fritz Oh my god...
@@jalifritz8033 - But the amuptee part?
Also, I'm pretty sure Rowling said she never explicitly states Hermoine's race, so she could be whatever race. I don't buy it, of course.
When did she the amputee part?
I kid you not, I know somebody who said that this is their favorite Harry Potter movie and the best movie that he saw in 2018. And said person hated Infinity War for how it ended.
I liked the movie and it is actually one of my favourites in the series purely for the last part with Grindelwald's rally, but to even compare it to Infinity War, or to love this and hate IW, that's just dumb
I dont believe this
Where did you bury his body?
The ending of infinity war made it look like just a big cash grab, like those cut in tv shows like
It will continue...
There is something fundamentally wrong with your friend.
Gillian Flynn proved novelists *can* adapt their own work for the big screen, but the Fantastic Beasts movies proved J.K. Rowling isn’t one of them.
My favorite author/screenwriter example is William Goldman. Princess Bride has the book as a framing device but he never uses the narration as a crutch.
Its nothing to do with adapting the work. Much more to do with the poor quality of her books. In that regard she has adapted them perfectly. They are poor books and they make poor movies
Steve Pickford Interesting way of putting it
Interesting choice. As someone who did not read the book, I have been told that the book *Gone Girl* is considerably better because in the book you see that the husband is actually impressed by Amy at points and is shown to be just as cruel as her, a sort of "they are meant for each other" type thing. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then the movie (and her adaptation) completely failed
@@32fps It might fail to tell the story that the book tells. But as someone who hasn't read the book, the movie itself is amazing.
No one:
J.K. Rowling: Greedo shot first
Oh mein Gott... 👏👏👏
No one:
Still no one:
J.. Rowling: Greedo and Han Solo had intense relationship and everybody who think Greedo can't be Black is imbecile.
BTW it's quite funny as Greedo can be played by Black actor,b ut can't be Black. He's Rodian.
This was the first comment of this sort, that actually made me laugh, thank you😂
J.K. Rowling: Leia was never specified to be white.
CANCELLED
Lol maybe Rowling is just a little too confident in her own abilities... I mean yeah she's a good book writer, but I think she underestimated screenwriting... and I doubt anybody told her that
I hate how she tries to connect everything with Harry Potter like let it go.
She knows she can't write anything else so she's trying to keep the Harry Potter series going and get as much money out of it as possible. Rowling got lucky with one idea but she's not a very good writer.
@@Xehanort10 my sister read harry potters and I asked her if it was a nice writing. She said it was average and that she didn't enjoy it as someone who enjoys the aesthetics and ambiance like Tolkien and Austen give.
The same thing happens with a certain video game that I used to love. It didn't happen becauae the creator is money hungry, but he doesn't how to write a story. I'm not goint to write down its name, the triggered kids will kill me with pitchforks.
Magnum Jesus what game is that?
@Magnum Jesus Nah. I'm alking about Five Nights at Freddy's.
Pretty sure the scene with the water kelpie (?) was there almost entirely because someone realised that a film called "Fantastic Beasts" had very little to do with fantastic beasts. So here you go audience, here's one! You're happy now, right?
Wasn't that the scene where they also established the -merchandise-, oh sorry, I mean baby niflers?
Arguably yes, but to me (and the only point I don't really agree with Filmento on) I think the scene was important to show that Newt was knowledge and comfortable with large dangerous beats. It was more of a lead up to the tiger-snake creature encounter and gave the viewer confidence that the hero could pull through.
@@TheDeadkrow in a way, its not a setup for the water creature, its a setup for Newt AS knowledgeable regarding to Magical Creatures. Yeah that one makes sense
@@TheDeadkrow But in the first movie he deals with even larger creatures like that rhino like female creature.
It was not needed.
@@hotlinesanzensekai7084 agree, we already establish Newt character from the first movie. So we can just cut the water monster scene altogether to make room for... I don't know, newt relationship with his brother?
I just can’t believe she did my girl Queenie like this.
Well it fits one of the fan theories that she's related to Snape.
I wanted to barf. So a Legilimens can be tricked by propaganda? Huuuuuuuh???
@@svenr.3803 True. For a person who can read minds, she is incredibly naive and gullible
I like what she did to Queenie more than everything else..
Look, tbh, this is just the fun stuff, I know she may be your favorite so you don't want her to be on the wrong side but this is how good drama is made, this is conflict and this is reality, they say Grindelwald is great at making people take his side, so how is it possible that he doesn't turn a single important person into his side?
If they say someone is powerful they must show his power
@@juska4235 Bullshit. The case of Queenie is another instance of "to showcase a character's abilities, make everyone else incompetent". You can't make a character that can read minds so easily influenced just because you want to show that Grindelwald has a great ability with propaganda. It is NOT good drama when it's incoherent with the character that was presented in the first movie; that just makes the narrative unreliable by accident, which shows the negligence of the writer.
And what reality? It's a fucking wizard world.
All of JK Rowling's retcons in a nutshell: The answer you didn't want to a question you didn't ask.
Nobody:
J.K. Rowling: I now diagnose you with the gay
At least it ain't not the *_big_* kinda gay
then dick it shall be
why are you gay?
No one :
J.K. Rowling : I never said Sirius Black was a male. Also, he, Snape, and Lupin had a threesome.
I would watch it
would be suprised more if they didnt have 3some
@@mex_I.M
Harry: ''You were after my mum's booty!''
Snape: 'MISTER POTTER! ....I was after your father's booty as well, and your aunt, and your grandparents... and you once you are 18...''
Harry: ''😮.''
@@jeckjeck3119 this needs to be in akaburs game
@@jeckjeck3119 too bad Snape had to die before the hairy porthole got the rape.
Funny enough Harry Potter did not cover multiple characters except for in a few exceptions. The vast majority of the tale was from Harry Potter's point of view. JK Rowling has become obsessed with other characters and view points due to Pottermore I would think.
Agreed, one of the best decisions she made was to limit the 'main' cast to Harry, Hermione and Ron, plus Dumbledore, Snape, Draco and Voldemort. Everyone else is a minor character at most and even with some of the above their involvement in the plot is severely limited.
@Ironclaw XII Reminds me of how the prequels writing was awful since everyone thought George Lucas was God and we saw how that turned out.
@Ironclaw XII If ass kissing goes to shit, you know you kissed that ass too intensively.
That wasn't the problem. The problem was Newt himself. Why the fuck is he in this movie?
@@lonestarr1490 or they had diarrhea or were just full of shit.
I suspect Rowling's strategy is to throw around numerous characters so she can expand on them continuously. The goal is to create a universe like Marvel or Star Wars and make an endless string of movies about minor characters consumers may wonder about or not.
I suspect it's even easier: write fanfic-shipping material by creating a lot of characters.
Then look at the more egregious/"diverse" ones and buy them to expand them.
She made money past the point of caring about the work.
I disagree with the point about fiction writers always having the luxury of time on their hands. Pacing is just as important a concept when writing a book as it is for writing for a film. You do have greater control of time, but you still have to be aware of how that time is filled. Spend too much time on one thing, and your story starts to lag.
While I’m here, this also erodes the point about screenwriting being harder than fiction writing. With film, a single frame can convey the same amount of information as entire pages in a novel. Showing rather than telling is universally less cumbersome in film. An author is also wholly responsible for all of this, while a screen writer generally just provides the framework for the director and actors to work off of. This can either make your job easier or harder depending on who you’re working with. It seems like the point about screenwriting being harder than fiction writing is largely rooted in bias. It’s perhaps more accurate to say that they are as different to each other as they are to something like journalism. It’s safe to say Rowling has demonstrated that a good (“good”) fiction writer is not automatically a good screenwriter, and vice versa.
Man, this is exactly the message I wanted to see here.
🙏🏻🙏🏻
Great point!
I think he makes those points in the video. You have more leeway with timing in a novel (Grapes of Wrath...) than you do a film. While there isn't limitless luxury, screenwriting has little/less luxury. I think the point though isn't that books always have the luxury of spending time on things but rather it has more luxury to explore more thing simultaneously (i.e. Wheel of Time and the fact at some point we get 5+ different stories at once).
I agree that neither is necessarily harder than the other though. Still, I think it's important to note that "writing" a screenplay and having abstract concepts like personality translate visually is challenging without showing. Writing a book has more leeway in the sense of perspective. I do not need to just show, but rather I have the ability to tell a lot more about abstract concepts (this person looks kind). On the flipside, visual descriptions in a novel need to be carefully given so as to not be cumbersome (looking at Les Mis for this one) but still adequately provide a scene. Both have challenges unique to their medium.
Rowling and good in the same sentence?
Don't forget to add that this movie breaks its own worlds laws
I still think the worst offender there was Cursed Child for literally supporting the arguments of people who said the time turner from Prisoner of Azkaban should've been used to retroactively stop Voldemort.
I was with you, Jo, why'd you help your enemies?!?
@@jaschabull2365 that wasn't made by jk Rowling though
@@Cream12345Ice
I guess that's true, but I'm pretty sure she could've vetoed that plot point.
It breaks laws AND timelines. Screenwriting or not this is just plain bad worldbuilding by JKR.
@@DTBootlegs yeah but she only consulted on it so that the book gets better sales, no one would care if they knew it's not canon
7:34 "If your story introduces a weapon, that weapon at some point must be used"
I'd argue the lesson is actually the reverse. "If you use a weapon, that weapon must have been set up first."
The first rule prevents red herrings, or cold trails. These are fine if used well.
The second prevents Deus ex Machinae, which im sure everyone is in agreement is a good thing.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Unless the film is satire of poor writing. Then use a lot of Deus Ex Machina.
the idea with chekovs gun is that a setup must have a payoff. a red herring has a payoff when you learn it was a red herring. while i agree with ur point i think you should use both at the same time; if you set up something, use it, and if you plan on using something, set it up.
@@squibble311 No, OP is spot on.
"If you show a weapon, it needs to be used" is BS that leads to Hollywood level predictable and thus boring movies.
"if a weapon is used, it needs to have been shown first" is mainly true, in contrast.
Nothing destroys a movie like deus ex mechanica, and this rule is how to prevent this.
@@michaelbohm5160 i get where youre coming from, but i disagree
R.K Rowling has the same problem as George Lucus. She is probably surrounded by Yes Men who are too afraid to say no to her.
Imagine working on this Film and saying "sorry Jo you should probably edit that out, it might be better if you condense those two points into one" I think you would be kicked out the door before you even got halfway through the sentence.
At least lucas realized that he was failing and sold the franchise (which was even worse, but it's not entirely hus fault)
Exactly. Nobody wants to be the one to tell J.K Rowling she doesn't know how to write a Harry Potter movie.
@@charliedawson6318 didn't they already do that? Is she a screenwriter on the original movies?
Excuse me, prequels are fucking masterpieces compared to new Disney Star Wars, this cancer from Rowling and captain "Women power" Marvel.
@@MikhailPashkovski I could not agree more, at least regarding the Star Wars part... However, not to step on anyone's toes (something easily done with all the entitled 'curling' kids out there), but I do believe the proper term is '(V/W)amen' power. As in a vapid, shallow, spoiled (my ego bruises easily, and if you disagree with me, I pull the victim card and demand censorship), kind of way. - Just my point of view, not sure if my definition is accurate, but then the again, English is not my first language :)
I really wanted to like Grindelwald, because I loved the scene in the last film where he tries to fight the entire ministry by himself in the tunnel, and I thought it was a nice change of pace from Voldemort who is a perpetual coward despite being immortal, but he seems to do things for no reason but to make himself unlikeable by the audience. Like throwing the lizard out the window, lighting Paris on fire, letting his minion kill the muggle baby etc. Villains should do bad things otherwise they wouldn't be villains, but the bad things he does are either pretty minor (lizard murder) or don't seem to advance his goals in anyway (Paris Dragon Fire). He says he wants to rule over the muggles for their own good to prevent them from destroying the world with their warfare. That's a valid evil goal, but almost nothing he does in the film furthers that goal to the point you suspect he doesn't actually want to do it and it's just a smokescreen for something else. The heroes likewise do very little to stop him and seem to spend most of their time trying to solve the mystery of what happened to the Lestrange baby. I think if they cut out Leta Lestrange and the French Wizard searching for Credence the whole film would have been better. Grindelwald could have just told Credence he was a Dumbledore and had a Darth Vader moment. Honestly Nagini could have stayed in since she does seem to have some sort of relationship with credence and does reference back to the original series.
I'm so annoyed that Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald. He looked like a far more formidable opponent and villain. And I like Johnny Depp, but the makeup and his direction just don't scream "this man was in a relationship with Dumbledore and now wants to murder muggles". Voldemort had the luxury of being played by the incredible Ralph Fiennes who mastered the combination of intense brooding with fast-paced action. I don't blame Johnny Depp, I blame J.K. Rowling. That final line in the first film, "Will we die, just a little?" was so completely unnecessary and still doesn't make any sense to me. Colin Farrell was clearly directed to be more active and engaging in combat and in emotional scenes like we get with Credence in the alleyway, and I wish we got his version of Grindelwald all the way through.
A fantastic analysis
@Austin The reason why he "does more things" in this movie then Voldemort in the real Harry Potter movies, is because this movie is (evidentely) not about the story, but about how to make cool shit appear on the tv-screen. That's also why all his moves seem so random. :P
And no, we should burn this Nagini and forget she ever existed.
@@BioLivbanon there was no need to make nagini a girl but they had to go ahead and make it a girl to satisfy the Chinese market. Otherwise they could have just let it be a snake. So many movies have been ruined because they shoehorned in a completely unnecessary chance or a character just to appease the Chinese.
@@lianarose1384 Nagini’s actor is a Korean. It’s more like they just want to put an Asian actor in the movie for political correct.
Seems pretty clear, she should have just written her books and have other people make it into a movie script.
Script writing really isn't her thing apparently.
Robo Rat nor is playwriting. They are very different.
@@choreomaniac I would argue book writing may not be either
Shes not good at extended lore either since she contradicts everything.
masterjoda999 to be fair, she is one of the most financially successful writers of all time and then wrote a series of successful books under a different name.
@@choreomaniac Didn't she have to tell the publisher who she was for them to even touch that second thing? And being financially successful as a writer does not indicate being a _good_ writer, just look at the twilight series.
J.K. Rowling is the personification of 'Can't leave well enough alone'.
"show, dont tell" applies to books just as much as it does to movies
And Rowling has never lived up to that standard. She does lots of tell and little show. We're TOLD that Voldemort was charismatic enough in the previous war to gather a large following yet after he's reborn we see a raving lunatic who belittles and tortures his minions at a whim, while plenty in his ranks are thinking about (or already have resorted to) betrayal. We're TOLD that Moody's hardened and competent yet every single fighting scene he appears he's beaten senseless, in custody, or killed. We're TOLD that Dumbledore's wise yet pretty much every decision he has made is suboptimal at best and outright stupid at worst, starting from him setting Harry's adoption by the Dursleys (instead of just putting him in a loving wizard foster family with a fidelius charm put around the house; same goes with the protection of the Potters and the Stone).
Roomba > Dumbledore destroyed me.
I never got around watching breaking bad (it's been on my 'to watch' list forever) so what could the roomba possibly do to be better than a somewhat human character?
@@benzaiten933 I haven't watched it either. This concept baffles me and I'm really curious. What did this roomba do?
breakingbad.fandom.com/es/wiki/Roomba
@@thespanishinquisition4078 sweet, thanks for the reply! for some reason it was in spanish, though.
Benzaiten it’s the “es”, for me it pops up automatically, ‘cause I’m Spanish and wiki’s have started picking the language for you when you click. I thought it would fix it for you since it auto-fixes it for me even when I specifically put another language but maybe it doesn’t do that for some countries. Probably depends on national law or some shit I’m no expert.
I guess I can’t help ya ‘cause as I said, it won’t let me search on English unless there just isn’t a Spanish version out there. And yes that is incredibly annoying. So quick summary: the roomba ate the drug and the fact the drug was missing was a plot point for the episode, hence it literally affected that episode’s plot more than dumbledore this movie’s.
Understanding Spanish: 120 iq
Understanding Latin: 140 iq
Understanding Crimes of Grindelwald: 2 billion iq
Fork then do I have 2 billion iq
@@klm9440 I reckon you watch Rick & Morty?
CheesecakeLasagna nope
Actually understanding crimes of grindinggears is denial or insanity. Insanity presuming you watched it more than once.
I’ll take the 2 billion IQ
JK Rowling: Look at me! My books are filled with characters from all kinds of races and sexuality! It doesn't matter that I never actually wrote in the books or movies that they're diverse, I'm sooo progressive!
Rick Riordan: *Laughs in group of main characters with Latino guy, indigenous girl, black girl and Chinese guy, gay side characters, bi god main character, lesbian couple with a kid, muslim girl, deaf guy, trans guy/girl, etc., all of which are established to be this way on the books*
People often forget about The Kane Chronicles, with its black main characters
Kaio Freitas I never read it, sorry
I know. That's why I don't get close to people who think that she's a genius and are currently obssesed with HP. I respect all authors except her and Anna Todd.
frrr i love rick riordan's books, they're so amazingg 🤧 i even cried at the end of The trials of apollo for no reason whatsoever
This sequel was so unnecessary, I think the first ended perfectly.
Its all about the money. And for Rawlings, trying to get back into the spotlight
Well she said there is going to be fives Fantastics Beasts.. So I'm sure it's a torture for audiences for the next 3, hopefully not.
@@palladiamorsdeus Maybe you should express yourself more respectful
I mean, the Grindelwald vs Dumbledore needs to happen
@@gunnerr8476 That's only IF these next movies even make enough to warrant followups. I'd say after the dumpster fire of CoG, we won't be seeing anymore movies to follow whatever trash Rowling brews up for round 3.
Crimes of Grindelwald was a crime. Fueled by massive ego, Rowling is proving that authors are not always screenwriters.
But the thing is, is that good writers streamline their novel too. Why tell a story in 200, 000 words when 130,000 makes it more sharp and thrilling?
@@hotjanuary but she's not a good writer.
Badlaama Urukehu, I never said she was a good writer. I was stating that novelists don’t get a free pass to ramble on about things that don’t further the plot just because they don’t get a time limit.
If your book is 400k words long, you better have a good reason for needing that many words, otherwise you’re a bad writer who can’t discriminate what is necessary for the story and what is there for your own personal gratification just because you wrote it. Same applies if your book is 70k words. Although it’s a short book, you still have to justify the need for every word. Can you tell the same story with fewer scenes and less characters? Is your plot clean?
This is one element which I think distinguishes good writers from bad writers. I think a good novelist who values the reader’s time will transition to make an excellent screenwriter after adapting to the different requirements.
Not all authors can be screenwriters , but all screenwriters are authors.
@Ironclaw XII I don't think it is just that she is trying to stroke her ego but that she is trying to move into a field she thinks she can get more money out of without realizing that the skills don't transfer over as well as she thinks.
Nobody:
J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore was vegan
Mr Revolution Mars that can’t be true, he didn’t mention he was vegan in every sentence.
@@claudiocambria or even in a single scene, in fact, he explicitly implied he eats meat.
@@sunsoar1822 he wanted grindelwald's meat...
@@Michelrs lol roasted
@@Michelrs No, it was Grindelwald who wanted his Black Wand.
Even in books the rule is "show don't tell", you can't say to the reader why they should like a character, you need to show them in action. It is not so easy to write a book Filmento, and it is not so different from a movie. Jk Rowling did a poor job even for a book standard in that regard.
“Show don’t tell” applies more heavily to visual media because in visual media you are dealing with 2 forms of information, verbal and visual, so if you simply “Tell”, you are completely pushing the visual to the wayside, however in a book the same thing doesn’t apply. Obviously it is still an important thing to keep in mind when writing, as you can have the whole book be the author telling you why characters are important, but because it’s harder to represent information only through words and not visually as well, you can get away with a lot of telling
For example, it’s a lot harder to have a “cutaway” or “flashback” in a book and for it to make sense, but in movies that’s common practice, and often how they develop characters not yet interacting with the main character, especially “bad guys”. But I’m books, those types of characters need someone to TELL everyone else or one other person about their importance, if the author wants that character to be on our minds
This was the worst movie to watch in 4d. my back got tortured, and they kept spraying water in my face, when it was raining
Lol
oh no! Seriously?! That sounds AWFUL
Got your back tortured and sprayed with water? Are you explaining a 4D movie experience or a terrorist interrogation? o.o
I saw it in 4D as well and honestly all the flashing lights and water made it impossible to tell how bad the movie actually was until I got home to think about it later... so it kinda(?) made it more enjoyable
>Avada Kedavra in the movie
>The seat kills you while boasting neon green lights
My teachers always say “it’s always harder to write short than to write long” because when you’re made to write short, you have to be smart about what you choose to focus on
The author of Gone Girl did an amazing job with the screenplay for that movie, JK should take a lesson from her.
Edit: My point is that both Gillian Flynn and Jk Rowling are book writers who made a transition into screenwriting and Flynn did it much better.
Ok
paula haha ikr fuck this person for providing an example of a relevant and good screenplay from a book author that can contrast against this terrible screenplay from a book author
well, in no defense to JK, Gone Girl at least had a book as a foundation to work from, where these movies are just plucked from the air and JK probably falls under the Lucas spell (no pun intended) where no one says no to them because of their power. JK probably had barely any reins holding her back (and no one pointing to the book HEY WTF).
@paula Why are you here?
@@button9 You're kinda right but Jk "planned it all" (including the Nagini twist but I don't believe this) so what I am saying is that she failed to adapt her own body of work(some of it having roots in the main saga, other stuff she just made it up) into a cohesive well structured screenplay.
"We spent 2 full minutes with Newt playing with this water monster that he keeps as a PRISONER in his HOUSE"
The main problem I had with this movie was the amount of new characters and plot twists that they had in this movie! New characters is not a bad thing but having so many characters and showing their "missions" and stuff is a pretty hard thing to pull off, especially in a 2 hour film and of course, as expected, it all got jumbled up in the end, and all we understood was: Newt and Letta something something, grindelwald is walking on the streets, All the people are chasing The Flash, Queenie became bad, Final Battle, The Flash is also a Dumbledore
Shit! I need to watch this a fifth time.
Jk Rowling wanted so bad to make us feel nostalgic by putting all these bunch of characters from Harry Potter movies that she forgot the main story: the war against Grindewald. It doesn't even feel like it is the plot of the movie anymore, it's just there to make it feel like theres an objetive but there isnt. Its just a movie about other characters that she didnt talk about so much in the books.
I had the same problem, I don't mind Nagini changing from human to snake- that's a cool thing and unique, I don't mind all the new characters either but so many are introduced and never seen again like that keeper lady that helped Newt with his beasts or are killed off before we get to know them better, and there were waaaaay too many plots and characters to follow, I got lost half way through the movie and when certain characters came on screen I was literally like: "wait who is that person again?" + I really think that they wasted Jacob in this movie.
what are you talking about? JKR gave us only a few new (relevant) characters. And everything was pretty easy to follow.
Verena_fcb8
1. How many times did you watch the movie?
2. Everything was pretty easy to follow? This movie has like hundreds of subplots and those subplots make you forget what is even happening in the movie! Most people found it very confusing...
3. a)Agent after The Flash b)Flash's mom (she had less screen time but was still there and took up a small part of Nagini's and Flash's journey) c)Letta d)Newt's brother e)A new dumbledore f)a human version of nagini g)The Yusuf Agent - These are your *few new* characters?
Also the characters aren't even a problem if they are handled properly... Like Infinity War handled all the characters properly and succeeded... The problem is each character have their own subplot and Letta and Credence have so many plot twists that any person can get confused, unless they have watched the movie 5 times...
I agree with all the points you made in this video, except 1, that being writing a screenplay is more difficult than writing a novel, that is simply not true. While they both require the ability to come up with and tell good stories, they are both very different and require different skill sets.
Some aspects of writing a screenplay is more difficult, some aspects of writing a novel are more difficult, both share many of the same principles, like show not tell, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
To sit there and say writing a novel is easier, tells me you have only really ever successfully written screenplays, and have no appreciation for a well-written novel. The same would be true in reverse
The clearest giveaway was the claim that in a book, you can just claim what character traits a character has. Of course you can't.
Also, you can't headhop like the video claimed (I mean, it _can_ work if you're exceptionally good. Usually, it gets confusing. And writing from multiple perspectives, even in a structured way, is insanely difficult, because all characters need a recognizably distinct thought process)
Just in book you can write as much as u want but in screen there is only 1 or 2 or 3 hour to tell everything that why novel write is easier than movie writer
i was looking for this comment.
@@tuddy1000 you can also write a very short book and put in all important aspects like world building and character development as well a good plot.
but write a very long long movie (series) and completely fail. The same applies vice versa.
Bad writing is just bad writing.
@@gernottiefenbrunner172 Filmento is pointing out a bunch of things that would still be bad writing in a book, and coming to the incorrect conclusion that books must be easy to write for if you can get away with all of this garbage. When the actual takeaway should be "J.K. Rowling desperately needs an editor."
No one:
Rowling: Harry dies in Avengers Endgame
Nobody:
JKR: Yondu and Peter had an intense sexual relationship. Also, Hulk is gay, Banner is not.
Im gonna be honest it would be funny as hell to watch the dynamic between a gay hulk and straight banner
@@justinsutton5005 "why is my ass sore hulk?"
@@moanguspickard249 Damn you. Why would you make me laugh like that? :D
@@moanguspickard249 lmao just picturing what kind of contraption one would rig up to be able to actually sodomize the Hulk but whatever
@@waltercomunello121 thanos putting on infinity fisting gauntlet with 6 inf stones "fine, ill do it myself"
Everyone: Not MY Harry Potter.
J.K.R.: His real name was Blake Mitchell and the books were actually an autobiography from an alternative universe.
J. K. Rowling was Rita Skeeter in the AU Harry Potter took place in. She fled because so many people were suing her for libel and defamation of character. So she wrote up the events as fiction, deliberately trashing the characters of everyone in the lawsuit.
Astrin Ymris
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Blake Mitchell ? Seriously?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
omg i think i know someone named blake mitchell
James got his name by smoking too much marijuana.
Jk should've done like Gaiman with Coraline: write the fucking book, hire a director that she admires and let him/her do the necessary changes to make it a good movie. The end. 🙄
I feel the Fantastic Beasts films were an unnecessary attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the HP series among people who were kids and teens in the 2000s and are now in college and/or adulthood-and not a good one at that. The seven books and eight movies were-and always will be-classics in their respective fields, but we didn't need this much further divulging into the Wizarding World universe (honestly it's things like this that I feel are responsible for a growing backlash against HP and it's fanbase over the last few months in online circles)
I do not ever want to read or see the play ever the first seven books and 8 films are perfect everything else is wrong and money grabbing of course a d decade later at some point it might have been nice to have a series set at Hogwarts or an 8th film but JK f**k*k that up it hurts she controls the rights so heavily
@@wesleywyndam-pryce4081 really though. i hated how much the cursed child (and the fantastic beasts movies) just fucked with the lore and time mechanics.
she seriously had so much she could've done better with the albus-grindelwald story and it hurts to see it get blatantly destroyed and then be called "canon". sucks man.
JK Rowling might have overstayed her welcome in the stage of fiction.
She made an amazing world, but now she’s letting the weeds just take over, and instead of refining it, she’s just adding gasoline on to the fire.
As I watched this movie, I had no idea what was going on the entire time. I'm surprised I made it through the whole movie.
@@blablablabla1878 No, it was just really really badly structured. Seriously when the black guy started to talk about his backstory near the end, I was shocked. It's a movie, why does a character stands around for fucking 10 minutes spilling expositions??? It's not even relevant to the villain to be defeated or feared. I mean, a lots of stuffs didn't make sense so of course people are going to be confused.
Exactly my feeling. All I saw was visuals and didn't feel for any character
Same. Nothing really happened, everyone traveled around the world talking, but not doing anything. And when that black dude revealed his and Leta's story at the end I was like "who the fuck even are you?" And why was Nagini in this, she basically had no purpose.
How is that even posible? The story/plot was SO EASY to follow lol
I thought the same too.
Ah yes. The most important character trait
"GiVINg good SUCC"
If James Gunn has a kid, they have to be named Chekhov.
I prefer Taserface.
If James Gunn had a kid he probably molest it.
Dio Brando You're a sick fuck.
His second kid should be named machine
His third kid should be named shot
The limits of time and perspective in film just makes what Peter Jackson did with the LOTR that much more impressive. Its already difficult to manage 2-3 characters now imagine 9 key characters along with a multitude of other side characters and locations. He was somehow able to take one of fantasy's greatest and expansive stories and condense it down to a 12 hour experience that didnt ruin the heart of the story. Thats fuckin insane.
The funny thing about that "incredibly intense sexual relationship", is that earlier she said it was completely unrequited on Grindelwald's side. I suppose one can have an intense sexual relationship without giving two shits about the other person, but she makes it sound like they were very much in love. Which is it?
It was raep
@@cousineddie4846 dumbledore was actually a woman this whole time but no one ever bothered to correct harry because it wasn't relevant to his journey
Polyjuice Potion, duh. Grindelwald slept with many women and didn't know that all those ladies were just a Dumbledore in disguise. So, these two kinda had "intense sexual relationship" with all that passion n' shit and at the same time they didn't. Easy.
Isn't it called "masturbation"?
JK Rowling wringing Harry Potter: Acknowledges that drugging/forcing anyone into a relationship is gross and wrong
JK Rowling wringing Crimes of Grindelwald: Hah! Its fine if it happens to a guy tho LMAO! Are'nt i progressive?!
@VelCrowd Not from Newt.
She doesn't really, not in any concrete sense. I have always been quite disturbed how love potions are shown to be joke shop commodities, sold by perfectly nice people like the Weasley twins, that anyone can buy. Even adult teachers refer to love potions callously (Lockhart) and demonstrate them in the classroom as objects of study (Slughorn).
The real world equivalent is staggering. Imagine a chemistry teacher demonstrating a date rape drug in class and asking "who can tell me what chemical this is, and how do you identify it?" Or the drug being sold in joke shops alongside other prank items.
The only instance where she condemns the love potion is Merope, but then conveniently turns the blame onto Merope's individual tragedy and moral.weakness. rather than the existence of such a troubling love potion in the first place.
@@KabirChattopadhyay1991 Same time law of my country:
"Kodeks Karny
Art. 197
§ 1. Kto przemocą, groźbą bezprawną lub podstępem doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 12."
roughly translated by myself:
"Crime Code
Art. 197
§ 1. Who, using force, threat or deceit, causes other person making sexual act, will be sentenced for prison for 2-12 years"
Using drugs that makes you feel in love is deceit.
Actually I think the movie blame the woman who did it (forgot her name). The guy realized she is crazy at the end. Though it is true it is not treating the same way it would have been if it was man who did it.
Also, I always felt like she was somehow trying to blame the fact that Merope raped Tom Jedusor Senior on Tom Jedusor, and never really acknowledged it was a rape.
Also why do people can buy love potion like it is nothing?
I just don’t care about Newt at all. I had no problem with him in FB1, I actually liked him. But now his scenes seem so forced and for comedic value and to make him seem “quirky and adorable”. I.don’t.care. Grindelwald is one of the best characters in the Harry Potter canon. I cared far more for the villain than the main good guy. Just move on from Newt and his boring arc and give me Dumbledore and Grindelwald.
I fear Dumbledore will remain a side-character/extended cameo for the next three movies,till the last part in which he fights Grindlewald. That would be a slap in the face for fans.
@@tiaaaron3278 To be fair though he kinda was a side character during Grindlewald's war, i'm pretty sure he joined the conflict properly near the end and then defeated Grindlewald and was given disproportionate political power because he's magically powerful.
@@MoffatLee ...which is dumb and unconvincing. He can't stay aside till the end. He has a personal connection to Grindlewald and he just can't let him go around and start chaos.
@@tiaaaron3278 Thats what bothers me the most about introducing this shitty "blood pact thing", this is a device to keep Dumbledore from interfering with Grindelwald until its convenient for the plot. When i heard that they both were lovers i was like, hell thats an interesting story: The all mighty Dumbledore cant fight G. because hes mad in love with him and first has to accept that no one else is able to stop him and G. used him for whatever reason. But no we get a shitty plot devioce that needs to be destroyed, why do we have those scenes with D infront of the Mirror when apparently the only thing stopping him from confronting G is that godforsaken Pact. And dont get me started on Mr. Aurelius Dumbledore and his so mighty familiy of Dumbledores losing him and somehow drowning in something that seems to be the fucking Titanic.
@@GrandpaHolzz The way to fix this is to have Albus confront Grindelwald at least once _before_ the pact is broken. I mean Grindelwald is responsible for destroying Dumbledore's family and he is still what Albus desires the most. It would be ridiculous and lazy to keep them from interacting till the last moment before their legendary duel which will take place 18 years after this movie. There is also the thing with Credence...
„Screenwriting is mire difficult than bookwriting“
You cant compare the two they are completely different arts! You may have certain limitations with screen writing but book writing requires entirely different verbal skills.
You can never say that any artfrom is hader than the other.
In fact it is.
Writing 4-strip comics is easier than writing good comics,
way easier than writing a book anbd certainly easier than making a film.
PWND much?
_he said its his opinion sooooooo_
uhhh yeah you can? Screen writing is harder than book writing BECAUSE of those limitations. And what "entirely different verbal skills" are you even talking about? What? What examples are there? You have more freedom to do what you want in many different styles and forms when book writing when screen writing you heavily limited.
Screen writing is an FACT harder than book writing, you can certainly say one art form is harder than the other. It doesn't mean it's quality, just the level of difficulty.
yeah some artforms are easy as hell
He is not saying one is better than other, just that one is harder than another
When Rowling was just telling a story, she did a great job and people loved it. Now, she is trying to go all "woke", at the expense of the story, and people hate it.
@@luizabianco She did it because she wasn't sold out. Harry Potter got her addicted to fame and riches, and she saw Fantastic Beasts as a way to fuel that addiction.
Reader:
Narrator: This character is kind, nice, and gives a good suck.
just like daddy used to be, but since he got arrested i'm not sure how he is at the moment
Book vs screenplay writing....good point. I think she should have just written this story as a book and stuck to her strengths!
The "Snake Woman" is a very important Character in Harry Potter, but not in Fantastic Beasts.
In Harry Potter, this "Snake Woman" is called Nagini, and she is the Snake of Lord Voldemort, the main bad Guy in Harry Potter.
In Harry Potter, this "Snake Woman" also is One of Voldemort's Horcruxes. A Part of his Soul is in her. He has a few Horcruxes, which prevent him from dying.
In Fantastic Beasts, this "Snake Woman" is just that..... a "Snake Woman".
Which creates this weird Moment..... where every Harry Potter Fan will be like : So THAT is Nagini.
And every other Person will be like : Oh, interesting.
Every decent human: "... Well, this is a bit awkward"
Every HP fan: "WHAT THE F-- WhY dO YOU KEeP DOinG ThIS To US?"
I think having Nagini turn out to be or have been human makes her later story worse. The books clearly established multiple times, that Voldemort never had friends and didn't trust anyone. He can speak to Nagini. Of course he would have known that she's been human. Him giving her part of his soul to keep save makes less sense then giving it to a random snake he keeps as a pet he can mind control.
I wonder where the dress has gone during the snake transformation scene ...
I remember coming out of the theater and being like “wtf did I just watch” 😂 Good visuals but couldn’t really follow along
My mom has seen all eight of the HP films and I had to explain what was going on to her. Thankfully, I’m a Potter nerd so I could help her with that. 😅
I understood it fine, but it was still so BAD!
Honestly though... The visuals weren't really that good. The CGI looks WORSE than the CGI from the Deathly Hallows. It's more cartoonish, more obvious. There's a fucking problem if your effects look worse than a movie you made eight years ago.
@@blablablabla1878 Lmao keep spamming your comments
@@blablablabla1878 I'll admit that there were a couple moments that looked good. That fire dragon at the end was pretty impressive. But just for an example of what I'm talking about, compare the animation for Nagini in Crimes of Grindelwald to the animation for Nagini in Deathly Hallows. It looks fucking cartoonish by comparison.