(no subject)

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

You’ve got your four leads, Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob.

Newt is a more conveniently attractive Hagrid, too irritating for human contact and therefore projecting relationships onto the titular creatures (that are basically real animals with like, a horn or in a funky shade) he drags around America in a bag, protesting as they steal, destroy homes and bite (it’s fine, guys, only Muggles are affected) that everyone hates them and America is mean for not getting that it’s ~*Mankind*~ who are truly dangerous. Despite the title, the beasties don’t affect the plot beyond a few setpieces. Instead the film is mainly the search for a creature composed entirely of rage (JKR’s favourite! LINK) by Colin Farrell; while Newt fucks around being quirky and shit. The mood shifts from scene to scene (here’s a son presenting his mother with a belt for her to beat him! SMASH CUT to Eddie Redmayne twerking to arouse a rhino in heat!) pretty drastically, but at least I suppose there’s something for everyone…

Newt is vaguely connected to the Potterverse, as Albus Dumbledore is apparently ‘fond’ of him (this hilariously is established by Colin Farrell wondering why, when Newt was kicked out of Hogwarts for ‘endangering human life’. The answer’s in the question, dumbass, endangering human life is like, Quidditch to Albus, and if you don’t graduate with at least a manslaughter on your conscience, then kiss your reference bye-bye.)

An MTV review perfectly put it http://www.mtv.com/news/2954740/fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-eddie-redmayne-review/
“He’s a character in search of a coherent personality. He’s introverted and stubborn and admits that people find him annoying. Yet the film is convinced he’s adorable. Redmayne is the master of smiling to himself for no reason, ginger hair flopped over one eye, as though he’s not living in the moment but instead in the theater watching his ascension into a GIF.”

Tina, a former Auror (or as the script puts it ‘the career woman’ out of herself and her sister, Queenie) should be relevant to the plot, being the only person with links to both Newt and Colin Farrell’s character, Percival Graves, but instead is mainly utilised in the field of frowning and the obligatory scene where she wears a sexy dress (the expectations for dudes neatly expressed in Newt, seeing that she and Queenie have magically changed clothes in order to infiltrate a speaksay; um…straightens his bowtie. It’s fine, we ladies will worry about being purty, you guys have plots to worry about, after all.)

Tina and Newt (and Jacob and Queenie – One Big Happy Weasley Family redux is happening before our eyes, guys!) have the obligatory hetero relationship JKR specialises in, in which they have almost no interaction at all while she informs us outside the text of their inevitable marriage and babies as if this is a cliffhanger it would be cruel not to resolve as swiftly as the characters themselves are introduced.

The one nod to Tina’s characterisation is her dismissal from the Aurors for cursing a Muggle (plea for tolerance, though, it was one of the many ones who Had It Coming, as opposed to the presumably nice, invisible ones that birthed Hermione.), a scene in which she is almost executed Bond-style and an attempt at ‘Oh, you could calm down Rage!Creature’ that is almost instantly dismissed for plot contrivance (drew focus from Newt and Colin Farrell.)

Tina’s sister Queenie is even less relevant, ironically, as she has a power that should be incredibly useful (she can read minds) but instead is used to establish that Newt’s ex sucks and that guys like to think of her in the buff when they meet her.
(Like Tonks, her power is in danger of aiding the plot and must therefore be used minimally.) There’s an odd contrivance of her not being able to read the minds of ‘foreigners’ because of their accents which comes into play with the big reveal, and is kind of reminiscent of Quirrell, who hides his evil intentions under a turban. Who knows how these wicked types will disguise themselves next? It starts with ethnic headgear and having an accent, but you can see from the Death Eaters surnames how few good old classic British names there are amongst them. Definitely no conclusions to be drawn there…)

Queenie is at least endearing, and hey, baby steps, is a pretty, giggly non-bluestocking who isn’t instantly dismissed like her forerunners in the Potterverse. She and Tina barely pass the Bechdel test, but still! Sisterly relationship not based around dudes! JKR’s getting PC in her old age, we might get a gay character or a lead POC in another decade!

Queenie’s relationship with Jacob Kowalski isn’t groundbreaking (it’s another ‘gosh, the tension of whether two white straight people will be able to continue a ~*forbidden romance*~’ – possibly in reference to the miscegenation laws in Muggle US at that time, which is the kind of grossness expected in the Hollywood trend of ‘what if racism/sexism/homophobia affected white straight dudes because idk, they’re magic or mutants or some shit? ~*Metaphors*~) mixed in with some ‘hottie girl dates schlubby guy’) but Queenie and Jacob are at least likeable.

Jacob is a Muggle dragged into the story when his bank loan request is interrupted by Newt’s animals.
As a guy on the porky side, there’s naturally at least one joke aimed at his size, when his stomach is stuck in Newt’s magical suitcase, but again, baby steps! (Apparently there was also a cut scene in which his fiancée dumps him because his loan is denied, which is like, the epitome of Rowling, but hey, it was deleted, so let’s give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. Psych!.)

He’s easily the most likeable, with at least one use to the plot, serving as the audience stand-in amazed at the magic. He also has the most backstory, being a veteran who works in a canning factory, but longing to bake (he’s even inspired by his grandma, rather than the usual male role model, omg, Jo, are you feeling okay? I did hear that she only provided the ideas for the script, with the actually lion share being done by Kloves and his house-elf, but still…) and the most touching moment, in which the trio bid him goodbye before his memory is taken (hey, a Muggle was treated as a viable love interest, let’s not go crazy and treat them like people!)

For a movie set in New York (and filmed in Harlem!), this is as white as Hogwarts, with a helpful gif set portraying every character of colour: http://clarkkent.co.vu/post/153521368267/people-of-color-and-where-to-find-them-aka. (I think two of them may even have had lines!)

There’s also set up for the next five (5!!) movies with mention of another Potterverse familiar name, with Zoe Kravitz’s 0.5 second role as Leta Lestrange. Naturally, JKR has more information, in case someone inadvertently used their imagination, and it’s explained in promo sources that Newt and she were childhood friends, but that Newt was expelled for a wrong she committed (of course! Newt is established as a Hufflepuff, but must share their brother house Gryffindor’s trait of getting away with nasty shit while getting punished with false accusations, allowing them to get their own way and play the martyr.)

We can assume from Kravitz’s casting that she’s also the hot POC you date/make public appearances with before locking down your true (white) love: see, Dean, Cho, the Patils, arguably Krum… We don’t know her house placement, which naturally makes all the difference; but Queenie establishes from Newt’s thoughts that she was a ‘taker’ and that, like every man, he deserves a devoted ‘giver’. (I guess she didn’t offer to wash Newt’s pants.)

Jon Voight (Henry Shaw) is also cast for a role of maybe twenty seconds, in what one can only presume will be a later explored thread, as a newspaper magnate and father of two sons, Henry Jr. and Langdon, the former of which was running for Senate (we know he’s a wicked right-winger because he’s randomly cruel to teenagers and despite his entire lines being about a sentence long, as he’s pro-prohibition and shutting down gambling halls. Boo hiss?! IDK, obviously prohibition was doomed to failure and left a gap for organised crime; but ethically, it’s no different from the drugs war, which JKR’s never really seemed to be invested in.) before being killed by rage!ball (the only victims are Muggles, natch) and the latter of whom lends a sympathetic ear to Samantha Morton’s character, Mary Lou Barebone (a Muggle Umbridge redux with a dubious accent) due to his belief in magic.

The end showdown has Muggles including Shaw observing the wizards, which he instructs his journalists to capture photos of, but a deus ex machina means all their memories (including Jacob’s) are wiped in a rain of memory potion (how this didn’t affect wizards too isn’t explained,) as we watch the newspapers headlines change from truth to the weather.
Yay, who needed a free press? (I guess the journos can count themselves lucky they don’t get caught in a jar.)
And Shaw’s rich and powerful, so knowing how his son was murdered would just be overkill icing on an already loaded cake, or something. Maybe he can just forget Jr. ever existed, like Hermione’s parents!

The plot thread which has been most discussed, however, is the one with some actual dramatic tension – Graves’ hunt for a creature created from repressed magic and abuse.

Mary Lou Barebone, the abusive adoptive mother of three children, and preacher at a soup kitchen/church dedicated to eradicating witches comes to the fore here.

If you’ve seen one JKR product, you’ve seen her, she’s particularly reminiscent of Umbridge, with the charitable feminine persona belying the inevitable wickedness within, as well as her abusing of male children – she even marks the palm as Umbridge did with her quill – but you can see patches from others such as Aunt Marge and Aunt Petunia.
As an adoptive, rather than ‘natural’ mother, she’s of course incapable of proper nurture, and she’s religious and therefore crazy (although she’s actually correct on the existence of wizards. How she first discovered this is of course unknown. Strawwoman don’t need no characterisation!)
It’s also funny how the evil people in the Potterverse are the only ones mentioned actually doing anything for charity – iirc, GoF has a moment where Arthur Weasley comments on how awful Lucius Malfoy is for making a donation to the hospital: HE’Z DOING IT TO CURRY FAVOURS, U GUYZ OMG!11 like can’t he spend his money on dark shit like normal?
Obviously, it’s gross, since the soup is essentially ransom to the religion, with the kids having to take the witchhunting leaflets and get assessed in case a pimple is a wizarding nipple or whatever; but still, for 1926 I’m thinking that’s probably one of the better deals you could get.

Mary Lou’s eldest is Credence (Ezra Miller), and his secret meetings with Graves, who urges him, as the point of contact for children who may be suspected as magical; to investigate and discover an Obscurial, or creature created from rage and repression of magic.
There are some pretty bald attempts at establishing his little sister Modesty as a red herring (right down to flat out misleading the audience, so the only criteria we’re given is that an Obscurial will be under ten, which Credence patently isn’t), but it’s pretty obvious from the beginning that Credence himself is the Obscurius, and a wizard (idk how Americans let their kids know, but apparently they’re not as devoted to getting the message through as Hogwarts.)

There are also some pretty bald attempts at coding both Graves and Credence as gay, which reviews and the actors have discussed in interviews. The subtexts of repression, religious oppression would be fodder enough, but the promos and screenplay (including detailing of a cut scene in which Graves presents Credence with a magical flower over a meal) and the wording used (Credence is ‘captivated’ by Graves touch, ‘nervous of and attracted by’ his behaviour, ‘allured and threatened’ as Graves gently heals his cuts, with adjectives like ‘affectionate’ and ‘seductive’) make the subtext pretty damn textual (I’d put money on a JKR confirmation once the accompanying books, DVDs and cuddly Nifflers are in store!) as does the film itself.

Unfortunately, rather than efforts at diversity, this seems to be another exploration of how hetero and motherly love is a force of positivity, while gay relationships are predatory and manipulative.
Graves (a stupid villain even by Voldemort’s standards) discovers Credence after his Obscurial form has killed Mary Lou. He insists on being shown to Modesty, still under the impression that she is the witch. Modesty cowers in tears as Graves does the tropey ‘hmm, now would be a good time to chew out my minion!’ bit, telling Credence he’s a squib and of no further use. This sets off Credence to a roaring rampage (what happens to the weeping orphan kid? Who cares – we know she’s a Muggle now!) which culminates in the Aurors apparently destroying him.

As Dumbledore’s love for Grindelwald caused him to ‘lose his moral compass’, so does yet another character coded as gay end up endangering others (people argued for Lupin prior to the hawt action that was Remus/Tonks, since his lycanthropy was according to JKR, a metaphor for HIV, which would seem to me to similiarly wrongheaded, especially considering how cavalier Lupin is about his own condition, considering he worked in a damn school.) It’s when Credence stops repressing himself that he becomes violent, so instead of the resolution that people shouldn’t repress who they are, it becomes a validation of the abuse itself.

This is when you really have to be in JKR’s ideal fan wheelhouse to find much to be comfortable with as a resolution.
The Aurors kill an abused kid (despite him still presenting as human intermittently and responding to Tina, Newt and Graves’ pleas for ceasefire.)

Newt and Graves battle, as the latter uses a magical whip (?!) rather than Cruciatus. I guess even villains have more scruples than Harry.

Then there’s one of those classic Potterverse arguments where everyone is the loser – at Credence’s death, Tina and Newt immediately lose interest and don’t protest the massive abuse of power (~*a metaphor for police brutality*~? Kinda weakened by the heroes folding to it, especially Tina, who apparently cared enough about the kid to get the sack initially. But it’s totes okay, guys – she gets her job back! Wow, I guess she learned a valuable lesson there – never try.)

Perhaps they knew not to take it seriously, since it was a MCU style death in which the cast may as well wink at the camera and hold up a sign saying ‘Loki will return in 2017 for Thor 3!’

(David Yates confirmed this, noting that they cut a scene showing Credence’s inevitable escape.)

At this point, Graves interjects and you’re like ‘Oh, thank god, someone’s protesting the cops and government gunning down that kid!’ but actually, the argument is that Graves thinks they shouldn’t have done it to suppress the truth from Muggles, as Muggles suck. So there we go, we were thinking this guy was awful, when really, it was a difference of tone!
He’d rather be open about his distaste for Muggles, whereas everyone else is merely content to fiddle with their memories and maybe pull hilarious pranks on them.

This is pretty much any argument in the Potterverse, like in HBP, when there’s all this friction because Harry’s sliced up Malfoy, or when the twins have cursed Montague, where you get this vain hope that maybe someone will have some kind of non-sadistic mentality, but nope, fraid not, the argument is based around whether or not this will get someone into trouble or affect Quidditch scores.

Newt (of all people!) then suddenly casts a reveal spell, and ba-dum ba-dum, The end result furthers this even more, when it’s revealed that Graves is none other than Grindelwald played by, of all people, Johnny Depp. Wow, I can’t wait to see the quirky hairdo and funny accent he’ll use!

At first I thought hiring a guy who beat his wife was in conflict with JKR’s proud declaration that she’s a feminist, but then David Heyman, her producer explained “Here’s the thing: Misogyny, abuse, maltreatment of people is unacceptable — but none of us know what happened in that room. So I think it would be unfair for me to be judge and jury, or for any of us to be judge and jury.”
I mean…right, you guys? Especially relevant in a series about how you can’t trust the justice system to not be hopelessly corrupt! Do any of us know what happened in any room we weren’t in, ever? People say that a culture of celebrity and cronyism protects well-known abusers like Bill Cosby, Barry Bennell, Jimmy Saville, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski; but I’ve never been in a room with even one of those guys. I’m really not comfortable judging them, especially when I could be judge and jury of their accusers.

David Yates clarified the matter, with a very zen statement: "What you have to remember about Johnny is that extraordinary talent and that talent never goes away. Hollywood is such a fickle place. People go up and go down.” One day you’re on top of the world, next day people are fickly down on you just because you allegedly threw a cellphone at your spouse. It’s just a sad indictment of the world we live in how people can forget the amazing character Johnny Depp has played in every movie and focus on the little things. Thankfully people of one particular gender never seem to be down for long in the public eye!

JKR finished with a sedate ‘I’m delighted’ when asked for comment on Depp’s casting.
Aw, she’s lost so much passion from the days where she was happy to go in on celebrities like “the talking toothpicks held up to girls as role models: those celebrities whose greatest achievement is un-chipped nail polish, whose only aspiration seems to be getting photographed in a different outfit nine times a day, whose only function in the world appears to be supporting the trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs.

Comments

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Minor point, but one that irritates me: Nobody would name a child “Credence” in the early twentieth century. Nobody. Not even wizards.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

I think that the name was supposed to be symbolic/ironic, and go along with the theme of his sister's name, Modesty, and the overall religious atmosphere of the orphanage.

[fdsfd (from livejournal.com)]

Yes, but much like Vernon and his sister Marge are caricatures of the 1950s middle classes, Mary-Lou, Credence and Modesty are caricatures of the puritans in the year 1600 so it may be anachronistic but in fact if you're JKR it all checks out

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/projecting relationships onto the titular creatures/

I felt that Newt was more knowledgeable about them, though, or at least he seemed to be in the magical menagerie bag scenes. He just was incapable of holding onto them, which I feel was mainly done for slapstick.

But when he was dragged away and shouting, "They're not dangerous!", I thought, "Yeah, tell that to Jacob, who could've been killed by your magical rhino."

/Despite the title, the beasties don’t affect the plot beyond a few setpieces/

Which is a shame, because my favorite scenes were the ones in Newt's bag where he was introducing Jacob to his creatures. I don't know why the film couldn't have just focused on what the title promised.

/Farrell wondering why, when Newt was kicked out of Hogwarts for ‘endangering human life’/

It's even funnier when you find out who Graves really is. I suppose that shippers could read that line in another light: "So, why's he interested in YOU, huh? What's so special about you?"

/mainly utilised in the field of frowning/

And whimpering. And being incapable of opening her mouth and standing up for herself whenever somebody got mad at her, instead just dithering. And being incompetent.

Yeah, I didn't like Tina. I don't know if it was the actress or the script, but she really came off as a rookie cop on her first day.

/Newt, seeing that she and Queenie have magically changed clothes in order to infiltrate a speaksay; um…straightens his bowtie/

At least Jacob had the excuse of being a Muggle. What was Newt's excuse for not changing his or Jacob's clothes?

/Jacob and Queenie – One Big Happy Weasley Family redux is happening before our eyes/

I actually thought Jacob and Queenie's romance was cute. But I agree with you that Tina and Newt's 'romance' was completely nonexistent, so when they tried to make up some awkward romantic tension at the last minute, I didn't buy it.

/attempt at ‘Oh, you could calm down Rage!Creature’ that is almost instantly dismissed/

What was the point of her knowing Credence before if it didn't matter in the end? She could've been fired for protecting another kid and it wouldn't have made a difference.

/Queenie is at least endearing/

Yeah, I did like Queenie. I vastly preferred her to Tina. And I also liked Jacob, it was nice to have a Muggle's perspective on all the crazy magical stuff that kept happening.

/deus ex machina means all their memories (including Jacob’s) are wiped/

What was the point of the political subplot? I don't see why this film needed two other stories going on.

/misleading the audience, so the only criteria we’re given is that an Obscurial will be under ten/

And Graves babbling about a prophecy - prophecy? We need another child of a prophecy?

/(idk how Americans let their kids know, but apparently they’re not as devoted to getting the message through as Hogwarts/

Credence is clearly older than 11. At what age do American kids start wizarding school?

/bald attempts at coding both Graves and Credence as gay/

There are? Because I didn't get that sense at all while watching the film. I thought that Graves was trying to be more like a father figure to Credence. Shows how much I know.

/Graves does the tropey ‘hmm, now would be a good time to chew out my minion!’ bit/

That whole bit was contrived. He was so fixated on the prophecy, but where did it come from? Why was he so sure that Credence was a Squib (or was he just randomly insulting Credence)? He's trying to approach this kid whom he thinks is potentially dangerous and he randomly antagonizes her brother, who could help him with calming her down? Didn't he learn anything from Ariana?

/what happens to the weeping orphan kid?/

Or any of the other kids? Their foster mother is dead, so who's taking care of them?

/they cut a scene showing Credence’s inevitable escape/

Oh, good, because that whole scene left a bad taste in my mouth. The heroes did nothing, the villain was the only one who called out the President (whom I disliked as much as Tina) for what she did, and Tina's whole backstory was for nothing.

/Grindelwald played by, of all people, Johnny Depp/

They couldn't have found a German actor? Or even if they didn't care, I never imagined Grindelwald as Johnny Depp. And what was up with his hair?

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd definitely prefer him to Hagrid, the rhino and the murtlap seemed the most dangerous which is a far cry from a carnivorous spider and Buckbeak; it's just funny how everytime he says something about how safe the animals are, it's wrong (like when Jacob reacts to the bite and he's just 'Oh, that doesn't normally happen!')

I liked Jacob and Queenie too, tbh, I'd rather see them in the lead roles rather than Newt and Tina. Apparently the other movies will focus on other characters and gradually phase out Newt (I'm guessing Eddie Redmayne didn't want to be tied into 5+ movies), so fingers crossed.

I didn't get that sense at all while watching the film.

I think it was that classic JKR hedging of the bets - don't make anything actually textual but leave enough to be interpreted that you can claim libcred as inclusion (like having a WOC as Minister, but giving her, what, two lines in the film; while talking on your website about the amazing backstory she has.)

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

And Graves babbling about a prophecy - prophecy? We need another child of a prophecy?
Wait, there was a prophecy? Again? 0_o
Why, just why? Not only is it boring, repetitive and nonsensical; it's also makes her Chosen One a lot more common. If every second child is a "child of prophecy" then JKR's super special darling isn't really that special.


/(idk how Americans let their kids know, but apparently they’re not as devoted to getting the message through as Hogwarts/

Credence is clearly older than 11. At what age do American kids start wizarding school?
Well, obviously American wizarding school can't be as good as Hogwarts. Seriously, you can't expect those people to be as organized and as effective as good old Hogwarts. /s

He's trying to approach this kid whom he thinks is potentially dangerous and he randomly antagonizes her brother, who could help him with calming her down? Didn't he learn anything from Ariana?
Okay, yeah he's worse at this evil dark lord thing then Tom. Hell, Tom (even after all soul mutilations) would learn something and from time to time change his approach to things.
But this? This is just ridiculous.

Btw, anybody think we'll find out that Ariana was a Obscurial too? :/

[zigadenus.livejournal.com]

I'm just so tired of prophecies, orphans, bad plotting, and ham-handed grubbing for diversity tokens. I've been wanting to say something about this entire franchise, but... tired. Thanks for writing such a lovely, biting summary.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Glad you enjoyed :)

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Do you happen to have any links to where the gay coding is discussed? I got SUCH uncomfortable 'grooming' vibes there with not!Graves manipulating this poor abused kid, alternately offering and with-holding praise, comfort and physical touch, ugh. I'd be interested to see what TPTB/the actors had to say about it.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

No problem! Some of the online reviews that mentioned it were:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/28/fantastic_beasts_has_a_gay_subtext_its_sequels_should_make_it_text.html
http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/fantastic-beasts-grindelwald-colin-farrell-queer-lgbt-dumbledore/
http://moviepilot.com/p/fantastic-beasts-screenplay-sexual-grooming-dumbledore-credence-grindelwald/4150101
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-queer-subtext_us_582cade9e4b058ce7aa8b9cd
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/11/28/fantastic-beasts-amazing-writing-terrible-representation/
http://www.slashfilm.com/fantastic-beasts-diversity/

And this is Farrell and Miller's comments:

http://nerdist.com/talking-fantastic-beasts-secrets-and-romances-with-colin-farrell-and-ezra-miller/

[fdsfd (from livejournal.com)]

Was I the only one who kind of liked it?? I mean, it was terrible, but in the usual predictable way we're all accustomed to like when your dog makes a mess inside but its your dog so you just fondly regard the garbage strewn all over the hall. Much better than the awful cursed child play (ironic that there was more of a cursed child in Credence than in CC)

Thoughts:

- When I went to see the film at the cinema there was ~5 people - its not a big cinema and it was a week-night but showing a film that a handful of people bothered to see doesn't sound promising for however many sequels they're trying to milk this for.

- Anyway I thought it was mostly just a re-skin of Doctor Who except with magic. The tardis suitcase. The ~misunderstood creature. The stupid bow-tie. Most of Newt's dialogue came off like a shoddy version of what Matt Smith's Doctor would say, except even less charming.

- Didn't like Newt because he was quirky hipster Doctor Who and broke quarantine laws even if it was for a good reason (restoring the trafficked griffon thing or whatever it was). Jacob was adorable, I loved him. The girls needed better personalities, jobs and dialogues. They just looked like cut outs that say "female goes here" Queenie was a qt but Tina was mostly just a waste of space

Also I think they changed Legilimancy from a skill to an inborn talent so they could keep Queenie as a dim-witted waitress. She could have learnt legilimancy off her own bat (like, I dunno, to take up fortune telling to scam muggles of $$$ during the depression) but its just, like Tonk's metamorphmagery a useless talent that never does anything. I would say Queenie deserved better but she was mostly just eye-candy for the audience so I won't bother.

- Did no one else notice that the Goblin they met in the grog bunker was both simultaneously an anti-semetic caricature and a goblin at the same time?? I get that Tina and Queenie were fairly obviously supposed to be yiddish, but having 2 jews doesn't really off-set the fact that the goblin was literally an animal-traffiking, money-grubbing back-stabber while wearing what looked like a skull-cap. I think it might have been a deliberate (????) attempt to say something meaningful about jewish americans in early 20th c New York, but I have no idea what, or why. Sticking with the 1920s prohibition=magic was probably a better bet.

- Fav. characters were Grindelwald and Credence, because as you mentioned they were the ones with the actual tension and plot. Didn't even mind the ~evil homosexuality vibe or whatever because at least interesting characters were interacting. On a re-watch I'll probably root for Grindelwald the whole time, kind of like I did with Delphi, because he is the only one with an actual plan that he takes steps to realise instead of being stuck in a passive siege-bunker mentality like Pickering. Also literally everything Grindelwald said after Credence was killed was basically accurate and even though he's an evil dark sorcerer bent on world domination I still have to give him the moral highground, because unlike his opponents, he didn't kill a child.

Also contrast Grindelwald vs Dumbledore's approaches to damaged, dangerous magical children in Credence vs Riddle.

- Kind of weird that they set this film in the 1920s before the depression - it gave it kind of a fleeting feeling, like the society is about to lose everything in an economic crash that will drive everyone into destitution, so none of it really matters. Queenie's adorable clothes, her effortless cooking, that 1920s tea-set in her restaurant. The Woolworths Building. Very Gatsby. I get that it was because of the tortured prohibition metaphor, but the slide into fascism the depression precipitated makes the whole thing seem small beer. Maybe thats what Grindelwald, with his phoned in divination skills was counting on. Jacob will probably lose his bakery in a few years when the bank that loaned him the money goes under. Before the aurors turn up and obliviate everyone who ate a niffler shaped pastry, hopefully. Anyway I'm not sure how Yates et all plan on tackling wizards magic etc when what was actually happening was so horrific. Not that that'll stop them though :/

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Was I the only one who kind of liked it?/

Not at all, I thought that the film was fun too. Like I said earlier, I liked the parts with the fantastic creatures and I wish that the film had just focused on them instead of trying to be political.

/When I went to see the film at the cinema there was ~5 people/

The theater wasn't stuffed to the brim when I went, but there were still a lot of people in the audience.

/Jacob was adorable, I loved him. The girls needed better personalities, jobs and dialogues./

I liked Jacob and I liked Queenie, but yeah, there wasn't much going on with her below the surface. Tina's job would've been fine, I just wish that she was actually competent at it or people treated her with more respect than they did.

/Queenie was a qt/

What's a qt?

/its just, like Tonk's metamorphmagery a useless talent that never does anything./

Well, she did use it to blackmail one of the MACUSA (is that how it's spelled?) employees into letting her pass, so at least it was plot-relevant once. Which is more than I can say for Tina, whose backstory with Credence went nowhere.

/I'll probably root for Grindelwald the whole time/

I was rooting for him when he was dueling against the President and her Aurors.

/literally everything Grindelwald said after Credence was killed was basically accurate/

Yes, I thought, "How sad is it that the VILLAIN, the one who'd been using Credence the whole time, is the only one who called the President out on what she did to him?" Not Newt, who tried to reason with Credence. Not Tina, who lost her job because of Credence. Only the villain. Is this similar as to how Voldemort is the only one who showed any regret towards Snape?

/Grindelwald vs Dumbledore's approaches to damaged, dangerous magical children in Credence vs Riddle./

Yes, this was another thing that I'm not sure that the film was aware of. It highlighted a continuing pattern in the HP series, which is the wizarding world's utter negligence towards abused magical children, especially those in the Muggle world. Tina lost her job because she tried to protect Credence, but did any Auror bother to check in and make sure that Credence wasn't being abused anymore? Especially since it was by a woman who's been ranting about how evil wizards are to anyone who'll listen? Of course not. Just like how the Ministry didn't bother to check in on Merope after her abusive father and brother were sent to Azkaban. Dumbledore allowed Tom Riddle to go back to the orphanage every summer, despite knowing that Tom didn't want to go back and that the other children were terrified of him. And then, of course, there's Harry. Who's being raised by relatives who hate his magic and try to stamp it out of him. And nobody - not Dumbledore, not McGonagall, not the Weasleys - nobody tries to do anything about it until HBP when it's too little, too late.

So, again, I don't know if the film realized that it did this, but it basically illustrated how the wizarding world learns NOTHING. For all that the President blathers on about how she's willing to do anything to maintain the Statute of Secrecy, including Obliviating Jacob, arresting Newt and Tina, and destroying Credence, apparently it's too much effort to check in on magical children living in the Muggle world and make sure that they, you know, don't blow things up in front of Muggles because they're treated badly.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Nah, I did too, I just like to bitch ;)
My faves were the rhino beastie and Credence/Graves (all I really expect from JKR at this point is characters I'd read fic about, expecting legit representation of diversity from her is like expecting Stephen King to write a hot sex scene, or Woody Allen to write a black character. They'd really just fuck it up if they tried, let them stay in their wheelhouse.)
And it was definitely an improvement on the cursed child!
Haha, it was like my dog threw garbage, but I'd been expecting diarrhea and puke, so I was almost proud.

LOL, the Queenie eyecandy thing is true - especially how they establish that you can dress yourself magically in a second; and her intro is still her seductively dressing in lingerie. Might as well have had the subtitle 'Something for the dads *wink*'

I think it might have been a deliberate (????) attempt to say something meaningful about jewish americans in early 20th c New York

I think the actor playing the goblin was Jewish (iirc it was Ron Perlman) so I'm sure they'd handwave it as that, but yeah, it's such an odd choice...

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

I liked the film too. The main characters I thought were reasonably likeable, even Tina and Newt, and watching them do stuff together was a pleasant enough way of passing a couple of hours.

I get that Tina and Queenie were fairly obviously supposed to be yiddish,

Interesting, I never picked up on that. What makes you think so?

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

... he drags around America in a bag, protesting as they steal, destroy homes and bite...
Do they ever bother explaining why is he lugging all those critters around? Is it just animal hoarding on his part or there's some reason (for example; he's doing research on X?) for it?
And do they explain as to why Newt even have to have (please tell me they aren't all supposed to be "pets") them? Some reason that they need to be confined and not free? And a very good reason for taking dangerous invasive animals on another bloody continent.

*snort* No wonder Dumbledore is ‘fond’ of somebody prone to setting generous animals free. It's not like safety of random (and not so random too) people is at all important to him.

It’s fine, we ladies will worry about being purty, you guys have plots to worry about, after all.
I've learned to expect terrible and stereotypical female characters from Jo. But still. I was hoping that somebody working on this would find a way to save them.
But seeing as Tina have no personality and they just had to make all those icky "everybody mentally undresses her" "jokes" (hell, imagine living like that. Walking around and getting sexual harassment, that you can't call out people on, 24/7. Hilarious!) about Queenie?
I don't think anybody even tried.

There’s an odd contrivance of her not being able to read the minds of ‘foreigners’ because of their accents which comes into play with the big reveal, and is kind of reminiscent of Quirrell, who hides his evil intentions under a turban.
Offs. Is this is supposed to be another "cute" "Krum (that funny East European foreigner) have such silly way of talking"? Also, she's living in New York! Shouldn't she be used to different mental "accents"? Whose mind she can't read anyway?

JKR’s getting PC in her old age, we might get a gay character or a lead POC in another decade!
That's waaay too optimistic. She's still incapable of making a fat character that's not, at best, occasional "comic" relief.
And still no non conventionally attractive women as main characters either.

it’s another ‘gosh, the tension of whether two white straight people will be able to continue a ~*forbidden romance*~’ – possibly in reference to the miscegenation laws in Muggle US at that time, which is the kind of grossness expected in the Hollywood trend of ‘what if racism/sexism/homophobia affected white straight dudes because idk, they’re magic or mutants or some shit? ~*Metaphors*~
Yeah, setting this in Harlem pulling that "magical miscegenation" is just terrible. Jo being tone-deaf is nothing new. But did everybody just go "This is fine" and green-light it?

Wait, so old (and "evil") pureblood Slytherin families such as Zabinis and Lestranges are POC families / have POC in the family tree. But Weasleys, Potters and all those other "good" and "unprejudiced" are lily white?
. . . and then JKR will be shocked when people don't think she's as progressive as she likes to think she is.

Wait, Newt was a Hufflepuff???
How did that work? A boywho dislike interacting with other children and can't connect with anybody? In Hufflepuff? That must have been miserable.

but a deus ex machina means all their memories (including Jacob’s) are wiped in a rain of memory potion (how this didn’t affect wizards too isn’t explained,) as we watch the newspapers headlines change from truth to the weather.
Well, crap. That's what she appropriated the Thunderbird for?
Yeah, I'm sure Native people will be just thrilled with that.
All all that outcry they still went and used a something sacred as a quick why to mind rape people.
Classy. /s

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

What's weird is that inside the case is apparently endless space suited to every creatures habitat. So you have to catch a boat to travel an ocean, but you can essentially live inside your bag forever.

Whose mind she can't read anyway?

She can't read Newt's because of his being British; which I guess was foreshadowing for not picking up on Wizard!Hitler. (Although you'd think if your mind has an accent, that she would have gone 'Hmm, Colin Farrell oddly seems to be thinking in German'...)

Wait, so old (and "evil") pureblood Slytherin families such as Zabinis and Lestranges are POC families / have POC in the family tree. But Weasleys, Potters and all those other "good" and "unprejudiced" are lily white?

LOL, yep, you've gotta love how it always seems to be the Slytherins who can overcome themselves to mix with yucky ethnic types and the Gryffindors who end up interbreeding with one family (with Hagrid as their mouthpiece about how 'The less you lot 'ave ter do with these foreigners, the happier yeh'll be'.)
It's like how JKR put a lot of stock on how ugly Pansy Parkinson was, like you're supposed to go 'LMFAO, Draco can't get a hottie like Harry can!' when really, you could as easily read that as 'Wow, maybe not every pairing has such a superficial basis as Harry and Ginny.'

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Do they ever bother explaining why is he lugging all those critters around? Is it just animal hoarding on his part or there's some reason (for example; he's doing research on X?) for it?

He says at one point that he's doing research for his new book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Presumably he's carrying them around so he can observe their behaviour or something.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Wait, so old (and "evil") pureblood Slytherin families such as Zabinis and Lestranges are POC families / have POC in the family tree. But Weasleys, Potters and all those other "good" and "unprejudiced" are lily white?

Eh, it's more like "The pureblooded Slytherin families we'd gotten seen to be all evil, but there are white DE families too" (case in point, Malfoy, Crabbe and GOyale) but yes it looks very bad.

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

If you’ve seen one JKR product, you’ve seen her, she’s particularly reminiscent of Umbridge, with the charitable feminine persona belying the inevitable wickedness within, as well as her abusing of male children – she even marks the palm as Umbridge did with her quill – but you can see patches from others such as Aunt Marge and Aunt Petunia.
I wonder will JKR tells all about how Mary Lou Barebone is based on somebody she knew IRL.
She really like to do that.
Or is this just the "standard" terrible misogynistic trope bingo character mix.

and she’s religious and therefore crazy
Could JKR really be unaware of just how much religious themes and symbols she put in her books? Or is this that old "my religion is good while yours is evil" thing?

It’s also funny how the evil people in the Potterverse are the only ones mentioned actually doing anything for charity
I think we once had Harry dump some gold into that fountain in the MoM. But it wasn't really something he did 'cos he cared about charity. It was something he decided to do if his hearing went well. So it was a sort of a bargaining with karma. You do this good thing for me, and I'll give some gold for sick.

Seriously? She did the whole "evil gay Grindelwald seducing / preying on boys / young men" BS again?
And did another version of "gay attraction makes you evil and everything ends in misery and evil (and explosions) for your family"?
I can't even.

Wait, everybody in power was just okay with killing a abused child / young men? Are we even supposed to see those people as being in any way "good guys"?

Everything about casting Johnny Depp in this (and who knows how many upcoming sequels) is despicable.
And lol, at that "it would be unfair for me to be judge and jury" BS. As if he's not making a judgment by supporting Depp.

I’m really not comfortable judging them, especially when I could be judge and jury of their accusers.
Very well said. We keep seeing this over and over again. :(

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

I heard the Marietta character was named after some woman who wanted to ban the HP books from Marietta, Tennessee, dunno if it's true or not.

But yeah on the religious thing, personally I'd identify as agnostic, so I don't really have a dog in this race, but it's so strange how she has this passionate dislike of religious fervor when all her characters are that devoted, it's just to her in-text Christ figures instead of Jesus. (Obviously there aren't religions outside of Christianity, that would be crazy!) There's an interesting article on her Calvinism here, tho: http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html

Oh yeah, I forgot that! With Harry, there's always this noblesse oblige vibe (like his desperate need to get rid of the Triwizard money) like it has to be stated how little money means to him, with the unstated 'Well, duh, he has it!' Like Ron is grasping for noticing his own poverty, and Malfoy is showy for bragging; but Harry's the perfect person to deserve wealth, as he's uninterested in it and doesn't need it (same as he finds the stone and the hallows through a lack of desire.)

[vault712]

Erasing memories of the whole city: so wizards will also have their memory reset as well? And how will this memory bleach rain will explain to Jon Voight’s character the death of his son? Won’t people living close to Barebone will start questioning the disappearance of Credence? And who will take care of these kids now?

I found that most of scenes involving catching the creatures ended up having no effect on the story, and the 4 winged eagle was just there as a plot device to make the memory bleach rain. In fact, most of the other creatures are simple disposable plot device: swooping evil to escape, 4 winged eagle for the global oblivious, bowtruckle to unlock the handcuffs. And some had no use at all, except for slapstick: niffler, demiguise, rhino, occamy, murtlap. Though one of the good scenes of the movie was Newt showing his critters to Jacob.

How inept are those MACUSA officials when a wizard is condemn to death? Don’t search the wizard, certainly allow the other “inmates” to be in the death room while another one is being executed (no one could possibly try to interfere with the process, no!), only have the death nurses as a guards, to contain the criminals who might never try to overpower them, because they might just do what happened in the movie.

The memory bleach rain is exactly the sort of Rowlingism that aggravated me by the end of the series, no consequences whatsoever for anyone’s actions. Remember when Harry and Hermione led Umbridge in the forest to be seized by centaurs, and Umbridge never tried to retaliate against the kids about that? Not even a smear article in the Prophet Hermione from Rita? Rita did have some axe to grind against Hermione too, after Hermione blackmailed her in GOF. Hermione has had bad press for a lot less than the centaurs, that love triangle business had been entirely fabricated by Rita on the cues of Malfoy and his gang.

Newt was expelled from Hogwarts for keeping dangerous creatures, the exact same crime that Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts also. But Hagrid was forbidden to use magic ever again and his wand was snapped. Even Ollivanders asks Hagrid to make sure he’s not doing magic anymore. How come Newt got away with his wand and didn’t become a pariah like Hagrid?

If Newt only wanted to release the 4 winged eagle in the wild, despite knowing it was heavily punishable crime, why did he bring all the other creatures as well? Clearly his suitcase has reached maximum stretching capacity and the beasts are escaping now. How expendable these suitcases are anyway, wouldn't there be a limit that eventually makes the suitcase highly unstable and eventually triggers a magical black hole?

So who’s careless about these creatures? Newt doesn’t seem to mind of deliberately putting them in harm’s way to be killed by American Aurors, then blames them for being so severe toward his "harmless" creatures. Newt claimed that the most dangerous creatures were humans, couldn't have been more accurate.

Legilimency is no longer an acquired skill that requires time and effort, but you can be just born with it? But it's unworkable if the wizard doesn't speak English or speak English with an accent? I remember in DH when Ron learned Parselmouth, that serpent language you can only be born with, a major plot point in book 2, but now can be learn alright just by listening to Harry hissing in his sleep. Way to go Rowling.

Lastly, how did Newt managed to discover that Graves was Grindelwald in disguise, and what kind of spell/potion was Grindelwald using, to have it exposed with a simple Revelio spell? I thought that with Polyjuice Potion you had to wait for the effects to wear off, like Dumbledore and co. did at the end of GOF. For how long has Grindelwald been impersonating Graves and how come no one at the MACUSA had suspected anything, Crouch Sr is completely bonkers couple months only after being enslaved by the Imperius curse for everyone to see. Is the real Graves still alive or just a pure fabrication from Grindelwald? If so, how did he managed to rise so high so quickly in the MACUSA if only some time ago he was raising hell in Europe?

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/And how will this memory bleach rain will explain to Jon Voight’s character the death of his son?/

That's why I thought that the whole story went nowhere. Jon Voight's son didn't do anything to wizards and he's killed off, and before his death can have serious repercussions for wizards, his family is mind-wiped. So, what was the point?

/Won’t people living close to Barebone will start questioning the disappearance of Credence?/

As well as her death? She got killed the same way that Jon Voight's son did. Maybe they're planning on addressing that in later films? *shrugs*

/How inept are those MACUSA officials when a wizard is condemn to death?/

And why even bother with this slow, drawn-out method when the Killing Curse exists? Yes, British wizards lock their criminals up in Azkaban instead, but do American wizards feel the same way about the Unforgivable Curses?

/how did Newt managed to discover that Graves was Grindelwald in disguise/

I think that it was during the interrogation scene. Graves asked him questions which insinuated that Newt was a Grindelwald sympathizer, but by the way that he said them, it suggested that Graves was projecting, talking about the 'greater good' and all of that. So, I think that that's when Newt began to suspect who Graves was.

/If so, how did he managed to rise so high so quickly in the MACUSA if only some time ago he was raising hell in Europe?/

At the very least, what was he doing in America in the first place? Wasn't he busy trying to conquer Europe? I have no idea why Grindelwald had to be in this movie at all. Everyone who read the seventh book knows that he tried to conquer Europe, was defeated by Dumbledore, and was locked up in Nurmengard. So, why did he have to be in a film about American wizards, other than name recognition?

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

"Newt was expelled from Hogwarts for keeping dangerous creatures, the exact same crime that Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts also. But Hagrid was forbidden to use magic ever again and his wand was snapped. Even Ollivanders asks Hagrid to make sure he’s not doing magic anymore. How come Newt got away with his wand and didn’t become a pariah like Hagrid? "

Hagrid was also accused of letting his dangerous creature kill a student. Maybe Newt had finished his OWLs and so was allowed to keep his wand?

[vault712]

I do wonder how they can possibly stretch this over 5 movies, even with some wizard world war 2, given how weak the characters and plot are for this 1st one.

Rowling has already shown she can't write a battle (DH). No matter how much CGI they throw into it, it will never manage to distract away from the non-existent plot and cardboard cut out characters (damn it sounds like the star wars prequels).

CGI doesn't have the leverage it used to have to help a bad movie, since now everyone can produce them en masse and in decent quality, even in TV shows (like Game of thrones). I felt like Fantastic beasts was using a story to tell special effects rather than the other way around.

I noticed a pattern in the number of movies related to the Cursed Child release:
- 2013: announcement about one movie about fantastic beasts
- 2014: fantastic beasts becomes a trilogy, each movie released every 2 years
- 2015: Rowling says she's working on an 8th book
- early 2016: Rowling rectifies that the 8th book is a play of 2 parts and not a prequel - title "cursed child" people thought it referred to the prophecy and would be set just before harry was born
- 2016: Rowling tweets that fantastic beasts will be 3 movies, and no movie for Cursed child
- early July 2016: rumors that warner bros has bought rights to Cursed child to make 2 movies out of it (from Hypable)
- July 31 2016 : Play and script-book of Cursed Child released. Reviews (from readers, not main stream media, who praises it) floods the internet, “worst fanfiction ever”.
- September 2016: Rowling tweets that Fantastic beasts will in fact be 5 movies. No more rumors about cursed child being made into 2 movies.

Looking at the dates of the announcements, I bet Warner had started to plan movies out of Cursed child, but got cold feet after it got such bad reviews, and realised that no one would want to see a movie about that. They instead decided to make 2 more movies in Fantastic beasts, who were supposed to be the 2 cursed child movies. I bet these are going to be 2 Marauders movies after world war 2 with Grindelwald and Dumbledore is over.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/No matter how much CGI they throw into it, it will never manage to distract away from the non-existent plot and cardboard cut out characters (damn it sounds like the star wars prequels)./

The problem is that I couldn't even see how someone could make *one* movie out of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." As much as I think that the Star Wars prequels are awful films, at least they *had* a story to use: the fall of Anakin Skywalker and rise of Darth Vader. True, some Star Wars fans have said that we didn't need to see this story in an entire movie, much less in three, but at least it *was* a story. We all knew the end and one could make a guess as to what the beginning and middle would be.

What is "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them?" A textbook. And not even a history textbook, where maybe one could extrapolate a plot from a timeline of events. It's a guidebook of monsters. Maybe a direct adaptation could work if it was a more fantastic version of "Doctor Doolittle": Newt traveling around the world and having adventures while seeking out and caring for fantastic beasts. But otherwise, I don't see how a guidebook translates to a film. Maybe that's why the political subplots were added in, because the writers subconsciously realized that.

/after world war 2 with Grindelwald and Dumbledore is over/

I actually would be interested in seeing a movie about Grindelwald and Dumbledore, but given the track record of this series, there would probably be no on-screen romance between Albus and Gellert at all (in fact, it would probably be portrayed as one-sided and unrequited from Dumbledore's POV) and Albus would be whitewashed and not suffer any consequences other than silently pining away for the oblivious or indifferent Gellert. So, I'd probably be disappointed anyway.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Thanks for putting this review up. I've just seen the movie, so here are a few random thoughts/impressions of my own:

Newt calls American laws about associating with no-majes "backward", but given what wizarding society in the original series seems to think of muggles, I'm surprised wizarding Britain doesn't have anti-miscegenation laws of its own.

I do wish the script hadn't been so heavy-handed with making its villain unlikeable. Having her be an anti-magic fanatic is enough, making her a child abuser as well just seems like overkill.

That whole obliviating Jacob thing was just annoying. From the audience's point of view it added nothing, especially since in the last scene he catches sight of Queenie and remembers everything again anyway, and in-universe there was no reason why Tina, Newt and Queenie couldn't just keep him out of the rain and lie about it afterwards.

Newt claims that his beasts "aren't dangerous", but then uses on to help him in his fight against Grindelwald. Seems like at least one of them is pretty dangerous, then.

It would be ironic if the Senator's support for prohibition and opposition to gambling is meant to mark him out as a mean old right-wing fuddy-duddy, given that historically these were very much seen as progressive policies. Still, the Potterverse has always had a shaky grasp of history.

The idea that Graves was actually Grindlewald in disguise was pretty stupid, IMHO. Either Grindlewald would have had to have infiltrated the MCUSA years and years ago and work his way up the ranks, which wouldn't leave him much time for running his international terrorist enterprise, or he'd have had to get rid of the real Graves and take his place, in which case, why did nobody notice Graves acting strangely all of a sudden? It would have made much more sense to simply write Graves as a supporter of Grindlewald, and wouldn't have taken away from the plot at all.

Why do any wizards live in New York in the first place? America is a pretty big country, and large parts of it barely have any people in it. If the wizards of NY are really so worried about being found out by the no-majes, why not just get together, buy some land out west, and set up an all-magical village somewhere far away from anyone else where they won't be disturbed.

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

Like my idea that Death Valley is actually a Rich Green Wizarding alcove.

Part of the reason for the the National Park system is to set up areas that the None Magicals will not develop or move into. There the Wizards and Witches can live in peace.