Just saw it yesterday. It was pretty fun. Maybe because I had always read the books first and then watched the movies, but I felt like the immersion just wasn't there like previous ones.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
- Thread starter playground
- Start date
I thought it was a good movie, although it had its problems. I felt awful about Credence. Poor baby deserved better
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
Really enjoyed it, but I am already a fan. It felt like coming home in a way (especially since David Yates directed it). Some really great acting performances, lovely and adorable creatures, and some moments that truly scared me. Not perfect. I found the pacing odd at times. But fun. And interesting to be in the Harry Potter world without a kid as our way into it. It felt like a movie for fans of the books/films who had grown up with them and were now adults 
.
I can see now where they are planning on going for five films (I still can't believe they are planning five). Should be pretty interesting. And should be interesting to see who else shows up. Will we get a young Dumbledore and McGonagall for example??
.I can see now where they are planning on going for five films (I still can't believe they are planning five). Should be pretty interesting. And should be interesting to see who else shows up. Will we get a young Dumbledore and McGonagall for example??
I am a fan of the world, and I enjoyed this as a way to revisit the world. That said, I do agree the movie itself was a bit flat. But if you are familiar with Harry Potter (and not necessarily the characters, but what we learned in those books about how the wizarding world works), then I think there are a lot of revelations between the lines in this movie, ones that shine new light on the Harry Potter story without changing it but also plot points that set the stage for the next chapters of this story. Thatbodes well for the franchise moving forward. I think some people who have found themselves underwhelmed by the movie are treating this as a sequel or prequel instead of what it is... part one of a new story. It's been 15-20 years since we had Sorcerer's Stone, and the scope of that story and Jo's writing was not obvious until we hid the midpoint of that series. I think book readers may have a leg up to those who may have only seen the movies, in the sense of deciphering what may be coming.
There's one fairly big revelation in this one that, for me, shed a new light on Dumbledore, and seems to set the stage for the rest of the franchise.
There's one fairly big revelation in this one that, for me, shed a new light on Dumbledore, and seems to set the stage for the rest of the franchise.
I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that Dumbledore's supposed to have a role in the next one.
What's the new light on Dumbeldore you are referring to?
Also thought it was a cool little easter egg of the deathly hallows necklace that the boy was given.
He'll likely get it in the next one.
How is Johnny Depp not WAY WAY WAY too old to play Grindlewald? I thought he and Dumbles were of a similar age, which is one reason D fell for him. If D's a "young teacher" then Grindlewald should be at least thirty years younger than the man playing him.
I don't know if it's what katiemac's referring to, but the implication of the Obscurial/Obscurus in relation to Ariana and how her magic "turned inward and drove her insane" is pretty clear.
As a general fan of the Potter books and mild fan of some of the movies I thought this was a chore to sit through and a very weak intro to a five(!) movie series. The first half is a Night at the Museum parade of CGI spectacle with very little of note going on, then the second half shoe-horns in a child abuse story to lend some semblance of plot and fill the rest of the running time. Redmayne is the only worthwhile part in the film but even he seems rather bored throughout the whole thing. The Obscurial is a very interesting aspect of the Harry Potter lore, it's just too bad it was handled so poorly in this film.
That's the one. Ariana was most definitely an Obscurus, which is also lends me to believe that Grindewald was specifically looking for one in this film since he saw the power Ariana had. He became interested in Newt's case only really when he realized what it contained. Moreover, with the parallels between Harry and Credence (and to an extent, then, Tom Riddle)... Harry would have been at risk of becoming one himself, given the environment he grew up in. Save "the boy who lived stuff," seeing what happened to Ariana may have inspired Dumbledore, as teacher and then headmaster, to seek out children who were at risk of this fate. Harry of course, and Tom before him. (Tom, incidentally, born in 1926.)
He'll likely get it in the next one.
How is Johnny Depp not WAY WAY WAY too old to play Grindlewald? I thought he and Dumbles were of a similar age, which is one reason D fell for him. If D's a "young teacher" then Grindlewald should be at least thirty years younger than the man playing him.
I'm not super familiar with the timeline, but even as a "young" teacher Dumbledore would have been in his mid-40s or so? He finished Hogwarts around 1900, which is when he and Grindewald met. He'd probably been teaching for 20-25 years already.
This is 1926, and if we're going to get to the 1945 by the end of five films, then Johnny Depp's age is less of an issue.
Last edited:
Actually, we know from the books that they frowned on graduates from Hogwarts becoming teachers immediately. Dumbledore tells Tom that he's too young to be a teach when he first applies. So if Dumbledore did finish around 1900 (I don't know where this info came from), he probably had to go out into the real world (or graduate school? not sure) for a while before becoming a teacher. So he probably was considered a "young teacher" even if he had waited 20 years to become a teacher at Hogwarts.
According to Wikipedia, Rowling puts Dumbledore's birthday in 1881, so setting the movie in 1926 would make him around 45. Definitely not what I was picturing when I thought of a young teacher.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
I think "young" is relative in the wizarding world when people can live for a much longer time than muggles.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,425
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.badfoodie.com
I loved this movie. Both Eddie Redmayne and Dan Fogler were simply adorable. We saw it on Sunday, and liked it so much, my son and I went back on Wednesday.
He'll likely get it in the next one.
Yeah, I heard that interpretation of the ending a couple of days ago. I really hope it's true.
One thing I really hope for in the next installment is doing more of the "world within a world" that the Potter films/books were so good at I felt.