Fantastic Beasts: How [a TERF] Writes Mystery Revisited 

I really, REALLY enjoyed the structural analysis of the first "Fantastic Beasts" here. I have such mixed feelings about that movie, because I do really like Newt as a character, but the movie keeps shifting back to that other plotline that you point out he doesn't even know about until halfway through the runtime. The dual-plot structure and the fact that Newt's goals have nothing to do with what the movie actually wants to be about really fail to let this very charmingly-not-charming character shine. Newt wants to hang with creatures, but the movie wants to hang with Grindelwald. It's sad that it's such a poor marriage between character and plot.

Just Write: Credence's identity as the obscurial was obvious. Me: I am so embarrassed, I totally fell for the red herring that the sister was the obscurial...

It's funny how Gryffindor is it for Harry to actively chase a mystery beyond reasonable standards, and how Hufflepuff it is for Newt to ignore the mystery to mindless want to let big glowy birb be happy

I just want Newt to go on an adventure, accidentally make some interesting friends, and be adorable with some magical creatures. Is that really so much to ask?

I didn't even realize there was supposed to be a mystery in Fantastic Beasts until I watched this. It was all so obvious that the thought of solving anything didn't even cross my mind.

I loved Newt and would've been thrilled about a movie that was literally just about him setting up a magical national park to protect endangered species or something tbh. While I generally enjoyed the first film, it felt like they wanted to make a movie about Grindelwald but had to use the Fantastic Beasts title, and I just don't think the two fit together. It also doesn't help that while I love Newt, Jacob, Tina and Queenie, I _really_ couldn't care less about Grindelwald (also I'd rather have just Colin Farrel as a different bad guy than Depp phoning in his performance)

I loved Newt. Finally a male figure in a big movie that has at his defining traits, that he is caring.

Sorry to double post...but I truly WISH JK would give us more novels from this universe instead of going straight to screen. I feel like many of the problems with these stories would be fixed via the written word.

Anyways I still maintain that if this were a one off road trip buddy comedy of Newt trying to get Frank home, it’d be much improved

My theory is: Rowling had a perfectly fine and hilarious story of Newt's creature hunt (playing with the title "and where to find them"), and then Warner Brothers convinced her to make five movies instead of one. She planned years before writing the first Harry Potter novel and knew from the start she needed seven books to tell the tale properly. With 'Beasts' it seems as if she's struggling with the task of padding it as much as possible.

Yes! Completely agree with all of this! Especially the part about the FB movies, especially the first one, feeling like two different movies in one. I was just thinking the other day that this series should either have been a fun adventure about Newt gallivanting about the world, discovering and classifying magical creatures, or a dark prequel chronicling the first Wizarding War, not both.

Detective discovering that there is a crime midway into the story? The first Dirk Gently book.

Is it International Video Essay Upload Day today?

The simple answer is that Rowling is not a screenwriter. She doesn't know how to properly world build in a visual medium bound by runtime. Books progress at the leisure of the reader, but movies must move at the same pace for everyone, and thus require different storytelling techniques. Clues in a mystery must be laid out differently onscreen, attention called to or called away from them in different ways. She's also lost (or possibly never had) the ability to self-edit, to kill her darlings in order to trim away fat and fluff and really focus on the heart of the story. She's got Wannabe Cinematic Universe Syndrome; she's so busy setting things up for future installments that she can't focus on telling a good story in the here-and-now. And Warner Bros is either too apathetic or too afraid of upsetting her to do anything about it.

J.K should have someone to review her scripts and point out this issues, it is clear that she doesn't show her scripts to another writer or she doesn't recieve criticism

You forgot to mention the part where the first film concludes some plots only for the second one to completely ignore them: 1. obscurial exploded, he's fine don't worry 2. muggle gets memory wiped, except not really

me when he said he didnt enjoy the newt scamander adventure: >: ( me when he clarified the characters were great just the plot was iffy: : )

You really put into words how I feel about the first Fantastic Beasts. My favorite parts of that movie were when the magical creatures were on the screen, and how Newt used them to solve problems/overcome difficulties in the story. The mystery stuff felt like it was holding the fun stuff back. I wonder what a movie with a more lighthearted story focused on an adventure with awesome magical creatures would be like. As for the second movie, it definitely needs more fantastic beasts!

Oh, watching the movie for the first time, it was so obvious for me that Credence was the Obscurus that I didn't even think it was supposed to be a mystery... And the fact that Graves was Grindelwald was also very very predictable to me

She's George Lucasing her own franchise, which is even worse considering the HP fanbase is probably the least toxic fanbase I've encountered,

I think it would be really effective if the reason Newt keeps stumbling into these big mysteries and fights with Grindelwald is because he’s the only one looking at the right pieces. He’s the first Magizoologist and seemingly the only wizard or witch interested at all in the wellbeing of magical creatures. He also seems to be the sort to really identify and connect with marginalized people, the kind that would be affected by such stuff as magical wars. Just like how Harry sees the world through the lens of a schoolboy, and picks up clues he could only find because he’s a student, Newt picks up on the clues he finds because he’s looking out for the wellbeing of his beasts.

Random thought; The "the villain is actually another villain" thing didn't work here. And saying it like that makes you think it can't work. But it DID work in Wreck it Ralph! What did Wreck it Ralph do right that Phantastic Bests did wrong?

Or Maybe hire a co screenwriter

I actually quite like the meshing of the two storylines in the first film, more specifically how each one relates to Newt. From the outset, we learn that Newt as a character dislikes overlong contact with humans as he doesn't understand them in the same way he understands magical creatures. But he's not a callous or amoral character. You mentioned that he's something of a reluctant detective, which I agree with, and I like how the reason he's dragged into being a detective is that once he sees that there's a creature killing people, his moral compass prevents him from just leaving with his suitcase - which he totally could do. I'm sure he could fly away on the thunderbird or something.The two stories don't really link together conceptually, but through the joint interests of Newt - that is to say, his love of animals and his altruistic desire to spare people from harm. Yeah, the execution is off at times, but it's a lot better than the second one where Newt basically became a side character and the rules of "show, don't tell" get hurled bodily out of the window.

Depp should have been graves and firth should have been grindlewald

What a day!!Just write,lessons from the screenplay and nerdwriter uploaded videos back to back.

the only good thing about COVID is that it saved us from whatever nightmare the newest fantastic shitshow would be

While I really liked the new one it did have a lot of problems with it. Professor Mcgonagall being in the movie made me really mad because it made no sense at all. It really took me out of the movie.

I feel like Fantastic Beasts is not even a mystery story. It just feels like an action/ drama story but maybe that was my take. That’s why idc about the mystery aspect

a main character that is skilled, not the main force of law and wants nothing to do with the mystery at first? that's a noir film if I've ever seen one

Who else is here for the TERF title

To be honest, the main problem that I had with the movie wasn't that the mistery was convoluted (although that was a big problem too) but rather that I DID NOT CARE. Like, I don't know, I couldn't bring myself to care about Credence or about who his family was. Heck, I cared more about Newt's brother and his "my brother can be a complicated person but I still love him" than about Credence.

Gotta say, I giggled at seeing the updated title. But I wish we were in a better world, where you wouldn't have had to change it.

I'm looking forward to Clone Wars: How George Lucas Write Romance. ;P Solid video as always! I love this channel. Thank you.

Really good analysis. Brought up several of the main issues I had with Fantastic Beasts, including the two barely related stories happening in the first film. Pointing out how long it took for us to learn Newt's motivation and how much longer it took for Newt to learn about the mystery really drove home how weirdly structured that movie was.

My little brother (under ten years old at the time) actually immediately figured out who Grindelwald was, based on those two shots of them from behind. Really glad you included them in your video, because I was stunned that he solved the mystery just from that.

Incredible video. Great job :)

"Hmmmmm. Hmmmm. Could it be...him?" Love it.

I think I agree with you in regards to how the plotting and exposition is handled in these films. I just find it very easy to forgive this for the love of the characters and how they struggle to negotiate their lives around the events of the story. I'll keep watching for them.

I've been eagerly anticipating you digging into these movies! Would love to see you propose changes to the story that would have solved the problems you outline.

Let's hope that she learns from her mistakes.

To be fair Quirrel did have a decent role in the first boo, but he was always portrayed as the victim of Snape, but when you figure it out everything is in place and the reader dosen't feel cheated.

Just found this channel and after two videos have now realized we had the same name idea. Great videos so far, keep up the good work

Your videos always have a unique, well thought out perspective. The vibe and pacing makes it feel as if I'm listening to a smart friend lay down some thought provoking questions and opinions about a movie we just walked out of. Your vids are easy to devour quickly, and never feel like you're talking down to your audience or trying to appear smart or well-read. I follow a few film essay creators and a lot of them end up sounding the same, as if they're all impersonating each other. I don't usually leave comments, but wanted that I always click on your vids first. Great work as always.

I quite like the films but that might be because *I don't view the Fantastic Beasts saga as a series of Mysteries* but just a series of prequels showing how the events of Grindelwald unfold and lend to the events of Voldemort.

Bless the title edit on this year old video. I appreciate this channel so much for its insights into writing and direction for film and TV. I appreciate the channel even more now I've seen this.

OMG I am so happy with this video. I was thinking about your previous video so much while watching COG

I actually loved the first Fantastic Beasts, more than most people I think, but what I loved about it was Newt’s story. I was captivated by how exciting it was to have a character so deeply rooted in empathy and kindness at the centre of a huge Hollywood blockbuster, and that kept me going for the entire film. In retrospect though (especially after seeing the sequel) I really don’t like the rest of the movie around his character. I so desperately just want Newt to go on a magical adventure with his creatures and his friends, to explore the truly exceptional world Rowling has created, and she just keeps trying to tug me into a Harry Potter prequel that I’m theoretically on board for (Dumbledore v. Grindelwald will be awesome when we get to it, I’m sure) but totally uninterested in after spending time with Newt Scamander. That’s actually quite an interesting problem to have - by trying to trick me into watching a prequel I would have welcomed with open arms, J.K. Rowling accidentally teased a movie that I’d be more interested in seeing realised. But with this sequel I think it’s clearer than ever that the charm of the original film was a genuine mistake on the part of the filmmakers, and not at all an important aspect of what this franchise is shaping up to be. And that’s truly disappointing.

I actually happen to like the series as it’s not specifically said to be mysterious but amazing character and story

I follow this channel and it has helped me understand plots amazingly better than I used to. But I disagree about the part where the movie tries to be two different genres, between a light-hearted and a dark-hearted film. I think that makes it more beautiful rather than boxing it into one category, just by putting a light-hearted character whose motivation is unknown until later in the movie. doesn't make it a poor plot. I believe Newt's characterization is an indication of his motivation and the reveal is aligned with that. We know Newt is a nice guy from the beginning and his motivation, when revealed, is aligned with that. Although the movie may have flaws, I believe that is not one.

The mystery in Fantastic Beasts is the smallest aspect of the story, I view it as a character-driven action/drama, which I guess is why the "mystery" never bothered me (and I guessed who the Obscurial was immediately, too). To me, the story isn't about "who is it??" it's about the motifs of compassion, power, friendship, and prejudice. In some ways, Credence is an interesting juxtaposition to Newt. Both are awkward, uncertain about their place in the wizard community, with painful aspects of their past and how others have approached them. In fact, Newt's reluctance to involve himself in this whole drama seems very natural; people don't wanna get involved in dark things happening around them. That theme of "can you turn a blind eye in all cases?" Newt cannot, even if he isn't sure what he should do. And I guess that character-driven element of the Newt Scamander movies is why, in some ways, I actually like them better than the Harry Potter movies.

I really like your videos and learn alot from them.

I loved your video about the Harry Potter books, but I think some of this criticism is rather unfair - mainly for the first Fantastic Beasts. We're meant to spend half the first movie thinking that the thing tearing up New York is a beast. That was how it fits into the Beasts story to begin with. Very early on Graves says it's a beast and that no human has such power. This is alluded to once again when we get inside Newt's case full of beasts and see the very suspicious and dangerous black thing in a bubble. We don't know that it's an Obscurus (or what an Obscurus even is) until Newt tells us, at which point he also tells us that Obscurials have always been children. So I don't think it was that obvious that it was Credence. (Side note: The Obscurial is the wizard, the Obscurus is the parasitical magical force inside them.) You refer to Newt as the "detective" of the movie, but he's not a detective character. I think you're trying too hard to compare Fantastic Beasts to Harry Potter when it is very clearly supposed to be something different altogether I also don't think Graves being Grindelwald was too obvious either. I thought he was just working for Grindelwald, but maybe I'm the only one.

Still like the first two, but I hope it can get better through the next three

I also found it weird that Rowling abandoned the Potter troupe of having the lead use the magic learned in the first half of the story, to solve the mystery in the end. I had expected Newt to act more like a pokemon wrangler, allying with newly discovered beasts to solve mysteries. I had also expected a "fantastic beast" would be at the centre of each of his adventures.

I uh, I was unaware that Credence being the Obscurus was supposed to be a plot twist or a mystery… I thought it was supposed to be obvious

Regardless I have hopes for the third one.

🙄

Thanks so much. Love the video and the breakdown of JK’s mysteries. Maybe she should write the book first, and then the screenplay? So glad to get a new video.

Wow. So glad I found your channel. Great stuff.

*Ok something is up with your audio!* Your voice is fine but the background track, especially the music sound like it’s played through a headphone with a broken cable. I’ve been noticing this on a few of your videos on multiple viewing devices, speakers and headphones (even older once I think) but it’s all aperient at the beginning of this one.

My criticism of the film is of the screenplay. The supporting characters especially when it comes to their motivations and character arcs. Queenie's corruption was very annoying to watch and since the movie spent so little time with each character of a rather large ensemble, the characters motivations feel rushed. Leta Lestrange was just introduced in the film and subsequently killed. The character wasn't developed enough for audiences to care about her death and her death doesn't affect or change anything. Theseus was already opposing Grindelwald, her death doesn't change that. Newt's motivations for "picking sides" would have been much more convincing had one of his beasts been killed for example or if Tina was killed because even though he says he has chosen a side he is clearly referring to simply opposing Gellert since its clear he still doesn't support the ministry and will continue to work with Dumbledore. The sub plots are only to set up the twist at the end. Depp was a caricature as Grindelwald and this couldn't be clearer with his finals words of the battle scene, "I hate Paris". Cause you know, villain. Also wasn't he trying to present himself as a non violent option? And didn't he want to save wizarkind. But then decides to destroy Paris? Some of the characters aren’t important at all Tina was basically a non-entity, Nagini as well (hopefully her character will be explored in the next film). Though you would think she would come up in the HP series if she does turn out to be important. And Jacob not losing his memory cheapens what took place in the first movie. Then we get to the holes in the story. Dumbledore can't fight Grindelwald because of a McGuffin. Ok. How did he fight him in the climactic battle that killed Ariana, then? This may be explored in the next film as well but right now we can only critique this film in question. Grindelwald knows Aurelius' heritage, but in the previous film didn't and was only interested in him for his powers? So the twist feels cheap because of it. I'm sure Rowling will say that he found out between films. So, once again the problem with this film comes from the screenplay. Because the cinematography was great and the special effects as well.

That was great, thanks.

Spot on. Very good work.

love the new title 🖤🖤

The only really good part of this movie is the end where Grindelwald manipulates the emotionally vulnerable people into joining his fascist movement AND OH MY GOD IS IT THE ZEITGEIST. It's a shame JK Rowling couldn't build an entire screenplay in the same fashion.

Just Write, Lessons From the Screenplay, and Nerdwriter all uploaded new content within an hour and I’m so excited

Great video man. This video nails most of the problems I had with the first movie and the prequel series as a hole.

Kudos for the title update haha

I thing Grindelwald was leagues better than Fantastic Beasts, and I love both films. I agree that the plot, the mystery, isn’t as well-developed as the books, but I think that’s in large part to the medium; Rowling’s a book writer. I think perhaps these stories would have worked better as books (or just one or two larger books), where she can lay the breadcrumbs for us and let us follow them. To me, this story is just as compelling as the Potter books, but we just aren’t getting enough of it in one shot. Maybe once all five movies are done, once we can look back over the whole picture, people will have a better view on them. I can understand the criticisms, but I don’t think it is Rowling’s creativity rather than the medium for which she is writing. After all, she’s still writing mysteries in her Coroman Strike novels. Maybe someone should help her adapt the scripts. Maybe she should write them as stories and let Kloves adapt the story into a movie. But I’ll still watch them, regardless, I’ll still enjoy them, and I won’t ever complain about Rowling giving us more of this world, even if it isn’t quite as perfect as the original books were.

I think what makes Potter work, is the family relationships between the characters, progressing alongside the passing seasons. Fantastic Beasts uses neither element. I'd hope they return to Hogwarts and do a children's tv series next.

This was an informative video. It helps us writers learn to make our writing better. Also, slightly off hand, since Newt's grandson marries Luna Lovegood later, it'd be great if Rowling tells us more about Luna's life after the Battle of Hogwarts and how she met Newt's grandson and their life together.

Fantastic beasts and where to find them was a good start. You know how Jurassic World and The Force awakens were practically the same as the original first movie. Fantastic beasts didn't have that problem.

Glad that you took the time to do a post-mortem on this Hypogriff's breakfast of a movie. NO excuse for such poorly executed lazy writing

Great essay!

8:22 Overall I agree, but oldschool Poirot movies kind of work that way. Death occurs mostly after a long hour (Death on Nile, Evil under the Sun)

I absolutely think that Rowling is not to blame here, but director David Yates. I never liked him as a Potter director. He has such a weird way of telling these stories that I sometimes feel like he doesn't really understand them. The whole Credence thing being a good example. Rowling's script makes it way more mysterious. His cinematography is just way off. I'm sure we could have followed the story of Crimes way better if he had invested in more exposition shots, less uncomfortable close ups, if he had cut some unneccessary things out and made the muggle and wizarding world a little easier to distinct from one another, for example by the use of better costumes. (Dumbledore for example might as well have been a muggle dean. What the heck happened to the robes?) But the storytelling, I think is.... alright! Maybe Nagini and Flamel weren't that neccessary and maybe the mystery didn't work as much this time but it was still exciting to follow that Corvus Lestrange storyline and find out the truth later on. It was a different approach and maybe a less fun approach, but still a good one.

You sure the whole Credence is a Dumbldore wasn't just a lie? Feels like it was.

The story (FB2 that is) makes it seem like JK wanted to write a mystery story about the Lestranges, Credence and Dumbledore buuuuuuut didn't because she wrote another story with Newt and the gang as the main charactes for some reason

Great analysis of the 'art of mystery'. This particular point about how a good mystery feels like a 'fair game' was made in one of the stories of Agatha Christie's Poirot. There is one novel (I forgot which one) in which private detective Poirot mocks one of the character's love for cheaply written murder mysteries in which the reader cannot possibly win the game, because the murderer and essential clues are only introduced around the final reveal. The twist in that story was that it was itself such a story, allowing the reader to feel the exact point Poirot was making in the story. A nice 'inception' type story

It's funny how in this great 10 minute video, you haven't even scratched the surface of Fantastic Beast 2's structural problems. A mystery requires intrigue, set ups, characters, a protagonist, a story, etc. You know, kids stuff. It's like the Fallout 76 of movies, it makes you question how the hell we got here, and even worse - why I was a fan in the first place. I don't think I am anymore... Anyway, thanks Sage, that was therapeutic.

She ruins her own stories and changes things to be relevant for digital backpats while sucking the story dry of anything that mattered. It's lame and silly.

thank you for this.. great observations

Love your analysis.

Hahaha title change

It's really weird. Her work before and after the main HP books is just so mediocre. It looks like she was very lucky to hit just the right formula where she's really good, but even changing a tiny bit (moving from the school setting to adults) causes the whole thing to break down.

To this day, I have no idea what the second Fantastic Beasts movie was about haha. It was so confusing. With Harry Potter, I had read the books so a lot of the things that people were confused about with the movies (especially with all of the jargon you had to remember), I didn't have a problem with. But I remember watching this film and trying so hard to understand what was happening, why people were doing things, where they were going ,etc. that I couldn't get into it.

Love this video

I found myself quite confused thru out most of this video having disagreed with most of what you had to say about the first movie. I mean at 7:50... everyone wants to kill that creature and/or capture it. By design every magical creature Newt cares for and has in his case is a vermin to the Americans at large. Newt's entire self is at stake here. Who is Newt if this other wizarding government hurts creatures under his charge? Or better yet who is Newt, a person driven by a connection to magical creatures, if some wizards get their way and hide or kill all magical creatures since they are a threat to their safety in secret act. His motivation is intrinsic to the setting and the time period. It's extremely relatable to be someone just trying to be decent (ya know not hurting the animals just cuz they exist) in a time where those around you will do anything to stop you.

I'm sad/frustrated with all the hate JK Rowling is getting, because I was 100% satisfied with the standalone stories in FB1 and 2. I loved how the mysteries and physical goals were backdrops in these films, because it felt like an acknowledgement that the first readers of HP are maturing. I felt that the actual focus of these stories was meant to be psychological, philosophical and internal/unseen. How do we treat others and why. How do we cope with our own internal struggles, and how does that affect the social groups/causes we join. What types of events and interactions might lead a person to be persuaded to change their own course. Important for checking our own political, social and personal biases. The writing was superb and timely in my opinion, and I hope that JK continues to stay true to her art.

Commenting this two years after the video was posted: I absolutely agree with everything said here, except for this tone problem thing in the first movie. This light-hearted magic animals adventure and romance versus a darker story about the begging of the Second World war is (that's what Grindewald is about in this universe) what gives the movie its poetic force and makes it memorable because it shows how fragile this fantastic zoos' and cute romances' world is in the face of larger historical events. And they are linked one to another in the very end thematically, because it's the Thunderbird that makes the new-yorkers forget the destruction and deaths that just ravaged the city, and this scene does have powerful poetic energy about it.

I remember reading somewhere that Tina should've been the main character, which I totally agree with. She's the "detective" character the mysteries are lacking throughout both movies. She's proactive and doesn't just want to avoid conflict. Plus, at least in the first movie, she's involved with Credence, Ministry, and Newt. Granted, the reveal of her involvement with Credence isn't as obvious, but a hint could be through the fact she was demoted because of something with Credence's church. I don't know, it would've been a cool to see Tina as the main character, but I do love Newt regardless. Can't say the same about the movies...

Problem is that in FB2 Credence has a more engaging goal than Newt. He wants to know who he is, and Newt wants to find Tina(maybe). and he, just like in the first one, goes somewhere and all hell breaks loose. So in my opinion Credence should have been the main character, not Newt.

At first when he changed the title I was like “yeah, dude, you take a stand!”, but now I’m a little older and more mature I’ve realised how cringe-inducingly childish this actually is

I love your channel.

Great insight.

I thought it was Barty Crouch Jr. the son that took Mad Eye Moody's Place and put him in the Trunk.

This is a great analysis. I'm seriously considering not watching the second Fantastic Beasts film. Every review/analysis I've seen on it has been mixed at best, and the first film never charmed me. Some of the reasons I didn't like it are more esoteric (like how I wished it had taken more from its 20s setting than just fashion), and some are broader, such as how bloated and directionless it was. I probably will watch it because I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan (I even saw Cursed Child in London), but I wish I got the impression that these movies were made for a reason other than the fact that the Harry Potter franchise is a cash-cow. Rowling is a much better prose writer than screenwriter.

Great analysis! You sound like CGP Grey giving a try at fiction writing.

Dude... I've never thought of Harry Potter as a somewhat detective story... But it is so true.