I love how in the fifth book Petunia refers to snape as “that horrible boy” and Harry and everyone else thought she was talking about James Potter until the 7th book
A defense of Queenie not being able to read Grindelwald's mind properly is that, maybe, Grindelwald is also an accomplished Occlumens (like Snape), and can therefore block certain thoughts from being accessed by other people
Voldemort,a highly accomplished legilimens couldn't possibly read Grindelwald's mind while searching for elder wand..so he was killed by Voldemort ....this shows he was an accomplished occulumens
The thing that has always made me believe he is different to Voldemort is when his followers gather he doesn’t bully them and they follow out of loyalty not fear
I never thought he and Voldemort were the same, Grindelwald seems more likeable and more mature to me for some reason. Voldemort wants to rule the world and Grindelwald want wizardkind to be free and not have to hide their powers, is it bad that I agree with him?
@@bellaknightR597 well you not wrong there voldemort more like comic villain while grindelwald is like philosophy villain which relied more on manipulation and using blood supremacy while not crossing the borderline
Also that unlike Voldemort, Grindelwald has known love. and there's lines that he won't cross, one primarily being fighting Dumbledore. voldemort don't care who got to go. Not even Bellatrix if she needed to 🤣
The thing with Newt is actually a good way to show how people in the wizarding world thinks. If they're willing to recruit a magical zookeeper into fighting a wizarding terrorist because he got caught up in their conflict once, then it's no surprise that later on, they'll deem a baby to be their saviour because he was there when another wizarding terrorist supposedly died Edit: I'm scared that just like in the sequel trilogy, the fantastic beast franchise might end up getting retconned rewritten over and over because of people's reactions to it
Definitely not. As a director i would avoid the words "Rise of" in the title wherever i can, because it is just overused. Crimes of Grindelwald on the other hand is original.
I find it perfectly fitting for Queenie’s character to join Grindelwald considering the fact that she has been shown as a very sheltered individual. The line: “Tina, you brought men home” speaks to this because it implies she doesn’t interact frequently with other people, and her awkward interaction with the official at the French Ministry Of Magic shows that she’s very socially awkward and doesn’t have a grasp on how the world works. Jacob clearly has a better grasp on reality than she does because he doesn’t want to marry her out of fear for her getting sent to prison, but she simply doesn’t care so when she hears Grindelwald say: “I support non-magic relationships” whether or not he contradicts himself, she immediately latches onto that.
Couldn't agree more, Queenie felt abandoned by Jacob, Tina and Newt who all encouraged her to not marry Jacob to protect her. You can see why she sided with Grindelwald as he tricked her into thinking he was her only friend!
The thing about Newt being "only a zookeeper", I think a lot of people tend to forget that he doesn't only keep and watch after lovely creatures like niffler but he deals with all sort of creatures, and magical creatures a lot of the time aren't exactly "lovely" and "peaceful" but Newt still being one piece and without visible harm to him despite dealing with all those creatures. So he should be pretty skilled in defense, has a very fast reaction and has bunch of other pretty useful skills when it comes to both dealing with wild magical creatures and combating a wizard.
Also Newt is the first of his kind I think. I might be wrong but I think before him wizards just treated the creatures as monsters and that was it. Newt changed that by actively searching for them and trying to understand them. He's the reason we see care for magical creatures class in the original HP series. It's not an easy job and it was a revelation. He might be a sweet hufflepuff but he's freaking important in more than one ways.
@@curiousuniverse7415 wait I thought people knew that..... I mean isn't he known as a famous magizoologist in the HP books? Plus it's something I wanted to specialize in as a kid... I wanted to be a dragon Tamer or a magizoologist.... My top 2 careers if I was in the HP world
@aqua blu I think that’s exactly what she meant, kind of subtly letting on that she knew Newt had a thing for her all those years and it brings even more ambiguity to ‘I love you’ before her sacrifice
Newt is not just a "Zookeeper" he wrote the book fantastic beasts after years of observation and let's not for get that he ranked each creature from harmless to dangerous. And let's also not forget that each creature he has, he saved 1 by 1 from their respective countries after months maybe years of venturing into uncharted dangerous territories. He Damn near domesticated a Nundu the most dangerous magical creature in existence
@@thatsabingo6695 he said it tho, Newt is not interested in power. Which means he is not the schemer type. Its very relaxing to work with him because you wont have to worry whether he will stab you on your back. Also in my opinion an auror will have a strict training on how they handle things like in a textbook. While Newt is a more of free style magician, cuz you couldnt rely on textbook when handling those fantastic beasts. These creatures have their own characters and sets of skills, if Newt could handle a lot of them, his technical skills (and instincts) are much more broad and advance than an auror. I feel like people look down on Newt cuz he is such a goofy and socially awkward guy. I mean sometime people doubt other people’s skills because they are shy and not confident about their own skills. While believe in people who looks confident enough even tho they might be actually worse. Also Getting Newt on your side is like “buy 1 get 1 for free”. You ask Newt for help, you are not only getting help from Newt but from his fantastic beasts as well. So you could say he might not be the best choice, but he is a trustworthy choice with lots of benefits.
@@thatsabingo6695 An auror has to work under certain laws and regulations plus the ministry didn't trust Dumbledore. So he needed to someone of his own someone who can adapt to situation like no one else can. An auror no matter how good has to use a wand to fight face to face with grindlewald who is one of the three most powerful wizards in centuries. He wouldn't last 5 seconds. where newt has a hundred tricks up his sleeves that no other Wizard can guess not even grindlewald
i thought the same thing but is there something that maybe grindelwald could not do enough occlumency since queenie was very talented legimens or something like that so she misread it?
It just feels like JK made a long film and broke it up into 5 parts and this was just an awkward slice. I went into the movie with this in mind and it didn't feel bad. However it does feel off as a stand alone movie. I bet it will feel better when we can binge the whole series.
I get what you mean but if it was a one long film it would be TERRIBLE! There is so much detail that it would be way more confusing than this movie (crimes of grindlewald)
I was there at Carnegie Hall when JK announced that Dumbledore was gay. A fan asked her a question regarding his love interest and she genuinely seemed puzzled and just said she always saw him as gay. It was really clear to everyone that she alrwady had this as part of his character but didn't gay bait the story.
My friend these days if a big RU-vidr like MovieFlame and Theorist Family(Game, Food and Film) say here is my opinion then they will spend 20 minutes or more backing it up.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Well that's what I love about MovieFlame is that he's able to say well I think this person's opinion is wrong and then be able to fully explain with evidence to back it up why he thinks that they're wrong. MovieFlame always gives essays that are so well thought out so articulate and backed up by actual evidence rather than them being empty opinions. because the one thing I learned in English class if you're going to give an opinion you need to have evidence to back up your opinion in order to make it valid and MovieFlame really does a great job of that.
Also, on Dumbledore’s sexuality... of course it wasn’t mentioned in the books. It’s told from Harry’s perspective, and there’s no reason for Harry to know this. What would Dumbledore just go, ‘Hey, just FYI, I’m Gay, bye.’
Why would Rowling be like "Hey FYI, Hermoine is black, and before toilets were invented wizards would relieve themselves, and vanish whatever came out"
I think the bigger issue is when this new movie franchise came about it was made very clear that Dumbledore was being thrown back into the closet. Sorry but JK doesn't get credit for an off hand comment in a single interview in 2007 when she was given the chance to actually follow through we got crickets. As much as randomly changing the race of Hermione made me cringe as a political move at least there was some follow through on that.
Well, as Harry explored and uncovered the truth about Dumbledore in the seventh book, it would’ve eventually come to light. You’re right, he wouldn’t have just been like “hey, i’m gay” but it should’ve been discussed/discovered by harry eventually. But is wasn’t, because J.K only said that Dumbledore was gay to please the LGBTQ+ community and feign supporting the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in literature.
@@vikkran401 being straight doesn't need to be part of most characters for plot reasons but we know their sexualities anyways from character descriptions due from the author, even when it's not in the original story or related to the plot. Why do people have to justify being gay when no one has to justify being straight? If Dumbledore was confirmed straight and that he had a girlfriend during hogwarts that broke his heart and that's why he's currently single when asked by a fan or an interviewer, no one would care. It would just be extra lore being givin outside we of the books. Proof? McGonagall ALSO had a backstory added outside of the books but I don't hear people complaining that there's no proof she's straight and that her sexuality isn't plot relevant and there for is "unbelievable". Of all the characters with confirmed backstories and sexualities, only the gay one is being scrutinized. No one has to prove they are gay and it's the exact same as being straight, it's something that ONLY comes up when talking about a backstory and if someone hides their PRIVATE information then of course you'll never know. Being simply being gay isn't less believable than being straight and we never got anything confirming he's straight either so there's no proof against it. It's literally just about him being gay, and he is so get over it.
As far as Queenie's mind reading goes, did everyone just collectively forget that Occlumency is a thing? You know, the power to shut out mind readers? Good lord.
Yeah actually… The movie should have made that clear he was doing that. If that is the real reason and not just bad writing or a plot hole then it is still the movie’s fault for not showing why her mind reading failed her judgement.
Then what's the point of even having her as an ally if she can be deceived? In the next movie she gets asked by grindelwald to conferm if the person talking is lying, why does he trust her
This is true because I read this theory that Grindelwald was skilled at oclumency like Snape as voldemort couldn't read the mind of Grindelwald while trying to figure out the owner of the elder wand so I'm pretty sure he just blocked qeeniy ( pardon my spelling)
@@randomusername3873 I mean Occlumency is stated to be a fairly rare skill. It makes sense that a wizard as powerful as Grindelwald would know it, especially given his past association with Dumbledore, a character we know can use it. However, most people aren't aware that Occlumency is even a thing, and not everyone who knows about it is actually good at it (Harry for instance). So, for 99% of people, Queenie's ability would be incredibly useful.
Probably because people just are to lazy to put in effort to understand which for some who aren't true fans just say 'I don't understand this so it's bad' but if someone did put in the effort it's a rewarding experience in my opinion
I literally watch it a few times a month. I feel like people are just clinging to HP and not willing to explore the vastness of the wizarding world. Tbh nothing I love more than New York, music and clothing from the 20’s and magic
I also had a negative reception primarily from outside sources since I only read the scriptwriting like a year ago but now I feel the need to slap myself in the face and reread the script
Did everyone forget the end of the movie where Jacob's pastries are shaped like magical creatures?. Because I remembered and was so confused why everyone said that was a retcon.
No one says that's a retcon, for myself and a lot of others, we believed that those beast pastries were examples of the "amnesia flashes" trope where some people get flashes of memories and they can't explain it, but they just remember it like a dream. Its also the explanation I was led to believe for Jacob smiling at Queenie, not because he remembered her, but because it was "love at first sight", subconsciously influenced by the relationship they had. However, its also the reason why I wasn't so surprised with Jacob in CoG, because I just assumed it was a case of Queenie bringing back the memories that Jacob hadn't really forgotten, just locked away.
@@yanyanzhang5813 also go to 15:58. Literally in this video he talks about Jacob having his memory after the first movie because of the memory charm is a retcon. If you watched the video you commented under more carefully you'd know what my original comment was referring to.
This video is just perfect. You have perfectly summed up why this is actually a good film with points that I agree with and make sense when you really think about it. You are definitely one of the smartest RU-vidrs I know. Well done, Morgan. Oh and I can't believe you used a tweet I sent you in the video, lol.
It’s just people who can’t see a bigger picture. If you’re narrow minded and focus mainly on the now you will see the movie as bad however if you can look to the future it’s awesome or simply good
It’s nice to see a critic that actually looks into a piece of media properly and cares about so much to find valid points and defend it rightfully, and it’s nice to see someone prove Cosmonaut Variety Hour wrong.
I used to like Cosmonaut for the lolz, but this is the first movie review that I caught all of his cherry picked evidence and misleading edits. Making certain plot points seem pointless and nonsensical when there were more legitimate criticisms to focus on. Ugh.
I like Cosmonaut but he clearly struggles with objective criticism of things he’s passionate about. You see the problem way more in his long form reviews, where he often has contradictory logic but doesn’t seem to notice.
Cosomaut is super entertaining but damn a lot of his criticism is either nitpicking or not analysing a scene properly. His Harry Potter movie reviews are arguably the biggest example of it. His bias against Rowling was so irritating and a lot ot the criticism for certain characters or plot points felt like the same usual, tiring, stupid thing people’ve been saying for a long time
@@tragicallyfunny theres also people like the critical drinker, i used to like him until his shang chi review. he talked multiple times about how shang chi has no chemistry with katy while in reality katy's grandmother asked shang chi and shang chi clearly said that theyre just friend. or about how he sarcastically doesnt like empowered women but at the same time he supports arcane with their empowered women. like whats the difference? arcane female characters are strong without diminishing the males, and in shang chi its also the same
Tbh i prefer the second one more than the first one for many reasons 1.there are many likeable characters here in the first one i only liked newt and found him special Not even tina or queenie where in second one Not only ww found new epic characters like lita Theseus albus and gellert But also all those old characters became more likeable like queenie jacob 2. The first one film honestly had nothing like the hp we saw magic in the muggle world instead of the wizarding world we never saw hogwarts etc it was completely different which honestly made me mad that its just totally a different thing from the original series it was just for the sake of name where in the second one was related with hp we saw albus minerva hogwarts etc 3.that ending scene of the second movie that was just epic and also it left a lot of mysteries and curiosity about nagini and stuff we also saw her as a human not snake and she wasnt a bad woman 4.it was sirius and dark compared to the previous one the first one was bright and colorful(which i dont mind cz i really like colorful stuff but the story is about adults not teens like harry so this time i prefer the sirius one) But truly i love both of them honestly both of them are good and bad in their own way which makes it perfect
I wish that Rowling had written the series as books first. She seems to be forgetting than she isn’t adapting books and the audience doesn’t have an existing story to go on. I hope the story will become clearer later.
While I liked the two movies, I do think you're right. It might take longer but ìf she still wants to take part of directing, it might be easier to write a summary of the important parts with an existing book. A book would also give us more time with some characters and more creatures :)
This has to be the most professional and dignified review of this movie I've come across so far. I'm not JK Rowling's biggest fan, but I understood where she was going with this, and I feel like fans and casual moviegoers were just desperate to nitpick and tear this movie apart.
Jacob remembering what happened in the first movie is explained when Newt treats his murtlap bite. Newt says he’s working on a potion that “erases bad memories.” Sound familiar?
@@vikkran401 First of all, the pastries are shaped like magical creatures. Also, the way Jacob looks at her has the appearance of faint recognition. The scene definitely seems to hint that the effect didn't fully take for him.
@@vikkran401 He may have been in danger but that doesn't mean he wasn't happy. During the first film he is scared and confused at first but starts to open up and accept his situation and starts to form friendships and even a love interest in Queenie so if he forgot anything it was how he cane to be in a suitcase with a guy tending to creatures he thinks are cool. He remembers the creatures and designs his pastries after them because he was amazed by these creatures he has never seen. Also he tells Newt in the second film that Queenie filled the bad memories in for him.
@@vikkran401 because if they didn't people would put Rowling to trial saying why didn't the ministry prevent them from letting Jacob keep his memories? The point of it was to give the movie a good ending to where one character had an adventure and u began to love that character and u learned that his memories of everything are needed to be erased. We don't know how the magic worked maybe it erased every magic theme from his memories, yet as he remembers them from day to day object and dreams and when Queenie left the bakery that was the final trigger to his memories since only bad ones were truly erased.
I feel like people forget that HP wasn’t always straight forward either. I think if I hadn’t read the books I wouldn’t have understood a lot of things when seeing the movies for the first time. I have plenty of friends who say they had to watch the HP Movies two or three times to really understand and see all the connections and storyline. I hab the same with the Second Fantastic beasts movie, after watching it three times it makes so much more sense. And that’s something I admire about JK Rollings work. I sometimes find myself finding new details in even the HP Films even though I have watched them like a 100 times
I see what you're saying, but I think it actually IS a problem. And your comparison to the HP movies is 100% valid. A very common critique of the HP movies is that a lot of things don't really make sense or aren't explained well. So your comparison is completely true, but your comparison is showing the flaws in the HP movies, not showing how masterful the FB movies are. IMHO.
That was a flaw in the adaptation of the books to movies and the process of cutting out information. Every book loses information when translating it to a movie script but the screen writers for HP cut out a lot that shouldn't have been cut in the first place, thus removing information that was necessary to understand the story. Without the background of the novels, the movies made little sense to many people.
A lot of great points, and I would like to add my own thoughts for consideration: Queenie: also remember that she was under a LOT of psychological stress at the time. In a bid to find her sister, she opened her mind to the crowd in Paris, and was inundated in thoughts. Imagine having hundreds of conversations echoing in your head all at once. Leta: I think she's meant to be a foil to Voldemort. Last of an old Pureblood family. Born of a loveless, coerced relationship. Involved in the deaths of family members. Involved in an incident with a magical beast that got an innocent student expelled. Yet despite her similarities, she made VERY different choices, further reinforcing Rowling's theme of choice, not birth, determining our destinies. For the hate, I think it's symptomatic of our times. People are just not as willing to wait or compromise as they used to be. (Great I sound like an old man don't I?). There's no "let's agree to disagree" anymore. As Anakin put it "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy".
I think it's easy for a man to diss on a woman for beitng "TrAnSPhObiC." After all, it's women who are mainly affected by laws that basically eliminate woman's spaces. Men just don't face that obstical. So when a man bashes a woman for being unhappy with laws that make it so anyone can just go "Where they identify" It kind of looks really heartless.
Movie flame, I need you to know that this video pretty much put me in tears. I agree with you so much in this and the call out of other videos is very appropriate. I remember watching the cosmonaut video a while ago and it thinking that a lot of his character evaluations are just so false but I saw a majority of the internet agreeing with it... it’s not the best movie better but there are a ton of great qualities
Payton Lara regarding Queenie, it also fits her personality. She wants to live a life in America with Jacob, but him being a Muggle and she being a wizard, they legally couldn’t. It makes sense for her to join Grindewald because he is campaigning for the values and freedoms she believes in. The freedom to love whoever, regardless if they are magical or not. Her character in the second movie is not a plot hole, it’s an arc. An arc that reflects her character and desires, and eventually the arc will complete with her joining the right side.
The Cursed Child is total rubbish. I, too, like the FB movies, including Crimes of Grindelwald, but we need to realize the story isn't even half way told yet.
Exactly, and people need to stop thinking of it as another Harry Potter film. It is a whole different film in all ways, that happens to be in the same universe. I’m exited to see how Newt evolves. Also they did a great job laying out the plot threads going forward. Can’t wait for 3, I think it’ll show people that it’s a great series. It’ll be the key film that’s talked about for years.
We can all agree that the cursed child is a good play, but not good for Pottermore fans. Also people have to realise that this isn't a sequel. Its the explanation that the community have been asking for for a decade: what happened when Grindelwald was in power. It is every bit as detailed and perfectly plotted out as the first series, with outstanding characters. A work of genuis
My main complaint is that these movies aren’t self-contained. Sure, there’s going to be 5 of them and they need an overarching story and conflict. But there were 7 HP books and each of them had their own thing going on. Philosopher’s Stone had, well, the philosopher’s stone. Goblet had the triwizard tournament. Even HPB had Slughorn’s memory and the search for the Horcrux. But fantastic beast movies have nothing going on. It’s like, the thing that these movies are about aren’t actually what the movies are about. In the first one, Newt’s trying to recapture his escaped beasts, but what’s actually important is Graves/Grindelwald seducing Credence. In the second one, everyone’s trying to figure out who Credence is, but it’s actually about Dumbledore trying to get his blood pact back. As an audience, we’re given no set up for this. We don’t know why we need to care. The second one is the biggest offender of this. You can’t watch only the second one. You’re going to have to watch the next movies to see why this one mattered. Prisoner of Azkaban was the first HP I saw. I didn’t catch everything, but it was easy to see why the things that were happening mattered. In Crimes of Grindelwald, if you had never watched any of the other movies, you’d have no idea what was going on the whole time and you would have no idea what the purpose of the movie was. All of it’s runtime is just building up to Newt getting the blood pact and us finding out Credence is Aurelius Dumbledore, 2 things that had absolutely no set up, and 2 things that have no explanation as to why we should care. So now we HAVE to watch the next ones.
Ther Was Set up to this innthe first Film. Credence ws adaptet that Was the Set up. Then the Bild he takes care of Sets up a Red hearing of the lestrange and the phonix
Did nobody notice how Jacob had pastries of magical creatures in his bakery???? So it was in first film already that he didnt forget. Even when a customer asks where the idea comes from he smirks and says it just comes knowing the No-maj or muggle wont believe that his ideas comes from Magical creatures.
Most people's attention span tends to drop at the last 3 minutes of a film, it's natural. And while hinted upon and somewhat implied, I wouldn't call that a satisfying explanation that makes sense.
@@conserztasfia0078 Nope. I like this movie and watched the first one 3 times before this movie came out. I was led to believe that like other amnesia stereotypes, its just a case of Jacob getting flashes of memory that even he can't explain, and I'm sure that's true for a lot of other people.
this video is perfection - very well done and everything very well said! you are in the right 100%, and it sounds like you really understand this story in ways that other people didn’t. thank you for pointing everything out that you did!
@Ben Franklin I understand your point, but that is there relationship because that is there characteristics. Newt is a shy, quiet, brave, considerate, uncomfortable, detailed character, and Tina is a little more outspoken, brave, kind, and flustered character. There character relationship is supposed to be awkward and especially after she thought that he got “engaged”, and she thought they had something. Frankly it makes sense that their relationship was a little off or “cringey.” The reason for that is because that is how they both felt, and going along with their personalities. It would make sense for it to be awkward especially for Tina, thinking that this man she had fallen in love with and gotten to know personally just got engaged. For Newt he has always been awkward, that is who he is so I think their relationship in this movie is realistic. It may be awkward because that is how it would be, besides they are going to make more movies so their relationship could improve. This was just to share my opinion, I’m not saying your wrong.
It's honestly hilarious how some of the criticisms are from people misinterpreting or completely misremembering entire scenes. It goes to show how easy it is to complain about something as opposed to analyzing and understanding it
Don't trust people's review. Trust your own watching experience. When i watched it the first time, I was confused with lots of plots but after watching the 3rd movie, I went back to this. It all went so poetic. It doesn't mean it's a perfect movie. It just showed me so many details that I had forgot on my first watch.
But that's explained?? Credence being alive came out of literally nowhere. If it's gonna be explained in a later movie that's fine, but as of right now it's stupid.
@@neroquin yeah alright it's not explained but did they explain in the beginning how Voldemort returned? They still have time to explain how Credence returned since it's planned that 3 more movies will be released
@@Xehanort10 Nagini literally means half human half snake.Where I come from it is a common knowledge because a lot of movies are made on this concept.It was actually quite predictable for me.
@@vikkran401 no one is forcing you to watch it .. and as for jonny depp I love him . But I don't blame Warner Bros ..they fired him when the accusations were fresh . By the time WB knew he was innocent they had already hired another actor .. the fact that your boycott it even tho it's not their fault shows how insecure you are.
@@vikkran401 as much as I agree with you . Even though the law is innocent untill proven guilty . But when it comes to conflicts between man and women , women always get the advantage . In such cases Men are guilty untill proven innocent , Which is wrong but that's the mindset of the people . An eg is if Woman hits a Man in a crowded place no one will say anything ,but if A man hits a women in the same crowded place he will get attacked by other people without knowing who's right or wrong. Thats the problem of our society ... Warner bros did the same thing .Whenever such thing happens the people always side with the women which is not fair . Thus Warner Bros had to fire Jonny . I love jonny with my heart and soul but I'm a bigger fan of the wizarding world so I can't boycott and besides Warner Bros apologized to him .. Anyways sorry for any confusion have a great day!
@@vikkran401 didn't Johnny quit? just because its not him doesn't mean the franchise needs to suffer, the best you can do is not watch it, hating on it makes you look like a douche
I think one of the reasons this movie, and the previous one, get a lot of hate is because, unlike the original Harry Potter series, we don't have a series of books to compare this series with.
We also don't have a likable/relatable main character. Fantastic beasts needs a major improvement going forward but unfortunately most of that damage is already done with casting.
@@Matt-dc8lp Actually, Newt Scammander is a very likable/relatable character imo, maybe even more so than Harry Potter. He is socially awkward and sweet, and has problems interacting with people, which is something so many people, including myself, can relate to and like about him.
Does no one remember the end of the 1st Fantastic Beast? They show Jacob’s bakery and a bunch of his baked goods look like the Fantastic Beast and when asked where he gets his ideas from he says “I don’t know, they just come to me”. Immediately after you see Queenie inside the shop and he immediately recognized her and then touches the back of his neck as if a faint memory comes to the surface. To me that seems as if he would remember some of if not all of the events of the movie. So why is it so far fetched that he remembers those things in this movie. And there can also be “reasons” why he remembered. 1 The bad memories clause and he only had good memories. 2 The venom when he was bitten and the subsequent cure He was given could have had strange effects that blocked the rains affects…3 Queenie giving him a potion…and there can be a bunch of other ways…
In the first film, the scene where Newt takes Jacob into the case and the swooping evil first appears Newt says that it's Venom is meant to cure negative memories. So Jacob rembering everything isn't a retcon
That whole “just a zookeeper” has me so riled up. Everyone in literally every story is “just” one thing or another until the plot changes is up. Cinderella was “just a housemaid” until the plot happened Katniss Everdeen was “just a girl from District 12” until the plot happened Even Dumbledore himself was “JUST A PROFESSOR” until the plot with Grindelwald happens. The probability of a character being in a certain situation doesn’t matter because it’s a STORY
@@Xehanort10 I was more just saying that the viewers who criticized the film with moments they straight up misinterpreted or weren’t even paying attention to were more critics than fans. I’ve seen problems in the film too. But if you’re going to criticize a movie you should at least pay attention to that movie in the first place, otherwise any idiot who was paying attention (like me) can spot that they didn’t really know what they were talking about e.g. - Saying that Grindelwald killed the baby, - Forgetting that Jacob remembering the events was set up in the first movie, - Dumbledore explaining why he’s chosen Newt to be given these missions, - The fact that Grindelwald is the villain so he’s manipulative and won’t be telling the whole truth most of the time - Not even paying attention to the build up that was the rising action and interpreting it as still part of Act 1
@@keineahnung6184 When you start asking "why" for every plot point in a movie, then you're just intentionally looking for mistakes and nothing else. This is like saying _"Why are the spells in Latin? That doesn't make any sense therefore this movie is garbage because of it"_ Every movie is riddled with convenient things happening for the plot, otherwise the story would be boring and uneventful. A fan doesn't go into a movie looking for things to pick apart to complain about. They watch the movie, connect with it, analyze it, and if there are mistakes they don't start a riot over it, they point it out and move on (although this does vary depending on the severity of the mistake). Whenever I spot some absurd thing or some strange logic in a movie, I just poke fun at it then continue enjoying the movie. And when an actual fan points out a big mistake, they don't do it off of barely paying attention to the movie or make things up because they couldn't bother to look back and see if something was indeed explained earlier.
@@Xehanort10 Agree. The whole reason for that weird rain at the end of the first movie was the fact that the people of New York had to forget EVERYTHING about the magic world
This is what I’ve been trying to tell everyone!! Yes, it may not be perfect, but nothing is. It is still packed with plot and lore and character-building. My outlook on the rest of the series is only brighter, knowing that they changed the scripts to be more conclusive for each movie. Cheers!
I think that one of the reasons this film was hated a lot is because it is named the crimes of grindelwald but it focuses on leta's brother's mystery and ends in grindelwald's rally. basically the structure part of the film in the eyes of a lot of fans was made on how much of the movie is focused on grindelwald and not how it is actually meant to be looked at
It’s like the deathly hallows part 1 movie. The trio strives to destroy horcruxes of Voldemort but the climax is the Malfoy Manor. All before the climax is preparation of the battle of hogwarts which is present in the sequel.
Disregarding the odd statements Rowling has made over the years and looking at just the assertion that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had a relationship... well, it makes sense for Dumbledore's character. He's a wizard very much reminiscent of old stories of Merlin, and a man the likes of which Aristotle may have bandied words against. It makes a good deal of sense that his first non-familial relationship with a wizarding peer would end up being very intimate, considering his lack of interaction and personally-wrought alienation from much of the outside world. Historically speaking, this sort of thing happened very often before WWII. It was an implied truth that very close friends might develop this sort of relationship, though it was never discussed openly. Why not? Because everyone had their own reason to say it's immoral or illogical or whatever other spiel they could crank out that amounted to "I wouldn't do it and therefore you shouldn't either". Thankfully, we have writers such as Oscar Wilde who gave an actual insight into the life of a gay man before the Gay Liberation movements of the 1960s-'70s, and it's really quite similar to what Rowling describes in relation to Dumbledore - a friendship that becomes a romance, maintaining that strong bond between the two (such as the case between Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas), even in later years. Most people can therefore imagine the guilt one would feel if their partner led them to do something awful, like (in Dumbledore's eyes) inducing the death of a family member. Moreover, it is not difficult at all to see the fiery conviction to do - and become - better, to fix the things you have any actual hope of fixing, to atone for those mistakes made while taken up in the dream of one's own self-importance. Thus, Dumbledore's initial reluctance, but later full acceptance, of his duty to defeat Grindelwald. From an alternate angle, Dumbledore can be viewed as reflecting a great many of the classical Greek virtues, himself acting throughout the books like a great thinker or philosopher of old, and it stands to reason that with characterisation like that, Rowling would also decide to portray his private inclinations in a similar light. Let's be honest: with names like "Ludo" (meaning "games" in Latin) for a sports commentator, Rowling was only ever superficially subtle with her characters and their personalities.
I have one question on Queenie not reading Grindelwalds mind correctly: Wouldn't it be possible that Grindelwald is just pretty good at Occlumency? That other wizards or witches can't shield themself from her Legilimancy could be due to the fact that she was born with a great aptitude for the skill. But even Voldemort couldn't read Grindelwalds mind so he had to be pretty good at Occlumency... I don't understand why everybody is so quick at hating things like that.
But Queenie first met Grindelwald's minion, who lured her into the house. I don't understand why she couldn't even read that woman's mind...And simply just followed her
The series is a prequel. Newcomers themselves need a justification as to why Queenie can't read his mind. Not just that, even old fans need some sort of confirmation because Grindelwald is not a developped character in the books or movies. We don't know the extent of his power. Sure, being a great Occlumens seems like a given, but it really wouldn't hurt to tell us so that no one is left wondering why a woman with the natural gift of mind reading can't get inside his head
I always figured Grindelwald was a master at occlumency, and also likely he knows how to manipulate a legilimens by giving false information. I think people forget how powerful Grindelwald actually was, possibly because we never really see Dumbledore's "true power" in Harry Potter bar little flashes
I actually loved the Crimes of Grindelwald. When I saw how much hate it was getting I was so confused. I had no problems with it the many-characters-complicated-plot. I watch GoT, it's what I'm used to. And yes, maybe, they didn't go very deep in most of them. But that's because this movie I think serves as an intriguing set up for the next. Tons of things changed since the first one, which served to introduce us in depth with the characters. This one was plot focused. I'm really looking forward for the next movie, we're both aspects (characters and plot) I hope will have more space to come together.
Great job. Finally some different view rather than just everyone bashing the movie and jumping on the hater bandwagon. It's like they really let the hate or others' opinion overshadow their own thought. Like, do people seriously think the person who writes one of the most successful novel series in the world would just put random retcon into the story? Nah...smh Internet is the place where information and opinion spread fast. What make it worse is that people often jump to the conclusion or follow what most others think without giving proper thought before. Thank you very much for making this video.
The thing I have to say about Jacob remembering is you have to pay attention to the ending of the first movie. Jacob walks into the obliviating rain, then Queeny kisses him. If the obliviate spell got rid of only the memories of the magical world. To Jacob, all he would possibly remember is this lady (Queeny) kissing him as he left the underground. And then, when Queeny and him meet again in his bakery, he very well could have remembered her from the kiss. Queeny then informs Jacob about what all had happened. This is also shown when he only remembered the “good parts”, or Queeny kissing him. And then he starts to remember through Queeny trying to reinstate his memory, and it worked, informing him of everything else. That’s just my theory on why Jacob was able to remember at least some stuff.
Newt also mentions the poison acting against "bad memories" early during the first film. It really isn't much of a stretch in my opinion. Anyway, that Jacob would return was kind of easy to anticipate. In fact, I would have been disappointed if he had not :D
They gave JK too much power and she's not a filmmaker. I get that she probably had Johnny Depp posters on her wall as a girl but he was terrible choice for Grindelwald.
Your videos always get me back into Harry Potter. Like when I stop reading the books or watching videos and the movies, its for a while But then when you come out with another video, it gets me straight back into it
I liked both Fantastic Beasts movies...I'm so glad to finally find a video that agrees with my opinion cuz I kinda thought I was the only one who actually liked it. I'm really excited to see The Secrets of Dumbledore when it finally comes out.
Newt: She has eyes like a Salamander Jacob: **stares** Jacob: Don't say that! I just literally choked on my tea (coffee? idk it tasted like both of them, my mom made it)
It comes down to the poor plot structure and the changes to established canon that shows a greater lack of appreciation for the harry potter franchise(yes i include JK rowling in this because as we have seen over the last 5 years, she has given up on having the Harry potter universe make sense anymore)
I loved this movie also still do. It has it problems but ultimately I think it's a great movie. The story was compelling and actors/actresses were great.
Yeah I have issues with this film, but the idea that a man like Grindelwald wasn't an Occlumens... Yeah there is no way someone like him wouldn't learn how to protect his thoughts.
One thing in this movie I think is overlooked quite often is James Newton Howard's score which is absolutely outstanding it's thrilling, exciting and emotional and it's one of my personal favorite parts of the movie
I don't understand what the problem with Dumbledore being gay is, though I don't like the other changes she made I don't have any problem with this one 1) it makes for a interesting story 2) it adds more to the story 3) it gives Dumbledore more dimension 4) it doesn't contradict Canon 5) it's hinted in the deathly Hallows Also imagine your headmaster calling you and saying he dated Hitler 100 years ago... That would be a akward conversation
The hate about Dumbledore being gay always confused me so much. When I read the Deathly Hallows, I always understood that he was romantically in love with Grindelwald. I'm not saying I'm a super special snowflake at all, if I could understand that, surely many more should have too. Miller's character being a Dumbledore is obviously a lie. People seem to have immediately taken this at face value which is pretty sad. But a lot of the other retcons that you try to justify, I have a hard time believing. Rowling having planned Nagini being originally a woman ? I don't believe she had that in mind for 20 years. Now I like the idea ! People being able to naturally change in certain animals but with the risk/curse of definitely becoming one ? Fits right in Harry Potter. McGonagall being at Hogwarts because she has a time turner ? It still makes no sense. Why would someone like McGonagall use a time-turner to go back in time to TEACH at Hogwarts ? It would be the stupidest use of a time turner ever. Plus she'd be dead before being able to teach Harry because I don't remember people being able to travel forward in time. But that might be introduced in the next movie, who knows. I used to hate this movie but I also realised that my judgement had been clouded by the dozens of video essays I had seen on it. I rewatched it and while it's not a good movie imo, I don't "hate" it like I used to. And people changing their minds about the first one are sheep. The first one is still super awesome.
A nagini or nagin is supposed to be the female counterpart of a naag i.e. a male king cobra in Hindu mythology. So I think she always meant to make nagini a female.
omg im so happy im not the only one who thought that the whole aurelius dumbledore thing was an outright lie. When i saw the hate it received i was thinking if i had interpreted that scene wrongly and if i missed out on anything because there's no way credence could be a Dumbledore and i thought that was obvious to us viewers
Personally I love this movie. yeah, it have its flaws, its not a perfect movie, for example I think they should have let the deleted scene from the dance in the reunion of Leta and Teseus because it gave a lot of context on the way she was feeling and I think is quite important for the 3º act of the movie. Appart from that people is pissed at... such stupid things like McGonagall being alive. Its a freaking cameo, its not that big of a deal, and I am a Potterhead at heart, the Harry Potter movie saga have much more worse problems by itself than this movie and people still praise the movies at adapting the source material. Crimes of Grindelwalde for me its a very good movie, with flaws, but a very good movie. A lot of people which I talked with told me that the problem they had with the movie its that the could not follow the story but the way its written I dont see clearly a problem? After talking, this was after the first time I watched it and I put some examples of scenes I discovered that a lot of the people who couldnt follow the movie was because they wasnt really watching it with their brain turn on, they completely missed some of the dialog of scenes, I was baffled. Another complain I heard during that first watch was that "it doesnt have enough fantastic beast"... because its not the focus of the movie?. The first movie was the presentation of Newt, his work, the beasts, the second movie is a continuation of the story with a change of focus for a more revolution-drama, if you are looking for a zoo trip this is not your franchise. I cant say more about the other issues people have with this movie because you have said it all. Grindelwald is an amazing character to base something off, and not only that, its such a change with the Harry Potter story. In Harry`s story we focus on United Kingdom for the most part, Voldemort was such a massive problem there but we dont really know from other parts of the world. Grindelwald creates a bigger narrative, a bigger issue and a bigger moral compass. Not only you have sort of the same problem with blood (harry potter kind of racism), but you have too the fight the fight for love muggles and wizards, the different focus of different countries and the change of point of view by having adults as the protagonist rather than children. The saga grows with their fans. I am a big fan of the Marauders but having a movie focus on the war before Harry`s incident would be kind of pointless and we would have the same lack in universe expansion. Voldemort is the egocentric true black and white evil. "we are bad guys", Grindelwald is grey, its political, its calculated, he want to be seen as the good guy, in some way he MAYBE thinks he is a good guy. The entire point of the scene where he is giving a speach is to show he is a freaking manipulative person, and how a desesperate person like Queenie could fall for his trap. He is tempting her, he is telling her what he knows she want to hear, because he needs her with him, because he is planing of using her to have access to the mind of credence because he KNOWS Credence is not going to trust him again that easily. About Newt. Have we seen the same movie? movieSS? I just... I cant say more of what you explained. Its perfect. About Queenie, here I have to say something that a lot of people maybe didnt realize because its a very sutil thing in the movie. Ok. We have Queenie, who have been shown to be completely desesperate all movie, sick of fighting against a society who tries to keep her appart of the person which she loves. ok. Now she is alone in france, all the voices are driving her crazy, She is with a oversesory thing in the streets and suddently there is... silence. What does this mean? For those who know about harry potter is something very clear. Let me explain. Queenie is a Legilimens, a concept in the harry Potter movies its explain around the 5º or 6º film with Snape training Harry to learn the contrary ability; Occlumency. Legilimens is the ability to read minds and feelings. Occlumency is the ability to protect your own mind of this kind of abilities, that is what Snape tried to teach Harry because He knew Voldemort had that ability to enter Harry`s mind. With that Silence in the middle of all the noise around her We are shown (not tell) that Queenie cant read that woman`s mind, so we can assume She cant read Grindelwald mind either. The fear shown in Queenie during the scene where she meets him is clear of this. She is feeling insecure, she doesnt know anything and thats new to her so she want to leave quickly. Maybe they could have been less subtle? yeah, maybe. But I dont know if they wanted it to be a mistery until the next film. idk. I am going to stop because if not this is going to be much much more long.
I know I know "too much text" but I have so many opinions and things about this movie and I just needed to share it because I dont find much people who like this movie or even want to talk about it. Anyway good video and you dont know how much I appreciatte you did this. Thank you. Btw: if someone want to talk about Credence being Dumbledore`s family. I have a theroy and I would love to talk but this comment was too long.
Don't worry, I understand you very well. Repeating to people logical arguments why this movie isn't actually so bad and why i love it, became boring to me already :p
I would just like to mention that when Queenie was talking with Rosier, and then waiting for the “special guest” (aka Grindelwald) the tea pot was being very persistent in trying to give Queenie more tea, so maybe the tea is working like the imperious curse. Cause from those that joined Grindelwald at the end (walking through the blue flames), Queenie felt pain while walking through, so maybe it’s that the tea is what’s making her be loyal to Grindelwald, but Queenie herself doesn’t actually want to be loyal to him, hence why she felt pain while walking through the flames
I love this film. Maybe because I really pay attention to details and I do t mind if a story takes a break to give historical information or stories. I still do t get the hate on it.
Honestly people are just toxic these days, if movies and shows aren’t the best thing ever or tugs on nostalgia than it trash in the eyes of most people. People just care way too much and can’t just enjoy things anymore
"just a zookeeper" He talented with taming wild beast, and it's not like he isn't magically capable. If he can take on a random animal, what makes grindlewald so scary? Newts also been shown to be pretty smart. I've learned that critics aren't necessarily an authority, likely because they over analyze way too much. I don't sit down and think about character traits, and how people don't make sense. I like the story, world building, conflicts. So far, Harry Potter is just nazis in disguise, on repeat. It feels real, if this world was actually hidden behind curtains. Let's just not listen to the critics anymore lol
@@Xehanort10 "fanboys like you..." Okay, amigo. I watched the movies ONCE. Hagrid was magically stunted, not allowed to use magic. Your analogy is like 1917, the movie, but replace the privates with bonobos. Your comparing Newt to hagrid, literally one of this can not perform magic, or spell Voldemort...
@@robertbench5187 notice there's a large discrepancy between critics scores and movie goers. Tons of fantastic movies get shat on by critics because they over analyze the movie, like FB. I just think it's funny that most of their claims get pulled apart in this viddo
the problem isn't over-analyzing. The problem is analyzing with a set conclusion in mind beforehand. They need to criticize because that makes them relevant, so they search for things seemingly supporting their set conclusion that the work is bad. The opposite of this would be people like the SuperCarlinBrothers that over-analyze to resolve what seems like plot-holes. Credence is a Dumbledore but that's impossible? That is not a plot hole, it's a clue. Credence may not be an obscurial but an obscurus that has taken a humanoid form somehow, namely the obscurus hatched inside Ariana Dumbledore who has been established to be an obscurial. That would make him a Dumbledore - or at least part of one. That's of course just a theory but the only point I'm trying to make is that the problem is not with over-analyzing but with the agenda of the analyzer. It's a little like news organizations reporting predominantly bad news because they generate more interest.
I had no idea people hated this movie I was really obsessed with this movie when it came out it was really amazing like how could people hate newt he is sweet little puffball cinnamon roll like hello excuse me. Jokes aside every character added the depth to the story and I loved it.
The reason Grindelwald is so dangerous is because his public face is so seductive. He's not just an evil baddie like Voldemort. He perfectly mirrors the most powerful dictators, he's charming and intelligent. The scene where he predicts WW2 is so powerful because as Jacob says, "no, not another war." Nobody wants a war and that's something Grindelwald can use.
