Alison Sudol has shared her thoughts on Queenie joining Grindelwald. What she says makes sense to me.
Poll Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter .:: TSN ::.
- Start date
I just saw the movie. I was surprised by Queenie turn to the dark side.
The whole storyline of lita estrange's father corvus estrange and his coveting of her mother was unnecessary.
I wanted to know why Grindelwald did not trust Krall, the henchman who died in the blue flame.
Nagini did not do much but except be eye candy for the movie.
Jude Law was good in his role as Dumbledore.
The whole storyline of lita estrange's father corvus estrange and his coveting of her mother was unnecessary.
I wanted to know why Grindelwald did not trust Krall, the henchman who died in the blue flame.
Nagini did not do much but except be eye candy for the movie.
Jude Law was good in his role as Dumbledore.
Last edited:
A couple random thoughts:
I haven’t followed the accusations against Depp enough to have a strong opinion either way about whether he should be in the movie in the first place, but since he is... IMO, he does a superb job. Grindelwald is a better villain than Voldemort, and Depp gets the creepy, gaslighting tone just right.
The rally reminded me of The Sound of Music music festival scene and of certain contemporary, real-life rallies in which the main speaker who shall go unnamed has been known to (somewhat) subtly encourage violence.
I gave it a B-. If I’d wandered into it without already knowing Rowling’s world so well, I probably would have given it a D.
MACUSA. Magical Congress of the United States of America. Except did you notice that they’re now calling it the American Ministry of Magic, which doesn’t sound American at all? That was the first thing in the movie that annoyed me.
I haven’t followed the accusations against Depp enough to have a strong opinion either way about whether he should be in the movie in the first place, but since he is... IMO, he does a superb job. Grindelwald is a better villain than Voldemort, and Depp gets the creepy, gaslighting tone just right.
The rally reminded me of The Sound of Music music festival scene and of certain contemporary, real-life rallies in which the main speaker who shall go unnamed has been known to (somewhat) subtly encourage violence.
I gave it a B-. If I’d wandered into it without already knowing Rowling’s world so well, I probably would have given it a D.
Last edited:
I've been waiting quite some time for public opinion to move against H̶a̶r̶r̶y̶ ̶P̶o̶t̶t - sorry, the Wizarding World franchise. With series-worst reviews for this movie, maybe that shift has begun? One thing's for sure: what with Crimes of Grindelwald's teasing of World War II as a historical event, the Wizarding World's whole "we believe in diversity and equality, but also forced segregation from the muggles" thing isn't going to get any less awkward anytime soon. It was one thing when we were dealing with kids who had no political representation or power; it's quite another thing when we're dealing with grown adults who could quite easily have prevented WW2/+the Holocaust...
Yeah, that confused me too. I rewatched the first movie the day before we saw this one, so the name change really stood out for me.
This movie got pretty lazy with lore that's very easy to double check. Like having McGonagall be a professor at Hogwarts when Newt and Leta were students there, when McGonagall wasn't even born until 1935.
They never said her first name, though, so they could retcon her as an aunt or something, I guess.
I honestly wasn't aware of that one until I saw it mentioned either in the Tor.com article or another one somewhere else. Although now that I think about it, I do remember being a bit surprised because I didn't think she was that old, so I guess I must have unconsciously realized something was hinky there.
The notion that McGonagall can't be a professor when Dumbledore was a professor seems unlikely barring an inspection of her birth certificate, which seems a dull thing to do. The two being about the same age does seem plausible, though.
Gaith's larger point about larger, public issues like WWII don't fit into a world with real magic is correct. But this actually applies to all fantasy writers. I suppose the closest to squaring the circle was T.H. White's The Sword in the Stone, which is damning with faint praise. Fantasy is about getting away from the mundane, and back to the past where things were magical. This never produces good sociopolitical analysis. Clark Ashton Smith and Jack Vance are the only ones to play with a magical future, and they are not beloved, for a reason.
Grindelwald is doing Trump in a faux-populist mode, not Hitler, though. I doubt Rowling understands how much of Hitler was simply standard political conservatism and nationalism, aka patriotism. But the more uniquely Hitlerian element, antiCommunism and antisemitism are missing. Rowling's magical universe has always been tacitly Christian, largely C of E as near as I can tell. Neither RCs nor evangelicals really fit in and never did. Seeing characters with supposedly Jewish names (Kowalski isn't a Polish Catholic?) means nothing. Everybody is liberal Protestant, there's the conventions of religion and there's the pragmatic use of "magic" (science conceived as wishful thinking,) and never the twain shall meet, lest they clash. Misreading Grindelwald as Hitler makes nonsense of the purported politics. And this would be true especially if Rowling herself at some point turns Grindelwald into "Hitler." It's not a real Hitler if he doesn't start a world war, is he?
Gaith's larger point about larger, public issues like WWII don't fit into a world with real magic is correct. But this actually applies to all fantasy writers. I suppose the closest to squaring the circle was T.H. White's The Sword in the Stone, which is damning with faint praise. Fantasy is about getting away from the mundane, and back to the past where things were magical. This never produces good sociopolitical analysis. Clark Ashton Smith and Jack Vance are the only ones to play with a magical future, and they are not beloved, for a reason.
Grindelwald is doing Trump in a faux-populist mode, not Hitler, though. I doubt Rowling understands how much of Hitler was simply standard political conservatism and nationalism, aka patriotism. But the more uniquely Hitlerian element, antiCommunism and antisemitism are missing. Rowling's magical universe has always been tacitly Christian, largely C of E as near as I can tell. Neither RCs nor evangelicals really fit in and never did. Seeing characters with supposedly Jewish names (Kowalski isn't a Polish Catholic?) means nothing. Everybody is liberal Protestant, there's the conventions of religion and there's the pragmatic use of "magic" (science conceived as wishful thinking,) and never the twain shall meet, lest they clash. Misreading Grindelwald as Hitler makes nonsense of the purported politics. And this would be true especially if Rowling herself at some point turns Grindelwald into "Hitler." It's not a real Hitler if he doesn't start a world war, is he?
Voldemort was already the Hitler allegory in the series. This new series does indeed seem to be an allegory for more contemporary Nationalism--I don't think it would be fair to say Grindelwald = Trump though when there are a number of European leaders and governments at the moment pushing similar philosophies.
Completely disagree on both points here. You can easily fit WWII in a world with real magic, @David Mack did it in The Midnight Front and it was awesome.
There are plenty great modern fantasy stories focusing on magic users out there, like The Dresden Files and The Iron Druid Chronicles and The Magicians TV series. I haven't read The Magicians books, so I can't say for sure how good they are, though I've heard mostly good things about them.
I, personally, didn't say that can't be done - but for a peaceful Wizarding Britain, a minor squabble with Grindelwald notwithstanding, to apparently totally ignore WWII probably isn't great look. Maybe there'll be some upcoming handwaving as to why a few aurors couldn't have dismantled the Nazi and Soviet states, but Wizarding politics hasn't been Rowling's strong suit so far...
The more and more I think about it, the more and more I dislike this movie. From glaring mistakes in lore, to weak and underdeveloped characters, to a reveal at the end that is just lazy writing. I feel like JK simply doesn't care the actual world she build anymore.
It looked amazing, that's not the issue. Johnny Depp finally remembered he does know how to act, however it's not a stellar performance. Jude Law surprised me with subtle hints to Gambon and Harris speechpatters.
It looked amazing, that's not the issue. Johnny Depp finally remembered he does know how to act, however it's not a stellar performance. Jude Law surprised me with subtle hints to Gambon and Harris speechpatters.
No need to check McGonagall’s birth certificate — Pottermore gave us her birth date years ago, and, no, she is not as old as Dumbledore, and she is not old enough to be in this movie. [Edited to add: I can't find the birth year now, so maybe it isn't canon?] We also know from Pottermore that her father was a muggle — a Presbyterian minister, no less! — so this Prof McGonagall can’t be Minerva’s older relative.
https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall
As for “supposedly Jewish names”, Rowling confirmed years ago that Harry’s classmate Anthony Goldstein is Jewish, and Tina and Queenie are his ancestors, so there’s no “supposedly” there. They're Jewish. Kowalski is a very common Polish name. Just based on numbers, he's more likely to be Catholic than Jewish.
Last edited:
There's no outright line where McGonagall says "I was born in (year)," but this article at the Harry Potter Lexicon explains how, based on information given in the original books and in Rowling's own writing on Pottermore, McGonagall must have been born in 1935.
Long story short, McGonagall started working for the Ministry of Magic just a couple of months after graduating from Hogwarts, and she worked for the Ministry for two years before returning to Hogwarts to work in the Transfiguration department under Dumbledore. In Order of the Phoenix (set in 1995), she told Dolores Umbridge that she'd been teaching at Hogwarts for "thirty-nine years this December." Rowling herself said that McGonagall's birthday was 4 October, so working back from that, she would have started at Hogwarts in 1947 (since 31 July is the cutoff date for school years), graduated from Hogwarts in 1954, then left the Ministry of Magic to teach at Hogwarts in December 1956.
It took me less than five minutes to find this information on Google, and I'm not even getting paid for it.
Long story short, McGonagall started working for the Ministry of Magic just a couple of months after graduating from Hogwarts, and she worked for the Ministry for two years before returning to Hogwarts to work in the Transfiguration department under Dumbledore. In Order of the Phoenix (set in 1995), she told Dolores Umbridge that she'd been teaching at Hogwarts for "thirty-nine years this December." Rowling herself said that McGonagall's birthday was 4 October, so working back from that, she would have started at Hogwarts in 1947 (since 31 July is the cutoff date for school years), graduated from Hogwarts in 1954, then left the Ministry of Magic to teach at Hogwarts in December 1956.
It took me less than five minutes to find this information on Google, and I'm not even getting paid for it.
Obviously Tora Ziyal and Skywalker read the text correctly. By that McGonagall couldn't have been a professor.
I have to confess I did something really weird and went by the screen. Maggie Smith is older than Michael Gambon and was only four years younger than Richard Harris. Only if you're as superficial (literally) as I was, are McGonagall and Dumbledore plausible contemporaries.
I have to confess I did something really weird and went by the screen. Maggie Smith is older than Michael Gambon and was only four years younger than Richard Harris. Only if you're as superficial (literally) as I was, are McGonagall and Dumbledore plausible contemporaries.
I enjoyed the movie very much. I found it complex and rather angsty . . . like the last two Harry Potter novels.
There were a few problems - the presence of Professor McGonagall, some of the editing could have been a bit more smoother and the women's costumes and hairstyles seemed to reflect the early 1930s, instead of the late 1920s . . . even for the non-magical background characters.
Otherwise, I really enjoyed the film.
There were a few problems - the presence of Professor McGonagall, some of the editing could have been a bit more smoother and the women's costumes and hairstyles seemed to reflect the early 1930s, instead of the late 1920s . . . even for the non-magical background characters.
Otherwise, I really enjoyed the film.
My daughter and I enjoyed the movie, but we spent the rest of the evening dissecting the plot holes. We are of the opinion that the most likely way Credence is a Dumbledore is if he is Aberforth's previously unmentioned offspring. But we also think that the chance that Grindewald is lying to Credence to give him a reason to be used in the fight against Albus is pretty high. Yes, the phoenix is associated with the Dumbledore family, but that doesn't mean it is exclusively associated with them. And, yes, all the reveals in the HP movies were true, but they were all verified by someone in the story whom we trusted. We aren't supposed to trust Grindewald, so I don't trust the veracity of his reveal.
I am still wrestling with Queenie. She heard what she wanted to hear, so she followed. I have seen a lot of that in real life over the past two decades, so I can understand that. But she was much smarter than that in the first film. For the sake of the story, one of the quartet needed to defect, and it couldn't be any of the other three, so it fell to her. I don't think it was handled well at all. I also think that she doesn't fully realize exactly who she is following or what she has done. Again, I thought she was smarter than that. *shrug*
This was definitely a story-building movie, much like CoS and HBP were. I hope we see real pay-off in the next installments. And I hope Rowling figures out how to write a screenplay.
I am still wrestling with Queenie. She heard what she wanted to hear, so she followed. I have seen a lot of that in real life over the past two decades, so I can understand that. But she was much smarter than that in the first film. For the sake of the story, one of the quartet needed to defect, and it couldn't be any of the other three, so it fell to her. I don't think it was handled well at all. I also think that she doesn't fully realize exactly who she is following or what she has done. Again, I thought she was smarter than that. *shrug*
This was definitely a story-building movie, much like CoS and HBP were. I hope we see real pay-off in the next installments. And I hope Rowling figures out how to write a screenplay.
Did not mind the details that where off....I never do with movies anyway...a waste of time.
Had a good time and loved seeing that universe again...it is different from the Potter ones, but I do not mind it that much..much darker and such...love the creatures...fun to see Nagini before she completly turned....
I rather like the cast as it is.
Jude Law was as usual a treat, Johnny Depp was quite good in this role...kept it balanced!
Had a good time and loved seeing that universe again...it is different from the Potter ones, but I do not mind it that much..much darker and such...love the creatures...fun to see Nagini before she completly turned....
I rather like the cast as it is.
Jude Law was as usual a treat, Johnny Depp was quite good in this role...kept it balanced!
It doesn't matter how smart Queenie was. It doesn't matter. No matter how "smart" human beings are, we are more than capable of making big mistakes . . . especially when our emotions get in the way. That's just the way we are, whether in real life or in fiction.
I never understood how people assume that "smart" or "savy" characters are incapable of making bad mistakes. We're such an emotional and at times, self-involved species. It was no real surprise to me that Queenie would end up making such a bad decision. And when characters like Queenie end up making bad decisions like the one she did, many start screaming "bad writing" . . . especially when the character is a protagonist.
Similar threads
- Poll
