RatCreature (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ratcreature) wrote2018-11-17 09:42 pm
ratcreature) wrote2018-11-17 09:42 pm
Entry tags:
Fantastic Beasts 2
So I watched Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald yesterday, and though I continue to like Newt, I mostly felt confused, and the story such as it was never really grabbed me. I think they maybe should not have spread out the plot over quite as many movies (and yet they somehow still fail to explain what happens).
I'm not sure whether that confusion was because I hadn't rewatched the first part since I watched it in cinema, or whether it was because I have gaps in my recall of the Dumbledore/Grindelwald backstory from the books, or the Harry Potter movies did some different set up (I've never watched those), or what but...
Like, did the movie explain why (or how) Credence ended up in a circus or freak show in Paris to search for his biological mother? When previously he was being blown up in New York? Did he follow any clues, or was it just some random desperate move? And how did he and Nagini find that nurse?
And with that surprise soap opera revelation of Grindelwald telling Credence he is some lost Dumbeldore brother that had been gotten rid of in the muggle world somehow, is Grindelwald just making this up??
I mean, wasn't Dumbledore's whole tragic backstory about his sister's death in his care due to the mother dying when Dumbledore was still quite young, and the father was locked up in Azkaban already at that point. So is there some newborn brother retconned into that scenario, that Albus and Aberforth then decide to dump with some muggles after they failed their sister, so he won't end up accidentally killed in any more Grindelwald related dueling accidents? But how does that even line up with the ages of the people?? Albus is supposed to have been born in 1881, right? And he was 18 when his mother died, so any of her children were born before 1900, and this film is supposed to take place in 1927.
No way Credence is supposed to be in his late twenties, is he? I mean, he was he was still under his adoptive mother's care the year before. So at least I assumed he was supposed to be a teenager still.
I guess if there is a relation it could be also only through the father, who could have gotten out of Azkaban at some point? I found all this very confusing.
Then there was the Hogwarts flashback with Leta and Newt, that didn't really explain anything about the relationship situation in the present. Like, had the bullying for being "evil" by the other students (except Newt) any kind basis? Did I miss something she did? Or was this just supposed to explain something about Newt's relationship with his brother with her as prop? I mean, that we saw Newt presumably having a crush on her at Hogwarts, but now she's engaged to Theseus in the present.
I didn't really understand Leta's info dump flashback with the Credence and Corvus Lestrange switch either. Why would Lestrange senior give up his heir anyway?
It all made so little sense, I felt like watching a third of some soap opera installment, where I missed the previous 500 episodes of backstory.
I'm not sure whether that confusion was because I hadn't rewatched the first part since I watched it in cinema, or whether it was because I have gaps in my recall of the Dumbledore/Grindelwald backstory from the books, or the Harry Potter movies did some different set up (I've never watched those), or what but...
Like, did the movie explain why (or how) Credence ended up in a circus or freak show in Paris to search for his biological mother? When previously he was being blown up in New York? Did he follow any clues, or was it just some random desperate move? And how did he and Nagini find that nurse?
And with that surprise soap opera revelation of Grindelwald telling Credence he is some lost Dumbeldore brother that had been gotten rid of in the muggle world somehow, is Grindelwald just making this up??
I mean, wasn't Dumbledore's whole tragic backstory about his sister's death in his care due to the mother dying when Dumbledore was still quite young, and the father was locked up in Azkaban already at that point. So is there some newborn brother retconned into that scenario, that Albus and Aberforth then decide to dump with some muggles after they failed their sister, so he won't end up accidentally killed in any more Grindelwald related dueling accidents? But how does that even line up with the ages of the people?? Albus is supposed to have been born in 1881, right? And he was 18 when his mother died, so any of her children were born before 1900, and this film is supposed to take place in 1927.
No way Credence is supposed to be in his late twenties, is he? I mean, he was he was still under his adoptive mother's care the year before. So at least I assumed he was supposed to be a teenager still.
I guess if there is a relation it could be also only through the father, who could have gotten out of Azkaban at some point? I found all this very confusing.
Then there was the Hogwarts flashback with Leta and Newt, that didn't really explain anything about the relationship situation in the present. Like, had the bullying for being "evil" by the other students (except Newt) any kind basis? Did I miss something she did? Or was this just supposed to explain something about Newt's relationship with his brother with her as prop? I mean, that we saw Newt presumably having a crush on her at Hogwarts, but now she's engaged to Theseus in the present.
I didn't really understand Leta's info dump flashback with the Credence and Corvus Lestrange switch either. Why would Lestrange senior give up his heir anyway?
It all made so little sense, I felt like watching a third of some soap opera installment, where I missed the previous 500 episodes of backstory.
no subject
You aren't the first person I know who don't like the movie much; one of my friends fell asleep in the middle of it.
no subject
no subject
I felt this way, too. It seemed like chunks of the script were missing. I think the film editor(s) just forgot to make sure they cut it in such a way that the necessary blanks were filled in and the plot made sense.
At least the movie looks beautiful...it was worth seeing on the big screen. But I was very disappointed in the plot.
no subject