Friday , January 22 2021

The 4 biggest problems with fantastic animals: the crimes of Grindelwald & # 39;




<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

Ezra miller at the premiere of the movie "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald". (Photo by Joel C Ryan / Invision / AP)

Spoilers ahead of "Fantastic Beasts 2"

Prequels for beloved blockbusters are much more difficult to remove than sequels; the magic and mystique of a galaxy far, far away, and Middle-earth faded a bit after going through its swollen stories. & nbsp;

Clean schedules become disordered, new plot holes open, and a weak story is complemented by the fan service: "Remember those characters? Well, they're actually connected in a way you've never met, but for some reason, it's never recognized later. Is not cool?

We are only two movies, but so far, the Fantastic Animals The franchise is committing every prequel sin imaginable, draining the magic of the magical world constantly.

Here are the four biggest problems with Fantastic Animals: The Crimes Of Grindelwald:

There is no protagonist

Newt Scamander may be the face of the franchise, but he certainly is not the protagonist of this story – he is a random spectator with few reasons to stay around, other than the fact that the series began with him.

Credibility is, in many ways, our new Harry Potter; an orphan messiah, just waiting to implement his great destiny. He is always presented as the greatest piece on the chessboard, played by the great players Grindelwald and Dumbledore. How he chooses to use his powers, which side he chooses to play, is the most important decision in this story by far, far more than anything Newt does with his cute creatures.

He is our Luke Skywalker, our Frodo Baggins, the guy who will turn to the dark side or embrace the light; the fate of every individual in the wizarding world is in your hands. So why is he so unbelievable?

Well, it may be Ezra Miller's lack of facial expressions. Or it may be the fact that we have absolutely no idea who this person is, other than the fact that their repressed powers should mirror the struggles of the armed homosexual.

This, and its constant crises of identity, make a character always be informed of who he is, instead of showing the public a glimpse of personality. It's very difficult to care about this character, especially since he's always competing with Newt for screen time.

There are many characters

Speaking of armed homosexuals, what is the matter with Dumbledore? He was the best part of this movie, by far, and his situation is very interesting. Imagine being in love with the leader of a fascist movement! This is a terrible thing for anyone, and it would be a great movie one day. The next sequel, maybe? Or the one after?

There are many characters running through the screen here, and those who get the most time on the screen are the least consequential, and the least interesting. In the background, this is really the story of Dumbledore Vs. Grindelwald and his living pawn, Credence.

Everyone is much less important, and should be regulated behind the scenes, especially as we barely know them. Avengers: Infinite War could justify putting so many characters on the screen because we see them growing for a decade; Harry Potter did the same.

Two films in, The Fantastic Animals The cast expanded to Newt, Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Credence, Leta Lestrange, Theseus Scamander, Dumbledore and Grindelwald. And Nagini for some reason.

We do not have time for this. The characters have no time for it – they barely had the chance to perform, and that's why the decisions they make seem to be impulsive, even random. (Queenie's sudden change of heart is the worst example of this).

The tone is everywhere

When this franchise began, it seemed to be a charming tale of an introverted animal-obsessed man and his slapstick maneuvers. Aww – he can not even make eye contact. How cute. But then, RACISM.

Wait what? Suddenly, Newt Scamander, the guy who wrote the book about magical creatures, is sucked into a huge allegory of Hitler's ascension. What the hell does this have to do with fantastic beasts?

We've been through this with Voldemort, remember? Why, J.K. Rowling, did you have to bring your veiled social commentary to this? We've been through this and it was good; this time, I just wanted to see a well-dressed nerd chasing animals out there.

And there's still a lot of it, but it's mixed with scenes with dead children, a baby changing, a drowning baby, fascist speeches, a cloud of smoke that turns into the damn Holocaust, and a woman who will one day end up like a beheaded snake.

Choose a tone – we'll all follow the story you choose. But you have to choose one.

The metaphor of fascism is clumsy

I have a suspicion that the reason this franchise has turned into "Fantastic Animals and the Rise of Fascism" is because J.K. Rowling spends a lot of time on Twitter, arguing with trolls about Trump and Brexit.

Whether this is true or not actually does not matter because the subject has become so current. People are being pushed into political extremism nowadays, so it's great to give the world a story that reflects that. Except, Fantastic Animals does not do a good job.

Grindelwald does not act like a fascist leader; he is not a demagogue or a seductive speaker. He just walks around, killing people. There are no Mussolini / Hitler-style rallies that rouse crowds of ordinary people into bloodthirsty empty gazes and strange eyes.

At one point, he hugs a lizard and suddenly throws it out the window, in a scene that made him laugh in my movie theater. Is this a guy who attracts followers? As?

The one speech he made referenced the real-life tragedy, World War II and the Holocaust, and used those horrors to recruit magicians to fight the Muggles. And for some reason, it worked. Even Queenie, the sorceress who wants to marry a Muggle, suddenly decides that joining a Muggle-hate group is a good idea.

This could have been a very powerful moment if she had been given a reason to join the ranks of a magical racist. Ordinary people are actually sucked into odious ideologies, making Queenie's story one of the most interesting, potentially.

Her insanely controlling actions toward Jacob show that she is going down a dark road, but it is certainly not enough to justify joining the ranks of Grindelwald.

Now, there is every chance that this franchise will change; there are still three films left, and that is more than enough time to tell an incredible story. But I do not think Newt should be a part of this – he's just adding to the confusion.

After all, there are only so many times that you can fit a cryptozoologist into a racial war.

">

Ezra miller at the premiere of the movie "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald". (Photo by Joel C Ryan / Invision / AP)

Spoilers ahead of "Fantastic Beasts 2"

Prequels for beloved blockbusters are much more difficult to remove than sequels; the magic and mystique of a galaxy far, far away, and Middle-earth faded a bit after going through its swollen stories.

Clean schedules become disordered, new plot holes open, and a weak story is complemented by the fan service: "Remember those characters? Well, they're actually connected in a way you've never met, but for some reason, it's never recognized later. Is not cool?

We are only two movies, but so far, the Fantastic Animals The franchise is committing every prequel sin imaginable, draining the magic of the magical world constantly.

Here are the four biggest problems with Fantastic Animals: The Crimes Of Grindelwald:

There is no protagonist

Newt Scamander may be the face of the franchise, but he certainly is not the protagonist of this story – he is a random spectator with few reasons to stay around, other than the fact that the series began with him.

Credibility is, in many ways, our new Harry Potter; an orphan messiah, just waiting to implement his great destiny. He is always presented as the greatest piece on the chessboard, played by the great players Grindelwald and Dumbledore. How he chooses to use his powers, which side he chooses to play, is the most important decision in this story by far, far more than anything Newt does with his cute creatures.

He is our Luke Skywalker, our Frodo Baggins, the guy who will turn to the dark side or embrace the light; the fate of every individual in the wizarding world is in your hands. So why is he so unbelievable?

Well, it may be Ezra Miller's lack of facial expressions. Or it may be the fact that we have absolutely no idea who this person is, other than the fact that their repressed powers should mirror the struggles of the armed homosexual.

This, and its constant crises of identity, make a character always be informed of who he is, instead of showing the public a glimpse of personality. It's very difficult to care about this character, especially since he's always competing with Newt for screen time.

There are many characters

Speaking of armed homosexuals, what is the matter with Dumbledore? He was the best part of this movie, by far, and his situation is very interesting. Imagine being in love with the leader of a fascist movement! This is a terrible thing for anyone, and it would be a great movie one day. The next sequel, maybe? Or the one after?

There are many characters running through the screen here, and those who get the most time on the screen are the least consequential, and the least interesting. In the background, this is really the story of Dumbledore Vs. Grindelwald and his living pawn, Credence.

Everyone is much less important, and should be regulated behind the scenes, especially as we barely know them. Avengers: Infinite War could justify putting so many characters on the screen because we see them growing for a decade; Harry Potter did the same.

Two films in, The Fantastic Animals The cast expanded to Newt, Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Credence, Leta Lestrange, Theseus Scamander, Dumbledore and Grindelwald. And Nagini for some reason.

We do not have time for this. The characters have no time for it – they barely had the chance to perform, and that's why the decisions they make seem to be impulsive, even random. (Queenie's sudden change of heart is the worst example of this).

The tone is everywhere

When this franchise began, it seemed to be a charming tale of an introverted animal-obsessed man and his slapstick maneuvers. Aww – he can not even make eye contact. How cute. But then, RACISM.

Wait what? Suddenly, Newt Scamander, the guy who wrote the book about magical creatures, is sucked into a huge allegory of Hitler's ascension. What the hell does this have to do with fantastic beasts?

We've been through this with Voldemort, remember? Why, J.K. Rowling, did you have to bring your veiled social commentary to this? We've been through this and it was good; this time, I just wanted to see a well-dressed nerd chasing animals out there.

And there's still a lot of it, but it's mixed with scenes with dead children, a baby changing, a drowning baby, fascist speeches, a cloud of smoke that turns into the damn Holocaust, and a woman who will one day end up like a beheaded snake.

Choose a tone – we'll all follow the story you choose. But you have to choose one.

The metaphor of fascism is clumsy

I have a suspicion that the reason this franchise has turned into "Fantastic Animals and the Rise of Fascism" is because J.K. Rowling spends a lot of time on Twitter, arguing with trolls about Trump and Brexit.

Whether this is true or not actually does not matter because the subject has become so current. People are being pushed into political extremism nowadays, so it's great to give the world a story that reflects that. Except, Fantastic Animals does not do a good job.

Grindelwald does not act like a fascist leader; he is not a demagogue or a seductive speaker. He just walks around, killing people. There are no Mussolini / Hitler-style rallies that rouse crowds of ordinary people into bloodthirsty empty gazes and strange eyes.

At one point, he hugs a lizard and suddenly throws it out the window, in a scene that made him laugh in my movie theater. Is this a guy who attracts followers? As?

The one speech he made referenced the real-life tragedy, World War II and the Holocaust, and used those horrors to recruit magicians to fight the Muggles. And for some reason, it worked. Even Queenie, the sorceress who wants to marry a Muggle, suddenly decides that joining a Muggle-hate group is a good idea.

This could have been a very powerful moment if she had been given a reason to join the ranks of a magical racist. Ordinary people are actually sucked into odious ideologies, making Queenie's story one of the most interesting, potentially.

Her insanely controlling actions toward Jacob show that she is going down a dark road, but it is certainly not enough to justify joining the ranks of Grindelwald.

Now, there is every chance that this franchise will change; there are still three films left, and that is more than enough time to tell an incredible story. But I do not think Newt should be a part of this – he's just adding to the confusion.

After all, there are only so many times that you can fit a cryptozoologist into a racial war.


Source link