![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kareila posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
kareila_booksI really enjoyed the first movie, especially the soundtrack and the main hero characters. I was really excited for the second movie to come out. But when I actually saw it, I was disappointed. I came away feeling like the characters I loved and the previously established facts of the their world were clumsily betrayed by the ugly story Rowling wanted to tell. And since that time, circumstances have only gotten uglier, resulting in Grindelwald being recast and Rowling being kept at a distance.
My trans friends have asked people to stay away from the third movie while it is in theaters, and I've honored their wishes, but I do expect to see it eventually. I've heard rumors that it redeems the series, and I hope that's true. But not having seen it myself yet, I wanted to revisit Crimes of Grindelwald and catalog the details that I felt were worth remarking on.
First: the vial of blood that Grindelwald carries, that enforces the non-aggression pact between him and Dumbledore. Why would he always keep it with him? Why not hide it away somewhere, like Voldemort did with his Horcruxes? I appreciate that having it with him sets up the moment where the Niffler steals it from him during the rally, but it seems foolish.
Second: Dumbledore says a phoenix will come to a member of their family "in desperate need". If this is true (and we seem meant to believe that it is) then why wouldn't one have appeared for Ariana when she was attacked?
Third: How could Tina ever have believed that Newt was engaged to Leta? Was she just that insecure? Newt is so hung up on Tina that although he won't break the law to go to Paris on Dumbledore's orders, he hitches the first available ride as soon as he learns that Tina is there.
Fourth: Queenie, Queenie, Queenie. What they did to Queenie was criminal. First, she tries to confound Jacob into marrying her against his wishes, out of his concern for her well-being (since wizards marrying non-wizards is illegal in America). When Newt forces her to drop the charade, she flees in search of Tina, and ends up being comforted by Grindelwald's followers. Then, as if what she did to Jacob wasn't bad enough, she falls under Grindelwald's influence and joins his cause for the promise of the freedom to live and love how she chooses. But HOW is he able to mesmerize Queenie so quickly? Yes, he’s saying what she wants to hear about living openly and loving freely, but she READS MINDS. Is his Occlumency so good that she can’t see that his followers casually murdered the rightful owners of that safe house? Murdered their innocent child? Did they put something in her tea after she was overwhelmed by the thoughts of strangers in the street? How could she choose him, and continue to choose him? The third movie HAS to address this.
Fifth: The Predictions of Tycho Dodonus? Oh joy, my least favorite plot device, the Convenient Prophecy, which ended up being more or less completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, since Leta proved it didn't mean what her half-brother thought it did. Although it’s implied that the government would only consider letting an Obscurus live if it was someone *important* like the last male heir of a pure bloodline, which: ew! But the whole Corvus Lestrange affair was a ridiculous red herring, since Credence turned out to be...
Sixth and finally: Albus Dumbledore's brother??? This made me mad enough that I looked for spoilers from the third movie as soon as it dropped to confirm that this was a lie. And... yes, it is, at least partially, so I do feel somewhat consoled, but I'm still annoyed about ending the movie that way, and then going WTF? for three and a half years.
Oh and I almost FORGOT all of the squick surrounding the reimagining of Nagini as a cursed human. I... don't even know what to do with that.
My trans friends have asked people to stay away from the third movie while it is in theaters, and I've honored their wishes, but I do expect to see it eventually. I've heard rumors that it redeems the series, and I hope that's true. But not having seen it myself yet, I wanted to revisit Crimes of Grindelwald and catalog the details that I felt were worth remarking on.
First: the vial of blood that Grindelwald carries, that enforces the non-aggression pact between him and Dumbledore. Why would he always keep it with him? Why not hide it away somewhere, like Voldemort did with his Horcruxes? I appreciate that having it with him sets up the moment where the Niffler steals it from him during the rally, but it seems foolish.
Second: Dumbledore says a phoenix will come to a member of their family "in desperate need". If this is true (and we seem meant to believe that it is) then why wouldn't one have appeared for Ariana when she was attacked?
Third: How could Tina ever have believed that Newt was engaged to Leta? Was she just that insecure? Newt is so hung up on Tina that although he won't break the law to go to Paris on Dumbledore's orders, he hitches the first available ride as soon as he learns that Tina is there.
Fourth: Queenie, Queenie, Queenie. What they did to Queenie was criminal. First, she tries to confound Jacob into marrying her against his wishes, out of his concern for her well-being (since wizards marrying non-wizards is illegal in America). When Newt forces her to drop the charade, she flees in search of Tina, and ends up being comforted by Grindelwald's followers. Then, as if what she did to Jacob wasn't bad enough, she falls under Grindelwald's influence and joins his cause for the promise of the freedom to live and love how she chooses. But HOW is he able to mesmerize Queenie so quickly? Yes, he’s saying what she wants to hear about living openly and loving freely, but she READS MINDS. Is his Occlumency so good that she can’t see that his followers casually murdered the rightful owners of that safe house? Murdered their innocent child? Did they put something in her tea after she was overwhelmed by the thoughts of strangers in the street? How could she choose him, and continue to choose him? The third movie HAS to address this.
Fifth: The Predictions of Tycho Dodonus? Oh joy, my least favorite plot device, the Convenient Prophecy, which ended up being more or less completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, since Leta proved it didn't mean what her half-brother thought it did. Although it’s implied that the government would only consider letting an Obscurus live if it was someone *important* like the last male heir of a pure bloodline, which: ew! But the whole Corvus Lestrange affair was a ridiculous red herring, since Credence turned out to be...
Sixth and finally: Albus Dumbledore's brother??? This made me mad enough that I looked for spoilers from the third movie as soon as it dropped to confirm that this was a lie. And... yes, it is, at least partially, so I do feel somewhat consoled, but I'm still annoyed about ending the movie that way, and then going WTF? for three and a half years.
Oh and I almost FORGOT all of the squick surrounding the reimagining of Nagini as a cursed human. I... don't even know what to do with that.
no subject
Date: 2022-05-14 05:29 am (UTC)