![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
potentiality_26) wrote2016-11-26 05:53 pm
Reaction Post
But I did go to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. It had a few problems that I’ve heard people talk about already, but it was an enjoyable movie overall and I liked it. There's one thing I need to get off my chest, though:
I’m a little baffled by the wizard-muggle (no-maj) relationship in the movie. It’s based around the idea that the American wizards are so determined to avoid something like Salem happening again that they’re completely unwilling to interact with humans at all.
That works, except (and I’m kicking this one over to the kind of people who reread the books all the time, because it’s been a while for me and maybe I’m just totally wrong about this) don’t I remember someone once telling Harry that wizards were almost never (or straight up never) killed in witch trials? That they just did spells to keep the fires from burning them and that one guy liked it so much he kept getting caught? Without the threat of a Salem-like event, the American paranoia makes very little sense. The vibe in the original Harry Potter series was that wizards lived separately from humans not because they were afraid of some X-men type shit if humans knew they were out there, but because they thought humans were kinda lame.
Again, I could be completely wrong about this and remembering some other book series, but there was nothing in Harry Potter up to this point that suggested that humans were (or could be) a threat to wizard-kind, and then this movie comes along and suggests that that wizards are genuinely worried that there could a war with humans???
Either humans are a threat to wizards or they aren’t, you know? And the original series doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if they are- and I’m way more attached to the original series than I am to this movie, fun as it was.Anyway, I did like the movie. Maybe I'll do a proper reaction post later.
no subject
1. No-Maj could easily be accused of being a witch and then...they really would die and the Magic community would feel really bad. There were also plenty of Muggles hurt during the war with Voldemort even though that was in the future, there were definitely incidents before then that made that a realistic worry.
Of course, they also would have seen what the army did to the No-Maj Native Americans, too.
2. A witch or wizard might forget their spells in a stressful situation and die anyway.
3. Verbal harassment hurts, too.
What seems really weird is that the No-Maj interaction rule apparently wasn't lifted until 1965 during the Civil Rights movement?
So, does that mean that Jacob and Queenie move overseas? I forget what Honeydukes history is but now I'm kind of imagining they founded it or at least ran it together.
no subject
Like, if the explanation had actually been that some witches and a lot of humans died in Salem and in Native American populations, and that anti-witch sentiment was more of a problem in America than in Britain, so they just preferred to live separately, I would have absolutely been on board. But they seemed to be going for something a lot more serious, and it just doesn't feel right to me compared to the previous canon.
I like the Honeydukes idea, that's cute <3
no subject
no subject
no subject
am obsessed withneed more people to talk to about Fantastic Beasts. (Feel free to tell me to bugger off and take my obsession elsewhere. ;) )I think you have a point with your comment. Knowing the Harry Potter books this does indeed seem odd without any context being added to it. The movie itself didn’t explain the situation in America very well, because it focussed on the story and left out a lot of background information that would have helped to understand the situation better (I really wish JKR would write a novel about this era). However, I think that while wizards and witches have found ways to be able to survive being burned alive (as said in the Harry Potter books) it’s not impossible to kill them – even for muggles.
First of all, while wandless magic is possible, many wizards and witches rely on wands to perform magic and their spells might not be as effective without a wand (at least I think I read something along those lines on Pottermore) and many other magical solutions require supplies (potions, etc.). Take away the wand/supplies and it might be easier to harm a wizard/witch and while it might still not be easy for muggles to kill a wizard/witch (even if they don’t have their wand), it’s probably not impossible. Therefore, it’s smart to avoid exposure and the constant risk to your life that might come with witch trials if there is indeed a risk that witch trials might be a thing (e.g. Second Salemers). After all, you don’t want to constantly have to look over your shoulder.
The movie is also set in a time where muggles have guns and have just proven that they are very imaginative when it comes to inventing new weapons to kill each other (e.g. Word War I). Some of these weapons might easily kill a wizard/witch if they are ambushed. So why take the risk?
And even in the Harry Potter books they mention laws that are in place to keep magic hidden from muggles. So while they might not be overly worried about muggles posing a threat in the UK in the 1990/2000 era, they still don’t want them to know that magic exists. I have no problem believing that wizards/witches had more reason to be worried about exposure in the 1920ies than they had in the 1990ies/early 2000s. It’s hard enough to be different in the modern world. I would imagine that it was a lot harder in the 1920ies. The first half of the 20th century is not necessarily a time I would associate with tolerance.
no subject
I hadn't even thought of Percival Graves/Tina Goldstein until I saw it mentioned in that post, but I am very much here for it!
I mainly prefer to talk about the stuff I liked rather than the stuff i didn't, but to address my thoughts in this post re: the world building- you made some really good points, and so have a lot of people I've talked to since I saw the movie, and if I could make this post again I would say less 'the wizard/muggle relations in the movie don't make sense' and more 'I wish the movie had spent more time making the wizard/muggle relations make sense.' I think that's the crux of it.
For instance, it's totally reasonable to assume as you say that a lot of wizards might not have been able to do the wandless magic required to save themselves during the witch trials. Someone else pointed out to me that they might have forgotten how to do said spells in the moment, or that wizards might even have actually been just as (or even more) worried about wrongly accused muggles dying than about their own kind. I buy that, but the movie never showed it to me. Likewise, wizards being more concerned about secrecy in the 1920s than in the modern-ish era works- but since it directly goes against the original books, it just needed a stronger foundation to really work for me.
At the end of the day, the things I wanted with Fantastic Beasts were cool new characters and some cute magical creature shenanigans, and that was absolutely what I got. And I definitely enjoyed the period setting- it's just that this particular part of the backdrop felt unearned to me, and since it was so important to the story on an emotional level, particularly with Jacob (Jakob?) near the end, I wish they had spent more time earning it.
Again, it's not that you don't make good points- I just wish the movie had made them, you know?
no subject
no subject
I would have loved to see more about what went on with the polyjuice potion stuff. I mainly came out of the theater wondering, "So is Graves maybe just tied up in an attic somewhere?"
He's so magnetic and interesting and he looks so good. I just want more of him.
no subject
I avoided spoilers at all costs and was very shocked when I found out that my favourite character is actually one of the characters I really don’t like. At first I didn’t even think about stuff like Polyjuice Potion. So I came out of the theatre thinking “I don’t care what’s canon, Grindelwald was definitely impersonating the real Graves”. First thing I did when coming home was going online to see if there is more information on whether there was in fact a real Percival Graves and what happened to him. Once I knew that Grindelwald was using Polyjuice Potion, I could finally accept that plot twist without throwing a fit. *lol*
Either way, I shouldn’t have to go online to find an interview with one of the producers to know what happened to one of the characters. I could have understood it, if figuring out what happened to him would have been part of the plot for the next movie, but it’s not and therefore they should have just explained it in the movie.
He's so magnetic and interesting and he looks so good. I just want more of him.
I hear you. I really need more Percival Graves in my life as well. ♥
Lets hope that JKR can be persuaded to bring Percival Graves back by fandom’s collective wish to see more of him in future films. After all, there will now be 5 films instead of 3.
no subject
I figured he had to be from the beginning because Graves was clearly a respected, high level guy and I didn't think Gindelwald would have been pretending to be him for years and years, you know? But I just read today on JKR's new website (http://www.jkrowling.com/welcome-to-my-new-website/) that it was meant to be a spell, not the polyjuice potion. I still think Graves has to be a real person, though.
Either way, I shouldn’t have to go online to find an interview with one of the producers to know what happened to one of the characters.
Absolutely. They should find time to tell us these things. Harry Potter has a really creative fanbase and a lot of sources for supplemental information, but we shouldn't have to finish the movie and then go online to figure out what happened in the movie.
Hopefully Graves (and an explanation lol) will show up again at some point. I would love it if all that turned out to be central to the next plot! With five films, anything's possible, right?
no subject
Yeah, that was my reasoning as well once I was past the initial WTF?!-moment. Whether it was polyjuice potion or a spell, it takes years to get into the position that Graves is in and I don’t think that Grindelwald put that much effort into developing an alter-ego that he might potentially need one day. Why should he?
we shouldn't have to finish the movie and then go online to figure out what happened in the movie.
Exactly. If you need to look for answers online clearly the storytelling is somewhat lacking. It’s annoying enough with TV shows which end with cliffhangers, but at least in that case it’s done for a reason. A movie like Fantastic Beasts should be able to stand on its own though. Oh well, can’t have everything I guess.
Thanks for the link btw. Just read through the FAQ she posted and it says:
"If your burning question isn’t here, you are probably safe to assume that it will be answered in the sequels!"
Considering that she has not answered one of fandom’s most asked questions, which is “Where is Percival Graves?”, I’m not giving up hope yet that this question might be answered in one of the sequels. ;)
no subject
It seems like a lot of franchises in general are having trouble with that lately. They spend more time setting up the movies they're going to make later than on the movie they're making now.
Not that I'm not excited for the sequels, especially if you're right. The biggest fan question so far has definitely been about Graves :)
no subject
True. And I don't really understand how they expect to be successful with that. Granted, if the fandom is big enough it might be enough to get hardcore fans to go see it (who will see the second movie anyway, no matter how good or bad the first was), but if it's not the movie needs to appeal to the general audience and I doubt they will be happy with a movie that can't really stand on its own or leaves too many questions open.
As for the Graves question, some people are apparently interpreting JKRs comment regarding Grindel!Graves the way that Graves never really existed. Though, that's probably a bit farfetched. Even if Grindelwald wasn't using polyjuice potion, somebody who isn't well known in the wizarding community will not become Director of Magical Security all of a sudden so he must either have worked on an alias for a very long time (years) or he stole somebody else’s identity in which case a real Percival Graves must have existed, but we have discussed that already. ;)
I just really hope that her comment on Grindel!Graves doesn’t mean that Graves is dead.
no subject
As for the Graves question, some people are apparently interpreting JKRs comment regarding Grindel!Graves the way that Graves never really existed.
Yeah, I don't buy it. Like you say, some random guy isn't going to just get a job like that out of the blue. And the vibe I got was that Grindlewald was specifically interested in finding an obscurus, so it would make sense if he heard about one in New York and replaced the real Graves to check it out. Him spending all this time building this identity on the off chance that he could use it one day doesn't quite work. And anyway, hadn't Grindlewald been in Europe or the UK at start of the movie? Someone had to be doing Graves' job then, right?
So yeah, I'm holding out hope that he's alive. I just wish they had explained it in the film either way. Tina asking what happened to the real Graves after Grindlewald was unmasked and getting an answer would've been like two lines of dialogue. If he's dead, or there never was a Graves at all, it would have been better to just say so then than confuse people, so I'm holding out hope that it'll be a plot-point later on.
no subject
JKR did reveal that Grindelwald is a seer, so I’m assuming that he ended up in New York because he had a vision of the obscurus that told him where to look for him/her. Once there he looked for a suitable person to impersonate and chose Graves, because let’s be honest, who would not want to be Graves. ;)
I just wish they had explained it in the film either way. Tina asking what happened to the real Graves after Grindlewald was unmasked and getting an answer would've been like two lines of dialogue.
Exactly, that’s all it would have taken to let everyone know that Grindelwald did indeed impersonate a real person. It also seems weird that nobody asked this particular question. I do realize that they had other things to worry about as well (no-majes learning about magic), but nobody questioning what happened to Graves makes it look like nobody cares.
There’s still hope for more Graves in the sequels though. I did read a comment recently that the fact that Grindelwald used transfiguration rather than polyjuice potion gives JKR a lot more options to include original Graves in the sequels. IMO that’s a good point. If he had been using polyjuice potion Graves would either have to be a prisoner or a follower of Grindelwald and he would have to be in New York so Grindelwald can make more of the potion. Now he could be anywhere and show up at any point in the sequels.
no subject
Definitely. He and Tina seemed pretty close, and I find it hard to believe that she wouldn't want to know what happened to her boss.
If he had been using polyjuice potion Graves would either have to be a prisoner or a follower of Grindelwald and he would have to be in New York so Grindelwald can make more of the potion. Now he could be anywhere and show up at any point in the sequels.
Now I'm picturing Graves popping up at some point and saying, "So this is what happens when I go on vacation."
But I like the idea that he could be anywhere.
no subject
Yeah, from the way they interacted she seems to be the obvious choice to question what happened to Graves. Those two definitely have history whether it’s romantic or not.
Now I'm picturing Graves popping up at some point and saying, "So this is what happens when I go on vacation."
*lol* You have no idea how badly I want to read this as fanfic now.
no subject
There's a lot of really interesting stuff to read between the lines with them.
You have no idea how badly I want to read this as fanfic now.
Heh. I kind of want to write it, ngl.
Would you mind if I added you as a friend? We seem like we have several fandoms in common.
no subject
DO IT! :D
Would you mind if I added you as a friend?
Not at all. I’ll add you as well.
no subject