The Problem With The Fantastic Beasts Films

 




I was initially quite skeptical about the Fantastic Beasts franchise. It took a later trailer (the final one, I believe?) for me to actually get interested. I've reviewed the first two films, but recently I've seen the latest title, The Secrets of Dumbledore.

I'll give that a review, then break down why I believe the the franchise (not Harry Potter, not Wizarding World, just the Fantastic Beasts films) aren't quite working.

The film picks up some time after The Crimes of Grindelwald. Because it's been a few years (for both the audience, as well as in the chronology of the films) we get somewhat-reintroduced to the characters, and brief recaps here and there as we catch up with familiar faces. Nothing from The Crimes of Grindelwald is flat-out 'retconned' per se, but all the multiple story angles and elements are somewhat down-played. The primary focus of the film is of Dumbledore (played very well by Jude Law) and Grindelwald (played by Mads Mikkelsen, who is.....filling in for Johnny Depp). Later in this post, I'll analyze and breakdown 'The Two Grindelwalds.' 

There is on element from The Crimes of Grindelwald that is completely ignored in The Secrets of Dumbledore: Nagini. The character is never seen nor mentioned. It almost makes her appearance in Grindelwald to be completely pointless, at this point in time. We never know: she may have a bigger role or come back in movie 4 or 5, should they exist. Also, likewise with Nicolas Flamel. In hindsight, that character didn't really serve much (if any) purpose. 

So, The Secrets of Dumbledore is better than The Crimes of Grindelwald. It's much less confusing, there's less things going on, and the narrative is more streamlined and focused. That's how it's a better film, though it still suffers some issues as The Crimes of Grindelwald, though this is due to the franchise, rather than it as a film. 

Now, I'll address the most obvious element: 'The Two Grindelwalds.'




Before I begin, I wish to state that I like Johnny Depp as an actor. He was tremendous fun in the Pirates movies, as well quite the capable actor (Blow, and Public Enemies quickly come to mind). That being said, from the get-go I always felt that he was wrong for the role of Grindelwald. Way before the debacle with Amber Heard took place. Look at the appearance of the character: he's far too.....manic. The way that he was presented...well, the best in-universe to offer a comparison would be Bellatrix. The character of Grindelwald as played by Depp feels more like a manic follower, or a crazed, high-ranking person below the main villain.

Another issue I have (and this mostly studios, producers, directors, etc) is that many people see Johnny Depp in a movie just because his name is attached. It's different than regular 'star power' or 'appeal' - they tend to see the actor first, the character second. As such, that's why we got the Jack Sparrow angle so much: post-Pirates, his Mad Hatter in the Alice films was quite similar, as was the wolf in Into the Woods.

To me, Mads fit the character (in regards to an actor playing a character, and the appearance) of Grindelwald much better than Depp did.

The screenshot posted above, wherein during a brief duel Dumbledore's and Grindeldwald's non-wand hands find each others' chests - nay, hearts - that scene would not have worked with Depp's Grindewald. It is just very unfortunate under the circumstances that Mads got the role of Grindelwald.



Newt is a great character, as is the supporting cast of Jacob, Tina and Queenie. However, my main issue with the Fantastic Beasts franchise, is that it can't seem to decide what it wants it to be.

The first film, worked really well: Newt's creatures escape from his case, and the film is about tracking them down. This would've worked really well for a spin-off (yet 'sort of' prequel, due to the era) if the films were about Newt travelling the world, and getting his creatures back. Let's just assume that they go further beyond New York. Or, if that's too limiting from a story-telling angle, maybe have him explore the world and discover and learn about new creatures, possibly adding them to his case.

The other angle that the franchise could've taken, is that of an actual Harry Potter prequel. This would focus on the Ministry(ies) of Magic, seeing Hogwarts again, and the dynamic between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Either angle would work very well...but on their own.

The problem, is having both occur at the same time. The Crimes of Grindelwald had a sort of un-eveness about Grindelwald, Dumbledore, and Newt and co. This was better handled in The Secrets of Dumbledore, however the arc with Newt and his creatures (ie: manticore dance) felt like it was kind of shoe-horned in. Almost if the filmmakers went 'oh right! This is a Fantastic Beasts movie! Gotta have the creatures! How about.....here!'

No matter which direction this franchise would take, I feel that a trilogy vs the projected five films would have worked better: three films about Newt and the creatures, or, three films focusing on Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Five with both mixed together feels.....odd.

So we'll see what happens next. There was talk of film 4 and film 5 happening if The Secrets of Dumbledore did well enough. I'm not certain if it did to green-light future instalments. It's possible that The Secrets of Dumbledore may be the last film in, not the entire Wizarding World franchise, but the Fantastic Beasts one. If 4 and 5 happen, it'll be interesting to see what unfolds. I'm also looking forward to seeing of Mads as Grindelwald, should future films happen.