Harry Potter and the Prequel Predicament

Full-on disclaimer: I love the Harry Potter franchise and mostly everything about it. I have yet to go to the theme parks or Platform 9 3/4, but I own all the books and movies, have a few of my own wands, and have dressed up as a wizard on more than one occasion.

Cool? Cool.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was... a bit confusing for me. I'm not labeling it as bad, not labeling it as amazing, but... somewhere in between. And I think a large part of it just stems from the fact that this is trying to fit in as a prequel series with a well-established lore and canon that has enchanted fans like myself for the last couple decades. And with any fandom that grows large enough, there will be enough people to both point out its flaws and justify its mishaps one way or another. When taking some film classes at BYU a while back, one of the biggest takeaways that I got was to always look for the good parts of films, even if not all of it is necessarily enjoyable. As an example, we watched the behind-the-scenes features for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. It's far from the most beloved of the Star Wars movies (for a number of reasons that I'll actually cover a bit in this post) but there's still a fair amount to appreciate out of it.

So, before getting too much further, I do want to slap a huge spoiler warning for the Harry Potter franchise, and the Fantastic Beasts franchise to go with that, as well as Star Wars, and Pirates of the Caribbean, kinda. And I'll abbreviate the films I'm talking about in the following way:
Fantastic Beasts And Where to Find Them – FB
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald – CG
Harry Potter and the _____ – HP# (whatever respective number of the book or movie it is)
Pirates of the Caribbean: _____ – POTC# (whatever installment of the movie franchise it is)
Star Wars Episode # – SW# (you get the picture)
Cool?

Cool.

I saw FB for my first time earlier this year, probably two or three months ago. It's not that I didn't want to see it when it first came out; I don't remember exactly why, but I think I may have just had other things going on at the time. Regardless, I did want to make sure I knew what was going on before the series got too far along (since I knew this was going to be a series, not just a one-off in the Wizarding World). And I enjoyed it! It was a new adventure in the world that I'd come to love since I was a child, with loads of fan service that didn't seem to mess with anything that I knew about its world. J.K. Rowling is a fantastic (excuse the pun) world-builder, and I will always credit her as such. Newt was lovable, Kowalski was hilarious, Tina wasn't some overly dramatic love interest, and the intrigue behind the Obscurial was enough to keep the plot moving. Bringing in Grindelwald as the real villain worked; he was someone we'd heard a little about in the original series but not enough to fully understand who he was and where he was coming from, as he wasn't really a villain at all in that series. He was a side character who was mentioned in the very beginning of the HP series and pushed the plot a bit at the very end, but was never a focus. So, much like how Avengers: Infinity War seemed to be all about Thanos' quest – while still emphasizing that he's the bad guy – making this prequel series be about Grindelwald was, in my mind, just the direction this series needed to go.

And that's sadly where the issue lies. Obviously I have no say in where everything "should" go; I'm not the author or screenwriter, I don't call any of the shots. But I feel a bit torn about how things went with CG after seeing it last week. Allow me to use the Star Wars series to explain.

SW4 is when we get introduced to the literal universe of Star Wars canon, as it was the first one ever released. We learn about Luke, Obi-Wan, Leia, Darth Vader, Han Solo, and the rest of the crew we now know and love. We learn that Anakin Skywalker was "murdered" by Darth Vader, which by this point we all know isn't quite the case: SW5 we learn the truth that Vader is Anakin Skywalker, and that Leia is Luke's sister. MAJOR plot twist, and it lets the trilogy have a grand finale by the time SW6 rolls around. But then, in the late 90's, George Lucas decided to finally do the prequel series he'd meant to do for such a long time. And who is it that we eventually meet through a shoehorned detour? An innocent, somewhat whiny slave boy by the name of Anakin Skywalker, who we then follow around for two more movies. However, during those movies we frequently jump between the so-called protagonist and the adventures of Obi-Wan so much that it's hard to narrow down who to focus more on, especially when we already know that Anakin is eventually going to turn to the dark side.

 

There's a phenomenal miniseries on YouTube from the channel Belated Media who did somewhat of a fan rewrite, making Obi-Wan the real focus of the prequel trilogy and making sure Anakin was along for the ride enough so that we see his eventual turn. The way he builds it up makes the final duel in SW3 much more intense, much more emotional, much more engaging. It is a shame that it's only a "what if" scenario, but I still find it worth going back and watching every so often.

That's the issue that I feel the FB series is going to run into, if it hasn't already. Having to work around your own canon to tell a story that still keeps readers/viewers engaged despite mostly knowing how it's going to end is difficult, and I don't feel like the series is proceeding in the right direction. Here are some of the big reasons I feel this way:

By simply keeping that "Fantastic Beasts" name, one would think that the series is going to revolve around Newt Scamander's journeys around the world to make his textbook that eventually makes it into Harry Potter's curriculum. And while the first movie seemed to be largely about that, with some plot-driving peril on the side, the second movie shies away from that central premise; Newt is there, but he's being dragged into things by the Ministry of Magic and Dumbledore, not out of his desire to care for magical creatures. And Dumbledore, for some reason, has a bond with Grindelwald from some boyhood relationship (if you can call it that, it's not totally explored or explained in the movie), "preventing" him from going against the dark wizard of the time.

We see Dumbledore a few times throughout the film but we have no idea what his real strengths are; we just know that the Ministry doesn't seem to like his antics. Not unlike how it is in the HP series, but at least by then we know of the corruptions that take place there and the motivation behind their disdain for Dumbledore. And the part where he looks into the Mirror of Erised doesn't quite line up either: he tells us, and those around him, that he wants to take down Grindelwald, but when looking into the mirror he still sees the memory of when he made the blood pact... charm... thing. It's supposed to show the innermost desires of the person looking into it; if this charm is what he's wanted the whole time, we get no idea about it until the very, very end after the niffler nabs it and it's delivered back to Dumbledore. Newt would have had no idea what it was though, because as far as we know he never told Newt a single thing about it.

So let's talk about Newt, then. What is his motivation in this movie? Dumbledore claims that he "doesn't seek power", which I wholeheartedly agree with, but it seems like his mission for Newt comes secondary to wanting to mend things with Tina. Once he learns that she's in Paris, because Queenie had dragged Kowalski to London while under a love spell (and somehow knew exactly where he lived?), that's his real call to action. Since she's already there, he can also take care of finding Credence, which seems to me like a much higher priority. Credence is being bred as a weapon that could reign terror on the wizarding and non-wizarding world, and lovestruck Newt wants to essentially clear up a tabloid article.

Credence's story is continued, but convoluted. We get some huge exposition dumps at what feel like crucial times that the plot needs to move forward, and the twist at the end that he's secretly a Dumbledore as well comes out of nowhere and against everything that Rowling has ever told us about the family. There have always just been three Dumbledore children, and calling Credence a "brother" to Albus just feels... wrong. Obviously this could be a ploy of Grindelwald's to turn Credence into a weapon for his own use, but it just seems like one of the largest mcguffins to ever mcguffin. Credence is obviously a wizard with much power, but for him to be a Dumbledore – let alone so readily believe it with no further explanation from this man who almost abused him in the previous movie – seems too far-fetched to be real.

Other plot points of the movie that seem somewhat thrown in:

• Tina not knowing that Newt wasn't actually the one who was engaged to be married. They were writing each other (which I guess could explain how Queenie knew where to go, but it's still something that Newt never seems to question), so one would think that she'd rely more on what comes straight from the horse's mouth as opposed to some gossip column (which also seemed strange – Newt seems like the kind of guy who would avoid the spotlight as much as possible).
• Leta Lestrange and her brother. Half brother, I guess? We got a good glimpse as to why she and Newt were interested in each other, since they were both outcasts of some form while in school together. But the massive info dump we get in the mausoleum, along with an accent from the half-brother's lines that made parts of it difficult to understand (that could very well just be me, I'll freely admit to that), felt like it was just too much all at once. And since the brother had made an Unbreakable Vow, but can't keep it since it supposedly had already been fulfilled years ago, would it have really been keepable in the first place?
• McGonagall. One of many fun easter eggs, like seeing the Deathly Hallows symbol carved into the same desk that Leta looks into, but it literally can't work because of the timeline. And yes, this is Minerva McGonagall, not some relative with the same last name. She was born, according to canon, in 1935, while this movie takes place in 1927. Some other names are thrown around as well, like Carrow, Rosier, McClaggan, and of course Nagini, who we're probably supposed to assume is the same one that Voldemort adopts as his own years later... somehow.
• Queenie turns to the dark side way too easily. She's a mind reader and should easily have been able to see the motivations of Grindelwald's followers. Grindelwald himself may have set up some of his own mental protections, but I feel like it's safe to assume that not all of the lackeys could have, and while she was in their temporary hideout in Paris she could have sensed that something was up.
• The phoenix at the end. According to HP lore, phoenixes take a few days to fully regrow, not something that would happen in a flash of light. It's another reason why I feel like Grindelwald's just lying to Credence.
• How do Grindelwald and Dumbledore even know each other? Under what conditions did they meet, considering they were from other countries growing up?

This movie left me with a feeling much like I had after watching the second POTC movie. I had a lot more questions than answers, and I got most of those answers after watching the following installment. I don't feel like that series is one of my favorites, but at least a lot of the loose strings got tied up (even though there were still enough to merit a fourth and fifth movie). It suffered a lot from the same thing that the SW prequel trilogy did: it lacked focus. Do we consider Will the main protagonist? Or Elizabeth? Or Jack? The answer we get is "all of them, kind of," but that makes it hard to stay focused or engaged. And I'm not saying that a movie with multiple protagonists is always hard to follow. LOTR is a great example of how to make a group the focus of the story from the beginning, and then taking parts of that group and developing them in different ways based on their own quests can still be enjoyable without losing much of the audience. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is another perfect example. I will say that while I loved Infinity War, it wouldn't hold up without pretty much all of the movies before it. Those movies take the time to develop their protagonists, having each title character be the focus of their own movie, making it clear what their motivations are and constantly teasing at a greater evil behind it all – again, Thanos, whose swan song is Infinity War. Making Thanos the main focus of that particular movie allowed all the other parts to move as needed. Going back to that "what if" series of the SW movies, making Obi-Wan the focus of the prequels could have helped it be a much better received trilogy since we already knew that Anakin was going to turn evil and be a large presence in the original trilogy. If there were only one person that we needed to focus on for this prequel series to HP, be it Grindelwald or even Dumbledore himself, that I feel would make things a lot more cohesive (especially since we know this prequel series will probably culminate with their duel in 1945). Otherwise, making some one-off movies that kind of tie together could be profitable and fun, but not tell the story as well as it possibly could.

As lovable as Newt is, he just doesn't seem like the "hero" type. Obviously we don't have to have a stereotypical protagonist in everything we see these days – especially since it would make the film-going experience rather boring – but as I mentioned he doesn't seem like the type to want to be in the spotlight. And all we ever hear about him by the time the HP series comes around is that he was a magizoologist. That's it. Dumbledore, to my recollection, never talked about him in the HP series, despite relying on him so much throughout this installment, and likely in the ones that will follow. Obviously there isn't a pre-existing book series of Fantastic Beasts to already go off of, and Rowling has plans set out for each of the remaining entries in this series, but I sincerely hope that it's told in a manner that helps tie it all together.

Hopefully this all makes sense. I write like I think and talk and I do try to make it cohesive enough to follow. Like I said at the beginning, I know that I have no involvement or influence in how things should go; this was just my analysis based on what we've received so far. And I'm still optimistic for the future. J.K. Rowling has the whole thing planned out, supposedly, and as I said above I applaud her world-building skills. She hopefully will be involved enough with this whole series to deliver another story that touches millions in the special way she has once before.