The Big Picture - Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald | Exit Survey (Ep. 99)

Episode Date: November 16, 2018

'Binge Mode' meets 'The Big Picture' as Mallory Rubin and Jason Concepcion join Sean Fennessey to react to the second film in Harry Potter’s ‘Fantastic Beasts’ series. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's up, guys? It's Liz Kelley. We just launched a brand new podcast on the Ringer Podcast Network hosted by our very own staff writer, Shea Serrano, called Villains. In the premiere episode, Shea is joined by Jason Concepcion and Sean Fennessy to dissect the iconic villain Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs. You can check out the first episode and subscribe right now on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Sean Fennessey, editor-in-chief of The Ringer, and this is The Big Picture, a conversation show with Binge Mode. Hello!

Wow! It's Jason Concepcion, it's Mallory Rubin, the maester, the mother of dragons. Guys. Wow. This is a first and an honor. It's an honor for us. The honor is all ours. Truly.

Truly. Guys, I can't wait to hear you say a lot more words than me during this podcast. But before that happens, I want to share a little story with you. Okay. It's a story about a movie called The Mummy. It's not about when you found out you were a wizard. No, I'm not a wizard. I promise you. This is the Tom Cruise vehicle, The Mummy, that was supposed

to revitalize Universal's monster universe. That is exactly the one I'm referring to. It was directed by a man named Alex Kurtzman. And Alex Kurtzman, in an interview, said, this movie is not for critics, it's for the fans. And that was a very strange thing to say about a movie

that had no fans. But, it did raise this kind of, it sort of became a satirical meme, the way that people talk about what we invest in at the movies and the notion of fan service. You guys are, I think, foremost scholars on the idea of fandom and commitment and unpacking what something means that, you know, demands attention. You've obviously been doing Binge Mode Harry Potter for months now. You're as deep into this universe as I imagine anybody barring J.K. Rowling could ever be. You current on your Binge Mode listen? No comment.

However, we saw this movie together. Yes. We did. And I think we had different reactions. And I tell this story about the fans because you guys started talking like fans immediately. Yeah. And I started talking like some schmo who doesn't know anything because I was a little bit confused. And I didn't really, I felt like this movie did not necessarily, this is Fantastic Beasts, The Crimes of Grindelwald is the movie I'm talking about.

Grindelwald. Grindelwald. Grindelwald. Okay. Did better than Green Grindelwald. Okay. Did better than Greenwald and Ryan. Nevertheless, I want to get a sense from you guys about what it's like to see something that is clearly for you guys, even if it doesn't always live up to the things that you wanted it to be.

So tell me just a little bit about that reaction you had right when you came out of the theater well setting aside for the moment the things within the story that seem as if they could truly upend what we know about the story i think um i can see how it's a quite confusing film in a lot of respects certainly if you're not versed in the story you're going to be coming from a place where you just have no grounding in what's going on. And on top of that, there's just a lot of really convoluted story choices. I mean, one of the very first things that happens in the movies

is you realize two characters are not who they are. And stuff like that happens all the time. Is this a spoiler safe zone, I should ask? Yes. Speaking freely. It was exciting because coming from a place of a fan, you're not just absorbing it as a story. You're thinking about how it affects what you know about a world that exists. You know, there's stakes in a much different way.

I have seen all of the Harry Potter films, and I saw the first Fantastic Beasts film. Right. And I, for the most part, really enjoyed the Harry Potter movie series. I've not read one word of one book. I was a little confused by the first Fantastic Beasts movie, just sort of its necessity or its purpose. But I thought it was

well made. I love that movie. It's full of people that I like. Katherine Waterston, first and foremost. Probably Alison Sudol right after that. Mal, you really liked Fantastic Beasts. I did, the first film. Yeah.

Your hopes, I feel like, were really high for this one. Yeah. So what reaction did you have coming out of it? A complicated one that I am still processing. I think that the first thing you said to me was, there goes 20 years of canon. We're not sure about that. I hope not.

I really hope not. There were things about the movie I liked a lot. There are things about the movie that I liked a lot less and some things that I am struggling with. I think a lot of it comes back to the initial question you asked about fandom and the nature of fandom and who sort of has ownership over what. I actually don't believe that of has ownership over what. I actually don't believe that fans have ownership over the story. And one of the things that has really driven me to the brink of madness over the last couple years is this whole barrage of people saying, J.K. Rowling is the new George Lucas.

Just preserve the beautiful thing you made. Stop making new things. First of all, I find that very notion sort of offensive at its base. Let creators create. She did something incredible. She crafted literally the most widely read story of all time, other than the Bible. Not to call the Bible a story, but you know what I'm saying. Sure. Her brain is incredible. The world she builds is incredible. I personally want to keep living in the world. And so even though, for example, when I initially read the script for Cursed Child,

the play, which takes place after the original series, where it's obviously Fantastic Beasts is a prequel, I had a lot of problems with it, but I was still glad it existed, right? The fact that I had problems with it didn't make me say, why did she do this? Not even close. I just want every chance to dive back into that world. I'm diving into the pensive or Tom Riddle's memories.

So the idea, based on the initial wave of reviews, that this was a movie for the fans, that it was very complex, maybe even convoluted, and that you might have trouble following it if you weren't familiar with the canon, not only didn't scare me, it sort of thrilled me. I was like, I don't want a watered down movie that's for the no matches of the world. One of my problems with the initial films is that I don't think, you know, I like them and I enjoy them and I watch them constantly, but it's hard to think that they live up to the books as adaptations. And so Beast is exciting because it's its own thing. There's nothing to compare it to.

And I really relished the chance to just experience new magic and new J.K. Rowling storytelling fresh. Here's the problem. It's a lot of buildup to get to the point. This is a movie where if you're not, if you haven't read the books and you're not fully, not casually,

but fully familiar with the original canon, I think it would be very hard to follow and track. And if you are, so if you're one of those fans who it's for, I think there's a high probability

that it really makes you mad. That it's not only not something that's going to just bring you joy, but that it's going to actively challenge something that you've held sacred and dear for a long time. I refer specifically to the ultimate reveal of the film, the idea that Credence is Albus Dumbledore's brother. There's basically no support for that in the books proper.

I do want to get into that, but let's hold off for one second before we get too deep into the plot. And it'll be helpful to have you guys explain the story a little bit. I'll push back a little bit actually on what you said. Just in so far as, I think this movie is not difficult to understand. I think if you're just a regular guy or gal looking to be entertained at a movie theater, you could walk into this movie and follow the story arc

and understand the goals of the characters, understand their motivations. The tricky part of this is, and this is becoming increasingly true in most of the successful pop culture in our life, is it's better. It sort of works more if you understand the mythology and almost like the archeology

of the way that this stuff has been built. And I don't really have any of that. And so it's just not engaging in that way. And so what ultimately turns out to be is just like one more fantasy film. It reminds me a little bit of movies like the Golden Compass movies where I was like, this is okay, but it feels like not special in a way. Because it doesn't pierce the broader audience.

When we're thinking about who is this for, I think the interesting thing about Beast 2 is that it kind of splits the difference in a way that's not satisfying to either party. If you know about the story, there are choices that this movie makes that leave you utterly confounded as to why certain things that should be very important. And indeed, a great example is the Elder Wand and the Deathly Hallows imagery. This is pivotal stuff for fans of the story that is just almost elided in the in the movie despite an entire marketing campaign being built around it right so if you don't understand

the importance of those things that won't bother you in the least okay so it's this interesting thing where like on the one hand if you if you're not if you don't have a background in the story you're confused on the other hand if you do have a background in the story, you're confused. On the other hand, if you do have a background in the story, you're like, where is all the fan service? Where's actually all the important stuff? That's the thing. It's reduced to fan service. The Elder Wand being in Grindelwald's hand

is by definition fan service. It's this thing that you've wondered about and wanted to know more about since you first learned about The Deathly Hallows in 2007 when you cracked that book, July 21st, 2007. And it's not enough to just see it. Not only is it not enough to just see it, we've spent the last two years since the first film saying, okay, well, what does the story reward? It rewards deep knowledge and fully embedding yourself in the mythology. And so

if you've done that, you know how imperative Wandlore is to the story. Right, that's a great point. The entire climax of the original series hinges obviously on sacrifice and choice and the core themes of the story. But in terms of the plot, it hinges on Harry understanding Wandlore in a way that Voldemort doesn't bother

to even attempt to learn. So Wandlore, just to back up, Wandlore is the system by which possession of this legendary wand, the Elder Wand, is meted out. There's a certain specific set of rules that must be followed to truly master a wand.

To truly master the wand to be bonded to it. So for instance, if this Elder Wand is just on the table, you can pick it up, but it's not yours. Wands are semi-sentient. You have to. It's Excalibur. Right.

You have to win it in a way. And that part of it is nonexistent. Okay. So are the words Elder Wand even uttered in this movie? That's the point I want to make. Because you guys know so much about this. And I am just some schmuck who went into the movie theater and saw guys point I want to make. Because you guys know so much about this. And I am just some schmuck who went into the movie theater and saw guys with wands and I was like, these wands look great.

They're doing a great job with the wands. Did it look familiar to you? No. The wand in Grindelwald's hand. Okay, but here's why it should. It's the wand that Dumbledore holds throughout the entire original series. Why does that matter? Because Dumbledore won it from Grindelwald in their famous duel.

The duel that we think the entire Fantastic Beasts film franchise is moving toward, 1945. This current film takes place in 1927. The Grindelwald slash Percival Graves character in the first film does not have the Elder Wand, even though canon tells us he possesses it by that point. So fans of the story have spent literally two years. There are some pieces on the ringer.com where did he hide it where is the elder wand yeah where is it yeah did newt and tina become masters of the elder wand when they disarmed him and swoop using swooping evil got

him to be imprisoned at the end of the first film like that stuff really matters in the story and so for it to just be in his hand at the beginning basically just isn't good isn't going to satisfy people who have been excited to get an actual answer. The answer just can't be, well, he had it somewhere. Now, here's the flip side of that, because I want to be open-minded. And JK has never let me down yet. And I really hope this, I actually don't think that this will be the first time. Like, I ultimately have confidence in the story coming together. I think it's important for us to remember, even in our down moments, that this is a different medium than novels, where she had, in some cases,

870 pages to flesh something out. This is a film I think we will all feel a lot better about after we've seen three, four, and five. I don't think they decide to market the entire movie around the symbol of the Deathly Hallows and the Elder Wand if that isn't going to ultimately matter. I think the fact that he has it in this movie will be explained and maybe the fact that he does not truly possess it and that we don't know that yet will be key when we finally do learn it. You just feel the absence of that. And it's just

really weird to use that in a promotional campaign for a movie two years from now, essentially, like if that is the case. But that's a way to hook people, right? Take a step back with me for a second. When you go into a bookstore or you're on Amazon or whatever and you buy a book, you're making a choice to say, I want to immerse myself in this world, especially in the world of the books of J.K. Rowling, which as that series went on, those books got very long. Yeah.

Seeing a movie, while not a passive experience, is contained and it's finite in a significant way. And I think that film goers, movie goers, whatever, popcorn movie goers, are just kind of looking to be entertained. And there are certainly a percentage, maybe even in this case a big percentage of people that will go see this movie who know a lot, who know a lot about The Elder One. And they hear this podcast and they're like, God damn it, Jason and Mel, they always come through for me. They really get this shit. But then there's a lot of people that are like me, who are just kind of like, I like to see every big movie just to kind of get a sense of what every big movie is like. And I've never had the experience, even in, you mentioned George Lucas, Mel, even in the prequels of the Star Wars films, I still think that there was a modicum of handholding, of explanatory action that often we criticize these movies for. But in this case, I think would have actually

been pretty valuable. I think it would have been nice to have a couple of scenes where we got info dumps. Now, there is a significant portion of this movie where there's like an info dump in a corridor

where a family is talking about their entire family history. But the problem that I had with that ultimately, and you guys can tell- A lot of drowning of babies. Yes, you can tell me who those characters are

and what that meant, but it was just compressed into eight minutes of the movie an hour and a half in as opposed to and jason i think when we walked out of the movie you very wisely said it would be smart if one of those stories came first in the movie and we used it as a kind of prologue epilogue in a way to set up what was coming down the road but they just kind of thrust you into the story. Right, the prophecy. This is something that came up as we were preparing to do our reaction video where we were looking actually for the verbiage

and what the actual poem prophecy was. And it was just, it was very hard to find. It was one of those things where it was like, man, but it would have been great to set that up up top to understand why some of these people believe the things that they believe, believe that this person is descended from the Lestrange family. The point you just made about just wanting to be entertained, I think is like totally valid. However, don't make the movie about Dumbledore

then. Why do you say that? Because the stakes are too high. They're just too high. Too many people are too invested in that character. And I am one of them. I was so excited about the idea that this film franchise was actually going to be the Dumbledore origin story. I also really liked everything we got to know about the new characters. I'm into Newt. I think Newt is a great character. I like the Beast. So when the initial movie was announced, there was a lot of like, why do we need this, right? Who cares about the creatures? Who cares about Newt Scamander, an author of a textbook that Harry had in school? What is this?

Give me the Marauders. You know, give me the Sirius and Lupin and James and Lily and Snape story. That's what a lot of people wanted. We hear there's a moment in the first movie where Percival Graves mentions Albus Dumbledore to Newt. And I felt like I had been like electrocuted in a good way

and then the build up to the second movie obviously from the moment they announced that they were casting young Dumbledore and then Jude Law

was cast Jude Law is a superstar clearly this is gonna be a Dumbledore origin story that's what this film franchise is and I actually find that idea of trying

to marry those two things you know Newt and Tina and Queenie and Jacob and all of the new characters with more information about people you already love and are deeply invested in to be like a really exciting, energizing blend. I'm starting to think that there's maybe an unsolvable dissonance at play for people who are really invested in the story. And so I think me I don't

know that there's a way forward where this won't continue to be a problem but we kind of can't have it both ways like I'm trying to remind myself of this as I process the movie I can't simultaneously sit here for two years and say tell me more about Dumbledore I'm so excited I can't wait to see Dumbledore when I saw the second trailer for this movie, the Comic-Con trailer, and they showed a flash of Dumbledore looking into the mirror of Erised, I felt like I needed to be hit with a defibrillator. Like, that was how excited I was. So many physical metaphors from you. And, as you know, I'm always just barely hanging on to life, so. I can't simultaneously say, tell me more, answer all these questions that I've had for so long, and then not be satisfied with the answer. That's almost not fair. I think it calls back to what you were saying before about, you know, creators, in the end, are the owners of their creation.

Absolutely. We have to trust in that. Right. At the same time, while we can say that rationally, and certainly we should, in reality, we react to fictions and stories hopefully emotionally like a deep emotional connection and so um emotions are not rational you can't always be like well jk this was what jk decided to do and i strongly disagree with it but now but i'm i still love it like if you hate something you still have to hate it with the kurtzman comment about this uh the mummy is for the fans, it's like who, the fans of embalming techniques?

Right. You know what I mean? This is a story with a wide and varied and intense fan base, and the risks are just going to be higher. Right. That's what I meant about the stakes. People are invested in this in a way that is extremely serious. know i sound like a lunatic when i talk about this but like i take this story extremely seriously it's a huge part of my life a lot of people feel that way i also think that there's something to um you know as a creator when you have something in your head and

you transmit it to the page or to a screen it necessarily has to be different than what the thing you pictured and the way it then comes alive in the heads and hearts of other people may not match your original vision i think of lucas and if he had had the techniques available to him when he did the prequels in 1975 76 77 i think we those those movies would be viewed quite differently. It's the limitations placed on him and the fact that he had this incredibly charismatic cast that made those movies so beloved

and shunted the stuff about trade federation bullshit to the side and made it a movie you could grab onto emotionally. I'm not saying this is what is happening with the Beast movies, but I do wonder, does JK view Dumbledore in a way, in the same way that the fans do, or Harry, or any of these characters? After watching Crimes of Grindelwald and some of the reveals there, I do wonder if, oh man, have we read it differently? Has she always had something else in mind?

I'm really glad you said this. I think that we forget what it felt like to read Deathly Hallows for the first time. I'm going to share a quote with you from Deathly Hallows. This is Harry's internal monologue. Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing. That's where we get with the character, that Harry, the chosen one, the protagonist of this story, thinks that Dumbledore has betrayed him. Now, that is why the ensuing King's Cross chapter that comes into play when processing Grindelwald, which we'll get to in a moment, should you indulge us so, is so imperative because it's when you're then pulled back into trust and faith. And the faith that you maintained, if you maintained it, is ultimately

rewarded. But I think it is ultimately rewarded. But I think it is imperative to remember that Dumbledore has never been infallible, has never been flawless, and that in fact, that is the whole point of his character. It is the whole the majesty of his character. The idea that somebody that powerful, that adored, that beloved is fallible and makes mistakes and made terrible mistakes in his youth that led to the death of his sister which again becomes very important based on the brother reveal in this movie he's not perfect and those regrets defined his entire life and he was working to fix them and make up for them until the moment that he died. And after the moment he died, when he's bearing his soul to Harry, the language is very

coded in a lot of respects. And so I think that he could speak honestly and with empathy and an open heart to Harry in that moment and still maybe not share absolutely everything. We disagree. We do. We do disagree on this. So let me just say, as, again, largely uninformed person, you guys are incredibly eloquent about these things and about these thematic ideas, and this movie does not convey any of them. Like, it does not convey the intense emotional rollercoaster

of Albus Dumbledore's character arc. But I don't think the original movies do either. That was one of their greatest failings. So that is an interesting thing. I mean, you guys, as you talk about this movie, inevitably return to the text. Yes. And the intentionality.

And the experiences that you had reading it. I think a lot of people do have that relationship, no doubt. I know because of the success of Binge Mode. But as just a person who's going to see a movie, I don't get that at all. And it's not that it's clumsy. It's just not deep enough to convey any of those things. We've run the risk of kind of dissecting every little aspect of the movie. And I want you guys to be able to do that on your show too. Tell me some things that you actually thought worked in the movie that you liked while you were watching it.

I think Jude Law is the best Dumbledore we've ever had. Yeah. I think he's number three, right? Yes. So it's Richard Harris, Gambon, and then yeah,

he captures, we were talking about this when we, we had a three hour phone call after this movie with our benchmark production team, three and a half. Oh my God. There's a, there's,

you know uh jk often describes domaldor in the books as having a certain twinkle to his eye and jude law is the only only actor that's captured that twinkle is a certain element of mischief yes he's having fun doing this even though the stakes are so high and and clearly dangerous. He's enjoying himself in the way, and there's a playfulness to him that Jude Law captures really well. You have to want to fight for him. You have to believe that he would fight for you. You also have to wonder the whole time if he's withholding.

That is essential. And I think the Michael Gambon performance in particular failed to capture an essential warmth. Yeah, it's very cold and also like a, you know, doddering in a way that's not dignified in the way that the character is supposed to be dignified. He just doesn't know stuff in a way that makes him seem incompetent rather than actually the chess master that he is. So answer me this.

J.K. Rowling has the screenwriting credit on this movie. Yes, yes. And I think she does on the first Fantastic Beasts, but she does not on the Harry Potter films, right? That's largely Steve Kloves. All but one, yeah. So one, why did that happen? And two, does that kind of worry you guys in any meaningful way?

Because she is truly now the author of this universe in a way that signals total control. Yes and no. I'm worried in the sense that if some of the, like for instance, the Credence reveal, the reveal that he is a brother to Albus Dumbledore, if that is- We can't end the podcast without saying

that we don't think that's true. Right, I'm saying- Let's return to that at some point, but just so that's clear, we do not think that that is true. So- We don't want to't think that's true right i'm saying let's return to that at some point but just so that's clear we do not think that that is true so we don't want to think that that is true so on the one hand it does terrify me in the sense that like there is that possibility that should it be true this now all of a sudden we don't know the story in the way we thought we did on the other hand i i just i trust her to get it right absolutely so i trust her to get it right. Absolutely. So I trust her to get it right. I'm thrilled that she's writing the movies.

I trust her fully with my heart, my soul, and my mind. Maybe even my life. Guys, this is like a joke town situation, the way that you talk about her. She's my queen. I really don't doubt that this will come together in the end. And again, I think that's why it's important to sort of flash back to that initial reading phase and remember that the trust was rewarded so fully. Obviously, this is different. I think that it's worth considering the medium

and what you can do in 600, 700, 800 pages that you just cannot do in two hours. And so like to Jason's point from a few moments ago about having something in your head and sort of having to accept the fact that someone else might perceive that differently than you intended, that's actually weirdly more true, I think, now in the films than it was in the book, even though with the books, you're forming the visions in your own mind. Here, it's ultimately part of a corporate apparatus and machine in a way that that literature isn't i got bad news for

you it is especially harry potter is truly part of a corporate apparatus that even in publishing well sure but at the end of the day she was fully in control of that story right no one was going to tell her to change something right and that's probably not true anymore so even though she's screenwriting if she gets a note, I mean, I don't know, but you have to think that there are more hands in shaping the story ultimately. So here's the double-edged sword, I think, of these not being adaptations. We should say there is a textbook called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. That was the germ of the idea, but that is literally printed as a textbook. There's a cool thing where you can buy some of

the Hogwarts textbooks. You can buy Quidditch to the Ages. You can buy Fantastic Beasts. You can buy Beetle to Bard. There's no narrative there. There's no story. You could have just been making up those last two. I have no idea. You're not a Babidi Rabidi fan? Babidi Rabidi. Babidi Rabidi is dope. Whatever you say. So this is, on the one hand, a chance to say, we know that people aren't coming to the theater with expectations, right? They're just going to come and enjoy this story through this vehicle. That's it. The downside, and that's good, and I was excited about that, to not sit there the whole time. There's no text that you can count on people saying, we don't have to do the Marauder backstory here because the people who care know. That isn't here this time.

And so if it isn't fully present in the film, you just feel the absence more keenly. You feel those gaps or you feel that the pacing maybe is off in a certain respect. In a way that I think even if changes in the adaptation bugged you in the first eight films wasn't there because if they bugged you, you were a person who knew the right story. And so it was ultimately okay. I think we've seen in pop culture, but also in sports and in politics and any number of things that we use to explain our lives or distract us from our lives, tribalization is emergent, if not dominant. Sure, yes. because in many ways you use the fact that these things, specifically the two core topics that you guys have focused on, are the most popular mainstream things imaginable.

However, not only when you analyze them, but when you look at how they evolve over time, they reveal this kind of segmentation in population and this sort of dissonance between what you're describing where you're like, I'm just in the J.K. Rowling cult. However, I have a huge problem with this. However, she's my queen. Yes.

And it's all about fealty and commitment, but also nitpicking and like the collision of those two things is such a, it's obviously very reminiscent of Star Wars and Star Wars has been subject to this for 30 years and that's something I'm just more of a fan of so I understand it,

but it feels acute in this moment right now. And is it weird? Like, do you want this to be the most successful movie of the year? Would that be a good thing? Yes, I would be thrilled. Why? Because I want it to sustain itself forever.

And anything that jeopardizes that actually really upsets and scares me. Do you agree with that, Jason? I actually had never um countenance the the thought that this movie could possibly bomb yeah it had never occurred it's almost like you know to your point about it's about fans and uh the larger issue of can things be critic proof i think this is this in particular is a movie that i would assume would be critic-proof in a certain way. Just because, you know, if I read a review from someone who's like,

now I haven't read the books, but I'm like, yeah, right. You don't care. I don't care. That's a really fascinating place to be. Yeah. Think about the fandom at large for a minute. So obviously people in droves have read these books for years. And people who have read them read them again and again and again.

New people come to the story constantly. That for us, I think that's been one of the coolest parts of Binge Mode is people who listen to Binge Mode Game of Thrones saying, never was going to read Harry Potter, but I want to keep listening to the pod, so I'm going to check it out and then be like, this is dope.

Harry Potter's great. Why didn't anyone tell me? Can I posit a theory that I'm sure you both have thought about in the past? They like you guys. They want to be around you guys. My point is more just- Which is a different kind of tribe that you have created.

I raised the- That's maybe. I think it's probably more JK Rowling and Harry Potter. But I raised the point just to say people are still discovering the story. Even though the first book came out two decades ago and the last book came out in 2007, people are still finding it. There are theme parks that people spend a ton of money to go to just so for one afternoon they can delude. And I don't say that in a judgmental way because I was thrilled to delude myself in this very fashion into thinking that you're walking around Hogsmeade or Diagon Alley. It's an incredible feeling. Cursed Child. Do you

know what it costs to get a ticket to that play? Guess what? It sells out every night. Okay. And the first Beast movie did well. Like it wasn't the most successful movie of all time, but it was certainly proof of concept that an expanded Harry Potter universe could work. Right. People read Pottermore every time she puts a new post up explaining something about the world. People come to it in droves and write blog posts about this. Her Twitter is considered by many people, yours truly included, to be definitive canon. You know, we actually shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, especially given the role of the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship in this film franchise, that Dumbledore being a gay man was not in the original series. That's something she said since that is established canon now in people's minds.

That's fascinating how people are still engaging with the story. People tattoo the sign of the Deathly Hallows or a lightning bolt and glasses on their bodies. Jason has the chapter illustration for the cave in Half-Blood Prince on his arm. Like, people put this story on their bodies. And so, I think, I feel this way at least. You just want more of it. And I will always be happy with what I had. Nothing will change the way I feel about the original books.

Nothing. But I want more. I want to learn more about these characters I had. Nothing will change the way I feel about the original books. Nothing. But I want more. I want to learn more about these characters I love. I do think that there, as we get more, we do start to enter a realm where,

much like with Star Wars, it's possible that we get something we don't like, right? Well, this is also a concern with the Game of Thrones spinoff. Right. This is where I was going.

Because you guys opened this conversation by saying we believe in her ability to own this story. Right. So take Star Wars. You know, the prequels are what they are. I think a lot of people just choose to pretend that they never happened, especially with the movies that are coming out now being so in the vein of the original trilogy. I don't think Harry Potter ever gets to that point with J.K. so closely involved in creating this story through screenwriting, through whatever else she might decide to do.

That said, I do think, you know, as you get more content, you do run the risk of getting something that you don't like and or quote-unquote disagree with. And I think that is a fascinating thing to think about. So then if that's true, if that's inevitable to some extent, like you can't sustain perfection or something close to perfection forever, would you prefer that the new thing we got, whatever the new thing was, didn't connect to original canon? Because again, I think that's the central tension,

is that we want more of the people and things we already love. Oh my God, I see Hogwarts in the Fantastic Beasts, the Crimes of Grindelwald trailer. I can't wait to be back there. But what does being back there mean? What is it risk? See, I'm like you in that. If I like a thing, if I like a world,

if I like a fictional reality, I like a writer, I like a creator, I just want more of their stuff. Right. And if there's a thing that they make that I don't like, that's fine. I simply am like, I don't like this thing. I'm going to put that over here.

I love all the other stuff that happened. If George RR Martin never finished this, this story and they get like John R Schmo to write it books six and seven, I will read those. If they're good, great. It will not appreciably change the way I feel about books one, two, three, four, five. That's just the way I consume content today.

But it is a thing you need to think about. You've raised a lot of interesting points. And I keep returning to Star Wars because I think this is the only franchise that has effectively done what this franchise is trying to do. And there's two different tacts. There's the prequel tact and then subsequently

sort of the sequel tact which is and The Last Jedi got a lot of flack because there was a sort of not my Skywalker mentality from a lot of guys

living in basements who were very upset about or maybe bots that were very upset about what had been done to the Luke Skywalker of their dreams in their childhood.

And so they had big stakes in that. And then there's the Rogue One tract, which I think is a little bit closer to what Fantastic Beasts is in some ways, because it is a well-told, well-made story that happens beforehand that you're sort of aware of, but you don't know all the details. You're introduced to some new characters, some old characters. You need to see Darth Vader the same way you need to see Dumbledore. But we're going to spend most of our time with Newt. We're going to spend most of our time with Felicity Jones. And those movies, and I think that this is true of these movies too, are good. And they satisfy a kind of like endless, boundless desire for content like you're describing.

But they're not special. And I wonder if you keep making things like Fantastic Beasts as opposed to, say, the Snape backstory, which people are much more emotionally connected to. And that is a character who actually transcends. And for someone like me, I'm very familiar with what that is. That's a more high-stakes proposition. And it's probably harder to pull off. But if you do it, you've done something special. And I just feel like the Fantastic Beasts movies

are just okay. And it's fascinating that J.K. Rowling is choosing to spend this period of her creative life doing this. Okay, I have so many responses to what you just said. Great. All of which I think is fascinating. I think that the Snape backstory,

the Marauders backstory that so many people want, actually would carry the exact same risk as this, which is it comes before what you already know, not after. I see. So let's just very, very, very quickly, because we don't want to lose people by getting too down the plot hole here. They're still with us. You can go down there. Establish specifically what the Dumbledore concern is, Jay, compared to King's Cross. So I'm going to try to do this succinctly. Tell me if I'm missing anything.

The very boiled down version is the emotional through line of Dumbledore's character. Yeah. And in many ways, the ultimate state of his relationship with Harry hinges on the reveals about Dumbledore's family. Specifically, that his sister Ariana was, even though the word is never used in the original series, an obscurial, like Credence. Okay, that's sort of the point of the Credence character. What does that mean? It means, so Ariana, we learn in Deathly Hallows,

was attacked by muggle boys and basically became ashamed of her magic. And it pushed inward and turned against her and became a force that she couldn't control. To the point where the family had to keep her hidden away. She couldn't go to Hogwarts. Nasty rumors sprouted about them imprisoning her because people thought she was a squib, meaning a non-magical person. Very, very, very, very, very, very few people, like only the family and Grindelwald, which is key, knew the truth. One day, Ariana loses control and Kendra Dumbledore, the mother, is killed. Tragic. Later, Grindelwald comes into Dumbledore's

life. Two brilliant boys, unrivaled in their excellence, drawn together not only by their thirst for power, but by something more, romantic affection, we think, certainly from Dumbledore's side. It's not clear totally if it was mutual. And that is when they begin to seek the Deathly Hallows. Grindelwald eventually gets the Elder Wand. Before that, there's a fight where Aberforth Dumbledore, Albus's brother, Grindelwald and Albus battle and Ariana is killed. Nobody is sure, or at least it's never revealed who is responsible for this. And that guilt eats away at Dumbledore forever. We learn, if you recall, when he drinks the potion in the cave in Half-Blood Prince and he's screaming, that's what he's reliving, that memory.

That we've always understood is what he really saw in the mirror of error said you know he has that great thick wool and socks line he really saw his whole family united let me interrupt you for one second i know you've got a head of steam going here why is all of this not a movie why is there's because there are faint reflections of this story literally in a mirror and literally in shadow and in in but that's the that's the thing is is that's what everyone thought we were about to get that's your question so you were hoping for that yes yes not only hoping but fully expecting okay based on what we saw now we've really hit on when we see young Albus Dumbledore looking into the mirror of air set and seeing himself as a teenage boy grasping hands with Gellert Grindelwald, I think unambiguously we are going to learn exactly what happened then. Is it possible that the third film is a prequel to the prequel?

I think we have to get more in the past at some point before we go further into the future. For sure. Also with Newt, crucially. I'm not sure we've seen the last of Leta Lestrange, for example. Right. This is an aside, but if Newt

and Leta felt so strongly about each other, then why didn't they just get together? People change, as he says. I guess. In Beast 1. Anyway, basically, the idea that Credence could be Aurelius Dumbledore, who Grindelwald says, your brother, meaning Albus' brother.

If that's true, it runs the risk of upending established canon because the reveal about Dumbledore's actual family, specifically what happened to Ariana and his role in that and his guilt over that and how his guilt over that shaped the rest of his life, is the signature emotional note of the final book, matched, I think, only by Harry's walk into the forest when he sacrifices himself. Those are the biggest things. If in the course of that conversation where he's telling Harry about Ariana, he does not say, by the way, I had a brother too, then that will be really hard for people to accept. So I think the initial reaction when you leave the theater is similar, I'd say, to when Snape kills Dumbledore. You're like, I feel betrayed. I can't believe this. Now we enter the second phase of

processing it and looking for the other explanation. Oh, if I retrace the pages, everything Snape and Dumbledore have ever said to each other, everything everyone has said about them, I know that this is a long con. I know that they were in it together. I believe that he's going to come out on the side of good. And you are rewarded in your faith. I'm hoping this is the same thing, where that initial doubt will give way ultimately to actually maybe a very exciting phase of theorizing, where we get to parse the text anew and say, this is our theory of the moment here.

Because there are a couple options. One, it's a lie. Grindelwald is lying because he wants to wield credence as a weapon against Dumbledore that would be tough storytelling because it's like literally the final reveal of the movie and then for that to be a lie would be a weird choice to make if it's true either he's actually his brother or or and this is where we're leaning at the moment he's talking to the Obscurus Ariana Dumbledore's Obscurus. Her force, the magical repressed force. The Dark Twin.

Right. Now, there's a line we should say. So, Dumbledore has one of the really good bits of exposition. Every Jude Law scene in the movie is great. I'm with you. I agree with that. Where he's talking about the Obscurus and it says, it's like a dark twin, essentially. And if it attaches itself, if it's attached to someone, you might be able to save that person by finding then attached itself to Credence and that therefore Grindelwald is referring to the Obscurus as your brother, the brother of Dumbledore. And there is, at least just in our heads, there's a decent bit of evidence to support this.

For instance, when Queenie, the Queenie character at the end. So Grindelwald and Queenie are, you know, in that mansion in the mountains. And she's saying. Nirmengard. Famously the site of Grindelwald's prison. And he's asking, you know, how is he doing? And we think he's talking about Credence. And she's like, he's still scared.

Right. What if. I love this. She's talking about the Obscurus. Because why would you need. One of the other things we've been thinking about was. Was this also a plot to lure Queenie in? Yes.

Because she's an empath. You wouldn't need an empath to talk to a person because you can talk to a person. You can just ask Credence, what are you feeling? The Obscurus, you could not ask it. Correct. What it's feeling, what it's thinking. You would need a person like Queenie. So, at least as far as we're concerned, there is a lot of evidence for this

theory that we have. And this would allow three more films of story without upending what happens in the King's Cross chapter of Deathly Hallows. And so it is what we're hoping for, for various reasons. It would also just be a really cool story to explore. And that's why I said earlier, there's a chance I think that people feel a lot better about this film, at least in terms of the mythology of it, maybe not how it functions as a standalone movie,

but in terms of its ultimate role in the canon. The timeline thing is interesting. Ariana died in 1899. Credence is born in 1907 or 1908. One of the things we think we know about an Obscurus is that it can't survive without a host for that long. But again, this is one of the things that's actually kind of rich about this experience. You go back now and watch Fantastic Beasts 1. Everything that anyone says about an Obscurial or an Obscurus in that movie is going to play

differently now. Newt has an Obscurus separated from its host in his case of creatures and there's that chilling moment when percival graves really grindavald is interrogating him and says it's oh so it's useless without a host the obscurus reveal in in beast one is a is a great lens through which to view the thing we've been talking about because that is not book canon. That didn't exist. But the introduction of this term and this force. It fit perfectly. It fit perfectly with the things that we had from the books and actually explained a lot about a central tension in a character's life. It was immediately like, aha, this is what happened to Ariana.

Absolutely. A lot more made sense after this. So I think that's the best version of how to do that. Yes. So I've learned distinctly how I am different from you guys in this conversation. And the way in which we are different is you immediately began forecasting when the movie ended. You immediately began thinking about where will this go next? How will they resolve the things that don't seem to make sense to me? when the movie ended, you immediately began thinking about where will this go next? How

will they resolve the things that don't seem to make sense to me? Let me look at what I know and try to make logic out of a story about magic. And it's a fascinating impulse that I don't share, though I understand why someone would have that impulse. I think my impulse often with stories like this is, and it's ironic because of course in the books, this is exactly what you do. But with these movies, I just look at the text. I look at what they showed me.

You know, we just did this top fives podcast about the Coen brothers. And in that conversation, it was look at the movies and extrapolate from there. Extrapolate what those things mean. What are the, what's the intention? And then ultimately what does it come to represent?

My point is, there's been almost no conversation in this conversation about the movie. We're like not talking about how it's made, the performances, barring Jude Law.

We're not talking about Eddie. Eddie Redmayne's name has not been uttered in this podcast. Eddie Redmayne is charismatic. Love him. I'm not even saying we're wrong to have not done that.

I think we could have had a much more pro forma conversation about, should this movie be in a best picture race? Like we could do some bullshitty conversation like that. It's just interesting that, and I think you guys are obviously not alone. I think that the great majority of people that watch these movies think about this in the same way that you do. But this desire to understand when the bow will be tied is so interesting and so unique. I can't think of another, with the exception of the two things that you have focused

so closely on, another mainstream pop culture entity in which you can't help but think about what's next. Again, I think in this particular case, it is exacerbated by the fact that it's a prequel. I think you're right in that the tendency would be there regardless i'm not gonna pretend that i didn't spend like literally all of college thinking about horcruxes because i did okay i did but in this particular case we know that this is moving toward a certain endpoint it is moving toward the duel of legend but not only do we know that we're moving toward that duel we know that we're moving toward a certain endpoint. It is moving toward the duel of legend. But not only do we know that we're moving toward that duel, we know that we're moving toward the Dumbledore

that we spent years investing in. And so it almost is a math problem. I know where I'm starting and I know what I need the final sum to be. What are the missing variables? Like, I think you can't help but think that way. I'm fascinated by how this works. Happy to talk about Eddie Redmayne, who I love.

I think the new Jacob, Queenie, Tina stuff is all great. And I love Theseus and would like to marry him. If you want to get down to brass tacks, like, I think that there are a lot of storytelling mistakes in this movie. Like, I think that it's clear that a lot of stuff was cut out of this movie. It feels like that. Various things in the trailer that are not in the film. Where's my deluminator? Here's a perfect example.

After their escape from the sewer with Kama, who has parasites in his eyes, Newt, Jacob, Tina, and the unconscious Kama go to the safe house that the card, Dumbledore had given Newt a card for a safe house. And it turns out this is the apartment or townhouse of one Nicola Flamel, an alchemist who is immortal, is a big part of the first book. Yes, he makes the Sorcerer's Stone in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. A figure that looms large in Harry Potter history. And so they go to his apartment. Also a real person. Right.

So they go there and they perform surgery on Kama's eyes. With tweezers. With tweezers. And Flamel is just not there. He doesn't greet them. He's not there. He doesn't show up until a half an hour or whatever it is later.

He's hundreds of years old. He needs a nap. Again, fine. But that's weird storytelling. Something's missing. Something is missing. There is a scene where they go to the apartment and knock on the door and Flamel opens the door and that is missing and got cut out for whatever reason. There's numerous things like that.

I think there's a lot of, there's just a lot of general pacing issues. Like, I see so many movies and you sense that there is a kind of rhythm that Hollywood movies instill. Yes. And you are watching for information. And I am watching for, sort of like, to keep my attention in a lot of ways. I'm watching for

all of it, though. Sure. But you can be invested in a lot of different ways. And I'm invested in a very baseline like did I like this like I loved Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part one and two because I was like

this is and I know you guys have some problems with it I ride for part one which I think is a beautiful movie for the reason you're describing I'm actually like I think it seems great

to just hang out with Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in a tent in the woods those are lovely moments let's just talk about a couple of more things.

Deathly Hallows, too, is a problematic movie. Okay, I like it. Johnny Depp is a difficult thing to talk about. It is. Johnny Depp obviously has come under fire in recent years for doing some very bad things. He's become a very controversial figure in our popular culture. His casting in this movie was, I would say, pretty widely derided by both Potter fans and kind of general entertainment watchers at large. I don't know if this really matters. I actually thought he was pretty good in the role.

It probably ultimately is irrelevant to what's happening here. But I also don't know anything about that character. I don't know what they're trying to evince. Have you guys kind of reckoned with your feelings about Rowling being a part of this and his role in the story? I think it's complex. It's disappointing on one level because there's any number of deus ex machina

magical reasons why you could recast this role. I mean, Grindelwald is literally played by a different actor for the entire entirety, basically, of the first movie. Right. Johnny Depp is in the first movie for 30 seconds. 45 seconds, something like that. So you could certainly say that, oh, his form has

changed again, and now he looks whatever. Was there any expectation that he would be recast? I don't know. You know, it's who knows. I mean, people seem surprised that he wasn't yeah okay i think part of it is just the moment in time that we're currently occupying and the level of accountability that we're finally seeing in in pop culture and various walks of life and this felt like a strange aberration a notable one um i was surprised he wasn't recast surprised and

disappointed i'm not going to pretend to know why they didn't, but I'm sure it has something to do with margins and the cost of getting into a protracted lawsuit with Johnny Depp and then making the money back. This is not to let them off the hook, but it was disappointing when it seemed like such an easy thing in terms of the storytelling arc. He's also in a ton of the movie. i mean he's in a ton of the movie and so if it's something that makes

you uncomfortable i think it's important to be very clear about the fact that the the viewers are not the victims like there's an actual victim and we should be mindful of that and so i say but here with i hope full sincerity and thoughtfulness and respect. When you're a fan of something, you want to go in just being excited. And I think a lot of Harry Potter fans felt like this robbed them of that in some way. I just think it was so easy to get out of it that it's shocking to me that they didn't. And now, after this movie, and the volume that he is responsible for,

I don't know how you can at this point. No turning back now. Yeah, you can't do it now. I mean, I guess it's not impossible that we have seen characters get recast over the years, but it seems unlikely that that will happen. And I agree with Jason. I think that there is ultimately some sort of bottom line aspect

to the fact that he's still in this role. Here's my, this is the last thing I want to talk about. This movie's called Fantastic Beasts, colon, the crimes of whatever. And these beasts,

like, are they so fantastic? No, no, no. Come on. Nothing about the Zewu? This is a bad take. Is this like, really, are they so great?

They're great. The beasts are great. I love the beasts. First of all, I'm an animal lover. I'm an animal lover. It's important to know. But Pickett, Newt's bowtruckle, he is just so dope. What are you talking?

What are you saying? I don't know what any of that is. His bowtruckle, the little green guy who hangs out in his pocket and picks off- The celery, yeah. Human celery. It's uncharitable. He's a bowtruckle, the little green guy who hangs out in his pocket and picks oxen. The celery, yeah, human celery. It's uncharitable. He's a bowtruckle, and he's incredible. And he has a real personality, and they have a real bond, and I think it's beautiful. The Nifflers are so cute and cuddly.

It's been neat to learn more about creatures who are casually mentioned in the original series. We come across Nifflers in a care magical creatures lesson with hagrid and goblet of fire and then we get to really just hang out with them in these movies i do understand the contingent of people who say why make it about like amanda our colleague amanda dobbins i think she'd be fine with putting this take into the world saying, why do they think people care about the snuffleupagus, right? So that's part of the calculus, though, by trying to do this hybrid where you're saying here's a new thing. Here's Newt and his whole world. Newt is a magizoologist.

I think the beasts tell you a lot about Newt because he genuinely cares about them. And it shows you it's a way of establishing immediately what kind of person he is and what kind of heart he has. Right. He thinks that everyone is worth fighting for and worth trying to save. That's their function. Even if you killed a child on a Titanic vessel. Tough look for a guy when Lita's like, I murdered the baby. And he's like, it's fine.

And we should be fair to her, it's fine. Because, and we should be fair to her. It's fine. Because it cried a lot. That was the thing that happened. Definitely my favorite take from anyone so far is our colleague Jason Gallagher,

who is a father, saying that he just couldn't accept the fact that no one noticed that the babies had been swapped. He's like, if someone handed me a kid other than my kid, I would know.

I don't think the Beasts are very fantastic, nor do I think this movie is very fantastic, but I do think that you guys are fantastic. Thank you so much. Jason Concepcion, Mallory Rubin, thank you guys for helping me understand just a little bit more about this movie. Thanks for having us.

I believe. I believe in JK. Always. this movie thanks for having us i believe i believe in jk always