No, “Crimes of Grindelwald” Isn’t Worse Than “Cursed Child”
SPOILERS AHEAD: PROCEED WITH CAUTION
Three days before Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was officially released, early screenings were shown at certain movie theaters around the country. That’s when the statuses and comments started popping up on social media: “the movie is a disaster”; “the timeline is wrong”; “it’s nonsensical”; “Cursed Child made more sense than Crimes of Grindelwald.”
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child made more sense? Cursed Child?
Why did so many Potter fans praise Cursed Child but now hate this new installment of Fantastic Beasts?
I honestly did not have high hopes for this movie and I almost didn’t want to see it. I didn’t really like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and then Rowling kept digging herself an even bigger hole with of all the controversy surrounding casting and the storyline concerning love (or lack thereof) between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. However, if I had to choose between Cursed Child or Crimes of Grindelwald, let’s throw that Cursed play out with the baby Lestrange ocean water. (Too soon?)
Crimes of Grindelwald may be confusing, but let’s be real – there are three more movies coming. Why are fans so quick to judge a single movie in an unfinished series? Let’s have some hope that Rowling will clear up some things in the films to come.
But what about the lack of character development?!
Like I said, it’s only one movie. If you ask me, they were focusing on the buildup of Grindelwald to demonstrate his power and show us how swiftly his movement took hold – so fast that there was little time to focus on other characters. The movie is titled Crimes of Grindelwald, not The Development of Tina and Newt’s Relationship. If people can accept Yates’ excuse that went something along the lines of “Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship isn’t pertinent to the story of this film,” then people can hold their Thestrals on other relationships too. There may have been more character development in Cursed Child, but at least no one developed drills for hands this time.
But what about Queenie?!
I saw this coming a mile away (or at least hoped for it). I think one of the main reasons I enjoyed this movie was because Queenie joined Grindelwald. I’ve seen many people say that her character development in particular was skipped over, but I could disagree. I think Queenie is one of the strongest characters in the films so far; she is highly emotional, her motives are always pretty apparent, and she doesn’t have to say much to get her point across. Not much is needed to build up a character that is already inherently strong – especially if you turn them villainous. Villains are so complex, I’m a sucker for them. Give me a villain character arc over anyone else all day, every day! A play about a goody-goody Slytherin over my favorite Fantastic Beasts character gone rogue? No thanks.
But what about the timeline?!
Did anyone actually expect this to stick to the timeline or to canon? Rowling literally destroyed the timeline in Cursed Child when she introduced long-term time travel, if you will. Who’s to say someone didn’t go back and mess things up again, huh? Does continuity even matter at this point? If you think it’s impossible for Credence to be a Dumbledore, maybe wait until the story is actually finished to see how it pans out instead of jumping to conclusions straight away. Who’s to say Grindelwald is being (fully) truthful to Credence to put him against Albus? Who’s to say something else isn’t going on here?
So yeah, maybe Crimes of Grindelwald is a little confusing, but it’s only one piece of a five-piece puzzle, while Cursed Child was a one-and-done nonsense piece. It’s almost as if everyone has forgotten what it was like reading the books as they came out – suspenseful, confusing, plot-twisted. Analytical theorizing has been a big part of the Potter fandom since the dawn of Muggle time, so just sit back and enjoy the confusion. I, for one, am here for the ride – so why not join me in the discussion? What are your thoughts?