• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Fantastic Beasts (and other Wizarding World stuff) ***SPOLIERS****

kawaiiconcept

TOP OF THE MORNIN'
First off:
PLEASE DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN FATASTIC BEASTS.
THANKS.
okay now that the big spoiler warning is out of the way.
It's time for me to show my nerd side. When I saw this movie there were SO MANY hidden thing that I saw that were SO CLEVER.
Many of the beasts actually shown in the film would not be recognizable if you hadn't actually read the book it's based on.
HOWEVER, one beast shown in the film IS NOT in the Fantastic Beasts book. (besides the obscurus)
That is Frank, The bird-like creature that Newt is delivering to Arizona. What is Frank? A Thunder Bird, a golden feathered bird that creates storms as it flies. It is also the house masscot and namesake for one of the houses at Ilvermorny.
One last thing, Pickled essence of murtlap tenticles protects from spells and curses, imagine what a bite could do.
 

Bowlbasaur

Well-Known Member
I just saw it as well! I haven't actually read the book yet, but I know I should. My favorite beast was Doogal (spelling?) by far--I wish I had my own little Demiguise lol.
 
This movie is amazing. Here are my thoughts:
Newt is awesome.
Tina is awesome.
Jacob is hilarious.
Queenie is adorable.
Credence is AN ADORABLE EMO SNUGGLEMUFFIN.
Newt x Tina all the way.
Jacob x Queenie all the way.
Frank the Thunderbird is the original Reshiram/Zekrom fusion - a birdlike dragon thing that creates lightning? Design of Reshiram, powers of Zekrom.
I hate Graves (or whatever you wanna call him, we know who we can also call him).
The battles were cool.
HOLY F**K YES!!!! Credence is almost definitely in the next movie apparently.

Overall, a 9.5/10. I was kind of annoyed we got no Credence grieving scene.
 

U.N. Owen

In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...
I could not believe that Grindelwald was the twist villain. I think he was master of the Elder Wand at this time.
 

kawaiiconcept

TOP OF THE MORNIN'
I could not believe that Grindelwald was the twist villain. I think he was master of the Elder Wand at this time.

actually I heard (from pottercast) that this takes place before the duel with dumbedore.
also I own the book this is based off of
and
1. first title page below the schoolastic logo: "in association with obscurus books 18a Diogon Alley, London
2. the about the author section: it says that newt is now retired and lives in dorset with his WIFE PORPENTINA and their pet kneazles
also
there was orhinally going to be a scene where eddie was SHIRTLESS but it was cut (eddie says this on the grahm norton show)
 
Last edited:
actually I heard (from pottercast) that this takes place before the duel with dumbedore.
also I own the book this is based off of
and
1. first title page below the schoolastic logo: "in association with obscurus books 18a Diogon Alley, London
2. the about the author section: it says that newt is now retired and lives in dorset with his WIFE PORPENTINA and their pet kneazles
also
there was orhinally going to be a scene where eddie was SHIRTLESS but it was cut (eddie says this on the grahm norton show)

Remove the "Porpen".

It's still Tina. Porpentina is just the long version.
 

Zoruagible

Lover of underrated characters
I finally watched this.
It was..... okay. I still fail to see why this was even needed to be a movie in the first place. Oh, a small children's book.... let's make a full fledged movie out of it to make money!
Harry Potter was fine as is, it didn't need any more stories.
 

kawaiiconcept

TOP OF THE MORNIN'
I finally watched this.
It was..... okay. I still fail to see why this was even needed to be a movie in the first place. Oh, a small children's book.... let's make a full fledged movie out of it to make money!
Harry Potter was fine as is, it didn't need any more stories.

it didnt NEED to be a movie
rowling WANTED it to be a movie so it was
maybe she wanted to show she could do wizarding world thing without harry?
SO
for those of you who have been on pottermore:
what's your hogwarts house?
what's your Ilvermorny house?
What's your wand?
What's your patronus?
mine are:
hufflepuff
thunderbird
willow (i think, i still prefer cherry wood) with unicorn hair
and my patronus is a Siberian cat (they are so fuffy its awsome)
 

Professor Maple

Pokemon prof.
I'm pretty sure dumbledore's sister was an obsurus.
 

Professor Maple

Pokemon prof.

Cometstarlight

What do I do now?
I've only recently gotten into Harry Potter (around the time Deathly Hallows part 1 came out) and although I haven't read the books, I can't wait to get around to 'em.

Fantastic Beasts was good, but it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I thought there would be a greater focus on Newt and his creatures, but it was more of trying to figure out what was terrorizing the city, which is fine. Perhaps now that I have a better grasp of what the movie was about, I'll like the sequels more than I would have before.

As for the previous question:
What's your Hogwarts house? Hufflepuff
What's your Ilvermorny house? Pukwudgie
What's your wand? Hazel wood w/a Phoenix feather core 10 3/4" and Unyielding flexibility
What's your patronus? Buffalo (has anyone else gotten one? I've searched high and low and can't find any fellow buffalo patronus out there XD)
 

Professor Maple

Pokemon prof.
Hogwarts house: ravenclaw
Wand: birch, unicorn hair
Patronus: ferret
 

kawaiiconcept

TOP OF THE MORNIN'
I've only recently gotten into Harry Potter (around the time Deathly Hallows part 1 came out) and although I haven't read the books, I can't wait to get around to 'em.

Fantastic Beasts was good, but it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I thought there would be a greater focus on Newt and his creatures, but it was more of trying to figure out what was terrorizing the city, which is fine. Perhaps now that I have a better grasp of what the movie was about, I'll like the sequels more than I would have before.

As for the previous question:
What's your Hogwarts house? Hufflepuff
What's your Ilvermorny house? Pukwudgie
What's your wand? Hazel wood w/a Phoenix feather core 10 3/4" and Unyielding flexibility
What's your patronus? Buffalo (has anyone else gotten one? I've searched high and low and can't find any fellow buffalo patronus out there XD)

Fantastic Beasts is so much better if you read the books
 

Venyos10

Dark-type Master
I've only recently gotten into Harry Potter (around the time Deathly Hallows part 1 came out) and although I haven't read the books, I can't wait to get around to 'em.

Fantastic Beasts was good, but it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I thought there would be a greater focus on Newt and his creatures, but it was more of trying to figure out what was terrorizing the city, which is fine. Perhaps now that I have a better grasp of what the movie was about, I'll like the sequels more than I would have before.

As for the previous question:
What's your Hogwarts house? Hufflepuff
What's your Ilvermorny house? Pukwudgie
What's your wand? Hazel wood w/a Phoenix feather core 10 3/4" and Unyielding flexibility
What's your patronus? Buffalo (has anyone else gotten one? I've searched high and low and can't find any fellow buffalo patronus out there XD)

Hey, I'm a Pukwudgie too!
But I'm a Slytherin.
Also: Murtlap tentacles are used to repel jinxes, right?
Jacob was bitten by a Murtlap.
It repelled the Memory Charm.
HE REMEMBERS EVERYTHING.
 

Kutie Pie

"It is my destiny."
Okay, first off: I haven't touched anything Harry Potter-related since the seventh book was released. I didn't go see the movies after Half-Blood Prince because I was just done with the series once it ended--or so I had believed--and so I never kept up with anything else about the series. I haven't even gone back to re-read the books, I'm just not interested in them anymore.

Fantastic Beasts was clearly made for the fans by a creator who wanted to explore the wizardry world further. If you're a fan and you remember a lot of important key elements in the books, such as symbols, items, magic, all that good stuff, good for you, this movie's for you. The average movie-goer who may-or-may-not have seen Harry Potter, let alone cared for the franchise, may have a harder time keeping up with what was going on, and that's what I noticed watching it. I honestly had no idea what was happening for the first two-thirds of the film, it felt like a lot of things were just being made up as it went along. The climax and resolution ended nicely, though, I was totally fine with it. Everything else before that?

Frustrating. And I don't think it had anything to do with the shitty projector the theater had, I think it was the editing and the pacing, and just the fact that the film adaptations just aren't as good as the books due to leaving things out (couldn't be helped, though, but some movies had left out crucial elements). It also made me think the ending was written out first (usually is the case with stories) and the rest was filled in over time and got jumbled up. But again, this just might not have transitioned well into cinema, for unless you were paying close attention in every single shot of the movie and every single line, chances were things were going to be missed, such as Grindelwald's penchant that was given to the boy what's-his-face. (That's another thing, I can't tell you for the life of me the names of like 95% of the characters, especially since those 95% have no bearings on the history given in the books anyway.) Although that, again, was a nod for the Potter fans who remembered the small details like that. I didn't remember anything about that pendant until my mom (she remembers lots of details from the books) pointed it out.

Otherwise, it felt like a "British man comes to 1920s America, magical shenanigans ensue" flick for at least the first two-thirds. It was nicely-filmed, the cinematography didn't annoy me like the editing did (the special effects kinda did by the end, though), but I just couldn't grasp what was going on until the very end and after talking it over with my grandmother and mother. And I don't think that's a good thing.

So this is a book now, yes? I would much rather read the book. I'd have a better idea of what was going on, and I could look things up if I needed to instead of waiting to get out of a theater and thus lose a lot of information and questions I may have had.
 

kawaiiconcept

TOP OF THE MORNIN'
Okay, first off: I haven't touched anything Harry Potter-related since the seventh book was released. I didn't go see the movies after Half-Blood Prince because I was just done with the series once it ended--or so I had believed--and so I never kept up with anything else about the series. I haven't even gone back to re-read the books, I'm just not interested in them anymore.

Fantastic Beasts was clearly made for the fans by a creator who wanted to explore the wizardry world further. If you're a fan and you remember a lot of important key elements in the books, such as symbols, items, magic, all that good stuff, good for you, this movie's for you. The average movie-goer who may-or-may-not have seen Harry Potter, let alone cared for the franchise, may have a harder time keeping up with what was going on, and that's what I noticed watching it. I honestly had no idea what was happening for the first two-thirds of the film, it felt like a lot of things were just being made up as it went along. The climax and resolution ended nicely, though, I was totally fine with it. Everything else before that?

Frustrating. And I don't think it had anything to do with the shitty projector the theater had, I think it was the editing and the pacing, and just the fact that the film adaptations just aren't as good as the books due to leaving things out (couldn't be helped, though, but some movies had left out crucial elements). It also made me think the ending was written out first (usually is the case with stories) and the rest was filled in over time and got jumbled up. But again, this just might not have transitioned well into cinema, for unless you were paying close attention in every single shot of the movie and every single line, chances were things were going to be missed, such as Grindelwald's penchant that was given to the boy what's-his-face. (That's another thing, I can't tell you for the life of me the names of like 95% of the characters, especially since those 95% have no bearings on the history given in the books anyway.) Although that, again, was a nod for the Potter fans who remembered the small details like that. I didn't remember anything about that pendant until my mom (she remembers lots of details from the books) pointed it out.

Otherwise, it felt like a "British man comes to 1920s America, magical shenanigans ensue" flick for at least the first two-thirds. It was nicely-filmed, the cinematography didn't annoy me like the editing did (the special effects kinda did by the end, though), but I just couldn't grasp what was going on until the very end and after talking it over with my grandmother and mother. And I don't think that's a good thing.

So this is a book now, yes? I would much rather read the book. I'd have a better idea of what was going on, and I could look things up if I needed to instead of waiting to get out of a theater and thus lose a lot of information and questions I may have had.

hm
well its not technically a book (and yes it might have been made for fans) its adapted from a guide book
 
Top