What are YOUR thoughts on the "Fantastic Beasts" movies? Let us know below, and be sure to also watch our video about the 5 Questions Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore Answered & 5 We Still Have - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rNCfaduGstuloGQ.html

That McGonagall flaw is the most irritating one for me. Like, did these writers not know that fans are calculating these time differences and would spot a gaffe that big?

Again, for the whole Apparation on school grounds. It could’ve been that Dumbledore himself set up the spells necessary to prevent the act after he became headmaster, which was likely to prevent Voldemort and his Death Eaters from attacking the school.

My biggest complaint is that Newt is still allowed to carry a wand and do magic despite having been expelled from Hogwarts... Hagrid's wand got broken when he was kicked out

Dumbledore just got more excentric as he got older. Many people do and he had a lot of time to develop that style.

It's established in the books that MOST of the Wizarding World cannot dress like Muggles, they're isolated in their magic world. The fact that not only young Dumbledore but most of the wizards and witches dress cleanly and fashionably despite assumingly being equally isolated within their own magic bubbles doesn't add up.

MY EXPLANATIONS: 10. Lack of Robes - We get eccentric as we get older, this is very trivial though. 09. Accio - there's no specific rule that it cant be used on living animals, so as Accio being used on enormous objects, being a skilled magizoologist Newt could've mastered that "special" magic. We see wizards being skilled on being an Animagus, Occlumens, Seer etc which is not for all, even inventing spells , or doing wandless or unspoken magic- im pretty sure Newt is also a special kind of wizard inventing and capable of "special" magic. 08. Dumbledore couldve just switched subjects. DADA teacher claiming to teach 50 years still given ample time from 1930 to 1990 (and it was never said it was consecutive years) 07. It could just be a different tree. Or the same kind of tree but not the one planted leading to the Shrieking Shack. 06. Our desires change which I think applies to the Wizarding World too 05. It was never established when that "Apparition Security" happened. It could be an additional security planted when Dumbledore became headmaster or after the fantastic beasts timeline after the Wizarding War happened as added security 04. Mcgonagall timeline- The claimed flaw is that McGonagall mentioned she taught at Hogwarts for 40 years- But it was never established if it was "consecutive years", she couldve been assigned for a non teaching position at some point or left teaching Hogwarts and came back 03. It could just be a different branch of the lesser known or less prominent branch of the Lestrange family (remember how we associate the last of the ____ family on just the prominent branch? (rumors and media) 02. Aberforth is an introvert kind of person so its not a surprise we never heard of Credence from the HP books. We're also not sure if there's someone else aside from Newt, Albus, Aberforth and Grindelwald who knew about this. 01. Accio is not a disarming spell nor a defensive or attacking spell. And Grindelwald was not using the Elder Wand when he was disguised as Graves.

10 - The wizards in the movies are portraited to use cloaths that are more Muggle than what is described in the books. Despite it's possible that Dumbledore had changed his style, we can't ignore his more trimmed beard. After all, when he gets to meet Tom Riddle, he already had a long auburn beard. Sure, FBSOD happens just a few years before that meeting, but even so... 9 - The term "object" can be very... flexible when it comes to magic. Maybe that's a more generic description of the spell. 8 - Dumbledore teaching DADA despite it already had a teacher can be explained by the fact that he was just filling in for Professor Merrythought. After all, if she was an author as well, she would have gone in trips to promove her work, sometimes during school time. Meaning she would need someone to fill in for her. 7 - I think it was never confirmed that was the Whomping Willow (as far as I know). 6 - What a person sees in the Mirror of Erised can change depending what they desire at the moment they are looking into it. At that scene, Dumbledore's desire was to be able to return to what he and Grindelwald had, as it was a time when they were not enemies. 5 - Yeah, no one can Apparate in Hogwarts grounds. But the Headmaster appears to have control on that. We have to remember that the headmaster on that time was not Dumbledore, but possibly Armando Dippet or his predecessor. The Ministry could have required the Headmaster to lift the charm that prevents Apparating, so they could appear there. Or maybe the Minstry at that time had some influence on the charm. 4 - This one is very controversial, because we got a date to McGonagall's birthday. But I think the year they say she was born was calculated having in consideration her biography and what she had told Umbridge about her tenue in Hogwarts. However, we have a lot to consider. She said to Umbridge she taught for thirty-nine years. But she never said those thirty-nine years were consecutive or that those thirty-nine years represented all her teaching career in Hogwarts. As we know, Dumbledore was the Head of Transfiguration department when she was accepted to teach in Hogwarts. He was still the teacher and McGonagall acted basically as his assistant, filling in for him when he couldn't teach or when he would fill in for other teachers. It's very possible that those thirty-nine years she references is about her career as the Head of the Transfiguration department, what it would make sense, since Dumbledore would stop teaching when he became Headmaster. 3 - It's obvious they were talking about the French branch of the Lestrange family. The Lestrange family is not of British origins, but French. The fact that English-speaking wizards pronunciate the name wrong is proof of that. The French branch would have been the main one, so they were most important. 2 - Just because Credence is never mentioned during the Harry Potter books, it doesn't make it a plothole. Only that it was not relevant to the story. We can't forget that book 7 puts light into Albus' life, not Aberforth's. And what Grindelwerd told Credence about him being a brother to Dumbledore could have double meaning: either he told Credence he and Dumbledore were brothers in the way that they share the same blood or he lied to him about them being brothers. Grindelwerd was a liar, after all. He had lied to many wizards and witches to convince them to join him, like Queenie. 1 - This one is tricky... Yes, for one to conquer the Elder Wand's loyalty, they need to defeat its current owner. Because Harry defeated Draco and conquered the wand's loyalty, then we can assume the wand's master doesn't need to hold it for its allegiance. So it would be assumed that the Elder Wand's allegiance would shift, possibly to Tina, as she was the one to take Graves' wand from Grindelwerd. However, we can assume that, because Grindelwerd technically won the battle during the rally, he may have recovered the alligiance of the Elder Wand or that he had won it back afterwards.

How do mistakes like these even happen when you have the studio who made Harry Potter, the director of half the Harry Potter movies, and the woman who wrote the damn series working on the movies?!

Another big one is the fact that Dumbledore didn't even knew that the room of requirement existed.

One of my biggest complaints about this franchise is Why is Newt Scammander still in these movie? The first movie was good because the story is about Scamander trying to clean up the mess that he accidentally make; and somehow, he got involved with first Wizarding War. The last movie go ahead and done a 180 on us, and make everything about Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Scamander is front and center of the story, but he no longer the main character. The storyline is now about Dumbledore and Grindelward and their preparation for their legendary duel…….And for some reason Scamander is involved. Don’t get me wrong, Eddie Redmayne is a great actor and Newt is great character; but the story is clearly moving so far away from him, that he doesn’t needs to be anywhere near it. They are clearly trying to justify Scamander involvement in these movie. I mean the title of the series is called Fantastic Beast. So the series should have been about Scamander and all the fantastical beasts around the would; and not about the First Wizarding War Another the thing is that they either broke the blood pact too early and/or the time skip is not long enough. Since the 3rd movie is set in 1932 and the the Legendary duel isn’t happening until 1945. So, they got about 13 years time gap, what was Dumbledore doing to justifying him waiting that long to face Grindelwald again. I originally thought that they was going used the blood pact as an excuse for why Dumbledore wait so long to face Grindelwald, but apparently not. They should have make this franchise into a trilogy. The first movie could set up the storyline, 2nd is about Dumbledore trying to break the blood pact, and 3rd is about the leading up to and the legendary duel. That could have been an great action pact trilogy

The Fantastic Beasts franchise is a slap in the face for hardcore Harry Potter fans! It's all about so-called fan service and the ability to write anything that they want to and justify it as "magic." Now, you would think that Ms. J.K. Rowling would be the first person to point out these inconsistencies and flaws, but concerning that she, herself wrote most of them... it kind of looks like she has stopped caring about her magical fantastic creations. 😢🤬

I’ll actually argue that due to the Ministry intervention, Dumbledore was forced to switch subjects. And the new teacher could’ve gone on to teach for 50 years, as the time difference between FB and HP is the late 1920s to the early 2000s. Plenty of time for all of the “discrepancies” to be fixed. Plus, we don’t actually know when Voldemort attacked the Wizarding world. He could’ve been in his early 20s or early 30s.

That isn't the whomping willow, it's another tree. Some wood used for wands as Newt explains right in that scene you are showing.

The tree isn’t the whomping willow. It’s just a willow. Hence why it’s not.. well, whomping. As for the ending, it’s been well known that JK is not “the master of her own lore”. She provided insight and put her name on the Cursed Child, which we all know was a disaster, she’s famous for making up random things about her characters and posting them on Twitter, and of course a lot of the things pointed out here really don’t make sense. I love Harry Potter, but I’m not going to pretend that JK Rowling hasn’t been sloppy for quite a long time now. Every project she’s been involved in after the last HP book has been incredibly flawed.

that tree there at 4:50 wasn't the woomping wilow.

At least it’s not the Cursed Child… god knows how many things went wrong with that..

10- People's personal styles can change over the years as could wizard fashion. The films appear to indicate wizard styles seemed to backslide a bit from a late-19th/early-20th Century style in the 1920s to early/mid-19th Century style by the end of the century. As seen in real life, retro fashions have resurgences. 9- It was never firmly established that accio can't be used on living things. The only implied limitations were distance and size of object. 7- It's clearly a different tree. The leaves, bark consistency and branch growth patterns are not even similar. 5- Even the HP-proper films played fast and loose with this rule. Voldemort was apparating like crazy in his final battle against Harry. 2- Grindelwald may have been using the term "brother" in a non-literal sense. 1- It shows just how powerful Grindelwald really is. He's doing all this incredible magic without a mastery of the wand.

In the books, not even Dumbledore could apparate on in or out of Hogwarts, they had to walk into Hogsmeade.

It's sad how little J.K. Rowling cares about her own books

And don't forget the fact they had the aurors tossing out Avada Kedavra's like they were candy, when the use of unforgivables by the aurors was not legalized until the first war with Voldemort. Or the fact that everyone seemed to be capable of doing it nonverbal.

Still mist Richard Harris as Dumbledore... the best one...

Yeah, I rolled my eyes in the theater when he said "Minerva" and then when they said "McGonnagal".

At one point harry did summon his frog in a charms lesson in the books so yeah.

Actually Accio-ing animals also happened with Harry in charms lessons with a frog. It got away and Harry accioed it back to him.

AND THEY DID MINERVA’S TIMELINE DIRTY FOR WHAT!?! 😡 she’s barely in FB and not important to the story 🙄 her backstory literally doesn’t make any sense now 🤦🏽‍♀️

there is no blood relation between Leta and Bellatrix whatsoever. At most, Leta and Rodolphus Lestrange (Bellatrix's husband) are very distant cousins.

As far as I can remember Dumbledore also can't apparate from Hogwarts grounds. In the 6th book, he had to go hogsmead first to apparate... However 6th film changed this rule. In the secrets of Dumbledore film, I also didn't understand how Jacob could see and be in Hogwarts, when Hogwarts have its protection enchantments against muggles.

When grindelwald used cruccio on Jacob, he simply cast it and did not maintain focus, like in the HP books.

Dumbledore is portraid as a moraly gray character in the book but in the last movie he is pure of heart.

Exactly if Draco supposedly loses possession of the elder wand when that wasn't even the wand taken from him and it was not magical it makes no sense how Dumbledore somehow got it even though he didn't do more than Tina

It's not just dumbledores change of clothing that goes against the Harry Potter series. It's all wizards. In the books it's mentioned a few times how wizards do not know how to dress like muggles properly yet every wizard in fantastic beasts are dressed perfectly in muggle clothing....

Apart from the mcgonagall one all of these can be explained away.

10: they do this in the movies. All the adults are supposed to wear robes and don't. Young Dumbledore was depicted (in the books) as wearing a flamoyantly cut plum suit when he went to visit young Tom Riddle at the Orphanage. That wasn't so long after the events of the FB movies. 9: Accio does work on humans and animals. Harry used it in Deathly Hallows to pull himself towards Hagrid (it didn't pull Hagrid towards him, because he's so big and half a giant) 8: Yes, he used to teach Transfiguration. But that doesn't mean that he never teaches any other subject. Quirrell used to teach Muggle Studies at Hogwarts for many years before taking on DADA for a year before he was killed. Dumbledore has been at the school for decades, it stands to reason he could have changed subjects a couple of times. Galatea Merrythought had been at Hogwarts for 50 years when she retired, but she will have changed around what subjects she taught in that time. Or, they could have had two DADA teachers for a time? Any number of things could explain this. 7: That's not the whomping willow. A bowtruckle is shown to be living in it and why would bowtruckles make a whomping willow their home? I mean, come on, you can tell in the clips that you used that that's not the same tree. 6: I don't know about this one - the mirror is a powerful object, the extent of its power has not been fully explored. Dumbledore knew how to do other things with the mirror than just see your hearts desire. This is evidenced by the fact that he was able to hide the Philosopher's Stone inside it during the events of the first book. 5: Yeah this is iffy. Though, the headmaster/mistress of Hogwarts is able to pull back the anti-apparition spell on the school if they wish. This is evidenced by what Dumbledore does each year when students need to learn how to apparate - he removes the spell from the great hall. 4: Yes! The first one that's actually an inconsistency with the lore. Well done. Yeah she shouldn't be there. Likely though they'll explain this later that she was using a time turner or some other absurd cursed child type thing. Or maybe it's fan service and that's it. 3: Leta and her baby brother belonged to the French Lestranges. Rudolphus is descended from the English family. They were connected hundreds of years ago but they'd be something like 16th cousins or some such. Bellatrix is actually much more closely related to Leta than her husband. Her mother was a Rosier and Leta's grandmother was a Rosier too. 2: Yeah this is called shoehorning and Jo's done it before (see Nagini). It's likely that Aberforth was ashamed that he didn't know his son for very long and stopped talking about him. He wasn't relevant to the Dumbledore story in the HP series and Rita Skeeter never uncovered it for her book. 1: Mastery of a wand doesn't always change when you get disarmed. Otherwise most school children would have lost mastery of their own wands. In DH, Harry just takes Draco's wand and becomes the master of it. Basically, the wand has to want to change hands. Maybe the elder wand didn't want to change allegiance to Porpentina and that's why it didn't. It wanted to shift to Dumbledore during his great duel with Grindelwald. It's a hard one because wand lore is so complex.

The age thing doesn’t bother me cuz the movies clearly changed the ages of a lot of the adults. I guess it’s just movie cannon that mcgonagall is older. I think they were just thinking that dumbledore actor and Maggie smith were both close to the same age in real life so would be close to the same age in their characters. Snape is supposed to be like 32 in the first book and Alan Rickman was much older. I think it’s just movie canon that some of the adults are just not the same age as they were in the books. Maggie smith is 6 years older than Michael Gambon who played dumbledore in most of the movies.

I disagree about Accio. I think it surely can be used on animals too. I mean, I didn't see anything in the book that contradicts it. As for mirror, the desire can change and Grindelwald was much more than a friend.

For McGonagall, she only told Umbridge that she was a teacher for 29 years. That doesn't mean that she was a teacher for 29 years straight. It could be that she had gaps of time in between her teaching years.

It appears the biggest crimes that these movies committed was breaking the lore.

Honestly, the first Fantastic Beasts movie should have been just a one of film which would have lead to a mini series about the Dumbledore and Grindelwald conflict as a mini series on HBO Max or something with maybe Newt Scamander playing a supporting role.

Can't worry about Dumbledore clothing. I mean, really. Who's going to cover up Jude Law?? Even Dumbledore had to strut his stuff! Lol

With all the topsy turvy inconsistencies in the Fantastic Beasts movies, I chose to view them as in a parallel universe lol

Please, let's just forget this new franchise existed. It's only about bad writing, poor developed characters and canon inconsistency. Can't help but hate how shallow the stories are.

The tree in Fantastic beast flashback is NOT a whomping willow. And Newt mentioned it that the tree is one of the materials in making Wands. Whomping willow tree is moving, rotating, have access to the ownership and especially very aggressive to strangers while being kind to the people who are authorized to keep close to it.

accio does not grant ownership of the elder wand, as is a summoning spell, as for expelliarimus is a disarming charm

The whomping willow was in HP: DH2 -- Lily and Servus were lying under it. The tree could be replanted and made to womp when disturbed. Everyone wore muggle clothing. The robes were part of the uniform like a school blazer. There were scenes in all the movies with students were in uniform, minus the robes. A teacher can swtich subjects. Minerva could be family name. The line of demarcation could be at the bridge. Maybe in FB IV Corvis was saved. A woman is shown trying to reach him. She does and is able to apparate. We shall see in IV.

For #10, in Half Blood Prince in the flashback scene where Dumbledore visits young Tom Riddle in the orphanage, he is seen wearing a very ornate formal suit. I can imagine overtime that his style slowly shifted from muted suits, to ornate suits, to more eccentric robes as he gained more leadership roles.

You made a tiny mistake about the spell the summons objects, if you watch the first fantastic beasts the muggle Jacob was holding an egg 🥚 so Newt was actually summons the egg which Jacob was still holding. So that's why Jacob was pulled towards Newt

Apparating… interestingly was also done in the movies the deathly Hollows part 2 by Draco when he rescued his friends from the dungeons

#5. Maybe the spell/enchantment stopping apparating hasn’t been cast yet and the events of the movie(s) are the reason why it was cast #1. It’s possible that because accio is a summoning charm (as you stated) instead of a disarming charm (like expelliarmus) that it doesn’t count as disarming

Your views on number 7, I don't think it was the whomping willow I think it was just a normal willow tree & by the time Lupin arrived at the school they could have cut this tree down & replaced it with the whomping willow

The whomping willow seen in Fantastic Beasts is likely an ancestor of the one seen in Harry Potter that was likely removed to make the secret passageway for Remus and had a sapling replanted in its place to cover it up

yk who WAS alive during this time: TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE if he had a cameo ad one of the hogwarts students that would’ve made more sense

8:33 The train said it's gay...!! :D

7:21 | Dumbledore cannot apparate in and/or out of Hogwarts. This was only in the movie for absolutely no reason. In the book, Dumbledore and Harry had to went to Hogsmeade before disappareting 😬

On #10, in fact, the whole point of wizarding wardrobe was that they DIDN'T know how to dress like muggles. But in the 30s they were the pinnacle of fashion?

And the worst part it that they were all written by JK Rowling. Yes, even the movies. She’s the screenwriter and producer of the fantastic beast franchise lol 😂

Your views on number 5, it could be possible the headmaster & the minister of magic of that time could have changed the rules or laws on this spell due to what was going on at the time & if you've noticed they only Apparated outside the front gate and not actually inside the school.

Here’s my 10 issues with the movies. 10: The robes, anyone notice how the Hogwarts robes are supposed to be black, but in COG they are navy blue with cranberry lining plus their house colors. Yeah, that’s the color scheme for Illvermory, like if that was the goal they should of just staged the film there instead of Hogwarts, such a waste😩. 9: Minerva Mcgonagall vs Tom Riddle- Fun fact Tom Riddle was older then Minerva by about 5-6 years he was born in ‘25 and attended Hogwarts in ‘35 meaning that in the timeline where COG is happening we could have gotten Tom there as a student but instead we get Minerva as a teacher when she had only been teaching at most since the mid 60’s.🤨 8: Johnny Depp Look: now I didn’t necessarily hate Depp as Grindelwald, I never pay attention to actor’s personal lives if I can help it so my only judgement is about the acting and looks. Acting wise he was okay, if he had been playing a little more along the lines of Jack Sparrow with more wickedness to him that would have been cool because it would have matched that “wild, reckless, playful” personality he was supposed to have in the book. Really it was his look that threw me off. The white hair and mismatched eyes were off putting, and not in a good way, he just didn’t resemble the description in the book and with a wig change he could have. That was disappointing😕. 7: Nagini the snake woman: I hate, hate, hate this change, I feel like J.K Rowling or the film makers saw this theory and thought huh that’d be cool and in theory it is. A blood curse is interesting, I just didn’t like that Nagini was a part of it. Forgetting the whole “Nagini should be dead since it’s been 70 years” thing, Nagini was already a good character without any thing added, Voldemort’s loyal snake and Horcrux, she didn’t need more improvement than that and worse than that is when they did add her she did really do anything that significant. It just felt like she was brought to be the loyal pet of the “baddie” again except in human form and then was thrown away. ☹️ 6: The Jacob issue: don’t get me wrong Jacob was a really good character, often the straight man to the more ridiculous magical counterparts but he should not have been at Hogwarts or had a wand. Hogwarts is for wizards and while I realize it was likely a bit of fan service it somewhat diluted the experience for me. According to the originals, Muggles are not able to use magic so why is Jacob given access to a wand and for that matter why is he marrying Queenie in New York when intermarriage between No Maj’s and wizards is illegal there and she also happens to be a fugitive, like am I supposed to believe the same government who cut out somebody’s tounge was just okay with that? Though I do admit that the Slytherins toying with him was just so on point 😂. 5: Credence/Corvis/Aurelius- I can not be the only one who just felt done with the series after all this confusion. Also the idea that Aberforth would abandon his own son after seeing what happened to his sister is laughable much less the fact that he would have a dalliance with a random woman while his sister was being mistreated plus his thing with goats is curious.🤯 4: Blood Pact- a lot of people have already proved the impossibility of the blood pact so to summarize they could not have made it before they separated because they had a three way duel against each other with Aberforth and the blood pact was supposed to prevent that and they couldn’t have made it after since Grindelwald was implicated in Ariana’s death and he and Dumbledore had not contacted each other since then.😕 3: Dumbledore and Grindelwald Duel- this duel wasn’t supposed to happen until 1944 not to mention that they shouldn’t have even met at this point yet.😫 2: The Plan- this convoluted PLAN that was born on a train where no one is supposed to know what’s going on and our heroes are given pieces of an elaborate puzzle is something that could only come from the mind of Albus Dumbledore left me feeling so confused and unsatisfied, at the very least we know how it feels to be Harry, Newt, and Severus.😏 1: Magic inconsistencies- this isn’t just an oversight of FB franchise the originals did it sometimes to, I mean specifically the Avada Kedavra curse, it’s supposed to be unblockable when it hits you and yet we see characters like Newt and Ginny be able to fend it off with Shield charms when in fact they should be dead. Apparition has always been a bit of gray area in the movies as well, for example in the originals they made it seem like the Death Eaters were capable of flight when only Severus and Voldemort could do that.😤

I think Newt used accio only on Teddy aka the niffler. But Teddy's "bag" is always full with stuff so.... is he accio the animal or the object in his "bag"?

7:30 while in the movie, Dumbledore Apparated with Harry to the island where Voldemort hid his "locket" (which is a fake, switched by R.A.B.), in the book, Dumbledore walked with Harry towards Hogsmeade and to the Hog's Head before Apparating to the island. Just something to take note

what about the killing curse Grindelwald is trying to use on Credence at the end of the movie? According to HP books, killing curse can be stopped only if a person sacrifices themselves for the one about to be killed. It's the base story of the entire HP book series, how Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But here, just by Albus and Abeforth protective spell stops the curse? And how conveniently it also destroys the blood pact (which again, should not be possible to do)? Also, this "parallel universe" or "pocket univers" that Albus created whenever he has to duel with someone and not hurt people? Where was this in the HP books? When he was trying to protect Harry from Voldemort during the ministry duel? Plus, how can Jacob see Hogwarts? He is muggle, so he should see only ruins of an old castle.... Honestly, the whole series of Fantastic beasts is loosely, very loosely connected to HP, but respects no law established in the original books.

Apparating - I only see them apparating onto the bridge, and I have assumed that they apparate there, because that's the exact point of the enchantment ending

I personally think the tree is a different one... it does not look the same and I reckon with Dumbledore also, he could have changed specialisations. Sometimes teachers do that if they go back to school in the human world... maybe its hell easy with the Wizarding World!

y'all do realize that "the writer" you're all complaining about is literally JKrowling herself ? right ?

Actually, what the older Dumbledore saw in the Mirror of Erised was himself holding a pair of warm (wool?) socks. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that what he saw as a young man could change over time as he grew older.

Well since Minerva never had a canon birth year, she could absolutely be there

Not going into all of these but as for the apparition they do state in Order of the Phoenix that Dumbledore has allowed apparition on the grounds to allow people to train for their license so clearly the Headmaster has control of this.

This tends to be the problem with prequels in long-established franchises. No wonder the Fantastic Beasts movies failed to appeal to the more knowledgeable fans of Rowling’s earlier work.

Not even an honorable mention for the fact that they invented a Supreme Prime Minister for the wizarding world, while all prior sources clearly depict the geographically individual wizarding communities to have their own legislation? The main conflict of the 3rd movie doesn't make any sense from a worldbuilding standpoint. (Sure it could have changed since then, but given that the wizarding communities are relatively small in number and isolated due to the Statue of Secrecy and communication technologies not advancing the same rate as muggle ones do, it's geopopilitically rather unlikely.)

I know this has nothing to do with the movies and has to do with the soundtrack, but anybody else feel weird when they start playing hedwig's theme when the owl isn't even alive or associated with anyone in these movies? I know it's a technicality and I know that when you're talking about Harry Potter, you think of that theme, but I thought since these stories are decades before Harry Potter, they would have brought in other songs that represent Hogwarts the school, not Harry Potter, the movies.

How do we know that is a whomping willow vs a willow? It would make since to replace a willow with a tree that looks the same........

in harry potter and half prince blood in flashback we see Dumbledore with Tom riddle aka voldemort in orphanage you see Dumbledore was wearing suit and tie back then

I think they wanted to use a more established position (at least in the movies) for Dumbledors job.

The thing with Dumbledore teaching transfiguration when riddle was there, is perhaps he taught that because was no longer allowed to teach DATDA…. I'M pretty sure that there is more than one whompIng Willow around Hogwarts…. Apparating within Hogwarts … does it say specifically in the books that it is Hogwarts Grounds or Hogwarts Castle itself?

The Harry Potter movies messed up some book lore too. You CANNOT apparate on Hogwarts grounds, no exceptions. Not even Dumbledore is supposed to be able to do that. That is something Half Blood Prince movie got wrong.

It's possible after the battle against grinwald Dumbledore choose to switch jobs, there is still a lot history before harry we don't know about that weren't in either the HP films or books Dumbledore is quite an old wizard so I'm sure he has done alot of things before working as a teacher & when he did become a teacher, another idea maybe he was moved to a different post not by choice but was forced by the headmaster. Meaning is it not possible the headmaster that at the school during Tom Riddler's time was a new headmaster?

Dumbledore wears a purple suit to go get Riddle from the orphanage so I’m not offended by the suit itself. I’m offended by the lack of quirky personality that Jude Laws portrayal lacks.

I don't know about anyone else but the Harry Potter cinematic universe may continue producing movies until the timeline goes full circle since event wise the next set of events to cover would be the marauder's era which does include the first blood war. it would be a great way to end the franchise since that set of events didn't get much fleshing out in the original movie saga aside from revealing that James was a no good bully in his youth which made Severus a jaded anti-hero who held a grudge for too long.

4:45 THAT AINT THE WOMPING WILLOW THATS A TREE

Also Dumbledore hair grows when he’s older lol.

A movie and book on the founders would have been better than fantastic beast in my opinion

In fact, Accio can summon people! Harry summoned Hagrid with the spell during the Battle of the Seven Potters and it worked. Just a small note aha

Actually Harry used the accio charm on Hagrid in the deathly hallows books.

Once you admit you can summon a toad, you're throwing away your argument that you can't summon a Niffler. You might as well argue that wizards can't have British accents in the prequels because only some of them have them in Harry's time. Because that makes the same amount of sense.

They apparated to the bridge. Also there is no clear time-line when the rule of apparating was set. That wasn't a whomping willow.

I’d like to know about the Lestrange family cause I’m getting confused

If you’ve read the HP books, ‘Fantastic Beasts’ is full of irritating inconsistencies. However…… this doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy watching them!

1 - Yup. I made this comment after I saw the movie. I was hoping to see the wand fail Grindelwald in the next movie. Tina should have been the new master of the Elder wand.

Yes to all of these…except one. This just happens to be one of the reasons that I don’t find myself in to HP anymore. JK ignores her own established canon, then turns out to be a TERF…I could go on. Now as for the one thing that you have incorrect…this whole franchise is the lead up to the famed duel between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. So of course yes, what we see in the mirror can change (this happens in real life all the time. Our wants change), but even if that weren’t the case, all of the movies up until the 5th and (hopefully…) final one are pre duel Albus and Gellert. They had a bit of a faking out before that of course, but he still wouldn’t be seeing his family like he had for years in the mirror before that duel, since it was the duel that caused it. The rest of these can be argued…I suppose. But like you said, it’s just bad writing. That CLEARLY is the McGonagall we know and love in the second film, and that was the first one of these contradictions that I noticed and I nearly threw my phone at the screen in the theater. She was literally a STUDENT of Albus’ and they went and done made her his coworker?????

I really want this to be finished.... i know it was going downhill but *sigh

Now I know why everyone hated COG.

70 year difference between the movies. There is a lot of changes that can happen in 70 years

He use the accio on the platypus I think it work bc it hiding too many things so it make it move or come to him

I know it's just head-canon, but I always assumed you couldn't apparate on Hogwarts ground because Dumbledore set up some kind of spell that stopped it. Hence why HE could do it.

What about the snake? It was the same snake that became Voldemort's horcrux? She didn't follow the Dumberdores? I thought they were in love.

Can you please make a video of the worst high schools in teen drama shows

I've read something about the mcgonagall in the fb series is minerva mcgonagall's auntie? dunno if its true tho

Isn't fantastic Beasts before Tom Riddle which means things could be different

As a fellow potterhead I don’t think all excuse-like explanations to almost all loopholes are making sense. I assume many of us read the books multiple times and are aware of the details and references to history of magic and some exceptions to established rules. Sorry but all these are clear sign of bad writing. I think writers and JKR in particular neglected established storyline and timelines just to make money off Fantastic Beasts movies.

Number 10, 9 : have no solid factual base but rather interpretations in the writing. Number 8, 5 : who says once or twice (or in a specific time period) they didn’t happen/were permitted in so many magic history? Number 7 : interpretation from the picture misleading Number 6, 3, 2 : shouldn’t even be there / you even clarify as so haha Number 1 : wand chooses the wizard! Know your lore. Many cases I can bring. I give you number 4, but none has said it is Minerva in fact (as you clarify)