uugh yeah the FB movies actually make me feel better about the terrible fact that the books only two canon queer characters are evil / punished for their gayness. At least in the movies their love seems mutual, and a GOOD thing. Albus' love is shown in a genuine romantic/sympathic light and its the one thing humanzing aspect about Gellert. I'm just gonna pretend they somehow find a way, if Minerva can be both unborn and a teacher at Hogwarts then Grindeldore can pull off a double act as well lol

I was fucking astonished at how much softer FB3 was than any examination of Albus and Gellert’s relationship that we’d gotten up to that point. Somebody - not necessarily JKR, as we know she was unsatisfied with the third film to the point of not staying for the screening at the premiere, and both Steve Kloves and David Yates either rewrote her original script or fought with her to include details, but somebody - seems to be aware that what happened to Albus’s character in DH was gross, and tried to change it. He’s got a reciprocal, warm, soft relationship with Gellert! His brother is on speaking terms with him and not the bitter old man from the books! Everyone’s okay with this relationship, no one’s homophobic enough to talk shit to Albus’s face! It’s almost this apology for what came before? Even if Gellert is at his most WTF in this film, it gave me all that and I have no choice but to stan.

FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE (2022)

The Crimes of Grinderwald - Review (Spoilers)

I don't usually do reviews but this one is a must for me. Perhaps I will find people who feel the same as me. I had high expectations for this movie. I hadn't thoroughly enjoyed the first, maybe because of the huge impact of Harry Potter movies on me.

Let's adress first what I need to talk about the most:

- Starting at the beggining, I couldn't believe my eyes with the love potion storyline. The other day I heard Margaret Atwood talk about how even if you write an historic novel, you can never fully write it in the past accurately because you live in the present. So you need to represent the present in the past. What I mean is HOW can JK be so out of touch with #metoo and the consent talk and make Queenie give Jacob a love potion?! I mean because he is in love makes itok? Like consent isn't needed in a relationship as well?? C'mon, that was painful to watch. Is Queenie that desperate to get married?

No.

And I am all in favor for her joining Grinderwald, that was surprising but made sense since he is a seer too and is manipulating her for sure.

- Johnny Depp gets too much screen time. Yu. It could be used for, say, Leta or Tina. I wasn't thrilled at that sequence at the beginning. I liked the Pere Lachaise scene of course, that was necessary for the story.

- Thirdly, how come there is no opiniated female characters vital to the story, such as Hermione, Tonks or McGonagall? (I mean, I know McGonagall is in for like three seconds). Because hey, Tina was there just for Newt, she hardly did anything except get arrested and get a love confession. In a shocking choice, we didn't even see Tina react to her sister joining Grinderwald?????! Wtf David Yates?!

Which leads me to my favorite character in this movie, Leta.

- Leta Lestrange was the character I needed. She has everything the others lack. She has a painful past, being the product of the Imperius curse on her mother. That was hard to watch and moved me. The consent theme is problematic in this movie though. She has great scenes. Zoe is a fantastic actress. I feel for Leta. So HOW COME THEY KILLED HER? The best female character in this franchise! Theseus should have died, come on, but no, she was killed to add to the arc of the male characters, the Scamander brothers. I was so sure Theseus was going to die before watching the movie.

- Oh and now the very, very bad. Nagini. Barely two lines. Adds absolutely nothing to the story, if she wasn't there nothing would be lost. Which is diservice to the character and the actress.

- The Virgo in me will presently complain about the time innaccuracies and THAT finale.

So, let's get down to business.

Aurelius aka Credence can’t be the son of Percival or Kendra Dumbledore. Acording to Ezra Miller, his character was 18 in the first movie (1926), which means he was probably born in 1908. Percival has been in Azkaban since 1891, and it’s very unlikely for to have had a children white in prision. Kendra died in 1899, the same year Ariana did, 9 years before Credence was even born.

HOW THE HELL IS HE A DUMBLEDORE?

Of course Grindelwald could be talking to the Obscurus, that came from Ariana. As we know, an obscurus is a parasite, so it could have scaped Ariana’s body after her death. But how did it find Credence, if he was born much time after her death?

Or did Albus and Gellert kept the Obscurus? But if Gellert did, how did he not know it was Credence?

Is this the truth and Grindelwald gives him the name of Aurelius Dumbledore to create some sort of resentment towards Albus in Credence? I mean the phoenix is there as proof and leaves me very confused. Is he not a brother but just a relative of Albus? But how are they explaining that?

There is however a terrifying possibility. Is the former perfectionist JK Rowling shitting on timelines?? Because McGonagall is in this movie even though she isn't even born until 1938.

THIS IS VERY DISAPPOINTING INDEED.

And now for the aspects I liked:

- Newt of course is still a precious baby.

- His creatures are precious babies. I loved those scenes and the ones with Bunty.

- Like I said, all things Leta Lestrange.

- Jude Law was flawless as Dumbledore. I need to see more.

- Love scenes between Tina and Newt (although Tina needs more autonomy amd more lines in the next movie. She is just a puppet in this one).

- I am a big Grindeldore stan. That HAND IN HAND SCENE. YES. And listen: that scene felt appropriate since in the HP franchise we barely saw kisses, except Harry and his girls and Ron/Hermione. The other couple was Tonks and Lupin who never show PDA. So, I am extremely satisfied with this scene. It was lovely.

- Paris. <3

- HOGWARTS!!! <3

They need to increase the pace and the drama in the next one. I am hoping they fix the problems with this one and give more action to Tina, Nagini and Queenie. And more Albus/Gellert please.

thank you so much for those phoebe/cole posts! just warmed my heart so much! maybe moved me to tears a bit. :) what do you think about dexter/brian? and grindeldore! and anything you want with charlie from lost? and boone/locke? thank you! you're so sweet.

Aw, you’re welcome. And thank you so much

As always I’m placing my response under the cut, because it got long (at this point I think we’ve established it’s impossible for me to ever give short responses haha).

Dexter and Brian

I’m assuming this means platonically? I know that some fans shipped them as a crackship, but I was never one of those people. I love dark ships and I’m not averse to incestuous ships either, but it’s too far even for me lmao. I don’t have that much of an opinion on these two. I find their connection interesting, but because it was only really in the first season (and a little bit in season 5 when he hallucinated him) I don’t have strong opinions on it. I think Brian is the literal representation of the darkest version of Dexter or his “Dark Passenger”. Because the thing is with Dexter, despite him being a serial killer and all his repeated spiel about being evil and not having any feelings or compassion, we see that that’s clearly not the case. His humanity grows more and more throughout the seasons, but even in season 1 he still has the ability to show kindness. He cares about Deb, Rita, Astor and Cody. He has strong feelings about children and fights to protect them no matter what, and whatever way you try to spin it, that’s not the way a psychotic cold-blooded killer behaves or thinks. Brian, on the other hand, really is a psychotic cold-blooded killer. He doesn’t care about anyone or anything, not even Dexter. His attachment to Dexter is much more about the thrill of having someone to share his sadism with and to have a partner in crime (literally), who he can learn from and teach so they can both become more ruthless and skilled killers. When Dexter kills Brian at the end of season 1, it’s about more than simply him choosing Deb over Brian, it’s about him sacrificing that darkest part of himself, it’s about him choosing love and selflessness over his Dark Passenger. Brian being the embodiment of Dexter’s Dark Passenger is all but confirmed in ‘Nebraska’ (6x07) where Brian appears to Dexter and consistently encourages him to give into his darkest urges and to let go of the good parts of himself. My perception of it is that Brian is a contrast to Debra - he represents the bad in Dexter and Deb represents the good. Whilst Brian pushes Dexter to embrace the bad in him, Debra encourages the good in him. This all goes back to the scene in season 1 where Dexter has to choose between Brian and Debra, and like I said, the choice he makes shows not only that he loves Deb more but that what she represents - the good - is more important to him.

Grindeldore

Sorry but I don’t really have an opinion on them. I don’t know much about them as a ship apart from the snippets I’ve seen from JKR over the years. I’ve stayed clear of Fantastic Beasts and anything HP related (except HP itself) since HP ended. The reason for that is because I feel that had HP had a well rounded and complete ending and anything else that follows is just a money grab and does nothing to add to the universe or characters.

Charlie Pace

This is an interesting one for me to discuss, because I recently completed a re-watch of LOST. If you’ve seen my post where I share my thoughts on my recent  rewatch (you can read it here), you’ll know that my opinion on Charlie has completely changed. When I was younger I loved Charlie, I thought he was witty and funny, and I enjoyed watching his friendships with Hurley and Desmond. But my most recent re-watch definitely opened my eyes to the uglier side of Charlie.

The thing is with Charlie is that because he’s used as a comedic character that generally overshadows the shitty aspects of his personality and characterisation. His addition is not the problem here. Obviously, his addiction causes a lot of his problematic behaviours, but that in itself is not an issue I have with his character. Heroin is a highly addictive drug (I believe the most addictive one in existence) which he gets hooked on it due to pressure from his brother. He tries to kick the habit to better himself and he succeeds. This and his death, which is a very selfless act that he does for the benefit of Claire, Aaron and everybody else on the island, are the two main aspects of his character I can praise. Everything else about him…not so much. Before I get deeper into this, I wanted to make it clear that I don’t think Charlie is a bad person, but I do think he’s a very flawed character and he does a lot of things that have led to me disliking him.

All Charlie does is whine and paint himself the victim. He never takes any responsibility for anything he does or anything that happens to him or around him, it’s always someone else’s fault. He blames Liam for his drug addiction; he blames Liam for the break-down of Drive Shaft; he blames Jack for Ethan kidnapping him; he blames Locke for his deteriorating relationship with Claire; he blames Eko for outing his heroin stash to Claire and he blames Sayid for Aaron’s kidnapping (by Danielle). There are probably more that I’m forgetting, but you get the point.

The way Charlie acts towards Claire is a large part of the problem that I have with his character. He meets Claire, develops some kind of hardcore obsession with her and immediately starts acting like her partner and the father of her child despite Claire not giving any indication that she is comfortable with that or even wants Charlie to fulfil those roles. In fact, in season 1, she explicitly tells him that she doesn’t need him to constantly look out for her and that her pregnancy doesn’t mean she’s weak or fragile and needs protecting.  Repeatedly, Charlie over-steps the mark with Claire, particularly when it comes to Aaron. He quite literally berates Claire numerous times for the decisions she makes regarding the well-being of her own child. When she wakes him up because she hears commotion on the beach, Charlie scolds her for it, takes Aaron out of her arms and says something along the lines of, “He’s going to be fussing all night now, give him here”, as though he knows Claire’s child better than she does. It’s one of the most infuriating scenes to watch ever. For some bizarre reason Charlie seems to think he has some claim over Aaron and assumes responsibility for him despite him literally being a stranger to Claire with no rights to Aaron at all, and I will never understand how anyone can view that as acceptable.

As well as the poor way Charlie treats Claire, he’s generally a selfish and egotistical character. All LOST characters are flawed and multi-dimensional, that’s what makes them so fantastic, but Charlie is definitely one of the more flawed characters. His addiction results in him being a pathological liar and very selfish. In addition, because of his failures he has this desperate need to be somebody else, to be this perfect man who is the embodiment of success, strength and responsibility. This is why he fixates on Claire because he sees a beautiful young woman who has been abandoned and alone and he wants to be the one to fix that. He wants to be the patriarch; the father and the husband; the defender of the family because he’s never had that before and when he meets Claire he sees a ready-made family. We know that he desires this from the flashback with Lucy whereby he takes a job and continues in his relationship with her because he wants to be “respectable” and “take care” of her. There’s nothing wrong with wanting this, but he goes about getting it in the wrong way and acts very inappropriately towards Claire.

I feel like this all sounds really harsh, but generally, my opinions on Charlie are very negative since my recent re-watch. Even the funnier aspect of his personality was a complete miss with me (perhaps it’s simply because I’m older now). But like I’ve said, I don’t think he’s fundamentally a bad person, he’s just very, very flawed. The problem with the way he’s written though is that his flaws are never really called out. When you compare him to someone like Sawyer, who also starts out in season 1 as a flawed character, he is constantly punished and called out for that and actively makes an effort to repent and redeem himself, resulting in a beautiful redemptive arc. Unfortunately, I just don’t think Charlie gets the same, because he’s not fully acknowledged within the narrative as being a flawed character that needs to develop. The only aspect of his arc that is acknowledged as a “flaw” (I feel like this isn’t the right word in this context, but I can’t think of a more appropriate one) is his addiction and because he overcomes this by going into recovery, there seems to be this assumption that he does develop, but even when he’s in recovery his behaviour is still shitty. So yeah, that pretty much sums my thoughts up on Charlie. Also I apologise if you’re like a Charlie stan, because this was essentially just a rant about how much I’ve come to dislike him lmao.

Boone and Locke

Now, this is a complicated dynamic to analyse. I like how their bond is developed at the start and I like watching them on-screen together before they find the Hatch. Unfortunately, after that I hate the whole “friendship” (if you can even call it that). Locke uses and manipulates Boone consistently, causes his death and still continues to lie even when Boone is seriously injured. The only reason Locke maintains a “friendship” with Boone is because he just so happens to be with him when he discovers the Hatch. The only way he can stop anyone else from finding out is by recruiting Boone and giving him this spiel about destiny and how they were meant to find the hatch and open it together as part of some grand plan. Locke is so adamant that he doesn’t want anyone else to find out about the Hatch that when Boone tells Locke he wants to tell Shannon, Locke knocks him out, ties him up in the middle of the jungle and drugs him. So not only does he get violent with him, abandon him in the middle of the jungle whilst injured but he also gives him drugs without his consent which results in him having traumatic hallucinations where he sees Shannon die. Locke tries to spin it as being something he’s doing for Boone’s benefit, but it’s not, it’s all about him protecting his secret. He doesn’t care about Boone or how his feelings for Shannon are impacting him, all he cares about is stopping Boone from telling Shannon about the Hatch. In forcing Boone to keep quiet about it, he creates a distance and tension between Boone and Shannon, who is the most important person in his life. Honestly Locke is 100% selfish and delusional in the way he behaves throughout this entire arc. He prioritises unlocking some mysterious hatch in the mysterious jungle over everything else including Boone’s well-being. He coerces Boone into climbing to the top of a massive cliff and getting into a plane which is hanging over the edge of said cliff. Anyone with half a brain cell could see that that plane was unsafe and likely to fall if anybody went inside, but Locke still pushes him to do it. When the plane inevitably falls, he drops him off to Jack in the caves, doesn’t bother to tell him how he got his injuries and runs off into the jungle. Now we all know that even if Locke had told Jack the truth about how Boone had got his injuries, Jack still wouldn’t have been able to save him, but nonetheless, he should’ve come clean before Boone died. What’s even worse about the whole situation is that whilst Boone is dying and Jack, Sun and the others are busting their asses to save his life, Locke is hammering on the Hatch yelling, “WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO ME?!?!?!!!” I’m sorry………………what?????? Locke, I’m pretty sure you’re not the victim in this scenario. Like the fact that he thinks that he’s being punished for what happens to Boone is proof of how much of a shitty person he is in that scenario and how little regard he has for Boone’s life. And afterwards he continues to claim that Boone died because he was a “sacrifice the island demanded”. No, dude, Boone died because of your selfishness and your delusions. I mean, even if there was something spectacularly special in the Hatch or in the plane, how could it ever be worth risking Boone’s life in that manner? And I know that Boone was an adult and made his own decision to climb into the plane knowing the risks involved, but Locke manipulated and coerced him every step of the way. And it’s important to remember that despite being an adult Boone was still very young and Locke as a much older man had a lot of influence over him. Once again, age has changed my whole perception on this relationship and arc. When I was younger I actually thought Jack totally overreacted following Boone’s death but now I stand right beside Jack every step of the way because he’s absolutely right to react the way he does. Locke is an asshole for the way he behaves and his actions lead to the death of an innocent young man for no real purpose at all.