Fantastic Beasts and Where It All Went Wrong

I remember the European premiere of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them like it was yesterday. I was there covering the event for Elbenwald, chatting with tons of fans before the screening. The buzz was undeniable: everyone was hyped for this movie! You could practically feel the collective longing to step back into that good old Harry Potter magic. And I honestly believe that Fantastic Beasts could have delivered exactly that. Unfortunately, things turned out very differently. While there are plenty of reasons why, if you ask me, the franchise was doomed a full month before it even hit theaters.

A Promise Without a Foundation

On October 13, 2016—just under a month before the world premiere—J.K. Rowling announced at a fan event that there were going to be five Fantastic Beasts movies! This statement came as a shock not just to fans, but to the higher-ups at Warner Bros. as well. Up until that point, the studio had only confirmed that a second installment was in development. Behind the scenes, even the key creatives were kept in the dark, as director David Yates confirmed in 2023:

“The idea that there were going to be five films was a surprise to most of us. Jo just mentioned it spontaneously, at a press screening once. No one had told us there were going to be five, we’d committed to the first one…”

Back then, that casual remark at such an early stage could have meant anything: a promise to the fans, perhaps even a reason to celebrate. Or it could have been an act of pure hubris. With the benefit of hindsight, I'd say it was the foundational stumbling block that doomed the entire endeavor from day one. And the tragic irony is that the first movie was actually great!

Nifflers vs. Fascism: An Identity Crisis

For me, there’s so much about Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that genuinely works. I loved exploring the American wizarding world with its distinct 1920s aesthetic. The main cast is so inherently charming that it's hard to pick a favorite: Newt Scamander, Jacob Kowalski, or Queenie Goldstein? (Okay, it's Jacob!). And let's not forget the titular beasts, which brought a surprisingly fitting touch of Pokémon-style magic to the big screen. Newt’s story was fun, engaging, and—most importantly—completely self-contained! Had they called it a day right there, everything would have been fine.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, Fantastic Beasts carried a secondary subplot involving Credence and Percival Graves that felt like it belonged in a completely different movie. Where Newt’s storyline offered charm and levity, this arc delivered bleak, gloomy dread that sometimes even verged on horror. The clash left me wondering: Is this movie meant for kids and families who want to see cute Nifflers? Or is it for adults craving a dark political drama? That dissonance—coupled with the last-minute twist revealing Gellert Grindelwald—left the distinct impression that these elements were hastily tacked on to justify a multi-film franchise.

Look, a movie series chronicling the rise of Grindelwald sounds awesome on paper! But that story doesn't need an eccentric magizoologist and his quirky creatures. The decision to force this lighthearted core ensemble into subsequent films was arguably the biggest mistake of the entire Fantastic Beasts franchise. Pitting socially awkward Newt against the Wizarding World’s equivalent of Hitler multiplied the identity crisis exponentially, leaving the beasts themselves relegated to mere footnotes in their own title.

Screenplay Bloat and Retcon Panic

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, however, suffered from issues entirely of its own making. The screenplay was so overcrowded that even die-hard fans struggled to keep track of the convoluted plot. The avalanche of subplots, side characters, and lore dumps laid bare that while J.K. Rowling is a brilliant novelist, screenwriting is a fundamentally different craft. Warner Bros. tried to course-correct for the third entry by bringing back Harry Potter screenwriting veteran Steve Kloves, but even he couldn't save the series at that point.

On top of that came bewildering narrative choices and lore contradictions. The brief, unnecessary detour to Hogwarts—complete with its iconic music—felt like cheap nostalgia bait that ended up causing more plot holes than fan joy. Just think of the Professor McGonagall, who, according to established lore, shouldn't have even been born yet. Why Voldemort's future snake Nagini had to be introduced as a human remains a mystery to me, as does Queenie’s sudden, out-of-character turn to wizard fascism.

Ultimately, The Crimes of Grindelwald was a slog: expensive to produce, poorly received by critics and fans alike, and a noticeable step down at the box office compared to the original. Facing the third film, The Secrets of Dumbledore, the filmmakers had to decide: Stick to the original vision? Properly unpack and fix the mistakes? Or panic and backtrack—dropping plotlines without explanation, glossing over the blood pact, retconning Credence from Dumbledore's brother to his nephew, and sweeping Queenie’s dark turn under the rug? They chose the latter option.

The Off-Camera PR Nightmare

Beyond the creative missteps, the franchise unravelled off-camera as well. The most prominent example, of course, is Johnny Depp. Granted, casting him before the legal battles with his ex-wife Amber Heard were resolved was a risky move to begin with. When Depp subsequently lost his libel trial in the UK, he was asked to resign from the role—though he still pocketed his full multi-million-dollar salary for the third film due to his contract. Looking back, it’s a triple burn:

1. Depp was actually great as Grindelwald.
2. Recasting with another top-tier star pushed production costs even higher.
3. There was zero in-universe explanation for why Grindelwald suddenly looked like Mads Mikkelsen.

Now that Depp has cleared his name and is celebrating his Hollywood comeback, the whole ordeal feels completely unnecessary.

And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Add in the relentless controversies surrounding J.K. Rowling’s public statements and the escalating legal troubles involving Ezra Miller, and you have a PR nightmare. Had the Fantastic Beasts movies been cinematic masterpieces and box-office juggernauts, they might have weathered these real-world storms. Instead, the real-world chaos simply pulled down an already crumbling house of cards.

Looking Ahead: Turning the Page

Remarkably, the core Harry Potter brand remains virtually untarnished by this fallout. The Return to Hogwarts anniversary special was a hit, the video game Hogwarts Legacy shattered sales records, and the stage play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child continues its triumphant run—even grabbing headlines with original film cast members like Tom Felton and Rupert Grint stepping onto the stage. And with the upcoming HBO television reboot, a brand-new chapter is beginning anyway—one where the Fantastic Beasts timeline is left behind entirely.

At the end of the day, I stick by my conclusion: if Fantastic Beasts had remained a self-contained spin-off, both fans and filmmakers would be far happier today. Instead of prematurely declaring a five-movie saga, they should have waited to see how Newt's journey resonated with audiences—which wouldn't have ruled out a sequel or a completely different spin-off down the line. And if they truly wanted to tell the epic story of Grindelwald's downfall, they should have done just that: in a standalone film series, completely free of Newt Scamander.