MovieChat Forums > Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) Discussion > Hey, more plot holes to the franchise !

Hey, more plot holes to the franchise !

posted 7 years ago by max-philips
22 replies | jump to latest

Maybe people who read the books will explain things I'm going to mention here, but as a person who only watched HP movies I see a lot of new plot holes introduced to HP universe.

First of all, new magic tricks available to wizards. Now they have telekinesis, they don't need any wands, they can throw cars by a wave of their hand. Then they all can now teleport, no need for portkeys or similar stuff, just teleport instantly to any location.
Next, how big was that suitcase inside ? Several hundred squire miles, several thousand ? So you can compactify and hide whole countries inside a suitcase now ? How did Newt get his hands on such thing, or anyone can easily get such for themselves in HP world ?
Next, it is shown that wizards can rebuild a whole city in minutes. Which in and of itself is a huge ex-machina. But more importantly it brings up a lot of moral and practical issues. Wizards were willing to kill their own people because single muggle was killed, now how many thousands and millions of muggles have died during construction of bridges, canals and dams around the world ? Single wizard can construct half of all man-made structure on the planet in 5 mins without anyone dying. How did wizards justify that ? Or - wizards could easily build a super advanced civilization, colonies on Moon and Mars, space stations, floating cities in 5 mins, why they never did that ? Why they were all living with 1900s technologies ?
And the biggest hole is of course Credence. His immense power and abilities. He's much more powerful than all HP villain combined, he could eat them for breakfast. See, problem with introducing all-powerful villains in "prequels" is that they are never mentioned in original films. From real-world perspective it makes sense - the author only invented them after writing original books. But in the fictional universe of HP it is a plot hole, because these events happened before original HP and are never mentioned there.

If all these things and concepts were available in original HP movies, the story would have been completely different. But here we have it - a new franchise which turns HP universe even more into a block of swiss cheese full of holes.

[–] TheBigYawn 7 years ago

You do bring up some good points. If you analyze the Harry Potter universe, there are of course contradictions and several elements that don't make much logical sense if you stop to think about. However, you can't have a 4 hour long movie with mere world building to explain all the ways the magic works; it needs to tell a story first and foremost. I agree certain rules of the universe could have been clearer and more consistent, but I think it's extremely difficult to avoid minor plot holes when you write about a fictional universe with magic. The more the author broadens his/her world, the harder it gets to keep track of how all the world building details would work in different scenarios. For example, a concept like love potion has a lot of potential for bringing out laughs and is used for this purpose in one of the films. That's fine. However, introducing a concept like this makes you wonder why love potion is not more commonly used and if wizards have a system in place to protect their fellow citizens from abuse. In a functional society, such an object would have been banned or else it would have created chaos.

That's just one example of a concept that works well in the story, but complicates the functionality of the fictional universe. You could mention a lot of such examples. The question is if it's possible to avoid these issues while also making up a rich and interesting magical world? You could as an author choose to limit your concepts and rules deliberately to make a credible world, but would it be at the expense of colourful and intricate storytelling? I believe it's about finding the right balance.

Another point you bring up is consistency. You could argue that a sequel (or prequel) introducing new magical concepts is a bad thing because said elements would have been useful in the first films. While that may be true, you lose the freshness of seeing the world expand and it arguably makes for a more unpredictable story. If Harry, Ron and Hermione were to solve their problems in the same way for eight movies, the audience would be bored to tears. If they had merely used broomsticks to travel between places, it would quickly become repetitive.

As for teleportation, it was established in the sixth Harry Potter movie. There are some established limitations, such as whenever wizards conjure up a golden protective shield around an area, they can't teleport out of that area. At least that's what I took from watching the movies.

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

When I started reading your reply an example immediately came to my mind ) And it's Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien defined the rules right from the start, and while one still may wonder why Eagles didn't fly Frodo to Mordor, LotR fictional universe is very consistent in term of internal rules. There are many recurring themes throughout the story (like every character having a journey of their own), but at the same time Tolkien finds interesting plot twists to make each quest unique. And when he introduces super-beings like Bombadil he gives very clear and believable explanation why they can't finish the story in 5 mins.
It would be fine if Rowling introduced minor plot devices to keep the story going, but in each movie a major factor is introduced that changes the story dramatically. Probably the most well-know example would be the time machine. I don't remember the explanation why they didn't use it earlier and never used it after, but a question pops up instantly - if wizards had time machine all along, why they didn't travel to the past and stop Voldemort when he was a kid ? If you can stop a nuclear war, what moral reasons can you give not to do it and just sit watching the world being destroyed ? When I saw such game-changing things introduced with each movie, at some point I just decided that author invents the story on the fly and I don't even want to bother reading such books.

An opposite example of poorly defined internal rules is Eragon. Dragon riders are all-powerful there and can wipe out cities and armies with single word. This makes everyone except Eragon and Galbatorix pretty useless to the story.

[–] themodmazza 7 years ago

The books actually explain how Time-Turners work, and that it is actually illegal to be in possession of one. Time travel in Harry Potter works basically the same way as in any other story. If you change something in the past, you risk altering the future. Children are blank slates when it comes to morality. Tom Riddle had free-will, he was not born evil. Thus, killing him as a child would not solve anything. It would just make the perpetrator a child murderer. How is that any better than anything Voldemort did?

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

Does killing 1 boy (who will 100% become mass murderer) justify saving 100 more children and thousands of adults ? This is a question of morality of course, but the answer is pretty obvious here. But you don't need to kill anyone in the first place, you know all the facts that lead Tom to turn to the dark side (so to speak), so just alter these events.
And just based on common sense - if the technology exists, even if it is banned, there will always be people using it. For example, Voldemort's followers had no moral concerns about killing people, what stopped them from using time machines to help their master ?

[–] CowboyRider1847 7 years ago

Does killing 1 boy (who will 100% become mass murderer) justify saving 100 more children and thousands of adults ? This is a question of morality of course, but the answer is pretty obvious here. But you don't need to kill anyone in the first place, you know all the facts that lead Tom to turn to the dark side (so to speak), so just alter these events.
And just based on common sense - if the technology exists, even if it is banned, there will always be people using it. For example, Voldemort's followers had no moral concerns about killing people, what stopped them from using time machines to help their master ?

The thing about altering the past or future is that all consequences are unknown. It is not an absolute fact that the wizarding world would've been better off if someone went back in time and altered Voldemort's history. This is the exact same dilemma that we have in the real world with Hitler. Who's to say that killing Hitler as a child would've been better. Something unforeseen could happen where Mussolini's rise to power could've been worse. And who knows what Japan would've done if Hitler wasn't around.

Sure the Time Turners exist, but that doesn't mean that they were easy to get. Lucious Malfoy worked for the Ministry, but we have absolutely no hints on whether or not he was gonna get his hands on a Time Turner. You can read up on Time Turners here: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Time-Turner

Save a horse, ride a cowboy!

[–] zinabaggins 7 years ago

and while one still may wonder why Eagles didn't fly Frodo to Mordor

Tolkien DOES mention and explain this in his letters.

[–] jaganshisama 7 years ago

A few things you listed arent really plot holes, just devices used differently than we saw in the original harry potter books/movies.

Apparition is what you're thinking of, yes some wizards and witches and creatures can 'teleport', in the wizarding world its called Apparating. Ron was splinched in the last book when Hermione apparated them too quickly. Dobby could apparate, that's how he rescued everyone from Malfoy manor. among countless other examples.

Wandless magic is also a thing, i'e 'telekinesis', moving stuff around without a wand. totally do-able.

And the trunk. In the final book Hermione carries a bag with them that is pretty much bottomless just like the trunk. It's actually an illegal spell to use according to Hermione, if I remember correctly.

We only met and briefly touched on outside characters (not the main characters, or characters that were named but we never got to know much about) throughout the harry potter books. i can only imagine the number of highly skilled witches and wizards that can perform their magic almost effortlessly that we werent introduced to.

The rest I cant touch on because I slightly agree.

[–] CowboyRider1847 7 years ago

First of all, new magic tricks available to wizards. Now they have telekinesis, they don't need any wands, they can throw cars by a wave of their hand.

Witches and wizards were always capable of wandless magic. The use of wands just give them more focus as wands act as a medium. Before they're accepted into wizarding schools, all wizarding children use wandless magic. But of course as children, it isn't very good. Exceptionally powerful witches and wizards can perform wandless magic. As Percival Graves was really Grindelwald, him using wandless magic is understandable as he's among the most powerful wizards to ever exist. We've seen Dumbledore use wandless magic multiple times throughout the books and movies. Voldemort as well from time to time.

Then they all can now teleport, no need for portkeys or similar stuff, just teleport instantly to any location.

I'm guessing you forgot that apparating and disapparating can be taught. At Hogwarts at least, students are taught during their sixth years. Portkeys, flying, driving, and the Floo Network are mainly for traveling much longer distances or for inexperienced witches or wizards who do not want to splinch themselves a body part.

Next, how big was that suitcase inside ? Several hundred squire miles, several thousand ? So you can compactify and hide whole countries inside a suitcase now ? How did Newt get his hands on such thing, or anyone can easily get such for themselves in HP world ?

I don't think Newt's suitcase is any bigger than your average zoo. In fact his suitcase was basically a zoo. Those entire habitats the creatures lived in were not real. If you look closely during the scenes with the Thunderbird and the Obscurial, you can see the fake walls that surrounded them that imitated their natural habitats. The Thunderbird wasn't actually living in a desert like area of Newt's bag. It was just in a tent with landscape painted on the walls.
Anyone in the HP world can get or charm a bag/suitcase/car for extra room. It's called an Undetectable Extension Charm. Hermione's bag seen in Deathly Hallows has said charm placed on it, as does Mr. Weasley's car, and likely Hagrid's coat pockets. The tents Hermione used in Deathly Hallows and the Weasley tent in Goblet of Fire(during the Quidditch World Cup), both have this charm placed in them so it could house multple people without taking up space on the outside.

Next, it is shown that wizards can rebuild a whole city in minutes. Which in and of itself is a huge ex-machina. But more importantly it brings up a lot of moral and practical issues. Wizards were willing to kill their own people because single muggle was killed, now how many thousands and millions of muggles have died during construction of bridges, canals and dams around the world ? Single wizard can construct half of all man-made structure on the planet in 5 mins without anyone dying. How did wizards justify that ? Or - wizards could easily build a super advanced civilization, colonies on Moon and Mars, space stations, floating cities in 5 mins, why they never did that ? Why they were all living with 1900s technologies?

They're rebuilding a whole city using the repair charm. They aren't building anything from scratch. They're essentially using magical glue to fix the city.
Wizards do not want to risk exposure to the muggle world because of the witch hunts that occurred in olden times. They were either burned at the stake, hung, or drowned. This is exactly why it was repeatedly mentioned that Jacob needed to be obliviated.
I don't know where you heard that wizards were willing to kill their own people because one muggle was killed.
The reason why the wizarding world doesn't have more advanced technology is because of magic. Not only did magic make life easier, magic also interferes with electricity. I believe Hermione told Harry that if satellites flew over magical areas like wizarding schools, Diagon Alley, and others, they would go haywire.

And the biggest hole is of course Credence. His immense power and abilities. He's much more powerful than all HP villain combined, he could eat them for breakfast.

I didn't see him kill anyone but muggles. Also it was believed that Obscurials haven't been seen in hundreds of years or so. Making it seem like a rare occurance. And we've seen that witches or wizards who do become Obscurials can be talked down to harmless levels. Both Newt and Tina were able to calm Credence down. And if Ariana Dumbledore was indeed an obscurial herself, her brother Aberforth would've been able to calm her down back to normal. And we've also seen that an Obscurial's rampage doesn't last forever. It's temporary and probably aren't any more dangerous than a tornado is to the muggle world.

Save a horse, ride a cowboy!

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

They're rebuilding a whole city using the repair charm. They aren't building anything from scratch. They're essentially using magical glue to fix the city.

Even if we leave out the details of how it works (what is considered "the original"), the same moral question remains - anything can be restored by magic without applying any time and efforts.

I don't know where you heard that wizards were willing to kill their own people because one muggle was killed.

I watched the movie in language different than English and perhaps there were some gaps in translation, but Newt and that girl were supposed to be executed because Newt's obscurial killed a muggle (and thus risked exposure of wizard world), right ?

Wizards do not want to risk exposure to the muggle world because of the witch hunts that occurred in olden times.

This is probably the stupidest thing in all of HP universe. Because of their magic wizards were supreme to normal humans in all relations. They could kill them easily, wipe out their memories, send illusions etc. It's like 20th century humanity hiding underground from dogs because 300 years ago some dog has bitten some human.

One other thing I mentioned above is the spell used at the end of the movie to wipe out memories of entire NYC. How exactly does that work ? Anyone who was exposed to the rain immediately forgot last day, last 5 hours, last 40 mins ? Now let's imagine how it works - 3 million people remember being at home, work, school, taking taxi somewhere and then a moment after - they are all standing in the middle of the street and according to their watches 6 hours have passed. And they all just turned around and kept walking ? Sounds very unrealistic. 3 million people losing their memories about the whole day would draw much more attention than some black mist destroying 3 buildings and 2 cars.

[–] themodmazza 7 years ago

I watched the movie in language different than English and perhaps there were some gaps in translation, but Newt and that girl were supposed to be executed because Newt's obscurial killed a muggle (and thus risked exposure of wizard world), right ?

Senator Shaw was murdered, and MACUSA executes criminals. It is not that difficult to understand. It had nothing to do with exposure, but the fact that a man was brutally murdered.

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

Senator Shaw was murdered, and MACUSA executes criminals. It is not that difficult to understand. It had nothing to do with exposure, but the fact that a man was brutally murdered.

Which is exactly an answer to the question:
"I don't know where you heard that wizards were willing to kill their own people because one muggle was killed."

Moreover, Newt didn't kill anyone, his beast supposedly did that. Back to the dog analogy - a mad dog attacks someone and a person owning this dog and his wife are both executed on an electric chair for that. Do you find that normal ?

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

Moreover, Newt didn't kill anyone, his beast supposedly did that. Back to the dog analogy - a mad dog attacks someone and a person owning this dog and his wife are both executed on an electric chair for that. Do you find that normal ?

Not only Newt but Tina gets the noose too for... failing to report a guy walking around town with a dangerous weapon basically? When she was told to go back to filing reports when she tried to warn them? Hmmm...

Lazy writing.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] CowboyRider1847 7 years ago

Not only Newt but Tina gets the noose too for... failing to report a guy walking around town with a dangerous weapon basically? When she was told to go back to filing reports when she tried to warn them? Hmmm...

Lazy writing.

Uh, no. They were just imprisioned. It was Grindelwald who ordered their executions. Him ordering their executions was very likely an illegal act, like how Umbridge illegally ordered Dementors to attack Harry and Dudley. It's entirely possible that the two witches and the wizard who carried out Newt and Tina's executions were under the Imperious Curse placed on them by Grindelwald.

Save a horse, ride a cowboy!

[–] CowboyRider1847 7 years ago

I watched the movie in language different than English and perhaps there were some gaps in translation, but Newt and that girl were supposed to be executed because Newt's obscurial killed a muggle (and thus risked exposure of wizard world), right ?

No. Newt and Tina were just sent to prison. The Dark Wizard Grindelwald, who was impersonating Graves, was the one who ordered their execution. It's very likely that what he did broke the law, so he illegally sent Newt and Tina to their deaths.

This is probably the stupidest thing in all of HP universe. Because of their magic wizards were supreme to normal humans in all relations. They could kill them easily, wipe out their memories, send illusions etc. It's like 20th century humanity hiding underground from dogs because 300 years ago some dog has bitten some human.

And this is the exact line of thinking that gave rise to Grindelwald and Voldemort. Both were magic supremacists and caused massive amounts of damage and deaths to the wizarding world. This was Grindelwald's exact way of thinking. It was magic supremacy to the muggles "For the Greater Good". And look how that turned out.

One other thing I mentioned above is the spell used at the end of the movie to wipe out memories of entire NYC. How exactly does that work ? Anyone who was exposed to the rain immediately forgot last day, last 5 hours, last 40 mins ? Now let's imagine how it works - 3 million people remember being at home, work, school, taking taxi somewhere and then a moment after - they are all standing in the middle of the street and according to their watches 6 hours have passed. And they all just turned around and kept walking ? Sounds very unrealistic. 3 million people losing their memories about the whole day would draw much more attention than some black mist destroying 3 buildings and 2 cars.

I would think the Aurors who went around town did some extra magic of their own. I get the feeling that they were the ones who changed the newspaper stories so that it said that it was the wettest Novemeber on record. The wizarding world has special charms that affects muggle memories. It's how they keep their schools or other wizarding areas hidden. A muggle would walk up to a hidden wizarding area and the charm would make them think, "Oh, I forgot I had to go do something." causing them to walk off and not put any thought into what they have just come across.

Save a horse, ride a cowboy!

[–] themodmazza 7 years ago

And this is the exact line of thinking that gave rise to Grindelwald and Voldemort. Both were magic supremacists and caused massive amounts of damage and deaths to the wizarding world. This was Grindelwald's exact way of thinking. It was magic supremacy to the muggles "For the Greater Good". And look how that turned out.

Thank you!!!!

Grindelwald exploited/caused WWII for that exact reason. It was his way of killing non magical people, and explaining why wizards needed to rule. His ideology was so dangerous, because it was rational.

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

And this is the exact line of thinking that gave rise to Grindelwald and Voldemort. Both were magic supremacists and caused massive amounts of damage and deaths to the wizarding world. This was Grindelwald's exact way of thinking. It was magic supremacy to the muggles "For the Greater Good". And look how that turned out.

Not quite, note how in my dog analogy I didn't write that humans should kill all dogs because they are more advanced. I just showed how ridiculous it looks when a more advanced species is hiding from a more primitive one because of smth that happened ages ago.

This is the big difference between HP villains' vision and my example. Furthermore, those villains killed their own kind and what they actually wanted was not domination of wizard race (species, whatever they are), but simply a personal desire for power, which is pretty straightforward and standard motivation for a typical fictional villain. Do you think any of them was willing to sacrifice his life for the good of wizards ? Or give the ruling authority to other wizards when wizards finally dominate the world ? i don't think so, as I said - completely different selfish motivation.

Can you give your own personal opinion - are you willing to hide all your life from dogs in an underground bunker or you would rather walk outside, try to communicate with them and let your both species live together under the sky ?

[–] CowboyRider1847 7 years ago

The witch hunts is one thing, another thing is that muggles do not understand magic and many fear it. The Dursley family for example. Why should the wizarding world risk that? Especially since we have guns. I doubt a shield charm would be fast enough to protect a witch or wizard. Especially if they are unknowingly shot by a sniper.

Can you give your own personal opinion - are you willing to hide all your life from dogs in an underground bunker or you would rather walk outside, try to communicate with them and let your both species live together under the sky ?

See, your hypothetical question doesn't work when it's not an apples to apples comparision. There's a significant difference between interactions of humans and dogs and to that of humans with completely different upbringings. Especially if both sides reject the other even with education.

Save a horse, ride a cowboy!

[–] juanml82 7 years ago

Also keep in mind the Harry Potter series is centered around teenagers learning their way around magic, while here we're watching adults at work.

It makes sense for their magic use to be more powerful.

As for exposing the wizard world to the moogles, I'm pretty sure we can assume it's an in-universe debate among wizards. Grindelwald's rise is precisely about that. But other wizards can point arguments for keeping the secrecy, both logical and self serving.

[–] hawkeaglewolf-1 7 years ago

First of all, new magic tricks available to wizards. Now they have telekinesis, they don't need any wands, they can throw cars by a wave of their hand. Then they all can now teleport, no need for portkeys or similar stuff, just teleport instantly to any location.

Witches and Wizards have been shown in the books that wands are not needed to conduct magic. Wands are merely needed to focus/refine magic and for well status symbols. Harry didn't need a wand to make glass disappear in Sorcerer's Stone and reappear to trap Dudley in a Boa Constrictor's ... cage/exhibit.

Legilimency is established in the books and notes several powerful Legilimens: Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Snape. Queenie being very good is either by training or being born that way or a combination of both.

Apparition is established in the books, and its limits are know (can be prevented by magic and also has a distance limit).

Next, how big was that suitcase inside ? Several hundred squire miles, several thousand ? So you can compactify and hide whole countries inside a suitcase now ? How did Newt get his hands on such thing, or anyone can easily get such for themselves in HP world ?

It's not several hundred square miles. It seems to be at least 3-4 stories, maybe 5, high. But the enclosures seem to be contained to a certain amount of space.. It takes Newt a few minutes to go to each one in several scenes you can see others we've already seen in the background, whether it's off to the right or to the left.

We've seen witches and wizards are capable of und-detectable extension charms and spells, but we've also seen that you can buy tents that are bigger on the inside. I'm sure that Newt probably bought a suitcase that was already bigger, but I'd imagine he was able to extend it. I'd also imagine they would cost a fortune.

Next, it is shown that wizards can rebuild a whole city in minutes./quote] It looks like MACUSA sent officials everywhere to repair it. We've seen that wizards and witches can make repairs quickly.

[quote] Single wizard can construct half of all man-made structure on the planet in 5 mins without anyone dying. How did wizards justify that ? Or - wizards could easily build a super advanced civilization, colonies on Moon and Mars, space stations, floating cities in 5 mins, why they never did that ? Why they were all living with 1900s technologies ?

In both Hogwarts, A History and Pottermore state both Hogwarts and Ilvermorny were built to their current sizes over time. Also in the books it does mention to magical limitations.

It's also explained in the book that Wizards and Witches are content living with their own level of technology with magic filling in the gaps. There was never a need, it seems to go beyond adapting to muggle evolving tech with the exception of plumbing, trains, and cars and small levels of Muggle comfort.

And the biggest hole is of course Credence. His immense power and abilities. He's much more powerful than all HP villain combined, he could eat them for breakfast. See, problem with introducing all-powerful villains in "prequels" is that they are never mentioned in original films. From real-world perspective it makes sense - the author only invented them after writing original books. But in the fictional universe of HP it is a plot hole, because these events happened before original HP and are never mentioned there.

He could, but he's not stable and as mentioned in Fantastic Beasts Obscurials tend to die young and quick. Credence being one past the age of 10 is something unheard or even rarer than Obscurials themselves. Even Grindelwald is impressed. Crendence is the first time that's happened in recorded magical history, so we don't know if he lives or will die. It seemed obvious that wizards and witches could kill it, or severely damage it. Therefore Credence-level Obscurials can be defeated or killed, he's not too powerful.

This also doesn't change the Potter books (and movies) because it's established that the Ministry of Magic does a verly nearly pefect job of ensuring that witches and wizards are not opressed to the point where this happens.

And as for the subject of Time-Turners: it's been established in the books and more prodomentily Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, that Time-Turners do not go far back into the past. Whether by constraints of magical ability or by self-induced safe-guards is unclear. In Cursed Child A few Death Eaters still loose after Deathly Hallows are captured and one is discovered to have created a Time-Turner that goes back farther in time, but with a time limit before pulling you back to where you left off. It was confiscated and no one knows how the Death Eaters had managed it.

[–] murratuttila 7 years ago

You should watch the harry potter movies again. You simply do not understand. Read the books aswell.

[–] max-philips 7 years ago

You should watch the harry potter movies again. You simply do not understand. Read the books aswell.

I don't want to watch HP movies again or read the books. I want to understand this specific movie.
In order to understand a standalone movie I need to watch another 8 movies and read 3 thousand pages ? Must be pretty poorly scripted movie.

[–] Costumer (1786) 6 years ago

But you are the one who is claiming that the wizards/witches are suddenly displaying abilities they haven't before. So you are referencing the previous films and/or books. It has been pointed out to you that these abilities have already been established in the previous films and in the books. So suggesting you re-watch the films or re-read the books is completely reasonable and does not indicate a poorly scripted film. (You can make other claims to poor scripting which I may or may not agree with. But this isn't an example.)