Honestly, it’s a bit of a mess. When we talk about the Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts movies, we aren't just talking about a simple prequel series. We’re talking about a massive, ambitious, and sometimes confusing expansion of the Wizarding World that tried to do way too much at once. It started with a guy looking for a Niffler in New York City. Then, suddenly, we were in the middle of a global wizarding war involving Dumbledore’s secret family history and the rise of a magical fascist.
It’s jarring.
Fans expected more "Harry Potter" vibes, but what they got was a dense political drama masquerading as a creature feature. If you go back and watch Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016), it feels light. It’s whimsical. Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamander is a breath of fresh air because he isn’t a "chosen one" or a traditional hero. He’s just a guy who likes animals. But by the time The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) rolled around, the beasts were basically background noise to the Grindelwald conflict. This shift is exactly why the franchise feels so polarized today.
The Identity Crisis of the Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts Movies
The biggest hurdle for these films was always their own name. You’ve got "Fantastic Beasts" in the title, which suggests a certain type of story—something exploratory, like a magical nature documentary with a plot. But J.K. Rowling, who wrote the screenplays herself, clearly wanted to tell the story of the 1945 duel between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald.
Why not just call it The Rise of Grindelwald?
Probably marketing. The studio likely felt they needed the "Fantastic Beasts" branding to tie back to the original textbook mentioned in the Harry Potter novels. This created a weird tug-of-war. In The Crimes of Grindelwald, we see this play out in real-time. We spend ten minutes looking at a Kelpie in a basement, then pivot immediately to a high-stakes breakout from the MACUSA. It’s tone-clash at its finest.
Most viewers wanted the comfort of Hogwarts. When the movies finally went back there in the sequels, the nostalgia was a double-edged sword. Seeing a younger Minerva McGonagall (played by Fiona Glascott) was cool, but it also annoyed the hardcore lore-trackers. Why? Because according to the original books, she shouldn't have even been born yet in 1927. These are the kinds of details that make the Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts movies a minefield for the "Potterhead" community.
👉 See also: Questions From Black Card Revoked: The Culture Test That Might Just Get You Roasted
Newt Scamander is a Different Kind of Hero
We need to talk about Newt. He isn't Harry. He isn't Ron. He's an introverted, neurodivergent-coded protagonist who finds social interaction exhausting but relates deeply to creatures. This was a bold choice for a multi-million dollar franchise.
- Newt’s strength isn’t combat; it’s empathy.
- He tracks things. He heals things.
- He doesn't want to lead an army.
In an era of "macho" superheroes, Newt felt real. The problem is that the narrative eventually forced him into the center of a war he didn't want to fight. By the third film, he’s basically Dumbledore’s errand boy. While Redmayne’s performance remains consistent, the script struggles to justify why a magizoologist is the most important person in a fight against a dark wizard who can see the future.
Behind the Scenes Chaos and Recasting Grindelwald
You can't discuss the Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts movies without addressing the elephant in the room: the casting of Gellert Grindelwald. This role has been played by three different actors if you count the disguise in the first film.
- Colin Farrell (as Graves/Grindelwald)
- Johnny Depp
- Mads Mikkelsen
Each brought a totally different energy. Farrell was menacing and sleek. Depp was theatrical, almost like a silent film villain with his pale skin and mismatched eyes. Then comes Mikkelsen in The Secrets of Dumbledore, who played it much more grounded. Mikkelsen’s version felt like a former lover of Dumbledore, someone you could actually see a young Albus falling for.
The transition from Depp to Mikkelsen was sparked by highly publicized legal battles involving Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard. Warner Bros. asked Depp to resign, and the fan reaction was... loud. Regardless of where you stand on that drama, the constant shifting of the main antagonist's face made it hard for the general public to stay invested in the character's arc. It felt like the series was being rewritten on the fly, even when it wasn't.
The Dumbledore Connection
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore is arguably the best thing about these movies. He captures that twinkle in the eye that Richard Harris and Michael Gambon had, but adds a layer of regret. We finally see the "Great Albus Dumbledore" as a flawed man.
✨ Don't miss: The Reality of Sex Movies From Africa: Censorship, Nollywood, and the Digital Underground
The movies finally made his relationship with Grindelwald explicit. For years, fans had only J.K. Rowling’s word (from a 2007 Q&A) that Dumbledore was gay. The Secrets of Dumbledore actually says the words. "I was in love with you," Albus tells Grindelwald. This wasn't just fanservice; it was central to the plot. The "Blood Pact" meant they literally couldn't fight each other, a physical manifestation of their emotional baggage.
What Went Wrong with the Box Office?
Numbers don't lie, even in the Wizarding World.
The first movie was a hit, raking in over $814 million. It felt fresh. But then The Crimes of Grindelwald dropped to $654 million. By the time the third movie came out in 2022, it struggled to hit $407 million. In the world of blockbusters, that’s a dangerous downward trend.
Why did people stop showing up? It wasn't just the "cancel culture" or the casting changes. It was the complexity. The plot of the second movie is notoriously difficult to follow. There’s a secret Lestrange brother, a switched baby on a sinking ship, and a literal family tree that requires a magnifying glass to understand. Casual viewers who just wanted to see some cool magic got lost in the weeds of wizarding genealogy.
The Future of the Franchise
Is there going to be a Fantastic Beasts 4? As of early 2026, it’s looking unlikely. Warner Bros. Discovery has pivoted their focus toward the upcoming Harry Potter TV series for Max, which aims to re-adapt the original books. The planned five-film arc for Newt Scamander seems to be on permanent "hiatus."
This leaves the Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts movies in a strange limbo. We never got to see the actual 1945 duel. We never saw Tom Riddle’s school years, which many hoped would be teased. We’re left with a trilogy that feels like an unfinished bridge to a destination we’ll never reach.
🔗 Read more: Alfonso Cuarón: Why the Harry Potter 3 Director Changed the Wizarding World Forever
Essential Lore Bits You Might Have Missed
If you’re revisiting the films, look closer at the "Beasts" themselves, because they often mirror the themes of the characters. The Qilin in the third movie chooses the "pure of heart." It’s a bit on the nose, sure, but it ties the magical biology back to the political stakes.
Also, pay attention to the production design by Stuart Craig. He’s the genius who designed the original Harry Potter sets. Whether it's the 1920s New York or the وزارت جادو (Ministry of Magic) in Paris, the world-building is visually stunning, even when the script is messy. The gold-leafed Parisian wizarding world is a highlight that almost makes the confusing plot worth it.
How to Enjoy the Series Today
If you want to get the most out of these films, stop trying to compare them to the original eight Harry Potter movies. They aren't coming-of-age stories. They are period-piece political thrillers that happen to have wands.
- Watch the Extended Cuts: Some of the deleted scenes in Crimes of Grindelwald actually explain the plot better than the theatrical release.
- Focus on the Dumbledore/Grindelwald Dynamic: If you view the trilogy as a tragedy about two brilliant men destroyed by their own ideologies, it's actually quite compelling.
- Ignore the Canon Contradictions: If you get hung up on McGonagall’s age or the Aurelius Dumbledore timeline, you’ll just get a headache. Treat it as a "soft" canon.
The Harry Potter Fantastic Beasts movies represent a specific era of Hollywood—the era of the "cinematic universe" expansion. While they didn't achieve the cultural dominance of the original series, they provided a much-needed look at the world outside of a British boarding school. They showed us that the Wizarding World is vast, dark, and complicated.
Actionable Steps for Fans
- Visit the Locations: If you’re in London, the Warner Bros. Studio Tour now has significant sections dedicated to these prequels. You can see the actual costumes and the practical effects used for the creatures.
- Read the Screenplays: If the dialogue felt fast in the movies, reading the published screenplays helps clarify the complex political motivations of characters like Vinda Rosier or Yusuf Kama.
- Track the Beasts: Keep a list of how many creatures from the original 2001 Fantastic Beasts book actually show up on screen. It’s fewer than you’d think, but the ones that do—like the Niffler and the Bowtruckle—are usually the highlights of the films.
The Wizarding World is currently in a state of transition. While the Newt Scamander era might be ending prematurely, the impact of these films on the lore is permanent. They gave us a glimpse into a global magical community that we had only ever dreamed of during the Harry Potter years. Even with their flaws, they are a piece of cinematic history that redefined what a prequel could—and sometimes shouldn't—be.