In the movie, she brings Newt twice before the council and tries to tell them this guy has unregistered dangerous beasts and is breaking rules. They dismiss her claims. But when they find out she was telling the truth...they arrest her and sentence her to death. What the heck? Did I miss something?
shareIf you'll look at who the guy who sentenced them was it makes sense. If it wasn't him they would have had a far softer sentence.
shareNot the question. Why was Tina arrested at all is what I was asking? What did she do wrong? She was following their law and arrested somebody. They agreed he did wrong...but arrested her too.
The President said something like Tina waited 24 hours after arresting Newt to let them know that he was in the city rather than notifying them immediately. So it's like she's saying Tina let the city be at risk for 24 hits instead of bringing him in immediately.
shareBut they all know she tried to bring him in earlier and they dismissed her. Just seemed weird. Very harsh sentence for trying to help.
shareAs inefficient and hierarchical as MaCUSA seems to be, I'm pretty sure there was some other option for Tina between "barge in on a meeting between the President and the Head of the department" and "secretly escort a lawbreaker around the city."
She could have filed some sort of report with a lower level auror. But she didn't want to. She wanted to be the one to bust Newt so that they would reinstate her as auror.
-----------------------------
I miss Giles.
so that they would reinstate her as auror
Well, if we want to get really deep into the reason why most of what the wizarding world does seems counter-intuitive, we must remember that they've been inbreeding for centuries.
Witches and wizards = West Virginia hill folk.
Now it makes perfect sense!
Yeah, the President said that, but she was wrong.
Tina showed the Aurors right away.
It was just more convenient to the plot for nobody to speak up about it.
It was just an unnecessary special effects sequence or the execution chamber will become important in one of the sequels. Pretty out of place in this one. Maybe Yates felt some action was needed like the Burrow burning scene from HP!
shareHow about by the end of the film they didn't say anything like, "Hey how about an, I'M SORRY for almost killing US?" lol
shareIf you'll look at who the guy who sentenced them was it makes sense. If it wasn't him they would have had a far softer sentence.
Graves/ Grindewald ordered execution illegally saying he talks to president himself.
But the president herself was idiot. Tina appeared with Newt, she dismissed them, Tina comes back 24 hours later and president accusing Tina for knowing improtant knowledge 24 hours.
And yet president didn't realise that she herself dismissed them previous day because Tina interrupted the meeting.
I am a fan of TV crossovers. It connects different shows and puts them into same universe
Yeah... That annoyed me.
"You knew he had dangerous beasts and you waited until a man was killed to speak up?"
"Umm.... no. I tried to tell you..."
"Oh. Well, good job, then. Perhaps I should listen to you more often."
And I guess it made more sense for Graves to sentence them to death... but there was really no reason for Tina to be arrested to begin with.
[deleted]
Because Rowling wrote a very contrived and overstuffed script that lacks a lot of logic in the little details like this, not sure why Steve Kloves didn't rewrite Rowling's script and fix some of these issues.
HP was never perfect, but this movie didn't have all the mythology and source material to try and balance, so it is confusing that it sort of lacks the sense of wonder I was expecting.
I actually like the movie, but the way people reacted to things annoyed me during it and I think the 2nd act almost kills any momentum before it's kind of saved by a fast 3rd act with more going on.
You're probably right. Each of the HP books is longer than the last. My opinion is that the editors felt less and less able to tell JKR to cut stuff out. She is becoming to fantasy as Lucas did to SciFi.
shareWell...I get that they were bad guys. But that can't be the only reason. A bad leader still had good people in the room there. Nobody questioned or challenged a death sentence for Tina? I would be..."well that's a bit odd...maybe he's evil and should be stopped"
But nobody did that. They just went "okay...I guess we should kill her...seems legit"
Yes it seems like a much deeper institutional problem at work when some bureaucrat can just order executions so easily without any review or oversight.
shareBesides what's already been said, the other question is why the heck can some guy just order an execution and the lackeys obey? No judge? No jury? No legal framework? What kind of regime is this???
I'd probably have sided with Grindlewald or any other wizard to thoroughly destroy the wizarding world oppressive and cruel rules.
Justice and solidarity isn't optional in a world filled with people who can conjure nuclear bombs out of thin air.
I thought it was odd too, but considering it was Grindelwald it seemed like was in a hurry to get it done. Like 'do it right now' so he can inform the President which I'd say is safe to assume he didn't.
Maybe the people following his orders works for him? Or they're too scared to oppose. Though yeah that's... off.
But why even excecute Tina before Newt? Newt was the one that had lost the beasts. I mean, the movie making reason was for him to get time to save them. But in-story wise... eh.
Maybe the people following his orders works for him? Or they're too scared to oppose. Though yeah that's... off.
Judging by how happy one seemed to be to get Tina into the Pool of Death, I would believe they were under Grindelwald's Imperius spell.