I am bit puzzled…
Change, Stop( or Start?), Do-er, Logical, Action, Optionlock, Success, Good
OT - Activity (Find out where are the beasts in New York/find out who is the obscurus?) >> Story Goal: Understanding?
MC - Situation ? (Newton? )
IC - Fixed Attitude? (??.. Maybe Jacob Kowalski?)
RT - Manipulation (Friendship?)
Ever since I watched the film, I’ve been wondering about the storyform myself. I wasn’t sure there was a GAS (grand argument story) and I guessed that J.K. Rowling would have the Fantastic Beasts series, like the Harry Potter series, contain a GAS that spans the entire series but none for any of the individual books (although Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone came close). That’s just my guess, though.
P.S. @jhull analyzes the storyform for the Harry Potter series (Spoiler Alert) here: http://narrativefirst.com/articles/harry-potter-and-the-amulet-of-story-structure.
I think the story is pretty heavily flawed, especially since it tries to spin both plates with Newt trying to find the animals and Graves trying to find the Obscurus. There’s an interesting moment in the movie where Newt has found the last animal, and his arc is done. So he and his friends are sitting on a rooftop, and they just happen to stumble into the Obscurus plot.
I’m curious how you came up with Change, Success, and Good. At the very end of the movie, Newt does say, “I think I’ve changed… maybe a little,” but darned if I could tell you what that change was. Who is his Influence Character that inspired that change? Like you said, it’s pretty confusing. I also thought the ending was really depressing, so I thought there had to be something negative somewhere. Is it a Failure, because Newt couldn’t save the Obscurus? Or is it Bad, because even though “stopping the Obscurus” was the goal, the way it was achieved was negative? Newt was ultimately unable to convince the other wizards to see the beauty in every animal, no matter its appearance. There’s also that scene where everything gets reset, and it’s painted as this “we failed; wizardry is stuck exactly where it is” sort of moment. (Or at least, that’s how I interpreted it.)
I normally see the good in just about every movie, so the fact that I came out of this one going, “…Huh, that was kind of a mess” probably points to it being an inexpertly crafted Tale.
(English is not my native language, sorry about any grammar mistakes!)
" At the very end of the movie, Newt does say, “I think I’ve changed… maybe a little,” but darned if I could tell you what that change was. "
I feeled exactly the same at first, but later I reconsidered it. Maybe there is a change, however it is very slight. Example: in the begining he avoids eye contact with everyone ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAhWriND718 and https://youtu.be/qxSbgO2eBvY?t=3m6s), in the ending scene he thouches Tina’s hair, and he says: “how would you feel if I gave you your copy in person?” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp8iH7vbPHs) He is more open now.
I think it is a succes story, because they was able to avoid the consequence (the wizard world isn’t exposed). ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59iG_xo1eu0) The negative feelings are exist because of great costs(?? )(Credence etc.).
Just saw the movie and I think it’s really nice. Loved the atmosphere and it definitely has a storyform.
What I got for the throughlines is OS: Physics. MC: Universe IC: Mind and RS: Psychology.
It’s a Success story and the judgment is good.
Story Goal I got was Obtaining.
Newt’s Unique ability is Openness.
He’s definitely a Do-er, with a character growth of Stop, a Male mental sex and a Steadfast resolve.
All in all it was a very fun movie. Let me know your thoughts guys.
@actingpower I think both Newt’s plot line and Graves are both of the same kind, which is Obtaining. It doesn’t have to be the same item but it’s of the same nature, and I think it works since each throughline is just a perspective on an inequity. J. K Rowling just tried to be clever with her storyweaving.
may I playfully remind you that you are on a Dramatica discussion board? This isn’t some day-in-the-life of one human stumbling into a thematically relevant slice of some other humans life. Newt and Graves are part of the same human mind trying to solve one problem. It would be impossible for them NOT to bump into each other! 
My daughters are watching this again, and as I have Dramatica open I naturally start analyzing…
I agree with above that Newt is the MC, but I would posit that he is a Steadfast character, as I don’t see his perspective changed after being challenged by all the chaos the monsters are inflicting on the city. He still would even try to preserve the Obscurial. I think the growth he mentions is a Start growth, as he takes on the Control attribute and start being more responsible with monsters…
I’m wondering if the ending–which feels bittersweet to me–is because he fails to fully resolve his personal mission to release the griffon-phoenix thing in Arizona or his crusade to change the minds of the American wizarding world at large about magical beasts, resulting in a Story Judgment of Failure.
However, because the Obscurial’s ravaging of New York City has been stopped (the goal of the good Wizards), and wizards are still concealed from non-Majs, this feels like a Story Outcome of Good.
I think Kowalski is the strongest contender for IC, but I’d love to hear counter-arguments or thoughts about the IC Throughline…
Do you mean an Outcome of Failure and Judgement of Good? Or a Judgement of Bad and an Outcome of Success? I think you may be mixing up the terms for Outcome and Judgement, or those are typos.
Sounds like a Story Judgement of Bad.
Sounds like a Story Outcome of Success.
Yes, totally switched the terms, sorry. Good catch. Should be Outcome of Success, Judgment of Bad. Do you think that analysis can be supported in the film?
I think there are a number of stories going on in the film, with some limited in scope to the movie, and some working on a much larger scale.
SERIES STORY
The Obscurus thread is part of the main Grindelwald overarching story that pits Grindelwald (antagonist) against Newt (protagonist). It’s unclear which part of Fantastic Beasts is the subjective story because there are several possibilities. Once the second film comes out I imagine that will be cleared up. Newt is likely the MC, but I don’t think this story has fully locked in yet. It seems we’re on the precipice of an inciting event for the series story, or Grindelwald’s capture IS the inciting event.
SERIES STORY BACKSTORY or SETUP
Fantastic Beasts begins with the final parts of the backstory/setup. I think Mary Lou Barebone is the Steadfast IC and Credence is the Change MC. Their SS is their abusive mother/repressed son relationship. The Obscurus attacks and the potential exposure of the existence of magic to the muggle world is the OS throughline.
RETURNING THE THUNDERBIRD STORY
This story has Newt coming to America to return the thunderbird to its home and is complicated by the escape of several magical beasts. Newt is the Steadfast MC and Change IC Tina. The SS is their budding (unfulfilled) romance. It is possible that this is supposed to be the subjective part of the main story, but it seems to be too independent from it to work (IMO). It may, however, be the beginning of a larger subjective story,
NOMAGE IN THE WIZARDING WORLD STORY
The last of the stories I see floating around in Fantastic Beasts is about a muggle made part of the American wizarding world. The MC in this story is Jacob Kowolski, a wannabe baker, who wants to open a bakery but doesn’t have the funds to do so. He gets wrapped up in Newt’s efforts to recover the escaped magical creatures, which mixes his thread with Newt’s “Return the Thunderbird” story. However, in this story, the IC is Tina’s sister, Queenie, and the SS is the budding romantic witch/nomage relationship between them.
SUMMATION
I think the movie is not as successful as it might otherwise be is because it is doing a LOT at one time. Teasing out the above story threads shows why the story seems to end, then keep going, then end again, and so on. It also explains the multiple parallel threads being juggled back and forth. While this is easier to do in a book, it’s only partly successful in the film. My hope is that much of this will pay off as the series plays out and once all is revealed, the complex beginnings can be seen as just that – beginnings of multiple, fully-realized, intertwined stories.
Thank you for confirming for me what my intuition told me…that this wasn’t a complete GAS and for explaining why it has ALWAYS felt broken to me. You were much nicer about it than I was.
Sorry for being so late to reply, @dbareford.
I think you’re definitely right about Newt being steadfast regarding his protection of the creatures including the Obscurial. Tina, as the IC in the “Returning the Thunderbird” story, initially disapproves of Newt’s creatures:
Newt: “I’m writing a book about magical creatures.”
Tina: “Like an extermination guide?”
By the end of the film, her perspective has completely flipped, with her helping Newt stand against the aurors who are threatening Credence (the Obscurial):
Tina: Shh! Don’t, you’ll frighten him.
I absolutely love what @chuntley said about the four separate stories going on. No wonder I felt so unsettled after the film ended in the theater!
Same here. Now I’m especially curious about the next film coming out this November.
Have you seen Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald? Any opinion? 
Saw it and enjoyed it, but it feels like another beginning, not a continuation. In context, the first film feels like a prequel and “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is part one of a trilogy – introduction of the characters, major conflicts, and the first act turn. I spoke to a self-proclaimed “Potterfile” after seeing the film and apparently there will be four films altogether, which is consistent with the feeling I got from the first two films. We’ll see.