Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

[Fawkesfan1]

I wonder if it's to show the effect that making him into so many horocruxes has done? Meaning his appearance changing so much.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I definitely count myself among those who have lost trust in her. After her defense of Depp, I returned my Cursed Child for a full refund and never looked back. I won't be seeing the FB movies either, not that anyone (and least of all Rowling) cares. I wasn't excited about FB to being with, I didn't see the appeal other than nostalgia. But after she showed her true colors in these #metoo times and after the director's ridiculous statements about how more women would have come forward had the accusations been true, I was fed up.

Yeah. I was sorely disappointed, too.

So yeah, that casting was the last straw and when the interview about Dumbledore came out I honestly just laughed. Like what did the fans expect really? It's weird that some fans keep coming up with lame excuses like "well DD's sexuality isn't relevant to the plot". Are. you. kidding. me? The infatuation for Grindelwald is a huge part of why Dumbledore acted the way he did during his youth and why he didn't confront the man sooner. This isn't about LGBT representation, it's about not leaving out such an essential piece of information.

I know, it's a such a bitter contrast from her answering a fan question about his love life and saying he was gay - at a time before marriage equality and in the face of a sizable backlash - if you remember, even on CoS homosexuality was a banned topic because it was considered not family friendly then. And now this. It hurts when your idols let you down (JKR used to be progressive, I remember her article on taxes and social services, among other things), that's why it's best not to have any. I think the issue with Dumbledore not being explicitly gay was about money - they'd lose conservative parents in the US and possibly other parts of the world if they had a gay theme in a kids'movie. Which makes it even worse because anyone who concedes their principles for money didn't really have any in the first place, especially if they're already rich.

[Spirit]

People have probably already seen this, but it seems that things have changed in the Dumbledore/Grindelwald department.

David Yates: "In that earlier interview, I didn't say Dumbledore's not gay. He is. This part of this huge narrative that Jo is creating doesn't focus on his sexuality, but we're not airbrushing or hiding it. The story [of this romantic relationship] isn't there in this particular movie, but it's clear in what you see... that he is gay. A couple of scenes we shot are very sensual moments of him and young Grindelwald."

And they've brought back the two actors who played young Dumbledore and young Grindelwald in Deathly Hallows, too.

Go check out the 3rd trailer when you get the chance. Lots of Dumbledore seeing current-day Grindelwald and seeing his younger self with young Grindelwald in there.

We have to remember not to trust anything they say. JK Rowling also said that we "shouldn't be expecting to see any characters we already know" before the first Fantastic Beasts film came out.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Fawkesfan1

I wonder if it's to show the effect that making him into so many horocruxes has done? Meaning his appearance changing so much.

That would be a no, since this is Grindelwald, not Voldemort. FYI, they do mention the reason in the Crimes movie.

[MrSleepyHead]

So what are everyone's thoughts? Proceed with spoiler tags outside of the general. Overall, I will say that I enjoyed it as a film and as a story set in the Wizarding World. BUT....

Spoiler: show

There are so many questions raised, seeming inconsistencies with what's been written in the original 7 books and Pottermore, and what to me felt like forced name dropping that I couldn't quite buy into the film as an extension of Wizarding World canon. And, thus, I have a hard time really enjoying it. I'll expand with more soon.

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

That would be a no, since this is Grindelwald, not Voldemort. FYI, they do mention the reason in the Crimes movie.

I must have missed this. Where/when did it say anything about his appearance?

[whizbang121]

Would love to find an in depth discussion of FB under spoiler alerts. Can anyone direct me?

[HedwigOwl]

MrSleepyHead - I look forward to your thoughts, I'm still processing the details and will probably have to see it again. In reply to your question:

Spoiler: show

- Posted by MrSleepyHead
I must have missed this. Where/when did it say anything about his appearance?

It was during the hand-off of Grindelwald at the U.S. Ministry before taking him out of his cell. The British rep makes a comment about his looking so bad, and the U.S. rep said that they "threw everything we had at him, we had to he was so powerful".

[MrSleepyHead]

A fuller non-spoilery review of my thoughts on Crimes of Grindelwald:

A good movie in and of itself, but disappointing as an extension of Wizarding World canon. Good performances by the leading characters, and enjoyable storylines for most of them. Unfortunately, there were so many characters and so many concurrent and competing storylines that it was hard to keep up at times or feel invested in any one story. JKR writing for the screen seems to forget it’s not a book and that we don’t have knowledge of an underlying book to rely upon. As a whole, the film was a lot of filler and setup for the next 3 in the series. It was visually appealing with some good action sequences, cool fantastic beasts, and fun magic, but there wasn’t a feeling of immersion in the Wizarding World. There was also a lot of seeming lip service to casual fans, forcing of the fantastic beasts theme, and heavy-handed plot development. It’s good to have Eddie Redmayne/Newt anchor this film because otherwise it would get lost and impersonal really quickly. But he's beginning to stick out as a bit of a hanger-on to characters more relevant to the over-arching story JKR seems to be telling. Overall, I’d give it a 7. I was wholly satisfied while watching it, but I had to set aside my Harry Potter canon hat and just enjoy it for what it is – an engaging story set in at least an approximation of the Harry Potter Wizarding World. I see the FB series as really a continuation of the David Yates HP films rather than JKR's Wizarding World created by the original 7 books.

Originally Posted by whizbang121

Would love to find an in depth discussion of FB under spoiler alerts. Can anyone direct me?

I can't find an old school forum actively discussing this. Most discussions nowadays seem to be on reddit, comments sections of certain websites, or comments and discussion groups on Facebook. Others can chime in if they know of others, but the closest I've been able to find are:

Crimes of Grindelwald official reddit subforum (NOTE: there are no spoiler tags here - assume every comment is spoilery)

Fandom Chat: Hosted By MuggleNet.com Facebook group (NOTE: there are no spoiler tags here - assume every post/comment is spoilery. You have to request to join this private group.)

Spoiler: show

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

It was during the hand-off of Grindelwald at the U.S. Ministry before taking him out of his cell. The British rep makes a comment about his looking so bad, and the U.S. rep said that they "threw everything we had at him, we had to he was so powerful".

Okay, that makes sense. I interpreted that scene as the rep just seeing how strongly he was protected, rather than a comment his decrepit appearance. From the script:

Crimes of Grindelwald Screenplay, Scene 3 As they reach the door, ABERNATHY turns and acknowledges them. ABERNATHY President Picquery, Mr. Spielman, sir. Prisoner is secured and ready to travel. SPIELMAN and PICQUERY peer into the cell at GRINDELWALD. SPIELMAN You’ve thrown everything at him, I see. PICQUERY It was necessary. He’s extremely powerful. We’ve had to change his guard three times—he’s very . . . persuasive. So we removed his tongue.

In the script, at least (there are differences from the final film dialogue), Spielman makes no mention of Grindelwald's appearance, though his comment could certainly be in response to it. And while that may be the case, I don't think we ever got confirmation for why Grindelwald is so pale and has heterochromia (something that was true in FB1 before being tortured). So I guess the jury could still be out that it could be the effect of having a Horcrux.

I still have to condense all my spoilery thoughts, so will follow up with those soon.

For now, a teaser: was the murder of the Parisian Muggle baby necessary? Sure, it showed that Grindelwald was a big baddy and drew parallels between Voldemort trying to kill Harry and Grindelwald (or his lackey) successfully doing so here. But was it gratuitous infanticide?

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

Spoiler: show

Okay, that makes sense. I interpreted that scene as the rep just seeing how strongly he was protected, rather than a comment his decrepit appearance. From the script:

In the script, at least (there are differences from the final film dialogue), Spielman makes no mention of Grindelwald's appearance, though his comment could certainly be in response to it. And while that may be the case, I don't think we ever got confirmation for why Grindelwald is so pale and has heterochromia (something that was true in FB1 before being tortured). So I guess the jury could still be out that it could be the effect of having a Horcrux.

I still have to condense all my spoilery thoughts, so will follow up with those soon.

For now, a teaser: was the murder of the Parisian Muggle baby necessary? Sure, it showed that Grindelwald was a big baddy and drew parallels between Voldemort trying to kill Harry and Grindelwald (or his lackey) successfully doing so here. But was it gratuitous infanticide?

Spoiler: show

I thought in the movie the comment was more like his looking "worse for wear" but will know once I see the film again. And sorry to say it again, but Grindelwald didn't make any horcruxes or Voldemort couldn't have killed him in DH. So that can't be a reason for his appearance.

Regarding the toddler, weren't the parents related somehow to Credence's heritage or information about it? Grindelwald was eliminating any evidence that would lead to information regarding Credence so he can manipulate him, so the toddler had to go as well.

[MasterOfDeath]

I enjoyed this movie more than the first even though the first was put together better. The pacing and editing was very off (that darn Mark Day! ) and some things were confusing but after re watching the first movie again and seeing the new one a second time I understand and appreciate it more.

Spoiler: show

The only way Credence could be a Dumbledore is if he was Aberforth's kid....

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I enjoyed this movie more than the first even though the first was put together better. The pacing and editing was very off (that darn Mark Day! ) and some things were confusing but after re watching the first movie again and seeing the new one a second time I understand and appreciate it more.

Spoiler: show

The only way Credence could be a Dumbledore is if he was Aberforth's kid....

I completely believe that Grindelwald

Spoiler: show

is lying to Credence. He may be a relative of Albus', but there is no way he is his brother. I like to think that Credence is going to introduce himself to Albus as Aurelius Dumbledore, ready to fight to the death, and Albus is just going to be like ?????? Gellert is responsible for this, isn't he?

. But maybe that's just me.

[Fawkesfan1]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

That would be a no, since this is Grindelwald, not Voldemort. FYI, they do mention the reason in the Crimes movie.

Ah. I was just going off how he kind of reminds me of him (Voldemort) and how Horcruxes affected him.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Spirit

I completely believe that Grindelwald

Spoiler: show

is lying to Credence. He may be a relative of Albus', but there is no way he is his brother. I like to think that Credence is going to introduce himself to Albus as Aurelius Dumbledore, ready to fight to the death, and Albus is just going to be like ?????? Gellert is responsible for this, isn't he?

. But maybe that's just me.

Spoiler: show

I also think Grindelwald is lying. He has to make it personal for Credence to make him want to kill Dumbledore. After all, the blood pact makes it impossible for Grindelwald to fight Dumbledore. And it would take a very powerful wizard to have a chance at defeating Dumbledore, and Credence is an Obscurial.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Spoiler: show

I thought in the movie the comment was more like his looking "worse for wear" but will know once I see the film again. And sorry to say it again, but Grindelwald didn't make any horcruxes or Voldemort couldn't have killed him in DH. So that can't be a reason for his appearance.

Spoiler: show

Normally I'd agree, but this film has made me rethink my devotion to canon. Occam's razor doesn't seem to apply to this prequel. I've seen a lot of folks saying this film is only the second of five, so we'll get our answers. And that's all well and good, but I have a feeling those answers will have to go through some pretty convoluted canon. Like explaining McGonagall being there. Sure, it can be explained in canon by her taking a decades-long break from Hogwarts and JKR being bad at math, but that's not a wholly satisfying answer for me. And if that's the logic that has to be used to explain the events in Crimes of Grindelwald, I'm not sure I can speculate. Because almost anything is possible. Grindelwald could have 13 Horcruxes that Credence destroys in a rage, for all we know. And not all of that is bad writing, per se - there are a lot of holes in our knowledge from the original series. So why couldn't it be possible that Grindelwald made a single Horcrux (the blood pact vial, maybe?) that Dumbledore, or Newt, or a niffler destroys, thus allowing Voldemort to murder him in DH?

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Spoiler: show

Regarding the toddler, weren't the parents related somehow to Credence's heritage or information about it? Grindelwald was eliminating any evidence that would lead to information regarding Credence so he can manipulate him, so the toddler had to go as well.

Spoiler: show

I don't think so. In the screenplay, Grindelwald just points to the house, and upon entering says "Yes. This will be suitable after a thorough cleanse." It feels like he was just setting up a headquarters. But who knows? Could've been Credence's aunt and uncle and Grindelwald was killing two birds with one stone, but I didn't see any indication of that.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Spoiler: show

The only way Credence could be a Dumbledore is if he was Aberforth's kid....

Spoiler: show

Or Ariana's or Kendra's (and JKR's timeline is just off) or Percival's after he miraculously escaped Azkaban and found another woman. But Grindelwald tells Credence that his brother (presumably Albus) is targeting him. So then he couldn't be Aberforth's, Ariana's, or Albus's kid. And, of course, how does Grindelwald know any of this? He doesn't seem to have known Credence in FB1, and he's presumably been in a cell for much of the next 6 months. Though it does seem like he escaped and had his scapegoat in place for at least part of it. But maybe he's just lying to Credence (in which case, the reveal will fall a bit flat come FB3). Anything seems to be on the table when nothing in canon clearly supports it.

Originally Posted by Spirit

I completely believe that Grindelwald

Spoiler: show

is lying to Credence. He may be a relative of Albus', but there is no way he is his brother. I like to think that Credence is going to introduce himself to Albus as Aurelius Dumbledore, ready to fight to the death, and Albus is just going to be like ?????? Gellert is responsible for this, isn't he?

. But maybe that's just me.

I think this would be the best way to resolve this issue, though it would dull the "big reveal" in this film. I think the reveal was partly just to spark so much controversy and discussion that it drives people to the next film to figure out how it could be. It seems a bit like lazy/gotcha storytelling to me, though, and not up to scratch with the cohesive stories of the original series.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

Spoiler: show

I don't think so. In the screenplay, Grindelwald just points to the house, and upon entering says "Yes. This will be suitable after a thorough cleanse." It feels like he was just setting up a headquarters. But who knows? Could've been Credence's aunt and uncle and Grindelwald was killing two birds with one stone, but I didn't see any indication of that.

Spoiler: show

Except that Credence and Nagini are already on their way to that house and arrive shortly after Grindelwald & associate have killed the family living there, so Grindelwald must already know there's a connection that would ruin his plan to convince Credence that he is a Dumbledore. I think the choice of that house was deliberate, and Grindel wouldn't tell his associates why. Remember that Dumbledore can't fight Grindelwald because of the blood pact, and the same applies to Grindelwald. It's essential to his plan that Credence never knows his true bloodline.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Spoiler: show

Except that Credence and Nagini are already on their way to that house and arrive shortly after Grindelwald & associate have killed the family living there, so Grindelwald must already know there's a connection that would ruin his plan to convince Credence that he is a Dumbledore. I think the choice of that house was deliberate, and Grindel wouldn't tell his associates why. Remember that Dumbledore can't fight Grindelwald because of the blood pact, and the same applies to Grindelwald. It's essential to his plan that Credence never knows his true bloodline.

Spoiler: show

I didn't think these were the same houses. Credence and Nagini go to the house of his old nanny, not to the bourgeois town home in Paris still occupied by Grindelwald when he brings in Queenie. And Grindelwald seems to be methodically leading Credence to entering the blue flame in the Lestrange crypt by sending him a note that leads him to his old nanny, having his lackey kill said nanny, meeting him on a rooftop telling him to go to the Lestrange cemetery (where he also leads Leta so that she can give her big reveal). I don't see where the Parisian family comes into his elaborate trap beyond their house serving as a Malfoy Manor for his time in Paris.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

Spoiler: show

I didn't think these were the same houses. Credence and Nagini go to the house of his old nanny, not to the bourgeois town home in Paris still occupied by Grindelwald when he brings in Queenie. And Grindelwald seems to be methodically leading Credence to entering the blue flame in the Lestrange crypt by sending him a note that leads him to his old nanny, having his lackey kill said nanny, meeting him on a rooftop telling him to go to the Lestrange cemetery (where he also leads Leta so that she can give her big reveal). I don't see where the Parisian family comes into his elaborate trap beyond their house serving as a Malfoy Manor for his time in Paris.

Spoiler: show

The way I recall it (haven't seen the film a 2nd time yet) -- Credence and Nagini visit his old nanny, and we see the murdered nanny after Credence & Nagini are no longer there. I still think that the people murdered in Grindelwald's upscale house are somehow connected, if only by way of information or distant relation. Otherwise they wouldn't have killed the toddler as well. I think he was removing any possible genetic proof. If there were only adults there I wouldn't have given it another thought, but the toddler is an oddity, particularly because Grindy didn't do the deed but clearly directed that it should be done. Why have the toddler there at all?

[LyraLovegood]

Spoiler: show

I am thinking the explanation for killing the French baby KantSpell is simply to underline the fact that Grindelwald and his followers are remorseless, evil, homicidal fanatics. To show he is lying in his grand speech when he says the Muggles are not disposable. He looks at the babe, sees no magical ability, and consigns him to the AK. Just because he is the bad guy.

[Fawkesfan1]

People are upset once again about Dumbledore/Grindelwald's relationship. The usual suspects as well. Get over it, people. Just move onto something else if you think it goes against your views and your religion.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/enter...ald/index.html

Source: cnn