JK Rowling announces Five 'Fantastic Beasts' films

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Jordan La Cabra said:

Anyway, onto Credence...

  Reveal hidden contents

He seems to be the centrepiece of the story - his true identity the main mystery. 

In the original Harry Potter series, surely JK Rowling mentioned, at least briefly, all or most important characters in recent wizarding history. To me, Credence is either someone incredibly special or not special at all. There are parallels between Credence and Harry: both are orphans with special powers, who have held the attention of the two most powerful dark wizards of recent history. You would think, then, that Dumbledore would eventually come to know of him, and at some point, during his conversations with Harry in the original series' timeline, Dumbledore might mention to Harry something about a young man called Credence that he had much in common with.

As much as I enjoyed the film, the scene where Grindelwald suggests that Credence is Dumbledore's brother irked me. I don't think Credence is actually Dumbledore's brother, as his family life appeared to be quite thoroughly covered in the Deathly Hallows. At the same time, I don't want it to just be some lie that Grindelwald told Credence to trick him into fighting Dumbledore. It came at the end of the film, which meant it was meant to be quite a big reveal. Even the phoenix came to him - and Dumbeldore had stated earlier in the film that a phoenix would appear to anyone of the Dumbledore family in dire need. He could be some distant relative of Dumbledore's, but I don't really think that is interesting either.

Maybe some here would know better than me, but would there be anyway that the Obscurus could be linked to Dumbledore's sister Ariana? Or that anything else to do with Ariana could be linked to Credence? If part of Credence was part Ariana, then the idea of the phoenix coming to Credence could make sense, as he would be a Dumbledore in part. Also the idea that he could be the one thing Grindelwald needs to defeat Dumbledore may also work. 

 

 

Spoiler

First, I’ll say that this is often the problem with writing prequels and trying to tie the story nicely. Like George Lucas, JKR is creating some issues, I won’t say outright mistakes, just yet, but there are some problems. For example, it’s been pointed out on the interwebs a potential plot hole: the blood pendant prevents Dumbledore and Grindelwald from fighting each other, but in HP 7, Dumbledore reveals there was a three-way fight between the two of them and Aberforth, which resulted in Ariana’s death. Grindelwald fled right after that fight, and their relationship essentially fell apart (at least, that’s the implication). So, how and when did that fight happen, if the blood pendant was in play?

Second, I strongly disagree with the statement that Credence and Harry have much in common. There are parallels, yes, mainly with them being orphans, and growing up in abusive environments, but that’s where the similarities end. I don’t see Credence being much like Harry at all. He never showed one moment of altruism, which is Harry’s most prominent trait. Credence may appear to be a good person, but little has been shown of that.

When it comes to Dumbledore not ever mentioning Credence to Harry, I would say a good tie-in would be for this story to lead to a tragic and sad end for Credence, something that would stay with Dumbledore, something dark enough, that Dumbledore will never want to bring it up to Harry.

With regards to who Credence really is – the phoenix story was certainly the classic setup-payoff method that JKR has often used; we get a brief, almost in passing mention of a vital detail, and here comes the payoff at the end. However, in this case I believe this was for the audience mainly, and it’s very likely a red herring. Grindelwald may be a skilled enough wizard to have tricked the phoenix into showing up for Credence (perhaps the blood pendant had something to do with it). On the other hand, it could be something else – if Credence is a Dumbledore, he is most likely Ariana’s child. If I recall correctly, Ariana was attacked by some muggles, which left her mentally damaged. Her father then killed those muggles and got send to Azkaban. What if that attack was a rape? And a child was born, an unwanted child. JKR has certainly put some themes in this movie with regards to male abusing domination. Her intention might to be to go further with this…

 

[Pliskin]

Spoiler

Was it really stated in the books that Dumbledore fought Grindelwald during Ariana's death?

The blood pact may be the reason why the Dumbledore brothers parted ways. If Albus was not able to take Aberforth's side due to the pendant preventing him from fighting Grindelwald, a situation then resulting in Ariana's death, that could serve as the explanation for Aberforth's grudge.

I agree that Credence being Ariana's son is the likeliest scenario.

 

[Martini Sigil]

Pure speculation on my part.........

...... But this entire thing seems retconned... I think JKR had a cute idea about a magic kid, and wrote a terrific childrens book... and as it caught on, she began to try to adjust on the fly... by the time we got to the Deathly Hallows, she had to invent Aberforth, and Arianna., and even the Deathly Hallows themselves.. and try to make as much of this make sense as possible...

.... and not we have this whole new prequel universe where Dumbledore knows how to dress like an adult.... and she's still retconning....

.... but maybe I'm wrong.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

  Hide contents

Was it really stated in the books that Dumbledore fought Grindelwald during Ariana's death?

The blood pact may be the reason why the Dumbledore brothers parted ways. If Albus was not able to take Aberforth's side due to the pendant preventing him from fighting Grindelwald, a situation then resulting in Ariana's death, that could serve as the explanation for Aberforth's grudge.

I agree that Credence being Ariana's son is the likeliest scenario.

 

Spoiler

Yes, Albus tells Harry about it. The thing is, if he just sat and watched, no way could Aberforth had been able to hold his own against Grindelwald. Not only that, but Albus fearfully tells Harry he doesn't know whose wand delivered the killing blow to Ariana, which means that we can't just assume that Albus was throwing only protective charms around and wasn't fully engaged in the fight.

 

[lady narcissa]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:01 AM, Blue Roses said:

5) Depp didn't annoy me as much as I though he would. He felt very much on his best best behaviour which retrained the performance but yes I would have preferred Colin Farrell.  

I was really disappointed that they kept him in the movie. I'm not a huge Colin Farrell fan but he would have been an easy switch.  That said, during the movie itself, I sort of forgot it was Depp and wasn't annoyed by him either.  But once I left the theater, I was back to being disappointed.

Spoiler

@Blue Roses You make a good point regarding Queenie.  I hadn't thought of her love potion on Jacob that way because they clearly love each other but you are right.  And perhaps her comment regarding Leta Lestrange in the first movie - about her being a taker - was a bit of manipulation on her part as well to move him more over to Tina.  But her comment set us all up for expecting Leta to be one sort of person and what we saw in this second movie was anything but a taker on Leta's part.

Oh and I don't have the script myself yet but I did see someone's screencap of a page of it on twitter and it clarifies that Leta's "I love you" at the end was said to both Newt and Theseus which I'm really pleased about.

Regarding the speculation that Credence is Ariana's son...well I suppose JK could retcon the timing but as things stand now, it doesn't work out.  Ariana was actually attacked when she was 6 and then died when she was 14 in 1899.  Credence's birth year seems to vary as the actor was told he was 16 in the first movie and then there is a birth certificate shown in the second movie which puts his birth year in 1904 but then in the script it says he was born in 1901.  But making it unlikely for Credence to be Ariana's son.

As for the blood vow and the issue with Dumbledore and Grindelwald fighting...I have to go back and look at what is actually said in the HP books about the fight that ended with Ariana being killed but I suspect it was somewhat vague enough that it can turn out that Dumbledore and Grindelwald didn't actually fight one another.  The fight could have ended up being between Aberforth and Grindelwald with Dumbledore trying to break them up or deflect their spells so he is involved in the fight but not breaking the blood vow.  I mean I think trying to shield / protect his brother and sister without aiming to harm Grindelwald would technically not break the vow but still involve him in the fight.

 

[Pliskin]

13 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

.... but maybe I'm wrong.

It looks like a retcon, it smells like a retcon and it sounds like a retcon.

So I think you're right.

[williamjm]

I saw the film today. I thought it was OK, but probably one of the weaker Potter films and I definitely preferred the first Fantastic Beasts film. I think it might have made a better novel than film, the sheer amount of exposition gets a bit unwieldy and it should be spending more time on character development for key characters rather than subplots which go nowhere in this film, such as Nagini. There were some good scenes in it, such as the initial escape and the finale, which did a decent job of bringing together most of the plot strands.

I had mixed feeling about Queenie going over to Grindlewald's cause. In theory, I think it is good to show that even apparently sensible people can be seduced by fascism, and her telepathy would make her a good recruit for Grindlewald, but it felt like there was a bit jump in characterisation between how she is portrayed in the first movie and how she is portrayed in this one. Maybe they could have made it work, but I don't think they did.

I did think Grindlewald using the spectre of the past and future World Wars as evidence that the Muggles can't be trusted to rule themselves was something that many in the wizarding world might find convincing.

I did like Newt's story arc in this one, where he eventually comes to realise that he can't just stand on the sidelines in this conflict. As others have said I was half-expecting his brother to be Percy Weasley Mark 2, but I liked that they were less antagonistic and had been reconciled towards the end.

Leta was probably the most interesting character in the film, it's a shame she got killed off at the end.

 

[lady narcissa]

So I am rereading the FB screenplay and reading the FB:TCOG screenplay and no big revelations but regarding people's names that might have been missed....

Spoiler

So Tina and Queenie's boss from the first movie, Abernathy, is the one who helps Grindelwald escape in the second movie.  Totally didn't realize it was him since he was such a minor character in the first movie.  I guess what this reminded me of was that Grindelwald as Graves came to know a lot about the inner workings of MACUSA and the people who worked there.  So Queenie wasn't an unknown person to him when he encounters her in Paris.  Makes it somewhat easier to believe he might know how to maneuver her.

Also, in reading FB:TCOG and getting to see the names in print of the people supporting Grindelwald, there are some familiar last names from the HP days - Rosier and Carrow.

 

[Mladen]

I don't know how to say this... But I really, really, really liked this movie. And even though you are all right about retconning and even though the last scene was so meh and even though there are several more "even thoughs" I was so entranced by some aspects of this movie.

 

Spoiler

1. MUSIC. "Wands into the Earth" and "Spread the Word" are easily the best pieces of movie music I have heard this year. With probable exception of Deadpool's "Ashes". James Newton Howard did amazing work and I was so enthralled by how music elevated everything and made it sadder when needed and even more epic.

2. Cast was phenomenal. It is not easy to juggle the ensemble cast in 2 hours and we see many mistakes in doing so, but Jude Law and Zoey Kravitz stole the show. Callum Turner was amazing and I am looking forward to see what will happen with Nagini. 

3. The roots of Dumbledore's Order. When Travers accused Dumbledore of having international network of friends doing his bidding, I was immediately in "OK, Order of the Phoenix coming out now". But, the movie showed how Dumbledore created connections. It was a small touch but the conversation between Flamel and Eulaile Hicks (an Ilvermorny teacher) clearly suggests that just as Grindelwald was doing his magic on the masses, Dumbledore also connected people and made them loyal to him. People I would like to see: Prewitt, McKinnon, Bones, Longbottom, Viktor Krum's grandfather, probably some headmasters and teachers from different schools. I would like JKR to show us that there were good PureBloods who fought the madness.

4. Ah, the emotions. Queenie did unthinkable and I like it. I don't like what goes up until that moment, but the moment Jacob starts telling her to wake up, I knew she is lost. And I think Queenie shows us that Grindelwald used his speech as amazing sirens' call. It had to be rational, it had to make you question some things. And I like the fact that he was able to convince some into what he is saying.

5. To continue... Johnny Depp. No, he is not perfect. Grindelvald is like Loki. You fall in love with him just by watching him. And Depp doesn't bring that to this particular table. He is talented actor, he brings some of his panache to the role, but I would like someone else. 

6. So, Credence... He is somehow connected to Dumbledore's family, but the question remains: how? I don't buy Aurelius Dumbledore story. But I do think we'll learn about Obscurials and Arianne to make some connections. 

Overall, that would be that. JKR should really understand that movie screen and paper are not the same medium. Because these movies have potential, but they need to be modulated.

 

[Rippounet]

Watched it last night and really liked it. The music, the acting, the atmosphere were all great for me.

A few minor things irked me,

like how clean Paris was for instance, and how easy it is to get access to the Lestrange archives for some reasons

Of course we're all wondering whether Credence is actually a Dumbledore now. Throughout the movie, it seems that Grindelwald is planning to have Credence believe he is Corvus Lestrange. So, of course we wonder whether the Phoenix (Fawkes, no doubt) is a trick or not.

I also wondered whether Credence could be Ariana's son if she had been raped by muggles. But since she was 6 that's a no-no as this would imply a pretty major retcon.
There is, however an alternative possibility that involves a much more minor retcon: if Ariana had Credence shortly before dying. Officially she died at 14, but it becomes much more palatable with a minor retcon that she died around 17 or 18.
In which case, Credence would be Albus's nephew, which explains why Grindelwald thinks he is the perfect person to kill Albus (since Albus would obviously not be able to kill his only nephew).
And the father would be... Grindelwald. He was the one outsider that visited the Dumbledores, he could easily be bisexual (or heterosexual if Albus's love was unrequited).
There are minor problems with the theory, like why did Aberforth not care for the child, but it could have been Albus's wish that Aberforth finish his studies at Hogwarts or something since he was still under-age. And of course, since the Dumbledores did not know of Leta's baby switch they would have presumed Aurelius/Credence dead. In fact, Albus still does not know of the baby switch because Newt hasn't told him.
It would explain a lot of the rift between Albus and Aberforth if they believe that Albus's decision led to Aurelius's death.
Because if Aurelius was Grindelwald's son it would tie in nicely with one of Rowling's major themes that the "bad guys" are always incapable of love, especially of genuine love. Grindelwald abandoning his son to pursue his dreams of power (like looking for the elder wand) would be just the sort of thing a bad guy would do. And by the end of FB2, Grindelwald has figured it out, given his son a wand (knowing his parentage would make it possible to find an appropriate wand), but still chosen to hide the truth from him.
Thus setting the stage for two dramatic scenes: the first between Dumbledore and Aurelius where Dumbledore will realize who Aurelius is (and being burdened with considerable guilt because of the truth). With Newt possibly saving Dumbledore from Aurelius (or Fawkes ^^).
The second between Aurelius and Grindelwald when Aurelius realizes he was manipulated and turns against his father... Grindelwald being evil, unlike Dumbledore he will kill Aurelius.
Thus finally giving Dumbledore the willpower to break his blood oath and be ready to face Grindelwald in their legendary duel.

Crazy, not crazy?? Whatcha guys think.