pro-dumbledores-office - Tumblr blog

pro-dumbledores-office · 5 days

Text

The Wands of Fantastic Beasts

So this is very different from what I normally post. I hope y’all enjoy and if you agree or disagree, I would love to hear what you have to say. This post is long and very picture heavy so I will continue below the cut.

Let me say that I think most of these wands are actually well executed individually, and I think the team who designed and made these wands is very talented. That being said, some have large flaws and when seen as a collection, they feel very lazy, especially the wands from the second movie. I am aware of three other wands (Bunty’s, one labled “Auror’s wand” and a purplish wand). However, I was unable to find good pictures or other reviews online, so I was forced to exclude them.

1) Tina’s Wand

Tina’s wand features a well-defined handle and cleanly tapered shaft. It has very plain lines, and primarily adds visual interest with the grain and mild color variation. This wand is somewhat unusual because it is not in the Art Deco style. However, this works because Tina has a no nonsense, no frills approach to life, and this wand reflects that. The simple and clean lines speak to practical mind and an appreciation of a quiet beauty, much like Tina herself. This wand is my favorite because it really does reflect its master and its understated beauty.

2) Bernadette’s Wand

Bernadette has a pale wand with a nodular shaft/handle and an offset pommel that has been carved into a face. Frankly, this wand is great. The detailed carving and the pale color make it stand out. I have seen the face described as either a mummy’s face or a faun’s. In either case, it is a unique and somewhat bold choice that I think paid off. That being said, I personally find the face a little creepy which is why Tina’s wand is Number 1.

3) Rosier’s Wand

Vinda Rosier wields a rather neutral looking wand. The wand is a rich, dark brown wood with reddish tones that become more pronounced towards mid shaft before fading into dark brown at the tip. The wand itself is made of several elongated ovals separated by smooth dips. While I do not like silhouette of this wand, I think the color is lovely, and I applaud the designers for not giving a dark looking wand to a dark character.

7) Skender’s Wand

Skender’s wand has a ball pommel and a minimally tapered shaft with a thick square tip. The two sections are joined by a gold band. What really stands out on this wand is the color: the shaft is a yellowy olive with pointed black striping and the pommel is bright red. The simple design really lets the colors be the stand out feature on this wand.

8) Spielman’s Wand

Spielman has a somewhat unusual square cross section wand. The shaft is a clean black taper. This simplicity forms a sharp contrast with the detailed off-white and silver handle. The pommel is a heavy silver thing with two meander/Greek key borders. A meander is also used to decorate the small silver cross guard. The bulk of the bone/ivory(?) handle is divided into four sections by three silver bands. All of these sections have a small silver stud on each face.

This wand is very well designed. The colors complement each other, and the meander is expertly used to highlight the square cross section. I like playing with the cross sections on wands, so seeing a well-executed square one is nice. That being said, I do think some decoration on the plain shaft would balance out the rich handle.

9) Leta’s Wand

Leta uses slender black and silver wand. The handle features two wide silver bands both covered with delicate, hammered scroll work. The remainder of the handle is made of an elegant, multi strand twist. The shaft is long and quite thin, giving the wand a unique silhouette.

This wand is well designed. It is feminine and classy, but not overstated.

10) Percival Graves’ Wand

Perceval Graves has a deceptively simple wand. The glossy black shaft is separated from the handle by a thin silver ring. The silver pommel resembles an inverted rook, and is joined to the handle by a thinner silver rod.

I think this is a well-designed wand, and while I am generally not a fan of wands with lots of metal, I think it works in this case. Part of this comes from the wand echoing some of the more futuristic Art Deco schools, and part come from the black and silver color scheme. In the first series black and silver wands were rare, so this wand stood out because of the unusual colors. However, black and silver wands have become more common and robbed this wand of some of its uniqueness.

11) Abernathy’s Wand

Abernathy’s wand features a black handle with an asymmetric spiral and a large ¾ ball pommel. A silver band separates the handle from the plain, medium brown shaft.

I think this is serviceable wand. I like the asymmetrical twist, and think it goes nicely with the pommel. However, while the colors do complement each other, the shaft is very plain, and almost looks like it was made from a different material from the handle, though it is possible that the handle was painted.

12) Yusuf Kama’s Wand

Yusuf Kama’s wand shares a similar color palette with Abernathy’s: the shaft is slightly darker and there is a touch more silver. The additional silver comes in the form of a broad pommel cap that has a slightly pitted finish. From here, the wand flows into a slim handle with two raised rings marking the middle. The silver cross guard slightly tapers to the shaft. While most lines on this wand (the grooves, rings and color transitions) run perpendicular to the wand, the cross guard has some delicate fluting that lies parallel to the wand. While subtle, this does serve to make that element the focal point of the wand.

I like the fluting on the cross guard, and overall, think the wand is generally fine, even if the shaft is a tad plain.

13) Theseus’s Wand

Theseus Scamander’s wand has a simple, gently tapered silhouette, and a plain warm toned wooden shaft. The shaft contrasts nicely with the rich gold and tortoise shell handle.

I like the similarities in the Scamander brother’s wands: both are simple baton style with shell accents. In Theseus’ case the similarities have all been polished and the wand looks like it belongs to a member of the British upper class. That being said, this wand really does feel like a non-wood handle was added to the wand.

14) Newt’s Wand

Newt’s wand is a simple baton, with a rustic, well used finish. The darker handle is separated from the shaft by a blueish band. The wand has a hollow pommel lined with mother of pearl.

I do not like the hollow pommel, as that is a weak spot, susceptible to breaking, and it will get filled with dirt, water, and other debris. I know that the designers wanted a natural look, with animal elements, but I think they tried too hard and it shows.

15) Queenie’s Wand

Queenie’s is mostly a slim black shaft. The visual interesting parts are located in the elongated two-part pommel. The first part is bright gold, miter-eques band that is decorated with an incised banner pattern. The band grips a mother of pearl column which cumulates in a delicate shell. When seen in a void, this wand is incredibly Art Deco, both in materials and motifs.

I have read that this wand was supposed to be “sexy”, but I personally don’t see it. I question the inclusion of that much shell, which would be fragile and likely to break (although if this is painted wood, I applaud the skill that went into the carving and painting.). I also think too much emphasis is put in the pommel/handle to the detriment of the shaft. Part of Art Deco is showing of the richness, and if in every day use all you can see it the very plain shaft, it kind of fails as an Art Deco piece.

16) Flamel’s Wand

Flamel uses a very plain brown wand. Much like Queenie’s, the plain shaft makes up most of the wand. The handle/pommel is made from a slightly curved horn. The horn is joined to the shaft by an aged gold band that has a slightly raised, swirling pattern. I am very, very, disappointed with this design. Flamel is ancient and you would think his wand would have a radically different look. Instead with the very plain shaft and fancy handle, this wand fits in with the modern wands in the rest of the collection. I would expect this wand to have significant gothic influence, with intricate, allegorical scenes, lots of fine details, and, possibly, painted areas to mimic stained glass.

17) Albus Dumbledore’s Wand

Dumbledore uses a black and silver wand. It features a broadly flared silver pommel that flows into the black handle. The handle is joined to the shaft by a broad silver band etched with runes. Just distal to this band is a delicate three-part hollow twist, smooth in the outside, yet rough on the inside. This then blends smoothly into the rest of the shaft. This wand is visually interesting. But I have serious issues with the hollow twist. The location is where you would expect the most stress to be if you hit something while holding the wand, and with that area weakened, where you would expect the wand to snap. Additionally, how does the core run through that section?

18) Seraphina Picquery’s Wand

Seraphina uses a wand with a large amethyst crystal handle that draws most of the attention. The crystal is griped by a delicate silver cage which joins it to the shaft. The wood shaft is a very simple dark brown baton. Overall the color plate work’s well, and the silver cages serves as a textural focus point, with both the crystal and wood having almost no texture.

While this wand does preserve the Art Deco feel, the large crystal looks like it belongs on a high fantasy fairy wand or a Wiccan wand rather than a Harry Potter wand. Additionally, the crystal is clearly grafted onto wood shaft, which raises questions about how the wand was originally constructed. Were the crystal and silver handle originally part of the wand? If so what was the cost of the wand? Was it added later, and how did that change the balance of the wand? To my mind, this wand is the epitome of an overly extravagant, inorganic handle grafted onto a very, very plain wooden shaft.

Overall thoughts:

Let me be clear, I think the props designers are fantastically talented, and by and large most of these wands are individually very well done. And there are some fantastic wands and some really awful ones. However, when you look at the overall collection it feels…lazy and over decorated.

Art Deco was clearly a major inspiration for the wands. I have also read that the design team wanted to go in a different direction, and separate these wands from those in the original series. And I think both ideas are good: it’s a different time, and Art Deco really is big at this point. But I think they got too wrapped up in the new, Art Deco direction and failed to adhere to the basics, both in wand design and in Art Deco.

Too many of the wands look like they are plain batons grafted onto decorative handles. While there is nothing wrong with having a plain shaft, and most wands will have a plain shaft, here it is taken to an extreme. Queenie, Picquery, Theseus, Speilman, Leta, and to a lesser extent Flamel, all have very rich, extremely detailed handles, that often seem to be made of non-wood materials. These handles stand in stark contrast to the shafts, all of which are very plain, and few have any notable grain. This contrast sharply with the books, in which wands are wood and the original series, where non wood accents are used sparingly. These new wands with their large non wood sections are a substantial reversal from the wood wands of both movie and book cannon. Secondly, as I noted for Queenie’s wand, part of Art Deco is showing off the rich exotic materials you are using. While these wands undoubtably have such materials used in their construction, they are exclusively confined to the handle which is covered in normal use. This means what you see most of the time, is a plain shaft, which really isn’t Art Deco.

The color palate is somewhat condensed, and this detrimental the Art Deco theme. A third of the wands use black and silver. This combination is very classy and elegant, but it is overdone. Before black and silver wands were unique, and stood out: now it is common, and slightly cheap. Wood comes in a staggering array of colors, and this collection does not reflect that. There are a myriad shades of brown, cream, tan and colors beyond that too. There is Padauk, Redheart, Redwood, Bloodwood, (all varying shades of red) Canarywood (gold and brown striped), Yellowheart (bright yellow), Osage Orange (orange), Purpleheart (purple), Pink Ivory (ranges from a pale pink to watermelon red), Lignum Vitae and Sassafras (both are often an olive green), and Holly (one of, if not the, whitest wood). And then there is grain. Black and White ebony is noted for its striking black and white stripping. Ziricote is valued for it’s beautiful landscape like grain, and the cream and chocolate stripping of zebra wood is always stunning. Spalting adds unique patterns and colors, while figured grain is not uncommon and can and an extra bit of oomph to another wise simple design. Using some of the above mentioned could have contributed that richness in the Art Deco style and added more variation.

There is also a huge missed opportunity here to show how different countries and wandmakers have different styles. There are American, British, German, and French wands here, but there is no real difference in the style, with the exception of Bernadette’s. We get a glimpse of this in the original series, with both Gregorovitch wands having a strong organic aesthetic (one can also include Grindelwald’s original wand in this group, as he appears to come from the same region). Unfortunately, this does not carry over into this series.

Sources:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0221/1146/products/Porpentina_Goldstein_Collectable_Wand_2_grande.png?v=1532942253

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB12FqqSVXXXXXEXVXXq6xXFXXXY/Newest-Metal-Core-Deluxe-Harry-Potter-Fantestic-Where-to-find-Bernadette-Magic-Wands-Stick-with-Gift.jpg_640x640.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpBiah84Xy4&t=429s (a very different take on these wands, that I would suggest watching, to get another view point)

http://www.thedailyowl.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/vinda-rosier-wand.jpg

https://www.wbshop.com/collections/fantastic-beasts-wands

https://www.noblecollection.com/Fantastic-Beasts-Wands

15 notes · View notes

pro-dumbledores-office · 5 days

Text

THE WANDS OF FANTASTIC BEASTS Part 2

This is a follow up to my review of the wands fo Fantastis Beasts.

Bunty’s wand

This totally wooden wand features a beautifully carved pine cone pommel and a short handle covered with gracefully carved foliage. The shaft is thinner but the simple design serves to keep the focus on the carved areas.

I love the carved areas and think the designer did a fantastic job overall. This is a beautiful wand and if it belonged to a character in the original series, I would be praising it for how it remains traditional (all wood) but plays with proportions (thin shaft with a large pommel) while not making that the focus (carvings are the main focus). That being said it fits disturbingly well in this collection of plain shafts and richly decorated handles.

Corvus Lestrange Sr’s Wand

This wand features a hexagonal handle seemingly made from gold. The handle is covered with beautiful, almost Arabic filigree and seems to have an antiqued finished. The handle tapers from a slightly flared band at the pommel down to two narrow bands that still preserve the hexagon shape at the shaft. The pommel proper is slightly recessed from the band, and is made of a shallow dome covered in the same filigree work in a small, smooth ball at the very tip. The shaft is a rich, dark, brown wood with a gentle tape or to a square tip.

This wand is really very beautiful. The colors work well together and I like how both Leta and her father have this intricate filigree work on both of their wands. But when viewed as part of this released collection, it still runs into my main criticism of a sumptuous inorganic handle grafted to a plane shaft.

Auror Wand

This all wooden wand features an exaggerated ball shaped pommel. About half of the pommel is covered with a smooth black wrap that descends to spiral around the handle. The rest of the wood is somewhat textured and a warmer orangish color, with a fairly strong grain pattern.

This wand is more in line with the wands from the original series. The all wood construction is very refreshing; the color palette is reminiscent of Halloween but is not cartoony. I actually really like how the almost oversized pommel looks and I will admit it has inspired me to try similar designs myself.

(Note: I have not been able to find a officially licensed prop version of this wand. I have seen multiple line art pictures from official books and several replicas the preserve the basic idea. That being said there have been small variations in color between them, so I’m not entirely sure if this picture is 100% accurate to what was used in the movie.)

Overall Thoughts

With regards to the officially released wands, my opinion has not shifted much. What these three wands do is expand the color pallet, and they do feature more wood in their construction. As more time has gone by and more images of non-released wands have come to light, it seems that there are more wands that fall in line with designs from the original series i.e. Credence and Grimmson’s. This does make me wonder if the props designers kept more from the original series, but we are not seeing that in the released designs for some reason. If more wands are released I will re-evaluate my opinions, but as of now, my original critique is largely unchanged.

Sources

https://www.noblecollection.com/Item–i-PRP-FB-8055

https://www.noblecollection.com/Item–i-PRP-FB-8063

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/fantastic-beasts-auror-wand-1871265498

8 notes · View notes