#fbawtft meta

[apicelladonna]

You guys are looking for cinematic tragedies elsewhere when Grindeldore exists !

Albus came first into the world and out. And Gellert always follows second a year later—😭

[wizengamot-chiefwarlock]

let’s discuss the difference between how macusa and m.o.m. treat their criminals.

THE MINISTRY OF MAGIC, BRITAIN

criminals guilty of severe crimes such as murder are not sentenced to death, so to speak. they are sentenced to life in Azkaban, where they stay for the rest of their lives, drained of their happiness until they die of misery, health issues, or whatever. dementors are supposed to be soul-sucking creatures, but they don’t actually suck out the souls of the prisoners. they’re supposed to be satisfied with feeding on only emotions, and guard the prisoners till their end.

there’s a bit of discrepancy, however- let's compare the sentences of Sirius and Barty Crouch Jr. Sirius is convicted for the murder of Peter Pettigrew and 12 Muggles, and his sentence is simply life in Azkaban. Barty Crouch Jr is convicted for the one murder of Cedric Diggory, but he has his soul sucked out by a Dementor.

(note: yes, he actually killed his father, but I’m pretty sure Fudge didn’t know that until AFTER crouch jr got the dementor‘s kiss.)

so- the difference in their sentences is wildly different. however, one important factor is that Fudge is in charge in Barty‘s case, and we know he’s a wack ass Minister, while he wasn’t Minister yet when Sirius was convicted. so we can probably excuse this injustice to Fudge's incapabilities as the Minister of Magic.

so in conclusion: the British ministry does not take the lives of their prisoners and just dumps them in the hands of dementors to die naturally or have their souls sucked out.

THE MAGICAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

criminals guilty of severe crimes are immediately sentenced to death. there are no dementors in America, as far as we know.

Newt and Tina‘s case is a little complicated. MACUSA knew that neither actually killed Shaw themselves, but they were held responsible for the Obscurial that did it. Tina‘s role in the matter was barely even known, and if they’d asked around a little bit, they’d have known that she had been trying to arrest Newt for days and was just doing her job. but with little to no information on what part she played in the murder, she was sentenced to death as well.

like i said, no dementors. here, the deaths of the criminals are orchestrated by wizards and witches. their happy memories and drawn out and are shown to the prisoner in a pensieve-like cesspool, until the prisoner is tempted to relive those happy memories and jump in, killing themselves. so basically, they’re gaslighted into committing suicide.

the most dramatic part of this comparison is that the way prisoners meet their end in Britain is the exact opposite of the way they do in America. think about it- in Britain, their happy memories are drained out until they are left with only misery and depression and negativity, and they die, tortured and unhappy. in America, they are forced to view their happy memories until they jump in- dying cruelly, but (to a certain extent) happily.

woah.

which method do you think is worse, or better?

[inastarlesssky]

Hey, so this might be a bit random, but I rewatched the first Fantastic Beasts movie recently and I completely forgot how much I loved it at the time. Then I discovered your blog and I was so happy to see that people still talked about the movies and newtina especially. I just think they had so much potential that wasn't really used in the movies and I that kind of inspired me to write a fic about them (I am a sucker for the 'character who breaks the law for the greater good'x'character who is the law' dynamic, you know, with tina investigating what newt was doing in ny). But I feel I am not as deep in the fandom as you are and I am kind of looking for inspiration atm so I have some questions which would help me to get a few starting points and if you could answer some of them I'd be very grateful <3 (if you don't want to, just ignore this, haha).

What is it you like the most about Newt?

What is it you like the most about Tina?

What do you like about their relationship? What makes it so special?

Who fell first? Who fell harder?

How do you think each of them will grow in their relationship? How will Newt change? How will Tina change?

Any first kiss headcanons?

Why do you think Tina is an auror? Is this the right occupation for her?

Why do you think Newt is a magizoologist? (I think it's pretty obvious that this is what is destined to do, so no follow-up question here)

And in general, would you like the idea of a newtina fic where it's basically the plot of Fantastic Beasts 1, but broken down to "Beasts escape Newts case and Tina investigates him but eventually learns that the rules she works for might not be the fairest and also is in conflict between her work ethic and slowly falling in love with Newt"?

Wow, hi! This is random but I completely love it, and thank you for dropping by! I'm so sorry it took me a while to answer this, but I wanted to think well on it and give a good, thought out answer. So here it is.

First of all, I'm so happy that you love them, too! I got into them because I watched the movies, and I can't stop now...they're just lovely and a nice break from the other dark enemies-to-lovers pairings I like, so it's sweet.

Secondly, I am new to this fandom, too, actually. If you're looking for people who've been in it longer and might know more about (for sure they know more about it than I do XD) I might point you in the direction of anyone I'm following or have reblogged. I get my stuff from them, so. C:

I completely agree! There was so much potential and I would have loved to see that story unfold...well, at least we know they got married in the end. Okay, like I said, I don't know so much about the fandom but I'll help how I can. Putting the answers under the cut because whoops, I wrote an essay hi.

What do I like most about Newt?

I like how gentle he is, and innocent. He didn't want to pick a side when it came to it, because as Dumbly says, Newt always just wants to do what's right. I loved seeing how he cared for his creatures, the attentiveness (and the idea that if that's how he treats his creatures, how's he gonna be with the woman he loves? Aka Tina) (Also I'm convinced that as much as he may have wanted to get the international travel ban lifted because he wanted to travel...despite that, I still think it's to a certain degree because he wanted to see her, to talk to her. If not that, look at his decision after Dumbly asked him to help. He initially refuses because he knows they'll lock him up in Azkaban if he breaks the rule, but as soon as he finds out that Tina is Paris, he drops everything and goes. (I'm no expect, but I'd accept this.)

What do I like most about Tina?

She seems very determined and brave. I love how no-nonsense she is! Like she literally just drags Newt halfway across New York because she's taking him into custody. I'm sorry, I don't know her or Newt so much because I still have yet to read the fic recs people have given me...that's my research haha.

What do you like about their relationship?

I love how she is the brave, maybe a little headstrong, confident who knows her ideals and will pursue what's right. and yet Newt's the awkward gremlin boy who's a little scared of her at first but then in love and basically ready to drop everything because of her. (This could be a completely wrong interpretation of them, I'm new to this fandom, as I've said before) But that's the idea I got. (Because I hc that yes, Newt actually wanted to get the international traveling ban lifted BECAUSE lol he wants to travel but wait, there's more. He also wanted to give Tina that copy of his book. I mean, sorry, look, the man in one moment flat out refused Dumbledore bc he'd get thrown in Azkaban if he broke his travel ban....but look, when he finds out that Tina is in Paris, you can't stop him.

How do you think each of them will grow in their relationship? How will Newt change? How will Tina change?

I can see Tina as softening towards creatures and to the idea that the world might be more wonderful than she imagines it to be. Like I see Newt as innocent and optimistic, and I feel like he'd be one to show her to smile more. As for him, I just love the idea of Tina helping him figure out practical things. How to go about looking for a lost Niffler without tearing New York apart in a way that makes the headlines; like she'd teach him to stop, think, plan things out. Maybe, that's a very loose guess of mine.

Any first kiss headcanons?

A first kiss? Not yet, haven't thought one yet, but! I believe it might have been @themysteriousphoenix or @keepmeinmind-01 who wrote this headcanon where Newt was talking to Jacob. Newt's in love, and he tells Jacob that he bowed to Tina bc apparently bowing is how a hippogriff (or some other magical creatures I can't remember) shows its respect for someone or something like that. Anyway, Jacob's like "Uhh okay, why is this good?" Newt's just really excited and tells him, "She bowed back." It's ridiculously cute, and I love it.

Okay, the last two questions about why Tina is an auror and Newt a Magizoologist, I left out because I'm not entirely sure haha and I think I'd need a little more thought, but yes, here is my ridiculously over complicated answer that took 5,000,001 years to write.

Also, yes, dear anon, I would love to read a story like that. If you ever get started on it or are writing it, please hit me up with the link! I'm always looking for more Newtina fics to read.

[themonsterblogofmonsters]

Monsterblog Discusses: Crimes of Grindelwald Screenplay Cover

THEY RELEASED THE SCREENPLAY COVER

And also I’m kind of bored, so let’s analyse it as best we can and see what we can eke from it.

So... lets go top to bottom!

1. That’s a skull right there and.... dragons?

That’s a very simple and direct quill motif beneath JKR’s name - she’s the author, ergo quill, that’s some pretty direct sybolism. I do like the triskhele-esque swirl at the end, but I doubt that has any serious meaning, and I imagine the box is an inkpot. Beyond that, though we have JKR’s name bracketed by well... the top there looks like a Viking ship prow - very draconic, and while the lower looks more birdlike - perhaps Occamy? It retains batlike wings, however, which is not very Occamy-esque. 

If either of these draconic heads is a reference to anything I’d suspect probably these little dears from the trailer:

Which we see Credence interacting with. The wyvern-like shape matches, as does the more birdlike head shape of the lower one.

As for the big one... well it may not necessarily be a dragon. Another option is... maybe the aquatic horse we see Newt riding in the trailer, the one which may or may not be a Kelpie:

But the headshape isn’t terribly equine, and that licking gold tongue is very  draconic in nature, so it’s hard to tell. I’m also increasingly doubting that it is a Kelpie - the film is set in France, not in Scotland, and Kelpies are native to Scotland, not France. Maybe it’s the Potterverse version of the Cheval Mallet or the Cheval Gauvin? Who knows. Let’s find out.

Now to what really caught my attention in this top part of the cover:

That central cartouche has what is very obviously a skull... with what looks like a snake. The thing is, this isn’t Grindelwaldian imagery at all - this is very distinctly Voldemort. Which is interesting as this is around the time that Voldemort would still have been only Tom Riddle, and attending Hogwarts. There’s of course the possibility that this film, in addition to delving into what Grindelwald did in his march across Europe, may show us the effects this had on Hogwarts and her students - certainly we know that we’ll be seeing Dumbledore at Hogwarts.

I don’t think it’s hugely likely we’ll see young Tom. Indeed, this may not be Voldemort imagery for Voldemort’s sake, but more a nod to the wider Potterverse. It might even be intended as a Memento Mori - remember you will die - a key motif of the book series, as acknowledgement and acceptance of one’s own mortality is a key trait of those who faced Voldemort.

Onwards.

2. TITLE. BIG. SHINY.

Also, ugh Grindelwald if only because Depp? Really? With that make up decision? Not... not a good call, on multiple levels.

Anyway, lets analyse that title because surprisingly enough it has stuff in it to analyse.

That’s Newt’s wand under Fantastic Beasts, and what I would assume to be a version of the Elder Wand (probably while in Grindelwald’s hands) in the Crimes. 

For reference, Newt’s wand:

The Elder Wand:

And we do know that Grindelwald has the elder wand at this stage from the promo images released.

The A of Grindelwald is also stylised - echoing the triangle for the cloak in the symbol of the Deathly Hallows.

3. Okay that’s a lot of stuff.

There’s a huge amount in this lower part of the cover, so I’m going to break it down into two halves for ease of analysis. This is the point where I’m much more likely to miss stuff so if you spot something I miss feel free to point it out to me along with your theories in replies, reblogs or just @’ing the blog.

4. Is that... the Philosopher’s Stone?

In the central dome there is it just me or does that look like the Philosopher’s Stone as per the first Harry Potter film?

This is made only more interesting when we know that the Noble Collection does actually sell a replica Stone in a dome:

And that Nicolas and Perenelle Flamel are French... which is where this film is being set. Is it the stone? Is it some other artefact? If it is the stone why is it on the cover? Does it play a part in the plot? We know Dumbledore is in the film this time around and we know that he was friends with the Flamels - does Grindelwald seek the stone? Does this feed into Voldemort’s later desire for it?

Why is the stone here?

This is a Good Mystery.

I am pretty sure that that is a wand. I have no idea which wand or who’s wand it is, though that large diamond around a circle is 1) Kind of reminiscent of the Deathly Hallows symbol, and 2. Reminds me on some level of Umbridge’s wand:

Where there’s a mid-piece decoration. I highly doubt it is Umbridge’s wand - wrong time period entirely - but it is something worth considering.

The other thing of note in this section is the padlock:

Now we don’t know who NF is. We can theorise - Newton Fido, perhaps? First and middle name as opposed to surname? With the stone as well - Nicolas Flamel? This is certainly something to keep an eye on.

5. Oh dear, that is a lot.

Okay, so, things we have: Eiffel Tower centre stage. This story is going on in France, so that makes sense. Beneath the tower we have two black cats - traditional witch motifs that makes sense - bracketing a Deathly Hallows symbol. Again, this makes sense, it was co-opted by Grindelwald, what surprises me most is it’s so far down the image, unlike the very Voldemort-style skull and snake at the top. Is this getting closer to the fall of Grindelwald? Is this story going to show Voldemort’s rise as he takes precedence over Grindelwald’s horrors?

Or is it just art design thrown in for reasons of “Because the artists want to” and doesn’t actually hold significant foreboding meaning for the story? 

Who knows.

Further: We can see Pickett, or at least some Bowtruckles beside the Cats, and then Nifflers with coins beside those. There’s also a woman with what looks like a straw hat. I... have no idea who this is. my best guess would be maybe Claudia Kim’s character, the Maledictus? But we can’t know for sure.

The whole section also has a lot of water like imagery with the bottom swirls, and wing-like imagery in the swirls and arcs at the sides. There’s also the gold parts at the top of the Eiffel Tower, which to me look rather like a beak.

It looks almost like a Phoenix, doesn’t it? Beak, spray of feathers on the head, and then there’s wings arcing out, the gold like flickers of flame. And Phoenixes are birds of rebirth, gold and red... very like the Philosopher’s Stone, which may be directly above it. With the NF padlock and the maybe stone... maybe Alchemy in this section - in this film - isn’t impossible. And well the trailer does have those Thestral-drawn carriages:

While we know that Hogwarts has such carriages from canon, I don’t think the building they launch from is Hogwarts. I don’t think it’s Beauxbatons’ either but we do know that Beauxbatons also makes use of winged-horse drawn carriages, is also in France and, moreover, has a fountain named for and dedicated to the Flamels.

Basically, what I’m saying here is: Flamels?

6. Oni!

So, you see, I trust, what I meant about the watery imagery with the lower swirls - that’s kind of wave-like and reminiscent of the aquatic horse we see Newt on, with all the water-weed designs. But what really caught my attention was that face, which we’ve actually seen before, in the trailer:

Its the Oni! A Japanese ogre-like creature, one of the Yokai and supposedly a creature which could exist on their own... or be transformed from a human who felt a large amount of negative emotion in concert with using or being exposed to magic - see stories such as that of Kiyo-hime.

It’s especially interesting to me that the Oni is depicted beneath the woman with the straw hat. Straw hats of that design are not uncommon throughout Eastern Asia, and would sometimes be worn with matching straw cloaks.

7. And I think that’s all for now.

Have I missed something? Do you think there’s an alternative interpretation? Do you have a theory? Feel free to reply, reblog or @ the blog with your own ideas!

[the-grape-bowl]

Random question:

Why is Dumbledore teaching Newt to defend against a Boggart?

Dumbledore was a Transfiguration professor

If anyone should be teaching Newt, it’s the DADA professor, who wasn’t Dumbledore but Galatea Merrythought (1895-1945)

If this is a Transfiguration lesson, then why didn’t Professor McGonagall teach Harry and co in Prisoner of Azkaban? If this is a DADA lesson, then why is Dumbledore teaching it?

[lesbiantonkss]

Let's stop pretending JK Rowling is any different from any other media creator who wants to cash in as many ~woke points~ as possible without actually giving us anything REAL

[eveneechan]

Losing

"Mr. Scamander has lost something, I'm going to help him find it"

Tina Goldstein (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them)

"Sometimes it takes losing something to realise quite how much it means"

-Newt Scamander (Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore)

[realifezompire]

Unpopular (?) opinion: Dumbledore was highly biased in favor of Gryffindors. This contributed towards turning the school against Slytherins (and them responding in kind). Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were also ignored in favor of his own house, with others following suit.

u/iamthehigherone @ reddit

[chicoryandbananas]

Newt and Queenie are running the same schtick, both unrivaled experts at niche magics, both wearing personalities that stop you from suspecting anything of the sort. I mean, Newt appears to be constantly off balance and can barely stand to look a person in the eye (to be fair, he considers humans the most dangerous of beasts and it's not in your best interest to challenge a predator by looking at it in the eye or showing your teeth) but he's also committing and getting away with various crimes constantly. Queenie knows everyone's darkest secrets but they're all much too pleased she remembers how they each take their coffee to notice.

[toffyandsalt]

Here comes one of my favourite FBAWTFT topics - MACUSA. Only one question on today's agenda. It is heavily hinted at Credence's mother being a witch. Obviously, something happened and she passed away. But I want to know, with such careful attitude as MACUSA has, they must have been tracking the wizarding population somehow. Did they leave baby Credence to his fate? To be taken away by someone who they know openly hates and fights magic? MACUSA stands as the most fucked up organisation in my books (also my favorite one because they are interesting to explore). This totally adds up to things about them that make me wonder.

[msfbgraves]

I see you, villain? The problem of Percival Graves

Thinking about the othering of villains, of course I thought of Percival Graves (because when do I not think of Percival Graves, aight) - and the problems he creates if you present him as a villain. Because in the world Rowling created he cannot have that function. In fact, Percival Graves a living, breathing indictment of JKR’s morals.

More under the cut because this is going to be long!

Simply put, a villain has to embody everything the narrative, and the audience, instinctively and collectively knows is wrong. In-story, a few characters can understandably choose their path, but for the most part - no. What they do is antithetical to the morality of the audience. Yetr what Graves does, for most of the movie, is not clearly villainous. In fact, hardly anything he does is.

Hang on, though! He wanted to kill Tina and Newt without so much as a trial! And we know she is good, right? She works at  MACUSA, she tries to protect the wizarding world, she likes our hero, her sister is a sweetheart...

Graves also works at MACUSA. Queenie works at MACUSA. So that cannot readily code them as evil. Graves also works to protect the wizarding world. He’s shown to be a kind man to Tina, at least - he is not an all out bully. He is also more openmindend than the leader of the supposed good guys, Seraphina Picquery.

Then, maybe, the point is that MACUSA is not good, and aligning yourself with them is an evil thing to do. Fair enough, but if that is the case - what does that make Tina and Queenie at the end of the film?

Getting back to the fact he wanted to kill Tina and Newt...

Yes, he wanted to execute Tina and Newt. And as such, was exercising powers that the institution they both represent, sanctions. Again, the institution our heroes support, and if not do not actively oppose, condones this. In that light, is Graves the only villain? Or is he supported by a greater evil our heroes also align themselves with? To the audience the execution order is a great big no-no, but in-story, Graves is completely within his moral rights to do what he does.

But Graves is manipulating Credence.

Yes. Graves is manipulating Credence. And in doing so, is doing more for him than anyone has ever done for him before, including Tina. There’s little Modesty, but even she turns away from him in the end, and, being ten, there’s not much she can do for him up until that point. Tina went after his Ma once, and that changed exactly nothing as he was made to forget the whole incident. (The script implies that he hasn’t but that wasn’t made clear other than in one look, so it’s hard to take that as fact.)The rest of the wizarding world has left him to rot for his whole life. Graves wants something from him, yes - but he also promises him something in return and does him smaller favours: he listens to him, more than once (”You’re upset. It’s your mother again. What did she say? Tell me.”) he heals his wounds, he puts a meal in him (in the Lego movie at least) and he gives him physical affection.  Conditional love is an abuse tactic, but in context, this can hardly be seen as a villanous action, not when our ‘good guys’ are worse than useless.

Graves wasn’t going to make good on his promises to Credence, though. He dropped Credence like a hot potato when he didn’t need him anymore.

Yes. Graves’ in-story, truly immoral flaw is that he is racist towards Squibs. But you know, so is almost the entire wizarding world. They also condone the subjugation of non-human magical creatures, as Newt is all too aware. Graves is certainly no hero, but this alone also can’t make him a villain in the context of the world he is in, because then everybody is.

He hit and verbally abused Credence.

He did (poor boy). It wasn’t a random moment - more of a ‘Snap out of it, we have no time for this’ we’ve seen people do in movies before, but that was inexcusable. That’s his society’s racism in full view.

He went after Newt.

Of course he did. Newt was a fugitive trying to tamper with a dangerous beast - it really was kind of his job.

He went after Tina.

Again, fugitive trying to tamper with a dangerous beast. Kind of his job.

He tried to manipulate Credence again

He tried to save his life. In order to use him later, perhaps, but he might have absolutely made good on his promise to get Credence a place in the wizarding world now he knew he was a wizard (and his racism thereby no longer a factor). (”You are a miracle. Come with me. Think of what we could achieve together.”)

The Graves we’re presented with is a manipulative, dangerous man, complicit in an evil system - but so are they all. In this system, human life, wizard or no, is extremely cheap. Yes, Graves can execute on a whim, but so can, and does, Picquery. She too takes life for some perceived greater good, just as we already know Grindelwald does.

The one who calls this all out? The one who refuses to be complicit? Is Graves!

If the wizarding status quo is as rotten as it is, being opposed to it cannot make a character villainous. And yes, when Graves is revealed to be Grindelwald - and as a visual shorthand is immediately othered more (he is made uglier and is spouting nonsense) this point still stands. Yes, he’s killed people to further his objectives. Well, so has MACUSA! They’ve killed Credence! They would have killed Newt and Tina. And is there any justice for the non-magical people that get killed due to MACUSA’s negligence? (Chastity Barebone? Shaw - he may be an asshole, but what of his Dad? All those other people Credence’s unchecked magic has injured or killed?)

JKR desperately wanted to write a good-vs-evil dichotomy, but what she has actually written is a chaos-vs-order dichotomy. True, a lot of what codes our heroes as good is their rejection of of the established, inhumane order, but so does Graves. Yes, he is ultimately a worse person than our heroes because he is a racist and abuser where Tina, Queenie and Newt are not. but that is not what the movie is about. Our heroes are not trying to fight for magical and non-magical integration - that is supposedly what Grindelwald (and so too, Graves) is doing. They are trying to restore order. That’s what the whole conflict is about. Order vs chaos. In the beginning, Newt’s creatures cause chaos that needs to be stopped. Credence causes chaos that needs to be stopped. Well, they succeed - in the end, Newt’s creatures are caught, the non magical people neutralised, Credence is killed, and Graves - who has declared his opposition to order openly - is defeated.

That is also what technically makes Graves the villain of this story - he is very much trying to further chaos by using an Obscurial. But when order is inhumane, trying to disrupt it cannot be seen as evil.

That’s why Grindelwald, as a villain, really doesn’t work. The audience isn’t convinced the current order should survive. After all, what good does it do? Why perpetuate an institutional evil?

In the second film, they have to ramp up the otherness of Grindelwald - he is uglier and very much more chaotic and he kills more people than the established order does - at least, so we’re told. He goes on causing massive chaos, and this actually, is coded as one of the Crimes of Grindelwald - but the audience doesn’t buy it. Going back to the first film, what we’re presented with as the villain is a handsome, extremely competent, eloquent, manipulative and abusive (granted), but at times merely friendly influential man who is the sole source of comfort for a suffering teen, whose life he tries to save. (For his own ends, ok, but Credence himself is also not entirely pure - he does cause multiple deaths.) Graves then goes on to rebel, magnificently, against a morally corrupt world order, because he could not save Credence’s life. 

I kind of stan that last bit, too.

Now, I’m not surprised that JKR’s subconscious believes that order should be protected against chaos - she is a middle aged white billonaire trans exclusionary radical feminist. But the rest of the world really isn’t that on board with her “The world is fucked but let’s  keep it that way” worldview. The end of the first film still kind of works because both Newt and Tina are rebels at heart who are falling in love and Queenie is also saying “Kindly fuck off” to the established order. But it is a bittersweet ending, because a young troubled man could not be saved and a handsome, badass rebel turned into a bleached pineapple.

Or did he? Where is he?

Where is Percival Graves...?

[essayofthoughts]

While I agree with the importance of most FB criticism the one which boggles me is that of our 4 mains having no personality. Not just cuz they seem so distinct and layered to me but cuz Newt’s shy and nurturing nature (best dissected in The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander) is such a clear contrast to Grindelwald’s predatory and manipulative one. That could be its own can of representation worms but it could also open some wider discussion and if not a bother I’d love your thoughts.

I don’t really have thoughts on this? I don’t care, very simply. If people want to interpret it as the four mains having no personality then that is their problem, I don’t care? I’ve not seen people accusing them of being boring, and if that’s how they want to interpret them that’s.... fine? Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. I personally am not even all that interested in most of the characters, the ones which interest me are Credence (bc YAY TRAUMA, but also FUCKING YES VALIDATION OF MY TRAUMATIC MAGIC THEORIES), Percival-Gellert, because I mean that was part of the plot mystery, and Newt, because of his kindness and appreciation of the creatures around him where other’s didn’t understand.

Tina and Queenie are cool, and fun to write, Jacob is... a non-entity to me, but like... I don’t particularly care if people wanna go “they’re boring” because I can see why? A lot of people don’t find “the good guys” compelling and prefer the villainous characters. It’s not that it’s necessarily “easy” to be good - I believe it was Dumbledore in the HP universe who pointed out that sometimes it can be incredibly hard - but it’s what a lot of people tend towards and aspire to; they wish to be considered good and will try to be good, provided it isn’t too arduous.

It’s this which makes the villains and/or antagonists more compelling to many - why are they like this? What made them this way? 

Credence’s abuse left him with considerable trauma which left him vulnerable to the manipulations of Grindelwald, as well as giving him a tumorous piece of magic that is never quite under his control, he is a villain of the narrative because he will do harm, yes, but he does harm because harm has been done to him and he’s finally snapped, he’s had enough. He’s been struck one time too many, he feels the magic rising in his skin, his own sister is fleeing him, hiding, and the man he thought cared about him has just said “I lied to you, you will never have magic, you are useless”. He’s been betrayed on all sides and he’s had enough, and so he lets go, he falls into his magic and he unleashes it. That is incredibly compelling.

Grindelwald is a fucked up mess, aspiring for companionship of intelligence to his own (Dumbledore) and yet having lost it, desiring power and strength and power over others, all while trying to hide who he is and what he is doing in order to further his disguise. This isn’t a narrative very interesting to me, but to those who like spy novels etc. it can be more intriguing, and offer an exploration magical warfare. This can be interesting.

Seraphina Picquery and The System are not exactly villains, they’re more antagonists, but they offer a huge opportunity for exploration - according to our mains they are Bad and Wrong for wanting to see ended that which risks exposing them, for trying to limit the risks of exposure for the sake of protecting their whole society - but this doesn’t account for what caused that drive: the deaths and danger which led to their much stricter rules. You can see why she’d want to see Credence - and thus his Obscurus - dead, because the risk of him losing control is too great, they don’t even know if he can be taught to manage it, they know most Obscurials burn out and die eventually anyway - so the simplest and best solution is killing him because how else can they protect their society? Picquery rules them and she has to make decisions for this “greater good”, coming perilously close to Grindelwald’s “For the greater good”, because she has a responsibility to those who voted for her. It’s fascinating.

With our mains we have:

Newt - Probably autistic, fascinated by magical plants and especially creatures, not good at people but highly empathetic towards animals, will defend his creatures when he won’t even protect himself (his cry to not kill the creatures in the case, that they’re innocent and have harmed  no one, as he himself is dragged away). But we’ve seen this before, in a way, it’s the archetypal Caring Hero, with a few quirks thrown in.

Tina - Pretty much a Rookie Cop archetype. Not to say she isn’t interesting and well acted, and that her own empathy especially with Credence wasn’t very important, but she is kind of archetypal. Again, it’s not that they’re boring it’s that we’ve seen this before.

Queenie - Personal fave, if only because she can read minds. Queenie is actually the one with I think the most fleshing out after Newt, of the mains. She’s highly in tune with her sister, is very willing to use what she sees in other’s minds when she has to, but otherwise seems largely ok to not speak about things except to that person - she seems to have a moral code with her particular form of Legilimency (I personally think her Legilimency is atypical, as we never see her using a wand to do it; given the Goldstein sisters lost their parents young I imagine it could be a kind of traumatic magic). She sees people objectifying her in their heads every day and yet she survives - Queenie has one hell of a backbone and a huge amount of internal strength.

Jacob - Mundane Dragged Into Magical World. Comic Relief. Sorry, but that’s about the grand total of his character, Jacob is startlingly unmemorable; I could barely remember his name and I pride myself on my memorisation of HP.

So yeah. I can see why people might say boring? The characters are pretty good and they are all well-acted, but of the mains two of them are outright archetypes, one is a variant archetype even if he is pitched as non-standard masculinity, and one is unique but more of a side-main than a main-main. The antagonists come out on top, I think.

This doesn’t mean the mains are boring. This doesn’t mean you have to fight the people who think so, or that you need to be validated. If you like the mains that’s great! Enjoy them, love them, appreciate them, delve into their depths, show how you see their complexities and drag people into the pit with you. This doesn’t mean those who think otherwise are necessarily wrong - they can have their own reasons for things. I can see both sides of this, and I don’t think it’s an issue to look at it one way or another? I don’t really think there’s much else to say.

(Though: yes to Newt’s vulnerable and empathetic masculinity vs. Gellert’s controlling and manipulative masculinity. Actually showing the characteristics of common masculinity for being as dangerous as they are and prioritising the empathetic arc is great.)

[nonmugglegal-blog]

Credence...

[magneto-was-left]

Gellert Grindelwald's origin

So there are three most popular opinions on where is Grindelwald from:

That he's German (based on his german-like last name), Austrian (based on where Nurmengard is built or on the fact that Grindelwald is an actual place in Austria) or Hungarian (based on his hungarian name). Well. He was born in 1883, and at that time there were no Austria or Hungary but one Austro-Hungarian Empire. This origin would explain both his language and his name.

And we can even suggest that his father, from whom he got his german surname, was from Austrian part and mother from Hungarian part, hence his Hungarian name.

Also unnecessary fact: endearment for Gellert would be Gellertke.

This is so sweet I'm dying. So is Albus, apparently

[pixyrevenge]

Look, I’m not saying it means anything, but....

Newt in the first movie:

Newt in the second movie:

Subtle

It is not

[impossibleleaf]

The Crimes Of Grindelwald Meta: The Lestrange tragedy

Soooo.... The Crimes of Grindelwald. A highly anticipated movie that missed the mark on several accounts.

Too many characters and plot conveniences, a blatant disregard for the ‘Show, Don’t Tell’ rule, apparent OOC moments. A few WTF moments that, if you think about it for a minute make you scream ‘But that does not make sense!’ At first glance, the entire movie is an utter mess.

And it is. It is a mess. I’m not going to lie, the execution was sometimes badly done and JKR makes you do intellectual acrobatics for points that are actually pointless. The movie has many problems, the first one being that it is a movie. And movies cannot handle so many new arcs at the same time.

Rowling is not a screenwriter. She is a writer and her mistake was ultimately to assume she didn’t need to make any adjustment. As a result, some new characters get accidentally tossed in the bin by the audience because the audience doesn’t care enough yet and has many more problems to deal with. And as it is a movie, you do not have the time to ponder any new point and see how everything fit as a whole.

But if you start looking at it as a book...

Well, if you start looking at the Crimes of Grindelwald as a book and began assuming she knows what she is doing...

A lot of things suddenly start to make sense.

Tighten your belt, we are about to enter the realms of guesswork and speculation. Some of you may even say this is only a headcanon but I really don’t think so. Still, if you want everything to suddenly make sense and several plot holes to magically fill themselves, just bear with me.

There will be of course MAJOR SPOILERS so keep reading at your own risks. Spoilers from CoG, and potential spoilers for the entire FBAWTFT serie. Also, I’m using some part of the original screenplay.

You’ve been warned.

First thing first, I am not going to talk about the reveal at the end of the movie about Credence’s identity. Mostly because, for how everything seems to turn around him, he is at the present moment a puppet. More than that, he is a McGuffin.

He is a McGuffin, only a plot device. The real actor, the key for understanding the entire movie is not Credence but this person.

(Bet you didn’t see this coming).

Yusuf Kama, that new character who falls on our laps telling us he needs to kill Credence because of an Unbreakable Vow and throws at us the entire story about the Lestranges. Spends half his on-screen presence with some insect in his eye, Nobody IRL seems to care about him.

We should. We should really look at him because he is the one who has all the answers even if he doesn’t know it yet.

Let me explain now.

As you must know by now, his entire life went to hell when Corvus Lestrange IV kidnapped his mother to rape her and had a child with her, Leta. His father went mad with grief when she died in childbirth and made him swear an Unbreakable Vow to kill ‘the one Corvus Lestrange loves most’. From the moment Leta, his half-sister, was born, he took the path of an avenger and began trying to fulfill the Unbreakable Vow by finding ‘the one Corvus Lestrange loves most’ and killing them.

He began thinking it would be easy. Problem was, Corvus IV is a shitting piece of work and has never loved his daughter.

But then Lestrange had a son... Corvus Lestrange V. And, according to Yusuf Kama, love began filling his cold and empty heart.

I’m summarizing the rest. To protect his son from Kama, he sent his children in America on a boat with a half house-elf (the script explains why the boat, to leave the least magical traces), the ship sinks, Leta being a brat at that age had switched the baby with another, Baby Corvus sinks. She never tells anybody but shows the family tree in the end to reveal the truth.

So, what now? Does that mean that Kama’s Unbreakable Vow is null and void? If Corvus is dead, then who was Voldemort’s classmate?

Here’s where absolutely everybody has made a dangerous mistake.

At no moment has it been said that Corvus Lestrange IV is dead.

We assume he is dead. But, unless we hear from a reliable character he is dead, we have to assume he is not.

Tom Riddle’s classmate? Tom was born the 31st of december 1926. Most, if not all his classmates were born in 1927. So, it is strongly possible that this Lestrange was not in the family tree only because he has yet to be born. It is 1927 in CoG, he may very well be born next month for them.

And, if you connect the two, Voldemort’s classmate might have just been Corvus Lestrange IV’s son and Leta’s half-brother.

And if Lestrange has another son, then Kama is back in business and will continue his revenge quest. He will try to find ‘the one Lestrange loves most’ and attempt to kill the new baby.

(Careful Kama. Killing babies because of prophecies is bad luck in HP).

Now, we are going to go deeper in the realm of speculations, so bear with me.

Kama’s father made his son swear he would kill the one ‘Lestrange loves most’. Kama had once thought that person would be Leta except he didn’t love her. Kama then started believing Lestrange loved Baby Corvus so he tried to kill him.

We’re going to assume for a moment Lestrange is a real monster (which he is). He used the Unforgiveable on a married woman to bed her, he does not love his own daughter. And, even if he supposedly loved his son, we need to remember he sent him to America to be adopted by Mary Lou Barebone.

He left who he thought to be his ‘beloved’ son so he could be adopted by Mary Lou Barebone. That woman!

A muggle! The leader of the New Salem Philantropic Society, a group which notably hates magic and would love to kill witches!

Don’t believe me? It’s written in the Original Screenplay!

IRMA: I took you to Mrs Barebone because she was supposed to look after you.

It was not an accident! He wasn’t dropped in an orphanage and she adopted him! The Lestrange’s servant was under order to give who she thought to be Baby Corvus to that woman!

And at no moment had the father tried to get any new of his ‘son’ or he would have known what an enormous mistake that was in a minute!

It’s as if he sent him to her and told that woman his mother was a witch so she could abuse him and turn him into a a powerful Obscurius!

No really, considering how bad his plan to send him to Mary Lou Barebone was, the only thing for it to make sense is to assume that Lestrange used the occasion to insure his son would be abused enough to become an obscurus. For how cruel, how despicable it is, that is the only ‘reason’, the only thing that sounds ‘logical’. Lestrange must have wanted an obscurus, probably thinking a pureblood such as his son would manage to control it and be an all powerful weapon.

So no, Kama is wrong. The one Lestrange loves most is not his son either. And even if he had felt even a sliver of paternal love, he wouldn’t be the one he loves most. And there is absolutely no reason at all that the new Lestrange will be loved either. So, someday, Kama after much research will finally get it right and see what should have always been obvious.

The one Corvus Lestrange IV loves most is himself. He is the one Kama is supposed to kill.

Baby Corvus? Even if he had cared, he still loves himself more than he loved his own son. And the whole ‘let’s send him by boat so that Kama cannot find him, love you baby’ suddenly becomes ‘So he thinks he needs to kill my son. Wonderful! Let’s send my son away so he goes on a merry chase and stay far, far away from me!”

And here comes the first part of the prophecy Kama gave us.

The first part, as you remember is: A Son cruelly banished. The Son is Baby Corvus, abandoned by his own father to save his skin and, possibly, to become an obscurus after years of abuse. The only thing that saved him from this horrible fate was that he died before reaching America.

Now come the second part: Despair of the Daughter.

It is obliviously Leta. Leta Lestrange who had accidentally killed her little brother and lived with that guilt all her life.

Question is: are we really sure Lestrange didn’t know what his daughter has done? If all you have to do to know if somebody died is to check the genealogic tree, then Lestrange who has it for years, even decades couldn't have not known Baby Corvus was dead. And for an adult, it is ridiculously easy to see a child like Leta at the time is feeling guilty because she did something very, very bad.

So it is possible that Lestrange has always known his daughter had killed his son. There was no point from then to care about Credence. He was not his son after all, he didn’t matter.

But Lestrange must have used her guilt to torture and manipulate Leta. Just the right allusion at the right moment, and she was his unwilling puppet.

Now, let’s take a look at this picture.

I don’t know for you, but it does not feel like it is the first time the two are seeing each other. There seems to be history there. It is not Queenie Goldstein joining Grindelwald, she’s getting a special treatment here.

The whole hate speech is happening inside the Lestrange Mausoleum, the Lestranges are a dark family. Grindelwald seems to have powerful and utterly loyal followers. So, it is very easy to speculate from there that Corvus Lestrange IV is also one of Grindelwald’s men. And if Lestrange is one of Grindelwald’s, then Leta also had to be one of his followers, whether she liked it or not.

But what could she do for the cause?

Well, she could seduce a rising and very powerful Auror for example. Be their spy, marry somebody high in the Auror Forces and tell them what she learns from him about the British Ministry of Magic’s plans.

It’s just a pity that Auror’s brother happen to be Newt Scamander’s hug-loving brother. She may not love Theseus and only use him, she still loves Newt. He’s probably the only one she has ever loved, in fact.

And because she loved Newts, she’s decided to save them by switching side somewhere around the middle of the movie and attempting to derail Grindelwald and Lestrange’s plan.

If you assume Lestrange knows his son is dead, that his replacement will believe he is Corvus Lestrange and that he is one of Grindelwald’s men, then it becomes extraordinarily obvious that it is Lestrange who told Grindelwald Credence is not Corvus and that he’ll probably try to find Irma Dugard because he took his son’s place and she sighed the adoption papers. From there, Grindelwald had enough time to makes a plan.

The real trick for Grindelwald to ‘seduce’ Credence to his side is to insure he follows his breadcrumbs and learn what they want him to learn at the proper time. Not before, not after. Not less but not more either. We wouldn’t want him to realize Lestrange sent his son to Barebone on purpose. Grindelwald kills Irma Dugard right after she tell Credence Mary Lou Barebone was supposed to look after him so that he doesn’t see this wasn’t an accident and some man sent his own son to hell.

And, when Credence finally despairs at the realization it is a dead end, he tells him he just has to comes to him to know what he is. That was their plan.

For this reason, Leta taking the Lestranges’ book was not a coincidence. She must have figured it out, maybe she was in the plan even if she didn’t know everything and she tried to derail the plan by taking the book before Vinda could. And then she told the truth, hoping it would solve everything, not knowing it was also part of Grindalwald’s plan.

And when all else failed and he was about to kill Newts and his friends, she decided to show her true colours and fight Grindelwald to save them.

Her death was not pointless, it was the natural end of her redemption arc, one that has yet to be told to the Scamander brothers.

So, where does that leave us? Kama, in his quest for revenge will most certainly discover the truth. Instead of killing the baby, he will realize just what kind of monster Lestrange really is and finally get the prophecy right.

A son cruelly banished

Despair of the daughter

Return, great avenger

With wings from the water

He is indeed the great avenger, but he got the prophecy wrong and jumped to conclusions even though he’s correctly identified the ones mentioned here. EDIT: The wings from the water are nothing but his realization that the two Lestrange children (whose family animal is a raven) are the true victims and ‘died’ because of their father in that shipwreck, giving him finally the drive to do the right thing for the right reasons.

Kama was never supposed to kill Lestrange’s children, he is the one supposed to avenge them and kill their father.

And when he does and kills Lestrange, the true culprit and the one that should have always paid for his crimes, he would have fulfilled the Unbreakable Vow he has made to his father and be free.

EDIT: ADDENDUM

The most striking evidence of this theory is the magical creature in Yusuf Kama’s eye.

He lives with some magical creature in his eye and only manages to keep it at bay via the use of his magical eyedrops. How long he’s had that problem, we don’t know, but it is a clear metaphor for him being unable to see clearly things as they are. He tries to keep going despite this, tries to contain the problem, but it stops him for doing what he has to do. He is ‘blind’ to the truth, he cannot see it because of that parasite that according to Newts must come from the sewers, in other words used water, and is in other words fated to fail so long as the parasite is here.

It’s a good thing Newts Scamander got rid of it. His eyes are now ready to finally see clearly what has always been right in front of him.