Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Though to be fair, she didn't know it was a case full of magical creatures at that point. As far as she knew, it was an ordinary suitcase that Newt had used to smuggle a single Niffler into the country. It wasn't until she saw the Billywig, the Murtlap, and Jacob's destroyed apartment that she began to suspect the case had even more creatures inside.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54 (click to see context) from:
*** Newt's book are not assign into schools yet. This is a prequel. Won't be until many years, decades maybe, that his books became official part of the curriculum. At his point his just an eccentric drop-out.
to:
*** Newt's book are not assign into schools yet. This is a prequel. Won't be until many years, decades maybe, that his books became official part of the curriculum. At his this point his just an eccentric drop-out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Newt's book are not assign into schools yet. This is a prequel. Won't be until many years, decades maybe, that his books became official part of the curriculum. At his point his just an eccentric drop-out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** The Wizarding World is full of massive hypocrites? Seems to me that that is exactly the sort of crappy thing they might do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** You can check the "Terminology" folder for an in-universe explanation why there are separate terms. Out-of-universe, you don't need to call them No-Majs if you don't want to. You can call them whatever you like.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** For that matter, if Newt wasn't in good standing at Hogwarts, why the hell are they assigning his textbook? It seems pretty selfish for them to make him persona non grata while taking full advantage of his work.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 466 (click to see context) from:
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''FantasticBeasts'' film [[note]] which took longer than necessary besides [[\note]], I as an American have gotten quite used to using the term "muggle," and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have felt this way. It feels kind of silly for a trope namer to have two different terms for the same trope. Why should we now be split up and positioned to start over in that sense? What's the sense in including people in a group if you're going to make all the decisions about their involvement in said group?
to:
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''FantasticBeasts'' film [[note]] which took longer than necessary besides [[\note]], [[/note]], I as an American have gotten quite used to using the term "muggle," and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have felt this way. It feels kind of silly for a trope namer to have two different terms for the same trope. Why should we now be split up and positioned to start over in that sense? What's the sense in including people in a group if you're going to make all the decisions about their involvement in said group?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 467 (click to see context) from:
[[\folder]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 465,467 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:The Portryal of American Wizarding Culture]]
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''Film/FantasticBeasts|AndWhereToFindThem''[[note]] which took longer than necessary besides [[\note]], I as an American have gotten quite used to using the term "muggle," and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have felt this way. It feels kind of silly for a trope namer to have two different terms for the same trope. Why should we now be split up and positioned to start over in that sense? What's the sense in including people in a group if you're going to make all the decisions about their involvement in said group?
[\folder]]
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''Film/FantasticBeasts|AndWhereToFindThem''[[note]] which took longer than necessary besides [[\note]], I as an American have gotten quite used to using the term "muggle," and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have felt this way. It feels kind of silly for a trope namer to have two different terms for the same trope. Why should we now be split up and positioned to start over in that sense? What's the sense in including people in a group if you're going to make all the decisions about their involvement in said group?
[\folder]]
to:
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 466 (click to see context) from:
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''Film/FantasticBeasts|AndWhereToFindThem''[[note]] which took longer than necessary besides
to:
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''Film/FantasticBeasts|AndWhereToFindThem''[[note]] which took longer than necessary besidesbesides [[\note]], I as an American have gotten quite used to using the term "muggle," and I'm comfortable with it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have felt this way. It feels kind of silly for a trope namer to have two different terms for the same trope. Why should we now be split up and positioned to start over in that sense? What's the sense in including people in a group if you're going to make all the decisions about their involvement in said group?
[\folder]]
[\folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 464 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
[[folder:The Portryal of American Wizarding Culture]]
* This is a meta question, so bear with me. Why was it decided that wizarding America needed to have its own separate term for non-magical individuals. In the generation between the publishing of the first ''Literature/HarryPotter'' books and the release of the first ''Film/FantasticBeasts|AndWhereToFindThem''[[note]] which took longer than necessary besides
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Keep in mind that Rappaport's Law was ultimately repealed as of 1966. So there's nothing preventing American wizards and witches from becoming acquainted with No-Majs now.
Added DiffLines:
** Keep in mind that Rappaport's Law was ultimately repealed as of 1966. So there's nothing preventing American wizards and witches from becoming acquainted with No-Majs now.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Moreover, the book states that billywigs move so swiftly that they're rarely noticed by Muggles (or even wizards) anyway. You'd probably have to know what you were looking for in order to spot the one Newt released, let alone actually catch it. (Especially since most American wizards probably aren't familiar with them.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 460 (click to see context) from:
* How come the British Minister for Magic doesn't that Newt is visiting America, let alone why he's there? I can't remember where I learned this, but doesn't Newt work for the Ministry? If he's travelling around the world researching magical creatures and is currently trying to rescue a trafficked Thunderbird, wouldn't that be something they would know about?
to:
* How come the British Minister for Magic doesn't didn't know that Newt is was visiting America, let alone why he's there? I can't remember where I learned this, but doesn't Newt work for the Ministry? If he's travelling around the world researching magical creatures and is currently trying to rescue a trafficked Thunderbird, wouldn't that be something they would know about?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Newt's employment]]
* How come the British Minister for Magic doesn't that Newt is visiting America, let alone why he's there? I can't remember where I learned this, but doesn't Newt work for the Ministry? If he's travelling around the world researching magical creatures and is currently trying to rescue a trafficked Thunderbird, wouldn't that be something they would know about?
[[folder: Newt's employment]]
* How come the British Minister for Magic doesn't that Newt is visiting America, let alone why he's there? I can't remember where I learned this, but doesn't Newt work for the Ministry? If he's travelling around the world researching magical creatures and is currently trying to rescue a trafficked Thunderbird, wouldn't that be something they would know about?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** She'd either intended to try and stomp his magical heritage out of him, like you suggested, or she didn't know he was magical until he started displaying signs of it, which seems more likely. So she was just generalizing by telling him his mother was wicked and unnatural, not saying she'd met her before.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Note that Tina specifically uses ''Accio'' to summon Graves's wand to her, not Expelliarmus. This would imply that he'd already dropped it, which is a willing surrender.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Not to mention that Tina at that moment realized that Jacob was the one who had the suitcase. Meaning that instead of reporting that a No-Maj was going around New York and unknowingly carrying a case full of magical creatures, ''she chose to stay quiet and not do anything about it until the very last minute''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Mary Lou taking in Credence]]
* The Second Salemers believe that witches exist and live among Muggles. I assume from Mary Lou's comments about Credence's mother being "a wicked, unnatural woman" that Mary Lou knows she was a witch and that Credence is a wizard. So does she taken in Credence and other children to abuse them in the hope of getting rid of their magic, like Uncle Vernon wanted to do? What's her motivation?
[[folder: Mary Lou taking in Credence]]
* The Second Salemers believe that witches exist and live among Muggles. I assume from Mary Lou's comments about Credence's mother being "a wicked, unnatural woman" that Mary Lou knows she was a witch and that Credence is a wizard. So does she taken in Credence and other children to abuse them in the hope of getting rid of their magic, like Uncle Vernon wanted to do? What's her motivation?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 449 (click to see context) from:
* Why does MACUSA use a phoenix to decorate their official seal, instead of an animal that's native to the Americas? In-universe, phoenixes hail from places like Egypt and India...Even if you ignore its importance within the film, why not use something like a Thunderbird instead?
to:
* Why does MACUSA use a phoenix to decorate their official seal, instead of an animal that's native to the Americas? In-universe, phoenixes hail from places like Egypt and India...Even if you ignore its importance within the film, why not use something like a Thunderbird instead?instead? Those seem to be native to the deserts of Arizona, are important creatures in many Native American legends, and are related to phoenixes, anyhow.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: MACUSA seal]]
* Why does MACUSA use a phoenix to decorate their official seal, instead of an animal that's native to the Americas? In-universe, phoenixes hail from places like Egypt and India...Even if you ignore its importance within the film, why not use something like a Thunderbird instead?
[[folder: MACUSA seal]]
* Why does MACUSA use a phoenix to decorate their official seal, instead of an animal that's native to the Americas? In-universe, phoenixes hail from places like Egypt and India...Even if you ignore its importance within the film, why not use something like a Thunderbird instead?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
** Anyone who's been in New York in the summer knows how humid the air itself becomes. In a strong thunderstorm like they showed, where steady rain persists for hours, the water would be evaporating and permeating the very air they were all breathing. Presumably only no-maj were affected, or else the Obliviators making repairs would have forgotten what they were doing, so Jacob was the only main character doomed to lose his memories, and since he was still right there with the others, in the middle of a conversation, ''and'' he really didn't want to forget, it took a more direct dose for him to forget completely.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** [[spoiler]] Adding to my original comment about Grindelwald not thinking that he was defeated, many have commented that Grindelwald used wandless magic for the most part because of the likely chance that Graves's wand did not switch his allegience to him. Tina confiscated Graves's wand from Grindelwald. Do we know the rules of what happens when a witch or wizard is disarmed when not using their personal wands? Would the Elder Wand consider that as a defeat? Probably not. It's also very likely that Grindelwald has the Elder Wand hidden somewhere on his person, so he's not truly disarmed/defeated and likely used it to break out of prison/custody. Even if he didn't have the Elder Wand in person, there's still a chance that he kept his old wand and likewise used that to escape.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Nevermind, according to various sources, Chastity didn't survive the events of the film. She was killed by Credence's Obscurus at the same time Mary Lou was.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Consider how Harry was still considered a half-blood even though both his parents were magic, presumably because his mother was a Muggle-born. There are undoubtedly still magical children born to No-Majs in America, so their offspring would be considered half-bloods in much the same way.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It could've been a stick she found outside...Couldn't it?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 438,440 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Obscurus Books]]
* Modesty's wand?
** The source material says that the wand Modesty had was a toy. But where would she even get one?
* Modesty's wand?
** The source material says that the wand Modesty had was a toy. But where would she even get one?
to:
*
**
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Obscurus Books]]
* Modesty's wand?
** The source material says that the wand Modesty had was a toy. But where would she even get one?
[[folder:Obscurus Books]]
* Modesty's wand?
** The source material says that the wand Modesty had was a toy. But where would she even get one?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** According to the new cast lineup on Pottermore for ''Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'', Credence is still alive and is expected to reappear. If I had to guess, I'd presume that he would still have his magic, since an Obscurus is described as a destructive force that develops from a young witch or wizard's suppressed magical power, but it's not that magical power itself.
