Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Go To

New entries on the bottom.

    open/close all folders 


  • If the whole book in its Muggle-published form is supposed to be an artifact from the Potterverse, does that mean Dumbledore wrote the introduction years after his supposed death?
    • Maybe this is another facet of his Will. He writes the commentary well before hand, then writes in his Will “in the event of my death, it is my request that these books should find their way to the muggle population”
    • Which of course leads to the question: how does Dumbledore - in his will or in person - have the right to publish an exact copy of Harry Potter's personal property?
    • Dumbledore, break the law? Surely not.
    • Maybe it was Harry's idea?
    • Dumbledore's intro specifically states Harry agreed to it.
    • Is the commentary not simply in the original book? Seems quite logical that the textbook would include some of the history behind the classification of magical creatures. Dumbledore was a highly intelligent and decorated wizard. Not out of the realm of possibility that he leant commentary to a textbook. I think the book is meant to be the one that Harry actually used in class. Essentially Harry's copy has been duplicated and sold to muggles.
    • The foreword by Dumbledore specifically mentions the whole idea of copying the book and selling it to Muggles. My theory is that Dumbledore was probably somehow involved in bringing the first book out to Muggles (note that Philosopher's Stone was released only a few days before his death) and the project was continued in his memory, including consultations with his portrait, who probably dictated the foreword. He didn't let on to the Muggle audience that he was dead because the sixth book wasn't out yet and he didn't want to spoil things.
    • Fantastic Beasts was first published between Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, which is the Doylist explanation for why it doesn't include info from the latter. I always figured that Dumbledore took Harry aside at some point during Goblet, probably before the climax and Voldemort's return (after which they all had more important things on their mind, and Harry's public reputation was back in the toilet), in order to ask him for permission to publish his copy. He wrote the intro at that time and published it in that form, notwithstanding any subsequent events.

    Fourth Book 
  • Why do the graffities in the book reference the events up to the fourth book, but not afterwards? Harry and Ron gave up Care of Magical Creatures in their sixth year, but in their fifth they still should have used the book.
    • It's possible that, that's when their copy was copied.
    • Or they were a little more mature in their fifth year — maybe one of Umbridge's Educational Decrees banned writing in books.
    • Umbridge making a reasonable rule? Surely not.
    • Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Dolores was a sociopath par excellence but on some level a lot of her comments were correct. Lying is wrong, after all.
      • Except she wasn't punishing lying, she was punishing telling the truth!
    • Then why is the entire regarding population doing it all day every day to almost everyone who isn't them?
    • In Real Life this book was released between Goblet and Order (not to take away the validity of the above headscratchers, just pointing it out to anyone who doesn't know).
    • They don't seem to study Dark creatures in their fifth year (or at least under Umbridge) or in 6th year either. So they probably stopped using it for class and therefore no longer had the opportunity to write in it.
    • And it might be that this book only gives a general overlook of the creatures. When starting Care of Magical Creatures class, they're assigned a different book - so it's possible they just stopped using this one.
    • That's true. In fact, Hagrid SPECIFICALLY has a different book used in one year. The "Monster book of Monsters".


  • According to the book, the creature known as the Hidebehind was the result of a trafficked Demiguise escaping confinement and then mating with a ghoul during its voyage to America. But it seems that pairing only resulted in one offspring - so how did the species survive long enough to become a species? The Demiguise is native to the Far East, and ghouls typically take up residence in the attics of Muggle homes. With whom did that first Hidebehind manage to procreate?
    • Maybe that single breeding produced a whole litter of them, and magical creatures don't suffer from inbreeding depletion?



    Newt and Hogwarts 
  • Dude was kicked out of Hogwarts for "endangering human lives". Hogwarts. The school that has a house entirely dedicated to turning out what are for all intents and purposes wizard nazis literally since its founding. Just how dangerous was his research that even Hogwarts was like "Nah, we don't want none of that"?
    • Because that's not generalizing at all. First off, it's not the school's fault if some of its students grow up to be pureblood supremacists or Death Eaters, and they don't just come from one house - need I remind you of Peter Pettigrew, for example? As Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show what we are." Most of the Slytherins we saw during Harry's time at school were just a bunch of schoolyard bullies who were descended from former Death Eaters (apart from Slughorn), and many of them were able to put their parents' backgrounds aside and fight for the school. It's even been mentioned that by the time Draco is there to send his son to Hogwarts - he's sending his son to a school that he formerly belittled and mocked at every opportunity - he's apparently matured enough to be on civil terms with Harry, and realized the mistakes he made when he was young to the point where he ensured Scorpius wouldn't turn out like him.
    • The bit about Draco is confirmed in Harry Potter And The Cursed Child.
    • Not to mention Hagrid was previously expelled from Hogwarts after a very long string of incidents that could be called dangerous as well, such as keeping werewolf cubs under his bed and numerous other moments like that. Scamander may have done something like that, but whatever caused his expulsion wasn't serious enough to have him lose his wand like Hagrid did.
    • Going off of this, Hagrid probably lost his wand because one of his mistakes (supposedly) ended up killing another student, but he wasn't sent to Azkaban because it was labeled as an accident and he hadn't meant to hurt anybody. Fred, George, and Newt Scamander may have performed similar dangerous experiment and were promptly expelled from the school, but those experiments hadn't injured anyone, so they kept their wands and escaped without punishment. (Also, the three of them were old enough to legally use magic outside of school, which probably contributed, as well - Hagrid was still underage, so his wand being snapped makes a lot more sense.)
    • Presumably Dumbledore's predecessor as the headmaster was a lot more of a stickler for expelling people than Albus turned out to be.
    • Because the Wizard Nazis are smart enough not to, as the saying goes, "shit where they eat?" They also don't blow up school buildings. Note that when Fred and George Weasley did the 'explosions' thing? They were promptly expelled.
    • Um, no they weren't. The twins left of their own accord because they weren't going to put up with Umbridge's crap anymore. The "explosions" (also known as fireworks) were a deliberate celebration of chaos to stick in to her one more time before they left for good.
    • Or, alternately, they punished Newt as much they could under Hogwarts rules, but what he did wasn't technically illegal and wand snapping can only be done by the government, not the school...and then the Ministry, learning of this, promptly made it illegal to keep dangerous pets while at Hogwarts, so Hagrid gets actual legal penalties in addition to being expelled.
    • Or, even more alternately, half-giants are only allowed within Wizarding society by the grace of the Ministry of Magic, so can be kicked out at will.
    • That is also a very good explanation. Half-Giants are a persecuted minority is logic (sad but logic) that the government is harsher with them even with the same offense.
    • Why is it that whenever there's a headscratcher like this, people always have to go with the most cynical option? Hagrid's actions (supposedly) got another student killed, so according to the Ministry, they had pretty good cause to expel him, and they aren't about to let him keep his wand when he's not old enough to perform magic outside of school. (Nevermind that it was fixed eventually, anyway.)
      • 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.
      • The Wizarding World is full of massive hypocrites? Seems to me that is exactly the sort of crappy thing they might do.
      • 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 this point his just an eccentric drop-out.
    • Also, it's since been revealed that Leta Lestrange was the one responsible for said endangerment of student life, and Newt chose to take the fall for her. (Much like Hagrid did for Tom, albeit less willingly.) It could be that somewhere down the line, the truth is brought to light and thus restores Newt's reputation.

    Graves' past 

  • Did Grindelwald pull a Kill and Replace on an actual Auror named Percival Graves Barty Crouch-style (minus the kill obviously), or was it just a fake identity he assumed?
    • Actually, I was wrong - Percival Graves was indeed a real person as confirmed by the wiki - this instead leaves to the Fridge Horror that This did not look like a Polyjuice potion... meaning he probably did pull a Kill and Replace. The real question would then be Wouldn't anyone have noticed something was wrong, especially the local empath?, but I think that Fridge Brilliance - Graves kept a distance from her, Grindelwald knew to do so as well, and probably had techniques such as Occlumency to keep himself from being "read" as a fake.
    • If Grindelwald had disguised himself as Graves with Polyjuice Potion, then it must have been a feat on the order of Alastor Moody's impersonation for an entire school year. Given how Crouch Jr./Moody attracted some attention for his hip flask, and how it requires drinking the potion every hour, and more must be continuously made and a stock must be kept on hand at all times since it requires one month to brew - thus preventing Grindelwald from killing the real Graves - this is an extremely tall order even if it can be done. But since Graves is a high-ranked Auror as compared to a Hogwarts teacher who might have a lot of alone time during which he could hide all the evidence more easily, I doubt even someone of Grindelwald's skill and capability could pull this off for long. Granted, it's unknown for how long this impersonation had been active.
    • Considering that Grindelwald was able to prevent Voldemort himself from reading his mind after he'd been in prison for fifty odd years, I'm pretty sure he'd have no problems masking any thoughts from Queenie
    • Also Queenie said she had difficulty reading British minds. It wouldn't be hard to believe she would also have difficulty with other European minds and depending on the theory, Grindelwald was either from Germany, Eastern Europe, or Scandinavia. He might well not even think in English, and if she has problems with English-speakers with accents she's not used to, doesn't seem like she'd have much chance against someone whose thoughts aren't in her language.
    • ...Because it's not suspicious at all for an ostensibly American Wizard to think in German or some language other than English? The Occlumency explanation is the only reasonable one.
      • I was born and live in a Spanish-speaking country and three-quarters of my everyday thoughts are in English. So yeah, it's not at all implausible.
      • Comment had nothing to do with how plausible it is that Grindelwald thinks in English. My issue is the idea that Queenie couldn't read Grindelwald's mind to discover that he's not the real Graves because he thinks in German/has a thick accent when he thinks. Those things alone would have given him away as not being the American wizard he claims to be (at the very least it would have suggested something is up, since German is not a language that most Americans know or would be expected to know.) Hence Queenie not knowing the truth only makes sense if she just can't read his mind at all.
    • It's a reasonable assumption that Grindelwald was skilled at Occlumency, even at this early stage of his terrorist career. It's probably considered as crucial a skill for ambitious Dark Arts practitioners as the Unforgivable Curses.
    • With regard to Grindelwald thinking in German, 1.) We don't know that he's actually German, or Scandinavian, or eastern European in any capacity. We don't know his nationality, only that he went to Durmstrang, which the original books mentioned was even possible for British students. 2.) Not only is it expected that a dark wizard would know Occlumency, but it's also expected that the head Auror at MACUSA would be adept at it, especially when he's shown in confidential meetings and discussions with the president — not something you'd want just anyone to be privvy to.

    Revealing spell 

  • So wait a moment, just how did Newt know to cast a revealing spell on Percival Graves? Did I miss something like him maybe saying something that only Grindelwald would say during a previous scene when the two interacted? Such as when he sentences them to death.
    • "Graves" was able to fend off several dozen Aurors at once. That's not something an ordinary wizard can do, even one high up in government.
    • Fair. It still seems a little strange of a conclusion to make (Sure, he didn't suspect that he was really Grindelwald until after he was revealed), but it does seem a little broad of a conclusion to take that Graves is an imposter just because he appears to be able to perform such a feat. Unless it was stated that only Grindelwald and Dumbledore could even think of doing that earlier on?
    • Graves was ranting on just before then about how the statute of secrecy was useless and outdated and needed to be dismantled which, as we learned earlier in the movie while he was interrogating Newt, is a viewpoint commonly held by Grindelwald sympathizers. Add that to the fact that he was also clearly attempting to recruit/use Credence — which, as Newt was asking earlier, isn't what you should be doing with an Obscurial when you should be saving them instead — and it probably wasn't hard for him to put together that this guy was not Graves.
    • The first sign Graves gave off as to his real goals was when he offhandedly remarked that the Obscurial with no host was "useless", and Newt definitely picked up on that oddity on the spot. From then on, I imagine he was just going on a hunch that Graves might be someone else in disguise, but not necessarily Grindelwald.
    • Newt's suspicions about Graves in fact start in the interrogation. When Graves asks "So the Obscurus is useless without the host?", Newt is horrified and asks Graves what on earth he'd even want to use an Obscurus for. Graves them seems to have realised he's slipped up and immediately changes the subject which sparks Newt's suspicions further. When the group meet with Gnarlak, Newt asks Gnarlak about Graves and his background. Gnarlak's expression confirms to Newt there's something there to confirm his suspicions, as the script specifies that Gnarlak's expression indicates "there is much he could say, but he'd rather die than say it". All this plays on Newt's suspicions that Graves might not be who he seems to be. Add in Graves's actions in the climax and it's more than enough for Newt to think "Maybe this guy isn't who he appears to be... what if he's someone else?".
    • "this guy not Graves" but why? Newt has never met the real Graves. He has no basis for saying this is a different person. It would have been more logical to just assume the real Graves has become a Grindelwald sympathizer then that he has been replaced. It's not as if government workers are above that.
    • It might not have been "this man isn't Graves" so much as "something about this guy is 'off'". Perhaps the Revelio charm would also expose magical influence, and Newt simply had suspicions of something odd.
    • There's also the matter that Graves has the Deathly Hallows symbol sticking out of his pocket during his interrogation of Newt. It's not beyond reason for Newt to have spotted that, and at least come to the conclusion that—as it's unlikely a high-level Auror could have made it this far and been a Grindewald supporter—that this man might just be an imposter.
    • There's also the fact that supporting material has revealed that the real Percival Graves is a friend and correspondent of Newt's older brother Theseus. If Theseus and Newt are close, Newt might be going off his elder brother's description of his friend, or the fact that Theseus is unlikely to approve of, let alone actually like someone of Grindelwald's beliefs.
    • You see? That's what is frustrating about this movie. They had opportunities to connect the characters in meaningful ways but either don't or don't say it in the movie. If it's not in the movie then it does not help the audience.
    • Revelio is a kind of truth spell, like how Obliviate and Confundus are memory spells. It's the easiest and fastest truth magic they can do on the spot, since most truth magic are potions, so it makes sense to try it first, just in case. Sometimes, simple is the best option.
    • And don't forget, Newt himself has only just eluded captivity and a Kangaroo Court execution by the Aurors. He needed to ensure that Graves would truthfully reveal what was going on, else the other Aurors might have arrested him and Tina on the spot.
    • And given his nationality, he's probably heard enough of Grindelwald's rhetoric to recognize it, and is smart enough to be suspicious of someone spouting views he earlier termed those of a "fanatic" while occupying a high rank in a magical government. The earlier conversation about the Obscurial probably got Newt's suspicions going in the first place, and he'd have considered later events confirmation that something is very wrong with the picture being presented.
    • It's also noteworthy that, in-universe, the Graves family is one of great historical significance to the magical community in America, having spawned many notable figures since the time of the Pilgrims and their ilk. Even an Englishman like Newt could've easily heard something about the feats and characteristics of the actual Percival Graves in his lifetime, especially considering the reputation Aurora are known to possess — it's not that impossible to buy into. He probably didn't know that "Graves" really was an imposter, but in a world where impersonating someone is this simple, it's still a good idea for him to check, given the circumstances.

    Ending and the wand 

  • So a massive plot hole is on the way with how this film ended. Grindelwald is of course defeated at the end of the film by Newt, but given the timeline of the series, he is also already in possession of the Elder Wand at this point. His defeat at the hands of Newt means the Elder Wand's loyalty passes to him and thus it can't continue down the normal path of Dumbledore and Draco to Harry. We know the Elder Wand is Harry's in the end as Harry uses it both to defeat Voldemort and repair his wand. It could also very well have passed on to Tina as she magics Grindelwald's wand away in case the Swooping Evil is considered the victorious force from before, but Tina taking his wand would account for the same defeat. Either way, J.K is going to have to be very careful how she handles it moving forward.
    • We don't know the exact mechanics of how the Elder Wand changes owners, but this is the first time we've seen it peacefully taken during an arrest rather than taking it during battle, magically disarming, or winning it through killing the other person.
      • No it's not. Grindelwald himself acquired the wand through burglary and theft, picking up the Elder Wand where Gregorovitch had put it down for the night.
      • In the book, Grindelwald waits long enough to hit Gregorovitch with a spell before making off with the wand, which is what transferred its allegiance.
    • Yes. When a person is arrested, at the end of that, or at the end of their sentence if convicted, their property is returned to them when they are released. Obviously, Graves won't, but she didn't know that when she disarmed him. He was just arrested for ranting like a madman and acting like he was about to go out and tell Muggles what was going on, so Tina was fully expecting that he would get his wand back. Maybe after a few years in jail, but eventually. To win a wand you probably have to intend to deprive someone of that wand permanently when you take it.
      • Jossed in that Grindelwald was not released, but escaped, and took possession of the Elder Wand (but not ownership of it by taking it from Newt/Tina).
    • Nothing suggests or proves that the wand Grindelwald was using was the Elder Wand. In fact his consistent use of wandless magic up until the climax would imply he knew better than to use a wand which did not owe allegiance to him (Graves' wand), hence why he didn't use it until the end. And if he had been using the Elder Wand, the incredible power it contained would have given away his true nature even faster than the display he made against the Aurors. So the implication is that he had the Elder Wand hidden away somewhere, used wandless magic whenever he could, and only used Graves' wand when forced to at the climax—and it was this wand he was disarmed of, not the Elder Wand. So no conflict with canon.
    • Additionally Wand permits that are required in America and make it so that every wizard must first register to be legally eligible to carry a wand, with the punishment of not having one being imprisonment, prosecution or wand confiscation. So Grindelwald showing up with a legendary wand would have obviously tipped off some of the other wizards.
    • You don't need to be using the Elder Wand to lose its allegiance. Draco never even touches the Elder Wand but he loses it to Harry when Harry forcefully rips his wand out of his hands. Lord Voldemort even uses the Elder Wand for the last third of the book despite never having its loyalty. Having the Elder Wand and having its allegiance are two separate things. He does have the Elder Wands stored somewhere for safe keeping or to keep up the ruse of him being Graves (more likely) but Newt definitively defeats him as stated even in the published screenplay. It's the same situation as Draco passing along to Harry. He may not have lost the Elder Wand physically but his defeat ensures it passes to Newt now.
    • This isn't a plot hole any more than 'If Grindelwald was arrested in America in 1926, how's he wrecking Europe in the 1940s?' is a plot hole. Newt or Tina probably do indeed have the allegiance of the Elder Wand at this point, even if they're never going to put their hands on it. Presumable something is going to happen in a later movie to change that.
    • As to the Elder Wand question, we don't have confirmation Grindelwald even has it yet. Could be his first action once he breaks out of jail in New York. Also note, When Harry earned the Wand he disarmed Draco wand to wand, disarming spell IIRC. Newt didn't disarm Grindelwald using his magic or a wand, he used the Swooping Evil to smack him around and bind him. Which was IMHO the only reason why they won, as Grindelwald was well on his way to blowing everybody away, to either kill the President or escape.
    • At least in the movies, if not also in the books, Grindelwald was much younger when he stole the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch.
    • The answer most likely lies in the fact that he wasn't actually beaten, par-say. No one hit him with a spell, no one stole his wand, Newt literally just bound his hands with the Swooping Evil. Chances are, the answer is that wasn't a feat of power enough that the Elder Wand would switch allegiance.
      • Tina literally took the wand from where Grindelwald had dropped it, same way that Grindelwald did from Gregorovitch.
      • Grindelwald gained the wand's allegiance from Gregorovitch because he waited long enough to hit him with a spell before making off with it. Tina did not do the same to Grindelwald — he was ensnared by the Swooping Evil, and she summoned his wand using Accio, not Expelliarmus.
    • The thing is, Draco wasn't magically overpowered by Harry - he just had his not-the-Elder Wand taken from him in a scuffle, and that caused the Elder Wand's allegiance to switch. The Elder Wand seems to be far more fickle than the average wand when it comes to picking a new master, so it could just be that it decided that Grindelwald was still its master despite being defeated.
    • Draco had his wand forcibly taken from him, he was overpowered. Grindelwald had his hands bound, which may not count as overpowering Or, alternatively, the wand Grindwald didn't owe any allegiance to Grindelwald (hence why he relied on wandless magic so much) so that Tina taking the wand didn't count, since it wasn't his wand.
    • The most obvious solution to this problem is that Grindelwald will fight and defeat Newt Scamander in one of the future films, in order to regain the allegiance of the Elder Wand. That would give him a good reason to go after him specifically after he escapes.
    • Or one could argue that it was the Swooping Evil that actually incapacitated Grindelwald, not Newt or any other wizard. A holder of the Elder Wand who's defeated by a Beast (or a Muggle for that matter) probably doesn't forfeit mastery of it, because the one who defeats them can't use a wand at all.
    • Well, Voldemort used Nagini to kill Snape, thinking that it would switch the wand's allegiance to him. While Newt and everybody else thought they defeated Grindelwald, did Grindelwald see himself defeated? We do know that he eventually escapes and starts terrorizing the world. If he didn't consider himself permanently defeated/disarmed, the Elder Wand's allegiance may not pass to Newt.
    • Have all of you forgotten the original tale of the Elder Wand? You don't need to overpower the owner, you don't have to fight fair, and you don't even need magic. You could slit his throat in his sleep and you'd still gain the wand's allegiance.
    • Maybe Graves willingly surrendered his wand himself? Harry's pseudo-death in Deathly Hallows tell us that the Deathstick sees the difference between willing surrender and a true defeat; after he was caught by the Swooping Evil (which wouldn't count as a defeat since the wand only answers to wizards), Graves may've released his grip on his wand before Tina Summoned it, to at least ensure he wouldn't lose the Elder Wand's allegiance once he escaped.
    • 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 allegiance 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.
    • 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.
      • Grindelwald himself stole the wand from someone who had willingly put it down.
      • He also waited to hit that person with a spell before making off with it, which is how he earned the wand's allegiance. It's more than just picking it up and taking it — you have to do something to overpower its previous Master, which Tina didn't do to Grindelwald.
    • The only thing that has ever been confirmed about the Elder Wand in the books is that it does what it wants. And humans are very bad at understand what wands do and why. Note that it is absolutely never confirmed on page that Harry is ACTUALLY master of the Elder Wand—Harry just guesses, based on what happened between him and the various wandholders and what Dumbledore's plan had been. We do not know for sure that it changed its allegiance because Draco Malfoy was disarmed, we just know that Harry thinks it did. Ollivander tells Harry that Draco's original wand may be his after taking it from him physically. May. Depending on the circumstances of its being taken. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Elder Wand did not change its allegiance from Grindelwald to Tina at that time—it's a wand, and wands can't tell humans how they work or why, and the event we're all comparing this one to has never actually been confirmed on page to have happened the way Harry Potter (well known for being 100% correct about all things all the time, always) claims it did.

    Pure Blood America 

  • So there is a law in America that witches and wizards are not allowed to mix with No Mag, not even make friends with them in a normal capacity that doesn't require them to reveal their nature. So does this mean that every single wizard in the US is a Pure Blood and that Muggle Borns just don't exist in the US? Because we see a lot of witches and wizards in the movie and the books (set in the 90's) make it clear that Pure Bloods are actually dying out.
    • Of course there are No-Maj-borns in the US. The real question is: how are they and their families dealt by the MACUSA?
    • Probably child abduction and Obliviation of friends and family.
    • This brings up a rather odd Potterverse-wide plot hole as well: why are there so many half-bloods, anyway? It's pretty clear that in both Britain and the U.S., the magical community physically and socially segregates itself from Muggles due to The Masquerade, and severely punishes those who reveal the existence of wizards. Newt treats America's wizard-Muggle segregation as ridiculous, but this really only seems like a common-sense protective measure (especially given the events of the movie) as well as a codification of what already exists. So how exactly do wizards go about interbreeding into the Muggle world that they know so little about and can't really take part in?
    • Muggleborns are the answer to that. When one appears, in Britain at least, their whole immediate family gets in on the secret, and becomes "part" of the magical world alongside the newfound wizard/witch. We see this a bit with Harry's family, but since they're absolutely negligent towards him, they don't mingle with the wizarding world, but I can imagine, for instance, Hermione's parents going with her to the Diagon Alley for the first few times. Petunia, being Lily's sister, would equally have a shot at meeting and marrying a wizard at some point, had her not adopted her strong anti-magic stance.
    • Or, alternatively, the word half-blood just refers to anyone with less than pure wizard ancestry who is not a Muggle-born. Harry is considered one, and his mother was a witch, after all. Furthermore, in rural areas, segregation may not be as extreme as it seems to be in the cities. I'm thinking particularly of towns like Godric's Hollow, which have a mixed wizard-Muggle population. Logically, even wizards need to buy food, and sometimes talk to their neighbours. The reason the British wizarding community of the books is so closed off is that they are not even one generation removed from a particularly nasty war and are in an upswing of extreme social conservatism, leading to increased distance from the Muggle community for their own and the Muggles' protection that still hasn't had time to fully wear off.
    • Also notice that they are not allow to marry, not to not have sex. It’s possible that one night stands and sexual encounters still happen between wizards and nomajs. What happens with the product of that, is another story.
    • No, the movie specifically states no interaction at all. Not just no marrying, but no talking either.
    • The movie never establishes "no talking" which would be ludicrous to expect that, and would call to much the attention (having a group of people avoiding to speak with everyone else is something odd to pass). In any case should be remembered that the US is a country of immigrants. Different waves of migrants from other places like Europe may have magical ancestry and half-bloods. Even the original English settlers, so the existence of half-blood and muggleborn wizards is easy to explain as a lot of people living in the US may have one or two generations of people not living in the US in their past that could mix without problem.
    • The magical population in the U.S. probably grows much the same way that the country's population in general grew — through immigration. If you look at the MACUSA suits closely, you will notice that they are quite multiracial during an era which was otherwise heavily segregated. Assuming that there are wizarding immigrants coming from other countries, it would actually be much easier to sustain their population growth even without breeding with No-Maj's. In contrast, the old-time aristocratic pureblood families of the U.K. were suffering fertility decline due to inbreeding since they did not have a large influx of witches and wizards from elsewhere.
    • Interestingly, Tina's ID card lists her status as "half-blood", although it is possible that her parents were immigrants.
    • Because MACUSA entirely prohibits relationships between wizarding people and No-Maj's, muggleborns might counter-intuitively be more highly-prized in America than they are in Britain. They increase the available pool of potential spouses in an otherwise closed society. Since intermarriage with No-Maj's is outright illegal, the closest equivalent to such "mixed" marriages would be between those of wizarding ancestry and muggleborns. Following the loosest definition of "pureblood" (all four grandparents being magical), America probably has a higher percentage of nominal "purebloods" than the U.K., although hardcore blood purity types would disagree.
    • It's also possible that there were witches and wizards who just ignored the laws and had relationships anyway. This was the time of prohibition, and how well did that keep people who wanted to drink from drinking?
    • Worth noting is, President Picquery apparently revoked the 18th Amendment's influence over the wizarding community - her reason given was something like "Wizards in America live hard enough lives already."
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • It could be to do with the timeframe, after the first world war, noble families in reality, were running dangerously low on descendants, the joke about noble inbreeding mostly comes from this, they wanted to keep their bloodlines noble, so mixed class marriages were off the table, it is noted in the sequel that wizards and witches also took part in WWI, Newt's brother being one of them, before the war perhaps the whole "no mingling with No Maj" thing was more of a suggestion, rather than a rule, but after the war, The MACUSA started to enforce it as many pureblood sons died in the war, remember just because they are wizards doesn't mean they couldn't be patriotic, and while wizards generally look down on muggle inventions, wizards have to concentrate to cast spells, hard to cast when the otherside is raining down bombardments, or someone took their "lucky stick" for firewood in the cold trenches.

    Desk sergeant 

  • Is there no Auror desk sergeant or something? When Tina tries to bring Newt in for releasing magical creatures, she's told to stop bothering them. No one follows up, no one takes custody of Newt, and she's not told where to take him. It's like ignoring that a bank robber was caught because every cop in the city if focused on a serial killer. They wouldn't even know he existed without her.
    • This was mentioned under Lawful Stupid on the main page. For starters, she decides to bring her right to the president. this itself is kind of a stupid thing already since she was demoted and on top of that was disrespecting her post. (And on top of the fact that nobody was willing to listen to her then tells her off for waiting over 24 hours to tell them that she knew about Newt when She was flat out TOLD OFF when she DID try to inform them of Newt DURING said 24 hours!
    • It's entirely possible that President Seraphina Picquery was just throwing Tina under the bus to save her own skin. Picquery's in the middle of getting chewed out for not keeping the magical world secret enough and Tina barges in with "hey, the guy you let go yesterday actually let a horde of magical creatures loose." She knows full well that this was her and MACUSA's screw-up, but getting humiliated in front of the international wizarding world isn't her style, so she blames it on Tina and hustles them out of the room before anyone starts asking questions or Tina can start answering them.
    • Well, fair's fair, I don't think she was trying to take him directly to the president the first time she caught Newt - she was simply taking him down to what she specified as 'major investigations', because that's what it was. It was simply Tina's misfortune that the President happened to be there, in a meeting with Graves, something Tina couldn't have known and didn't expect. The second time, the No-Maj awareness level has risen to a state of emergency, and Tina believes she has the culprit with her, and knows that if she goes to Graves, technically the correct authority, she will get shut down again due to the first mix-up with the case.
    • It's very possible that only active Aurors, or at least ones of a certain status, are allowed in the office she went to. She certainly acted like she was active on a case the whole time. There's probably somewhere she could have gone to report Newt's crime, but instead she acted like an investigative agent, despite no longer being one.
    • You guys all seem to be forgetting that Mr. Graves came down to the Wand Permit Office to see Tina in the very next scene about Newt's crime, but didn't do anything to follow up on it since she didn't have any proof. (Since the suitcase was filled with pastries - this was where Newt found out that he and Jacob had swapped luggage.)

    Tina's crime 

  • No matter what, ignoring the fact she did try to report this, I'm completely confused as to what crime she would have even committed anyway. (Let's be charitable and assume that the execution was purely Graves, and they were supposed to just be arrested.)
    • It sorta seemed the crime was 'Walking into a meeting of the ICW', but, uh, guys, that one is on you. Lock the door, or post some guards. Don't let people walk into, you know, the Magical UN floor.
    • Or was Tina, as a government employee (Not even active law enforcement.), legally required to report any suspicions of Magical Beasts in America? That's an amazing level of mandatory reporting, well above what it is in the Muggle world. Was mandatory reporting even a concept 100 years ago?
    • I suspect that the legal requirement to report applies solely to potential breaches of the Statute of Secrecy where the fault lies with a witch or wizard. Openly casting Side-Along-Apparition, with a No-Maj, who's holding a clearly magical artifact, definitely qualifies. That plus the failure of the wizard to properly Obliviate the No-Maj in question clinches it for her.
    • Or is the crime...her investigating her suspicions when not an Auror? How is that illegal? Maybe a firing offense, sure, but an actual crime? She doesn't appear to have committed any criminal act during it. (Well, she broke into a department store, but they didn't know that!)
    • If this is referring to the reason she was sentenced to execution Graves charges her with aiding and abetting Newt, whom he charges with releasing an Obscurus in New York with malicious intent to cause havoc and trigger another war. The fact that apparently a single high-ranking Auror can just sentence wizards in this way is a whole other headscratcher (no trial and no-one bats an eye?).
    • Major Spoiler ahead: Graves is Grindelwald. There is zero reason why he would let our protagonists come within shouting distance of his ostensible boss, procedure be damned. As such, Picquery would have been told something along the lines of "unfortunately, he died trying to release an Obscurus from his case as an escape attempt" once he could speak without fear of contradiction. That interrogation was a formality to decide what excuse Grindelwald could use to get rid of a catastrophic nuisance. Also the executioner lackeys were probably Imperiused (No reason to risk the lackeys refusing to cooperate otherwise).
      • The question isn't why she was sentenced to death. That is obvious. The question is why was she even arrested? What actual crime had she committed? 'Failure, by a non-Auror, to report knowledge of a Magical Beast'? (Ignoring the fact she tried.) Or was it 'Walking though an unlocked door into a meeting of the ICW'? Which of those two things are criminal offenses, and how?
    • Suffice it to say that by the end of the film, Newt and Tina have enough evidence of MACUSA's mismanagement to get Picquery, specifically, fired. She's damn lucky that all they want from her is that Tina gets her old job back.
      • I think you all are missing something very important. Tina tried bringing Newt in once when she first met him, and he was let go after the reveal that his luggage got swapped. What's important, though, is that even after they find his suitcase, along with an injured No-Maj and the revelation that several beasts have escaped, she doesn't try bringing him back in to the officials. And if you watch closely, even after she's caught Newt and Jacob inside the case in Central Park, it appears that she was still planning on just taking them back to her apartment, and only changed tactics and brought them in to MACUSA when she noticed the Obscurus passing by. That's what President Picquery meant when she was criticizing Tina's actions - because Tina knew and had evidence that dangerous beasts were loose in the city, and yet she didn't come forward with it until after they'd (supposedly) already killed someone.
      • 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.
      • 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.

    Missing beasts from the book 

  • There are several fantastic beasts in the movie - most notably the Thunderbird and the Swooping Evil - that aren't mentioned in the book the film's based on. If, in-universe, that book was written by Newt, how come he forgot to include these species?
    • Easy: They're in another volume of the book. It happens all the time. A publisher says they don't have space and ask the writer to cut something, and that they can put it in a later volume.
    • It could also be that Newt, due to his slightly misanthropic attitude, didn't include them because he fears wizards hunting them down for whatever reason, and he doesn't want to lead them right to the creatures.
    • Even more alternatively, a number of creatures such as Murtlaps, which are known to exist by the wizarding world, are not included in the Muggle text of the book, simply because it's a heavily abridged version of a much longer and more involved original.
    • Or were common enough knowledge that Newt didn't particularly feel a need to include them in a book about "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". It'd be like including a dog in a book about "exotic creatures".
    • Then why bother including the Puffskein and Kneazel, which are common wizarding pets around the world?
    • It's possible that the things that weren't included lack Ministry of Magic classifications or do not have the qualification of Beast (such as the Obscurus, which might be considered a Spirit or just Dark Magic, considering the word itself actually appears in the book as the name of the Wizarding publishing house). It may also be, as suggested above, partially an Abridged version, because some animals, like the bicorn, were not included despite being mentioned in Chamber of Secrets.
    • Or most likely of all, Newt (being Newt) got so distracted by caring for, researching, and/or rescuing all sorts of creatures that he fell behind on his writing, and had to throw together his final manuscript in haste, incomplete though it was, rather than miss his publisher's deadline.
    • In the updated version of the book released in 2017, the Foreword by the Author states "At President Picquery's request, I made no mention of the more important American magical creatures in the first edition of Fantastic Beasts, because she wished to deter wizarding sightseers."

    Thunderbird timing 

  • How far back did the Thunderbird's memory-wipe go, and is it calibrated? Because some people saw not only Newt's magical creatures, but also the prior murders and destruction caused by Credence/Obscurus. Is Jon Voight's character going to remember that his son was murdered, or how?
    • It's hard to say for sure, because they were vague on what it actually did. Is it just a natural form of the Memory Charm, or something else? Newt first says that the venom might be used to "remove bad memories," so maybe that's all it does. All the bad memories of the last few days get wiped clean. People would be confused, to be sure, but not completely lost. This would also explain Jacob's Wistful Amnesia: While he spent most of the movie terrified, he was also loving the magic itself. So that would explain why he got to keep some vague memories, even if most of it was gone. So, yes, that means Henry Shaw Sr. wouldn't know how his son died. Maybe everyone will assume he just disappeared.
    • You forget that there's not just memory-erasing spells, but memory altering. Who's to say that the effects of the venom do not more closely match Confounding a person (altering their memories) than Obliviating them (erasing memories)?

    Thunderbird and other wizards 

  • Did every wizard in the area not immediately on the scene or indoors just get their memory wiped too? Oops.
    • This is hinted at when Newt is treating Jacob's bite. He says that Muggles have different physiology than wizards, suggesting that the venom might affect them differently. It's possible that wizards are straight-up immune or highly resistant to the Swooping Evil venom.
    • Also, possibly, it was meant to remove "bad" memories, and to Wizards, there is nothing "bad" about what happened. Stressful, troubling, and dangerous, yes, but not tipping the scale to be "bad".
    • Or, alternatively, the wizards just lose a few days and either get healed by wizard doctors or people tell them what happened. A few wizards missing some memories is a small price to pay for preventing a war.
    • Indeed, considering how badly Grindelwald played the U.S. wizarding authorities for chumps and they'd failed to contain the situation themselves, having most civilian wizarding-folk forget about the whole business might be considered a feature by MACUSA officials, not a bug.

    Thunderbird and newspapers 

  • How did the rain not only change people's memories, but also the very newspapers and photographs taken? Is it that flexible?
    • I think the newspapers were changed by the same aurors that reconstructed the whole city, not as an effect of the rain.
      • It's shown on-screen that the rain melts the words off of the newspapers and replaces them with different headlines.
    • I think the answer on this is going to have to be, as with all things in this universe, IT IS MAGIC.

    Thunderbird and indoor Muggles 

  • How did the rain erase the indoor Muggles' memories, but Jacob needed to step outside into the rain in order to be obliviated? Even if we assume it only works on Muggles, which is never stated, it certainly should have worked on him before going outside, or else not worked on the other Muggles.
    • It's shown that the some of the Muggles that were inside to be either showering or drinking water, presumably the implication is that the obliviation is getting into the New York water supply, and that by the end of the day every muggle in New York will come in contact with the potion.
    • However, that's not how the New York City water supply works. Water is brought in from reservoirs in upstate New York via a series of tunnels and aqueducts which have been in place since the turn of the twentieth century. So unless the Thunderbird caused a massive storm for the entire tri-state area stretching into the Catskills, it wouldn't be able to actually enter the NYC water supply.
    • Maybe the water supply works differently in the Harry Potter universe (more likely though, they just didn't do the research). In any case, it's also possible that along with repairing all the damaged buildings, the wizards might have simply manually Obliviated anyone who the potion somehow missed, which would still be a lot easier than doing it to the whole city would have been.
    • Also keep in mind that is magical water, so magically entering to the water supply is not a stretch.
    • They also showed a water tower atop a building being reconstructed by the Aurors. This could have been a tacit nod to how the Obliviating water could get into peoples' apartments: it seeped into the elevated tanks used to generate water pressure in tall buildings.
    • It's possible that the venom got into the houses and water supply due to a property in the venom that allowed it to seep through concrete and glass and quickly permeate the water system.
    • In some traditions the Thunderbird has a direct line to The Great Spirit itself. Tainting all the water under it's clouds with swooping evil venom isn't anywhere as major as, say, turning the world's longest river which passes through multiple countries and empires into blood, and there is precedent in this setting for magic producing downgraded versions of famous miracles.
    • I don't think it's out of the question that A.) the Thunderbird created a rainstorm that would extend upstate in order to enter the water supply, or B.) the storm would be designed to last long enough for No-Majs who were indoors to step out and get mind-wiped. I've never been to New York, but it's a huge, bustling city - everyone has to go outside at some point, and even if there's some reason why someone can't, then they were probably also indoors when the events of the film were happening and therefore wouldn't need Obliviating.
    • 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.


  • At the end of the movie, the newspapers say it's the "rainiest summer ever in NYC", or something like that, as a consequence of the Thunderbird conjuring the mind-wiping storm. That's fine, except... the whole movie until now clearly took place during winter. Central park has frozen lakes, there are Santa decorations in Macy's... One could argue the end takes place at the start of spring, but summer? How long does that storm last?
    • I'm reasonably certain that the headline was "Rainiest November ever in NYC".
    • OP here. That makes a ton more sense. The people making the subtitles must have changed it to summer, for no good reason...
    • This wouldn't be the first time there was a subtitle error.


  • So, whatever happened to that blue flying-insect thing that appears during the first half of the film then completely disappears in the second half? Is it one of Newt's lost creatures? If it is, does Newt ever get it back?
    • To answer at least one of your questions, that insect is a billywig. They're a type of magical insect native to Australia, whose stings cause levitation. So, it's most definitely one of Newt's creatures.
    • Thank you for the info. So it's a case of What Happened to the Mouse?, then, since it's never shown that Newt got it back by the end of the film.
    • In which case, Newt was not actually successful in re-obtaining all of his magical creatures like he said.
    • It could be that the Billywig is only a class-3x magical beast, and unobtrusive enough that Newt didn't notice it had gotten loose. All the other creatures bar the Niffler are class-4x or higher, and capable of causing major damage.
    • If a billywig's lifespan is anything like a normal insect's, it'll be dead in a few months anyway. It's also described as being very hard for Muggles to notice. Provided it was the only escapee so the species can't start breeding in NYC, that's one fantastic beast whose potential threat will fix itself.
    • Billywigs are native to Australia, no danger of them being in NYC. Newt DID notice it, it flew right in his eyes, but he probably plum forgot about it since they're only classified as a Class XXX because of what happens if you're stung repeatedly or have an allergy. He likely has many of them in his zoo. The stings are harmless enough that Australian kids provoke the Billywig into stinging them to get, well, high.
    • 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.)

    Lock on suitcase 

  • Newt was shown to be able to repair an entire building with the Reparo spell.... So why hasn't he fixed the lock on his suitcase?
    • The lock isn't actually broken. His creatures are just intelligent enough to get it open. He could get a better lock, but then people would ask why he has a giant lock on a supposedly innocent suitcase.
    • If his creatures can basically open the suitcase any time they want to, how is it that their jailbreak is seemingly the first time this has ever happened, or is this a regular occurrence for Newt? If it is a regular occurrence, how often, and how can he possibly manage to cope with it every time unscathed when this incident of escape results in not only a wild goose chase but mayhem and destruction? How does he even know that he hasn't lost any creatures unawares, sometime during the night while he's asleep? Are there NO magical safeguards that a guy capable of fooling U.S. customs with a "Muggle Worthy" alternate compartment could use to keep the thing locked? And if it's really as simple as a non-magical rope restraint, then WHY did he not think of that before?
    • For the same reason Queenie keeps trying to magic the door open, but Jacob just kicks it down?
    • There’s no indication the creatures can open it every time they want, on the contrary, the span of time between attempts indicates the opposite, that it takes them some effort to do so.
    • Newt usually catches them in the act of trying to break out. One day he got careless and the events of the film happened.
    • Reparo isn't reliable when applied to magical objects, which is why fixing things like broken wands or damaged Vanishing Cabinets requires time, expertise, and/or the Elder Wand. It also has nasty side effects on living creatures, which is why it can't be used for first aid. Newt probably didn't want to risk using reparo on his suitcase, because he couldn't be sure it wouldn't inadvertently harm the creatures inside.
    • So why doesn't he simply carry his magical suitcase inside another (non-magical) suitcase, so it can't open?
    • Because he needs the magical suitcase with its Muggle-vision switch in order to get past customs, and to be able to access and care for his creatures consistently and conveniently. And something as big as an erumpent wouldn't be contained inside a normal suitcase if it ever made it out of the inner, magical one. That's why it's important for Newt to have the magical case within easy reach at all times, so he can latch it shut immediately when it comes undone.

    Misuse of Queenie 

  • So Queenie's an in-the-blood Legilimens — a natural empath/telepath. What role does MACUSA find for this rare asset? Why, sticking her in the basement of the building and essentially making her a glorified secretary/coffee fetcher. It could be argued that Queenie is content where she is and doesn't aspire to anything more, but she's clearly not happy in her job, jinxing the toilets in her spare time. For that matter, why didn't Grindelwald try to recruit her?
    • Is it obvious that she's a Legilimens? It seems like she doesn't make a big deal about it at work (she uses it for blackmail, but gives no indication of how she acquired the information) and she seems happy about the fact that she has a minor job and it's her sister who's the career woman. Perhaps she's happy with a less stressful life and everyone else just doesn't realize how powerful she is.
    • Queenie seems to enjoy the whole Obfuscating Stupidity concept. She plays herself off as just the blonde, happy-go-lucky secretary, but seems to be a fairly competent witch when she wants to be. As we see during the rescue of Newt and Tina, when her whole demeanor turns on its head. Perhaps she jinxes the toilets solely for her own fun?
    • Yes, Queenie's powers could make her extremely useful to the government ... but using her that way would also make Queenie, herself, subject to serious scrutiny as a potential security risk. If she opted not to make the sort of non-disclosure pledges that would be necessary to allow her to work among MACUSA's interrogators or spies - pledges, which might well include an Unbreakable Vow or two - or was simply judged too scatterbrained to be trusted with whatever information her Legilimens power might glean, then shuffling her into a humble secretarial position may have been the best option: it keeps her where the state can keep an eye on her, yet safely away from higher-ranking authorities with heads full of government secrets.
    • Legilimency can still be learned as a skill, although most wizarding schools only teach it on a need-to-know basis. Thus Queenie is unusual in that she has it as a natural ability, but she is not a unique resource. MACUSA probably prefers to employ formally-trained Legilimens in job functions such as the Aurors. Queenie shows no interest in pursuing that kind of job.
    • I always heard it as unjinxing the toilets, given as one in a series of examples of the menial jobs she is assigned. That's what makes sense in the context she says it in.

    American Squibs and No-Maj-borns 

  • I'll admit I haven't read all the books but I have checked the Harry Potter wiki and other such research so anyone wish to correct please do so. So No-Majs and Wizards in America won't interact with each other either friendly or romantically until 1965 with the repeal of Rappaport's Law. What exactly does MACUSA do if a child of two magical parents is born without magic like a squib? Do they send the to adoption services or dump them on the street? Or the other way around with wizard kid being born to No-Majs? Are they kidnapped and their very existent is wiped from his or her No-Maj parents' and siblings' mind? Is there an adoption service for them too? This sounds incredibly problematic and traumatizing from both kids' end. You don't display any sort of magic at a certain age than you're on your own and the good and/or bad memories you had with your family are wipe because your not magical and if you were loved by them, well then they can never see you again. If you have magic you can never see your No-Maj parents again. How is this suppose to work?
    • If the Americans have access to something like the list of magically-born children Hogwarts keeps to keep track of potential students, it may be that there's a way of registering all Muggle-born births with MACUSA. Then it's a fairly simple matter to go to the parents, Obliviate them to make them think they miscarried/had a stillbirth, and abduct the child before it's old enough to really remember them. Possibly the reverse happens with squibs when they don't show up on said list as having magic, or else they are allowed to live on the fringes of magical society as second-class citizens. It's unpleasant, but it makes sense with what we've seen of the 1920s wizarding world.
    • As any lawyer can tell you, you also have to interpret the spirit of the law, not only what the letter of the law says. Rappaport's Law is there to keep the Masquerade, the main función of the law is to avoid that normal humans know the existence of wizards, with Squibs that danger does not exists, it will be to take what the law says too literally. Squibs are, for legal purposes, wizards, just a disable wizard, in a similar way of having a person that can’t walk in a family of athletes. Squibs are probably handle as just wizards with a disability.
      Now, muggleborns are more tricky. IIRC the Ministry (in the UK) discovers the existence of a magical child when they produce magic for the first time. Disregarding the fact that wizards from wizards families are registered immediately, with muggleborns, is generally after they are around five when they are discovered as wizards, sometimes later in life, that is when they have their first unwanted expressions of magic (to judge by in-universe cases like Lily Potter and Tom Riddle). So here are only two possibilities, whether the kid is taken from the parents and they are obliviate (very cruel indeed but likely given the authoritarian that the US government is presented, at the time at least) or the parents are giving a especial status for a while and their mind is obliviate once the kid reaches 18 after which such kid can’t have relationship with them, except maybe for the basic. Now, the lawyer in this troper speaking again; remember the law says apparently that is illegal to have spouse or friend that is not a wizard, it doesn’t says anything AFAIK about family relationships, this could be a legal loophole.
      Finally, is possible that muggleborns are not that common in the USA due to their segregation laws precisely.
    • Whatever the system for dealing with Muggleborns, it's very likely to be faulty, and miss a lot of kids. That would explain why Grindelwald chose the U.S. to infiltrate, rather than some other wizarding nation: he knew that there was a good chance of finding an Obscurial there, who'd been overlooked by MACUSA's search methods and suppressed his or her powers.
    • Wizards and witches born into a No-Maj family aren't much of a security risk, since they don't know until they're 11 that they're actually magical, and even British wizarding children tend not to befriend No-Majs, at least from what we're shown. As long as the family didn't let on that their child was a witch/wizard, I can't imagine any more measures than that would need to be taken. (Especially outright kidnapping the child - that's just ridiculous. Who's going to raise it? Why would they do something like that?)
      • Maybe that's the origin of the myth that witches steal children! But yeah, in reality I'm pretty sure there are other much more practical ways to keep the secrecy than kidnaping kids from No-Maj families which not only would raise a lot of questions but also would require a lot of resources including raising them.
    • 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.
    • Yes, the tropers get it. The question is about before the law was repealed.

    Senator Shaw 
  • So... what happened with the senator's murder subplot? How do you cover up the death of a US Senator whose father is a media magnate? Even if we assume that all photos the reporters were taking during the climax were destroyed, someones going to be on this case.
    • I imagine this whole subplot was setting up ground for the sequels. If Jacob has enough lingering memories to dream about the beasts, maybe the younger Shaw will also retain some subconscious memories, and be able to convince his father about witchcraft this time around.
    • Alternatively, they don't need to cover up his death at all. There's no particular evidence of murder, and no-one remembers anything to make them suspect that this death wasn't just a particularly horrifying freak accident.
    • From the immediate lead-up, and the damage that had happened, it could be explained as the result of a freak electrical mishap, leading to either a fire or explosion of some sort.
    • Especially since his death does not immediately scream "MAGIC! MAGIC MUST BE INVOLVED!" Rappaport's Law was originally put into effect because a wand found its way into the hands of a handful of No-Majs and displayed significant magical activity when it was handled by them, which caused a huge uproar that MACUSA had to struggle to get under control. Senator Shaw only had a few strange marks and some slight bloating to his face that didn't even point a delegation of wizards and witches to an Obscurus - a group of No-Majs who can't remember anything to the contrary could be easily made to think that he died of some horrifying illness or something.

     MACUSA's execution methods 

  • The execution via death pool feels needlessly convoluted. A spell like Avada kedavra would be much more efficient: instant, painless death. Why bother keeping a special room with killer goo and a flying chair and procedure that involves extracting person’s happy memories to make them willingly step into their death? Aside from the fact that’s convenient for the plot.
    • There's a reason the Avada Kedavra is called one of the Unforgivable Curses, using them for execution is probably seen as being akin to all sorts of violations of human rights in our society. They're also notoriously difficult to cast, requiring either a legitimate desire to cause pain and death for their own sakes (even being absurdly angry at the target is not enough for that), traits that are more easily achieved by complete psycopaths.
    • The Avada Kedavra curse literally rips off pieces of your soul when you use it. There's a reason why it's the only one of the Unforgivable curses that none of the good guys have ever used. Dark magic in general requires you to go to a very disturbing place in order to use it properly. So, they opted for something else, and as for why the potion? It's humane. The condemned spend their last moments in a reverie of their happiest moments, so they don't fear what's coming. The potion's probably painless too.
    • I would like to point out that, canonically, any murder splits a person's soul. It's the act itself that causes the split, not the spell used.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it heavily implied in the books that Voldemort himself invented the Unforgivable Curses? It's possible they didn't have Avada Kedavra at their disposal yet.
    • Given that all three Unforgivables were first outlawed in Britain in 1717, there is no feasible way Voldemort could have created them. More likely, the issue is the requirement for emotional investment in the spell, which would be difficult for an executioner who sees however many criminals each month.
    • Oh, and on account of it being a painless death. It seems so, as it happens too fast for the body to react, but the one person to take the full effects of the curse head-on and survive (the person being Voldemort himself) describes it as causing an insane amount of pain. This may or may not be known by the wizarding world at large.
    • Since murder in the Potterverse splits one's soul they may use the pool as a means of protecting the executioner. If they directly killed everyone that came through their soul would be reduced to a tiny fraction after time. By using the pool as a third party the executioner's soul stays whole. If the chair is enchanted to lower itself when the accused is sitting in it all the executioner really does is provide them with happy memories for the last moments of their life and does nothing to directly cause their death. They act more like a psychopomp than executioner this way and their souls stay intact.
    • An interesting idea, but it seems fairly clear from the book's explanations that there's a difference, magically speaking, between simple homicide (which may be self-defense, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) and murder—especially when Snape asks about the state of his soul, and Dumbledore replies that it's really up to Snape to determine whether Mercy Killing Dumbledore to spare him pain is enough to imperil Snape's soul. An executioner killing criminals because it's his job isn't murdering in his own mind no matter the method, no more than Harry Stunning Death Eaters off their brooms in self-defense is at the beginning of Deathly Hallows. In my opinion, Graves/Grindelwald would have split his soul (again) by killing Newt and Tina, even though he uses the pool, because it is murder.
    • A related idea to the "is it murder v. is it just an execution" thing: think about executions in real life. Lethal injections are expensive and time-consuming: you need a doctor to insert I Vs, a bunch of expensive chemicals, and the whole thing takes several minutes, if not an hour or two. Three people shooting the condemned in the back of the head, Boondock Saints-style, is undoubtably quick and any pain is sure to be briefly felt. But we don't do that because, for one thing, it's too personal and messy, and it's considered more humane to do lethal injection. A death potion, with the condemned spending their last minutes experiencing a happy memory, is probably the Wizarding equivalent of a lethal injection.
    • Something to note is that according to the Harry Potter books, Unforgivable Curses require you to want to do the thing to the person. You won't get their fully effect if you don't really want to do it. To use it for executions, they'd have to find an executor that would want to kill everyone they put in front of them.
    • Another reason for the death potion could be to help maintain the masquerade. Unlike other magical forms of death, the potion in the execution chamber appears to vaporize and destroy what is submerged in it, which saves MACUSA from figuring out how they're going to dispose of a freshly-deceased corpse when they're in the middle of one of the most populous cities on the planet. It's not like they can rely on executive support from "The Other President" to falsify the necessary paperwork like the British Ministry can with the Prime Minister.

     MACUSA has no due process? 
  • After interrogating Newt and Tina, Graves sentences them to death on his sole authority and after one interview without a trial or any sort of investigation. The sentence is also carried out instantly, without any sort of appeal. Even worse, his two assistants are clearly quite practiced with Graves' procedure, and the existence of a state-provided execution squad doesn't even seem to be a secret: Tina knows at least one of them by name. How on earth did Graves not only get the power of being a totally unsupervised judge, jury, and executioner, but also have such volume of cases that he was assigned assistants and an execution chamber? How many people did Graves murder with MACUSA's tacit approval?
    • Going off how unnaturally calm the assistants are about doing this to a colleague they know by name, even by the standards of people who do this for a living, it's possible they are under the Imperius curse, and that Graves simply planned to say that Newt and Tina either escaped (thus allowing him to continue using them as scapegoats without any risk of their endangering his plans), or died attempting to escape. As for the existence of a state-funded execution squad...well, America has the death penalty, which might arguably be a bit more merciful than imprisonment in Azkaban. It could just be that Graves co-opted the people who usually carry out executions of people who have committed capital crimes and received proper trials.
    • While the Imperius angle does explain away the assistants (though I'm annoyed this was never made clear), the explanation does seem to have a flaw or two in explaining Graves' plan. Graves/Grindelwald was intent on killing Newt and Tina, that much is certain. However, if there *was* a procedure for MACUSA executions, Graves was most certainly flouting it: even at its worst times, America has never made an official practice of drumhead-trial-to-execution in a matter of minutes on flimsy evidence and no oversight. So essentially, Graves is extra-judicially executing two suspects, but via the ordinary execution method. If he was going to claim they tried to escape, he could have Avada Kedavra'ed them right on the spot as soon as they were alone. Them actually escaping is also implausible, as somehow two wandless suspects managed to overpower an exceedingly strong wizard and escape without a trace from a building crawling with Aurors. The only explanation he would have for MACUSA afterwards would be that he tried the suspects and found them guilty, and then executed them all on his own authority. Assuming he doesn't legally have that terrifying level of delegated power, he'd essentially be ruining his own cover.
    • Considering he's close to finding the Obscurus, and MACUSA has just blatantly refused to acknowledge that such a thing even exists, does he even need the Graves identity at this point? In the beginning, certainly, it was probably the best position from which to find out about the most likely people to produce an Obscurus and make sure MACUSA didn't become suspicious, but given that he has narrowed things down to the Barebone children at this point and knows MACUSA don't suspect a thing, he might have decided that it was worth the risk to get rid of the threat to his plans. Possibly this was how he planned to dispose of the real Graves too, as if he were to be found after Grindelwald had made his escape, he would be suitably disgraced and thus his claims of what had happened to him might be dismissed as the ravings of a guilty man using all means to escape his sentence. Or, if Graves is already dead, he can just leave the corpse lying around somewhere and leave the city quietly with no-one suspecting Grindelwald had anything to do with it.
    • Ok, but if he's done with the Graves persona, why the whole song-and-dance routine of sentencing them to death Bond Villain-style after getting the info he needed about the Obscurus? The only two remaining impediments to his plan are standing there, unarmed, with only his Imperiused puppets as witnesses. It's not like he's squeamish or doesn't like getting his hands dirty; he rubs out six Aurors at the start of the movie without a second thought. Two quick Avada Kedavras with a "they resisted" explanation and he's home free.
    • By the same logic, maybe he just got sloppy? Grindelwald is very close to winning here - the only reason he didn't get exactly what he wanted and get out of dodge was his own miscalculation in dismissing Credence as a Squib. As such, he isn't expecting to be around long enough for it to matter. He's been posing as Graves with no-one noticing for at least a couple of months, maybe anything up to a year, maybe he just got complacent about no-one asking questions because no-one has suspected anything so far.
    • Alternatively, this is the American counterpart to Barty Crouch Sr's 'extreme measures' brought in to combat Voldemort in the 70s and early 80s, which allowed for killing rather than capture of suspected Death Eaters. While the implication there is of a kill in combat, this is fifty years earlier and times have changed. (This is true even in the Muggle world, as it was a lot quicker and easier to execute people back in the 1920s than it is today, even in countries which still have the death penalty.) It's also entirely possible that this too was introduced by Grindelwald in the guise of Graves (who seems to be the American equivalent of the head of magical law enforcement, which might explain his absurd levels of power), in order to make it easier for him to silence anyone who might suspect something amiss with his cover/interfere with his search for the Obscurus.
    • Or he could have forged whatever official work sets someone up for death. He's the head of law enforcement, if he says someone's been tried and found guilty, you'd probably believe him.
    • Remember that the Death Cell potion doesn't just kill, it disintegrates the condemned. Grindel-Graves wasn't just eliminating his enemies, he was destroying evidence. Had the execution proceeded as planned, he'd probably have Confounded the executioners into thinking Newt had escaped with Tina's help, sicced the Aurors on the "escaped fugitives" to divert their attention, and gone on to capture his new pet Obscurial uninterrupted.

    Gnarlack's perception of Graves 
  • When Newt questions Gnarlack about Graves, Gnarlack gets suddenly dismissive and seems uncomfortable to talk about it - for someone so greedy and unscrupulous, why wouldn't he try to squeeze a little more valuables out of Newt in exchange for more information? So what is it about Graves that intimidates Gnarlack so much?:
    Could it be that Polyjuice Potion (or whatever magic Grindelwald used to impersonate Graves) can't fool non-human magical creatures, so Gnarlack knows that lately Grindelwald has been impersonating Graves, and he wouldn't dare betray Grindelwald to Newt out of fear for this well known to be powerfull and evil wizard? (On the other hand, if Gnarlack had known about the disguise he could also have betrayed Grindelwald!Graves to the authorities, as there must be a price on his head in America as well, and betraying him to the government itself is more secure than betraying him to some random strange wanted Englishman.)
    Alternatively, if Gnarlack is fooled by the disguise, that says a lot about Real!Graves character: he must have been a big bastard and powerful wizard, to intimidate Gnarlack like that...
    Or any other explanations?
    • It's possible Gnarlack isn't afraid of Grimes at all, he's just stalling until the Aurors can come arrest Newt so he can get his reward.
    • The script definitely hints that his discomfort is genuine - seeing as he's something of an all-seeing eye when it comes to criminal behavior, maybe someone he knew gave Grindelwald some information that helped him perform a Kill and Replace on Graves, and Gnarlack caught wind of this? Or maybe Gnarlack himself gave Grindelwald the information. Either way, the implication is that he knows Graves isn't who he's pretending to be, and that there's something or someone involved that Gnarlack isn't content with snitching on.


  • The wizarding government of America doesn't bat an eye at summary executions (even of their own employees) and was perfectly willing to kill a troubled child they believed was under ten years of age. Why would they even bother trying to imprison Grindelwald, especially when he mocks the idea that they can hold him right to their faces?
    • Because, repressive as MACUSA may be, they hold the Statute of Secrecy almost sacred, and Grindelwald wants to bring it crashing down around their ears? Also, given that said summary execution was ordered by Graves, who is Grindelwald himself, and the two attendants were almost unnaturally calm throughout the whole thing, this can be read as an indication of the Imperius Curse having been used on them. It's entirely possible that Graves intended to simply have the two of them killed, and then claim they had escaped, as the American wizards' mode of execution doesn't seem to leave a body, allowing him to continue using them as scapegoats while preventing them from interfering with his plans.
    • It seems more typical of their MO to simply execute him right there on the train platform or at least take him straight back to headquarters and dunk him in the death pool, not to make plans for his long-term incarceration as they appear to be doing.
    • The guy used Polyjuice to impersonate their top Auror. Polyjuice only works if the person being impersonated is still alive. They may simply want to try and find out where the original Graves is before they kill Grindelwald.
    • Capturing him alive may also provide a way for MACUSA to save face before the other wizarding nations, who'd been extremely angry at the American wizards' failure to keep the Obscurus's rampage under control. Parading the terrorist who'd so easily slipped through the European wizarding governments' fingers through an elaborate show-trial, and/or inviting the magical media to watch as they hand him over for extradition, could go a long way to restore their reputation. (Particularly if they downplay how he'd impersonated one of their own.)
    • Grindelwald had been involved in terrorist activity on European soil before crossing over to America—being forced to kill him while in the heat of battle is one thing, but once they've gotten him captured and subdued without a casualty, they probably have an obligation to alert the magical communities of Europe that he's been apprehended so they can take part in deciding his punishment. It's basically the difference between, say, Osama Bin Laden's death and the Nuremberg trials, for example. (Also, it was Graves himself who'd issued the death penalty upon Newt and Tina, with the implication that he had the aides who were to carry it out under the Imperius Curse - I sincerely doubt that the death penalty is used nearly so often as that scene would imply.)
      • This is confirmed in the second film — MACUSA kept Grindelwald incarcerated for sixth months before the ICW stepped in and demanded that he be transferred overseas to be tried for his crimes in Europe, despite the objections of Madame Picquery. She probably would've had him executed if she didn't have her hands tied into doing otherwise, as she knew he was too powerful to be transferred over safely.

     Obliviate Potion 

  • Okay, so at the end they decide to wipe the memory of everyone in New York by basically dumping a potion on everyone. What about everyone who was indoors at the time they did it, though? Did I miss something?
    • That was already asked, but yes, the movie shows people under the influence of the potion while been affected by water showering or drinking it, so it went to the water supply.
    • But if it got into the water supply, doesn't that mean muggles will be randomly getting memory losses for the next several days?
    • No, because is a specific spell to forget one specific thing, not for forgetting things at random.
    • But it's not a spell, and there's no indication it's tuned for anything specific. It's a potion Newt had from days or weeks in advance, and thrown into the sky by a thunderbird.
    • Still, there's no in-universe specific potion for randomly forgetting stuffs, only for forgetting specific stuffs.

     The Final Battle 
  • This seems to be a Villain Ball thing, but why exactly does Gravesellwald stop in what appears to be a pursuit of Credence to randomly torture Newt? All it does is send Credence into a panic (which anyone with a brain could figure out would happen, knowing his history), and more importantly it slows him down. Why torture Newt? I mean, if he wanted him out of the way, just stun him or petrify him, it's two seconds of spellwork and he's able to talk Credence down himself. Notice that Credence immediately attacks Grindelgraves after he loses control of his magic again, possibly because he empathizes with Newt's pain or is just frightened by it, so it's hardly a winning play there.
    • It seemed like Grindelwald was fully aware that Newt was a danger to his end goal; after all, Newt had just proven himself able to talk an Obscurus back into human form and calm them enough to begin to approach, and previously had demonstrated impressive skill and ingenuity in handling all the dangerous situations he'd found himself in. He was likely also furious that Newt was ruining all his plans to get Credence under control. In that situation, immediate murder possibly wouldn't be the first thing on his mind - he'd just want to keep Newt down so he couldn't fight back, and kick the crap out of him just to hammer home how utterly enraged he was at Newt's interference.
    • Possibly he'd intended to torture Newt into submission, then demand that the magizoologist (who's already admitted to having studied Obscuri) tell him how to catch Credence alive. Capturing dangerous exotic creatures is Newt's specialty, after all, and Grindelgraves' own methods had already proved ineffective.

  • I know you can't actually accio most living things, but why didn't Newt summon the treasures that the Niffler had in its pouch?
    • It could possibly hurt the creature, something Newt would never do. We know that inside the Niffler's pouch, its bigger than what it appears to be. There's no telling what and how much stuff he has in there. To just summon it all out could potentially damage him by the metal scraping against his insides as it flies out or the friction causing damage in general.
    • But Newt did Summon the Niffler, so how is it that you can't Summon a living creature?
    • I got the impression that he was summoning the treasures in the pouch, which resulted in the Niffler getting summoned. Did he say "accio niffler," or just "accio"?
    • No living creature can be Summoned. Newt must have been Summoning the contents of the Niffler's pouch.
      • Then I guess either Nevill's toad was an automaton, seing how it was among thing Harry summoned back in "Goblet" when he was practicing the spell, or someone once again forgot the rules of their own made up universe.
      • Maybe what she meant (or should've gone with instead) was that magical creatures (like the Niffler) cannot be summoned, but normal animals (Neville's toad, and Jacob Kowalski) can be summoned. Immunity to magic is something many magical creatures have already, so it makes sense.
    • I just watched this scene. He just says "Accio", according to both my ears and the subtitles. And since when can't a living creature be accio'ed? There's another instance with a living creature, namely Jacob, being suddenly pulled to where Newt wants him to be, early in the movie. We don't hear Newt say anything in that bit, but the effect is visually similar to the known Accio of the Niffler.
    • According to Pottermore's article on "Technology" (and contrary to what this troper had previously believed), Accio can actually be used to summon animals. And humans are really just extremely evolved animals, so it would probably work on them to.

    Credence and his Obscurus 
  • Does the fact that the Obscurus left Credence at the end of the film mean that Credence now really is a Squib?
    • No, Credence is dead. The Obscurus never left him. If it did leave him, it probably wouldn't have left him as a Squib, but there are some questions about the mechanics of the Obscurus and magical power that are unclear on that front.
      • Word of God says Credence is alive and well, so that theory makes no sense.
    • He wouldn't be a Squib anyway, even if losing the Obscurus made him have no magic. A Squib is a Muggle born to a Witch and Wizard (not to one magical parent and one No-Maj, or possibly even to a Pureblood and a half-blood by the sounds of it, but to two Purebloods). If Credence lost his magical ability somehow, he's a special case. He'd have no magic, but he wouldn't totally be considered a Muggle since he had magic, nor a Squib since, again, he had magic and neither of his birth parents that we know of were magical.
    • An obscurus is the result of magic someone is trying to suppress exploding outwards in defiance of being shut away. How exactly did anyone get the impression that Credence "lost" it. It's going to keep doing that as long as he's alive, and maybe they can get a few "samples" of the results when he dies. The bigger question is how exactly they're going to convince anyone he still lives when we saw him get blown to pieces(perhaps the obvious?)
    • Given Newt tried to remove the Sudanese Obscurus, it is possible to separate one from its host. Given how Newt talks about the girl dying, there have, clearly, been instances in which the host has survived. So... what has happened to them?
    • 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.

  • If I understand correctly, Scourers are witches and wizards who sold out their fellows during the Salem Witch Trials for profit and then as a result of the trials, the Wizarding community went into hiding, at which point, the Scourers slipped into the Muggle community and taught their descendants to believe in and hate witches and wizards. Now, it's their own fault they had to go into hiding in the first place, so why do they blame real witches and wizards and how on earth do so many still believe in witches and wizards and did all their kids turn into Obscurials and/or Squibs and possible Muggle-borns later on?
    • Perhaps a combination of Never My Fault and Believing Their Own Lies. It seems it wasn't just for profit that they sold out other magic users either, it was also to settle personal vendettas. In their minds selling out their own kind may have been justice and the backlash from other wizards an injustice.
    • It's also due to the Scourers being 'cut out' of the ruling parties/voice in the newly established MACUSA, they were most likely cut out because of what happened in Salem, hopeing that enough time had passed between the two events to have a 'Forgive and Forget' and disappointed at the long memories. Its also likely the current crop of No-Maj Scourers has no idea they were originally from Magical blood you can see a vengeful Scourers playing down their own talents (or part in their downfall) to future generations to play the long game against MACUSA

  • So why is it that "No-Maj" serves as an American stand-in for the British term "Muggle", but we evidently still borrow words like "Auror" and "Squib"? (As well as "Legilimens", now that I think about it? Even if Auror is an official job title and may be recognized globally, "Squib" only seems to be a colloquialism used to refer to a Muggle born into a wizarding family. Considering America is shown to have a different view toward No-Majs, why wouldn't they have come up with a different term?
    • May be while "muggle" and "no-maj" are slang, squib is a medical term and therefore standard?
    • "Muggle" is an Inherently Funny Word, in keeping with British wizarding culture's stereotyping of non-magical people as rather silly or inept. In America, people without magic are stereotyped as being imminent Torches and Pitchforks rather than amusing, so have a less goofy, more exclusionary ("no-maj" = "lacking something") slang name.
    • Also notice that most American wizards and witches work harder to blend in than their British peers. Instead of Wizard Classic costumes they dress in attire that can pass for normal on the street. In a contradiction, despite their rigid segregation from No-Maj's, The Masquerade has caused them to assimilate more. Thus, the primary distinction between groups boils down to a very simple magical versus non-magical.
    • Could be because "Muggle" is clearly a slur, and after a decade somebody finaly realised it and decided to at least partially remedy it.
    • The term "Muggle" is not a slur, since it's not offensive in and of itself. There is no other official way to differentiate between wizards and Muggles, other than calling them "non-magical people," which just takes time and sounds clunky. "Mudblood" is a slur, since it carries that implication that non-magical blood is inherently dirty, i.e., wrong. "Muggle" is just a word that's used to differentiate between the two groups.
    • Fridge Brilliance: The only use of the word "squib" in the movie is when Graves tells Credence that's what he is. And given that Graves is Grindelwald in disguise, hence a European rather than an American, he may have slipped and used the British term rather than whatever the local nickname for "wizarding-blooded nonmagical person" is.

     Jacob and Queenie 
  • How was Jacob able to pick up so quickly on the fact that Queenie could read minds when she met him? If I were a normal No-Maj who hadn't read a Harry Potter book and didn't know what a Legilimens was, my first assumption might be that she'd been following me around all day or something, which is still more possible than her being a mind-reader.
    • Wasnt' people in the 30s/40s less skeptical and believe in the existence of psychics and things like that?
    • This is set in the 1920's, when spiritualism and psychics were still very trendy. Plus, earlier that same day Jacob had experienced Newt dragging him across the room and then teleporting him around, watched Newt open a bank vault with ease, saw a magical platypus able to store huge amounts of treasure in its pouch, had his apartment shredded by an invisible beast and been bitten by a rather more visible one. At this point it would have required an insane amount of Arbitrary Skepticism to not believe that all kinds of magical phenomena were real.

     Harry becoming an Obscurial 
  • Why didn't Harry Potter wind up becoming an Obscurial due to his childhood? The Dursleys behaved extremely negligently as his guardians and punished him further whenever he displayed signs of magic, even if there never seemed to be anything physical, Newt says that most Obscurials don't survive past the age of 10, and Harry didn't get his acceptance letter from Hogwarts until he was 11. Was he just powerful enough to survive longer with an Obscurus inside him like Credence was?
    • For what I remember of the books and the movies, the Dursleys never punished Harry for displaying magic unwillingly, because they nor even know Harry does it. The closest thing I remember of Harry using magic unwillingly in public and around people was the Brazilian snake incident in the Zoo and even that is left unclear whether Vernon thinks Harry used magic or not. So, out of pure luck most of Harry's magical displays were made in private or alone to the point that the Dursleys didn't really knew if Harry was a wizard. Should be notice that they are outrage when the letter from Hogwarts comes as if they were not expecting it.
      • That may be the case in the films, but the books are far less ambiguous. They mention several instances of Harry using magic unconsciously, and generally getting punished for it. Vernon and Petunia knew exactly what was going on, and were actively trying to stamp out his magic. When the letter from Hogwarts comes, their reaction is basically "Oh God, the moment we've been dreading for ten years has finally happened."
      • Even so, Harry doesn't know he's doing magic nor Vernon and Petunio told him, so he has no reason to repressed magic, he nor even believes magic is real. The obscurial is formed when a person that knows is a wizard represses his/hers magic knowingly.
    • The impression that the movie gave me about obscurials is that those happen when a magical child voluntarily represses his/hers magical powers, especially out of fear while living in a society that fears or despises witches. I can think in 1600s America or Europe for example, but no wonder they are already uncommon in the 1930s as most people would find some other explanation for any supernatural phenomena, and no wonder either that the last obscurial discovered by Newt was located in Africa, where to this very day people in some areas still believes in witches (and can have very bad consequences for someone suspected of being one). Harry on the other hand is a kid in the 80s/90s, the mainstream society does not believe in magic and any unusual phenomena in his life he probably rationalized as something else, he can't be repressing magic as he does not believe in it (to that point) nor the Dursleys are going to forbid him from using it as they want him to remain unaware of the existence of magic. That and as the above troper said, the Dursleys seem to be on the mentality of "Good, the kid is not a wizard as his parents" up until the letter arrives.
    • J. K. Rowling answered this question on her website. Harry was simply (and successfully) kept ignorant of his magic, hence had no need to repress it.
      • **Sigh** Right. He teleported to the school roof, shrank his sweater and regrew his hair, all while being completely oblivious to it.
      • If such things happen to you, would you thing you're a wizard and that magic exists in the world or would you rationalize it as something else?
      • Harry's never been good at noticing the obvious. He explained away those things as weird or had some weird explanation for it.
      • Also note that while Harry definitely knew that weird stuff happened around him, he didn't realize that he was actively causing it; he just seems to have believed himself to be a powerful Weirdness Magnet. Unlike Tom Riddle, who didn't know that he was a wizard specifically but had figured out he had some sort of power, Harry was clearly surprised when Hagrid told him what he was, and didn't make the connection to prior strange happenings until it was explicitly pointed out. The Dursleys, of course, would have discouraged that line of thought as well.
      • Also, Harry lives in a country, the U.K., which does not have cultural paranoia about the supernatural in the modern day. It is notable that Newt discovered an Obscurial in Africa, which still sees violent hysteria over alleged witchcraft in some places even in the present. As poorly as the Dursleys treated Harry, there is no indication that he feared for his life in their home.
    • It's worth keeping in mind that while the Dursleys were abusive, they were paragons of parenting compared to Mrs Barebone.

     Swooping Evil venom 
  • Before the tour of his suitcase, Newt tells Jacob that Swooping Evil venom could potentially be used to erase bad memories if properly diluted — thus, while I can see it affecting No-Majs whose only interactions with magic were particularly nasty ones, why would it have erased Jacob's memories? Not all of what he experienced was bad or harmful toward him, and it was clear come the ending that he'd enjoyed all that he'd come to learn.
    • The end of the movie makes it clear that Jacob's memories of magical society weren't completely wiped.

  • Isn't it a little weird that Newt's response to Graves's remark about the Obscurus would be "What on earth would you use it for?" I get what the line was supposed to mean in hindsight, but it came off sounding odd upon first hearing it considering Newt himself kept the Obscurus long past the point where he logically should have, purely for the purpose of studying it, meaning he saw at least some use for it.
    • There's a subtle difference between having a use for something and using something. Studying the obscurus for science could be a good use for having one. The implication I personally got from Graves's use of the word use was similar to how one would use a tool.
    • Newt clearly wants to save Obscurials from dying, not leave them as they are. Thus, for him, the Obscurus merits study in order to figure out how to help the host. It's like studying a disease in order to figure out how to cure it. The question is therefore rather like asking such a researcher what "use" there is for Smallpox.
      • Exactly this. Basically, Newt talks about how he got an inert sample of smallpox to study, it's perfectly safe, and that it had killed the girl he got it from, and Graves is like 'Inert? So it's no use at all?' And Newt responds by asking WTF would you use smallpox for?

     Stars and stripes 
  • I couldn't help but notice that the official seal of MACUSA (both the one found online and on Tina's ID card she shows to Newt) seems to have only 47 stars on it, even though Arizona was admitted as the 48th state in 1912, so there should be one more of them if that's what they go by in 1926, and even more considering there are 50 states today. Does the number of stars not correspond to this like it typically does, or is it possible that there are certain states the magical government chooses not to recognize?
    • MACUSA is not affiliated with the U.S. government at all, unlike the British Ministry of Magic which at least maintains a loose connection with the muggle government. It could be that they have to decide to recognize any changes to the number of states versus territories and other possessions separately. Also, since not all states were undisputed, especially those that had formerly been possessions of Mexico, MACUSA may have to work out their own treaties and agreements with other wizarding governments years after muggles have changed their borders.
    • Alternately, one of the states with a very low population may not have enough wizarding folk living in it to merit statehood by MACUSA's standards. States like Wyoming had less than 200,000 inhabitants back then.
    • Funnily enough, America never had a 47 star flag. It jumped from 46 to 48 in 1912, since New Mexico and Arizona were both ratified that year.

     Red the goblin 
  • Is there some sort of enmity that exists between Tina and Red, the goblin who operates the elevator in the Woolworth Building? She greets him as though there's some sort of grudge that she holds against him, but he never seems to behave this way towards her, and it's never brought up again following his first and only appearance. Was this explored more in the original script? Why does Tina seem so hostile?
    • Well, in the original scrip there's no mention of her greeting him like there's a grudge or anything. It's only when he's about to remind her that she's no longer an Auror that she gets irritated with him. (The script doesn't actually clarify that's what he's about to say when he's cut off, but it's fairly clear from context.)

     MACUSA and No-Maj Congress 
  • Why didn't MACUSA ever consider joining with the No-Maj government in America, or at least getting in touch with the President to let him know they existed? Having some influence in the executive branch would have some benefits when you're trying to uphold a massive coverup, and Half-Blood Prince showed that it was handled fine (semi-fine) overseas in Britain, so what would be different here? It's not like they couldn't just Obliviate him if he didn't took it the wrong way.
    • Rappaport's Law probably doesn't contain an exemption for government figures. Revealing the existence of the wizarding world to any No-Maj, including the POTUS, is illegal. They don't need to socialize with people in order to use just about any spell they want on them. So their focus is likely to be on making sure that the muggle government remains safely ignorant. Even the Ministry of Magic in Britain only deals with the muggle government on their own terms, and it is not shown that the Prime Minister can summon anybody from the Ministry when they want to. Instead, the Ministry contacts them on an as-needed basis.

     What Would One Want to Use An Obscurus For 
  • Newt makes a pretty good point when he asks what on Earth anyone would want an Obscurus for. It's an uncontrollable, incredibly destructive entity that's just as likely to kill you than it is anyone else. What precisely were Grindelwald's plans for the Obscurus? The only explanation I could think of is Grindelwald's gigantic ego make him think he could control it.
    • Graves had planned to use the destructive power of the Obscurus in order to incite a war between the magical and non-magical populations of the world, and as Newt explains, the only way to channel its power that way (that is, using it to attack certain others without running the risk of it turning on him) is through influencing the host. Because of this, Graves surmises that it's now his top priority to find the Obscurial Credence is trying to locate for him, as he thinks he'll be able to manipulate him/her into siding with him, just as he attempts to do to Credence during the climax.
    • It is entirely possible that the Imperius Curse could be used on an Obscurial. We saw in the books and other films that victims of the curse were still capable of utilizing their magic. Graves might have wanted to do this to the Obscurial, only he didn't realize that it was Credence until after Credence started flying around on a destructive rampage. Under optimal circumstances, he would get the Obscurial to lower their guard by pretending to be friendly and then Imperius them. Things went sideways because he assumed that Credence wasn't the Obscurial due to his age. He wanted a magical WMD, and an Obscurus is very much that.
    • As of Crimes of Grindelwald, the specific use is made clear: To kill Albus Dumbledore since a Blood Pact prevents them from fighting directly. Though he would probably be useful for intimidation and assassination in general. Also, a deleted scene from Crimes of Grindelwald reveals that Grindelwald had a vision of an Obscurial killing Dumbledore, and Dumbledore tells Newt that he assumes that's why Grindelwald wants one.

     What Became of Credence's Sisters? 
  • At the end of the movie, the fates of Chastity and Modesty Barebone are vague at best. Chastity appears to be an adult, so can probably strike out on her own, but what about Modesty, who's maybe eight or nine?
    • If they managed to avoid the Obliviate-storm after the climax, it's likely that MACUSA looked into who Credence was and sent Aurors to Obliviate those who had been living with him who may have witnessed anything, Modesty especially. Once that's done, they would probably be put back into an orphanage or a foster home.
      • 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.
    • If I recall correctly Chastity's body was seen in the rubble of their house, so...that would appear to be her fate.

  • Kowalski is clearly not stupid, so why in the world would he fall victim to that tired "a dumbass goes for a loan but has no idea a collateral will be required" cliche? He brings a business plan, for crying out loud, but that questions is what baffles him?! What did he expect was going to happen? And he even tries to seduce the clerk with cake... What is this, Twin Sitters?
    • His reaction struck me more as him knowing they would ask for collateral and just hoping that they wouldn't bring it up. He probably drafted up the business plan and brought in pastries in the hope that it would either distract them from the fact that he had no collateral to offer or just ignore it and go on without it. So not really ignorance on his part, just wistful desperation.
    • If Jacob had met the right banker in the right mood, it might have worked. Not every banker is as unimaginative and heartless as the one he got. Get a hungry one, willing to listen for as long as the pastries last, and he might be able to show him enough of the business plan to convince him that it plus much-above-average pastries could be a safe bet.

     Jacob's second loan 
  • So when Jacob returns to the bank with the eggshells, how come nobody questions how a simple factory worker got his hands on a bag full of pure silver that looks like eggshells? Or why someone that rich would need a business anyway?
    • Jacob could always just show them the note that was left inside the case - there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part, so the bank has no reason not to accept it. As for your second question, I don't think they'd care. If Jacob wants to open a bakery and he has collateral to cover the bank, they have neither the right nor any reason to question him on his choices.
    • He could always claim they were an inheritance, or antiques he'd found in the attic or something. They're a bank, not the police; even if he doesn't have proof of provenance for the silver eggshells, they're clearly valuable and if he stole them it's not the bank's job to investigate that.
    • And even if the bank saw fit to get the authorities involved, it's not like they would find anything seedy, let alone incriminating. On the of chance that a nearby museum or bank were to report a recent theft of silver to tie the collateral to, they would then have to answer the question of how Jacob pulled off such a theft and why he would go to the trouble of having said silver melted down and formed into eggshells, of all things.

     Why Does He Need An Obscurus 
  • Someone above asked why Grindelwald would even want an uncontrollable force of destruction around. Others answered that it might be possible to put an Obscurus under the Imperius Curse (which is fair enough — in Goblet of Fire, the titular enchanted dining implement could be put under a Confundus Curse, after all). But even if he could use its destructive power to spark the war between the No-Maj and Wizarding worlds… Why bother? He doesn't need anything to bring down untold destruction: he's freaking Grindelwald. He has the Elder Wand. Overpowering a Bombarda Curse with the Elder Wand would probably do the same job as Credence's Obscurial would have, minus the whole " impersonating a high-ranking MACUSA official" thing.
    • Maybe he wanted to use the Obscurus as a sort of cover for his plans. We already know that he was quite well-known in Europe, but America is shown to be much more strict when it comes to keeping magic a secret. So it was a lot safer for him to infiltrate MACUSA to keep himself hidden and then sic his new Obscurus on people in order to anonymously incite tension between the groups. It helps that MACUSA was at first unwilling to admit that there were any Obscurials still in America, which could've served to keep them from confronting the issue until it was too late.
    • Concealment was definitely an issue. Remember that even Voldemort made a point to keep a low public profile and avoid the many people hunting him except when a high-stakes matter obliged him to act openly. Grindelwald was being hunted by wizarding authorities throughout Europe, a point which is mentioned in the film. Taking a break and hiding out in the U.S. gave him some breathing room to work on his plans. As for the Obscurus, it proved capable of withstanding a considerable amount of firepower from trained Aurors when it was trashing Manhattan. It's potential use as a weapon was obvious. Like Voldemort, Grindelwald was quietly gathering his forces behind the scenes in preparation for eventual war. This little trip to America allowed him to accomplish both that and keep people guessing as to where he was.
    • A deleted scene from the second movie gives the actual reason: years ago, Grindelwald apparently had a vision of Albus Dumbledore being killed by a powerful Obscurial. Since he and Dumbledore made a blood pact not to fight each other directly, he's trying to find the Obscurial so that he can get his most powerful rival out of the way.

    Obscurus Books 
  • Why in the name of Merlin would a wizarding publishing house name itself after an uncontrollable destructive force of dark magic that results from child abuse?
    • If you will allow some speculation, I'd wager the founder was called "Obscurus" and it's just a really unfortunate last name. The word does mean something in Latin, so it's not impossible, nor even improbable, for a wizarding family to come to be named that before the term was even widely applied to the magical disease.
    • Maybe in-universe it's to raise awareness of Obscurials and the consequences of child abuse? Or the term itself has fallen out of use to the point where no one really knows what it means - we've never heard it mentioned in the Hary Potter books, and even in the 1920s, MACUSA tried dismissing it as possible that there were any of them still in America.
    • There are Real Life publishing firms with names like Serpent's Tail, Viking, and Arrow. Being named after unpopular reptiles, violent sea-raiders, or lethal weapons hasn't put them out of business.
      • But the Obscurus is more like a magical illness, one that has killed a number of magical children in recent times (as opposed to vikings and arrows, which have only historic connotations). It's more like calling a publisher "Cancer Books" or "Plague Books".
      • You might've hit upon it with your mention of cancer, actually. "Cancer" was originally used to refer to a constellation — the crab constellation. We only call the disease "cancer" because someone in the ancient world noted that one of its symptoms reminded them of the constellation, or of crabs, or some nonsense like that, and so we unfairly adopted the name to describe the disease to the point where the two are almost inseparable nowadays, despite the original use of Cancer also remaining with us. Maybe "Obscurus" also used to have some benign connotation that the publishing house is invoking, and its relation to a horrible, child-killing disease is just an unfortunate coincidence.

    Modesty's wand 
  • The source material says that the wand Modesty had was a toy. But where would she even get one?
    • It could've been a stick she found outside...Couldn't it?
    • Chopstick, piece of dowel, drumstick for a toy xylophone, who knows? It's only "a toy" because she uses it as a plaything.

     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? Those seem to be native to the deserts of Arizona, are important creatures in many Native American legends, and are related to phoenixes, anyhow.
    • Plenty of U.S. state flags have horses on them, even though horses were imported to North America from Europe.
    • Okay, but horses were widespread in America by the time those states were founded. If the national seal is going to have a bird on it, it feels like it should at least be a bird from that nation, not one hailing from an extremely specific region halfway across the globe.
    • Whelp, reading the screenplay actually cleared this up. There, the bird on the seal is identified as an eagle - the flames beneath it are just to symbolize the witch burnings of ancient times.

     Mary Lou taking in Credence 
  • Ilvermorny 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?
    • 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.

     Newt's employment 
  • How come the British Minister for Magic didn't know that Newt 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?
    • Newt apparently has a rather unexciting job at the Ministry and is on some kind of leave while conducting research for his book. It had also been mentioned in the original Harry Potter series that in past times (from the perspective of Harry's generation) it was actually quite common for wizards and witches that were out of school to go on extended trips to see the world. This was an issue for Dumbledore as he could not do so because his father's imprisonment left him home caring for his family. Grindelwald nearly convinced him to go anyway, which led to the big fight with Aberforth.
     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 Harry Potter books and the release of the first Fantastic Beasts film 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?
    • 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.
    • Most likely, it's Rowling playing along with how Real Life American and British slang terms tend to be very, very different.
  • Wasn't Dumbledore the Transfiguration professor at Hogwarts before he became headmaster? If so, why is he teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts in the second trailer for The Crimes of Grindelwald? Did he have a stint as a DADA professor before teaching Transfiguration, or is Riddikulus a spell that blurs the lines between the two and is sometimes taught in one class or the other?
    • Crimes of Grindelwald may answer this when it comes out, but I'd say it's entirely possible that either Dumbledore was subbing for the DADA professor for whatever reason (as Snape would later do for Lupin in PoA) or that riddikulus, being a spell to make a hostile creature change its shape, indeed straddles the line between Defense and Transfiguration.

     "Sorry, we call them Muggles." 
  • How does Newt know the American laws concerning relationships with Muggles, but not that they're called by a different name?
    • It's possible that terms like "Muggle" and "No-Maj" are merely commonly-accepted slang in their respective areas and the wording of laws uses more official terms ("non-magical persons", say).

     Jacob the soldier 
  • Jacob says he came home from the war in Europe in 1924...If he's referring to World War I (and if I sound insensitive, I apologize), what took him so long to come back afterwards when the war was over in 1918? Has it been known to take six years for soldiers to return home?
    • He said he'd fought in the war, and that he had come home afterwards but I don't think he ever said he'd only just got back. The intervening time could have been spent perfecting his trade and coming up with his plan to open a bakery and trying to scrape funds together.
      • When the banker guy inquires about his job at the canning factory, Jacob replies, "That's the best I could do. I only got back in '24."
    • America had over 8 thousand soldiers occupying Germany's Rhineland until 1923 as part of the armistice arrangements. Other Allied forces provided security in that region until 1930. It is very possible that Jacob was part of the American occupying forces, or served as part of a liaison detachment until then.
    • Jacob actually comments that he was in the service for too long and that it has limited his opportunities. One can assume that the soldiers who returned to the U.S. earlier snapped up the better jobs and Jacob had to pick from what was left.

     Credence Becoming an Obscurial 
  • From what I understand, a witch or wizard needs to know they have magic and suppress their magic for some time to become an Obscurial. As far as I could tell from the film, we never figure out when Credence learned he is magical (it sounded like Graves was the one to tell him, and recently at that, unless Graves had been involved in his life for years instead of months) and Mary Lou didn't seem inclined to tell Credence what he was, if she knew. Or did she know, told him what he was, attempted to beat it out of him, like Uncle Vernon wanted, but he forgot when he was Obliviated and then his Obscurial exploded?
    • Mary Lou tells Credence before her death that his real mother was a wicked, unnatural person, and I didn't get the impression that this was the first time she's told him that. It would seem that Credence knew there was something inside him that he tried to suppress, but he maybe didn't know that it was magic - and he was Obliviated to wipe his memories of Tina's attack on Mary Lou, not of any events before that.
    • Credence has a sister about five years younger than him. Evidently he lived with his parents long enough for them to give birth to Modesty, and when he was adopted he had seen enough magic to know that he was a wizard. If they were adopted shortly after Modesty's birth, that also explains why she didn't turn into an Obscurial, because she never learned that she was a witch.
      • Credence and Modesty are only siblings through adoption; they aren't actually related to each other, as is made clear during the second film.

     Lawful Stupid? 
  • I might've missed something, but was there an actual reason why Jacob had to be Obliviated in the end? When Madame Picquery agrees to let them say goodbye, it looks like all the Aurors leave with her. And there wasn't anyone besides Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob at the top of the subway steps. What was stopping them from Apparating Jacob somewhere else or waiting out the storm in the subway or something?
    • If they didn't Obliviate him there during the storm, the Aurors would probably have gone to round him up for it later. Just because they're not watching them that second doesn't mean they aren't still a presence in New York and wouldn't be able to find Jacob and make sure he was dealt with.

     Credence's mother 
  • The second Fantastic Beasts movie reveals that the Lestrange half-elf servant was the one to put baby Credance for adoption in America. Is she the one Mary Lou refears as "a wicked, unnatural woman"? Did they meet in person? Or she just make that up out of the blue to further abuse Credence?
    • Credence does mention that the half-elf's name was on the adoption papers, so presumably yes, she was the one Mary Lou met with when she took him in. What isn't clear is how much she was made aware of Credence's history, considering the Lestrange servant was posing as the grandmother of Corvus and Leta on their voyage to America.
    • What could be more "wicked" and "unnatural" to an Anti-Magical Faction than a magical Half-Human Hybrid?

     Muggleborns in Ilvermorny 
  • So considering the rampant magic racism in 1920's US, did muggleborns even get accepted in Ilvermorny? If they didn't, the wizarding population in the states must have been slowly declining (which would explain why there's only one school in the whole country). If they did accept muggleborns in their society, the poor kids must have been bullied even worse than the ones at Hogwarts. And what about their families? Were they allowed to live with them, or visit them? Must they sever all ties? Or worst of all, did the parents get obliviated at the second one of their children displays any magical habilities?
    • Pretty sure this is the second or third time someone raised this question, but I'll take another stab at it. In short, there's no evidence to suggest that Muggle-borns are treated differently than purebloods in America - there's no need for MACUSA to resort to kidnapping and Obliviation when most families would probably be fine with simply not revealing their child's magical abilities to others. (Just like Harry and Hermione's families are over in Britain.) Distrust of No-Majs in America has less to do with racism and discrimination and more to do with a desire to keep wizardkind safe from discovery and persecution. If anything, wizards and witches would more likely be the victims of bullying, rather than the ones instigating it.
    • If this helps, you can look at American views of Muggles as being similar to Salazar Slytherin's reasons for disliking them (due to feelings of mistrust, owing to the time period he lived in), and not the ideology his views were warped into by future members of his house (which was just plain racism).
    • Try to remember that America was a very young country. You didn't have wizarding families who had the kinds of Medieval pedigrees that you saw in places like Britain. In fact, the oldest wizarding bloodlines would have been Native American. This is reflected by how multiracial MACUSA was despite the heavy segregation of races among No-Maj's at the time. The MACUSA President was an African-American woman! Since even muggleborns can manifest magic without a wand (as Lily Potter nee Evans and her son Harry did), it is doubtful that MACUSA just ignored them since they could break The Masquerade without even meaning to. As for Ilvermorny, we have no idea how large it really is. Remember that wizards can create extradimensional spaces. The school could easily be the size of a large university. That said, there was at least one reference in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to the "Salem Witches Institute". Maybe the U.S. has private magical schools in addition to Ilvermorny?

     A weird moment from Graves 
  • Just after Tina is dismissed from the Major Investigation Department by Madam Picquery, we see Graves watch her go with a look of concern on his face. The screenplay even identifies him as the only one out of the group who has this reaction. But why? If he's supposed to be Grindelwald in disguise, why is he showing a genuine sign of empathy for a random ex-Auror when there isn't anyone to notice it? Especially when he later insults her by pointing out how she's always interfering in matters where she isn't wanted?
    • Let's think this through. Okay, so Tina gets dismissed as an Auror after she goes to the house of the boy Grindlegraves is using to find an Obscurus and has an altercation with a No-Maj woman. Both he and Tina believe him to be a No-Maj at this point, and neither have any clue that he's the Obscurus they're after. As pointed out in the Crimes of Grindlewald page, Grendlewald doesn't care about No-majs any more than they are useful to him. If Evil Cannot Comprehend Good in his case, he might see Tina trying to help Credence as her poking around at his master plan, and might think she's a bigger threat than she is. Not for nothing, but this makes him more likely to go to her office later to verify what's going on and it helps explain why he didn't worry about Newt when it was revealed that Newt's suitcase full of magical beasts is MIA, because when he figures out the current mission has nothing to do with Credence, he breathes a sigh of relief and lets Tina do whatever she wants as long as it keeps her away from Credence.
    • Grindelwald might have also been sympathetic towards Tina acting against the Second Salem group, since he is trying to get wizards to take over the world. He might regret that Tina is probably going to have to be sacrificed even though he would otherwise try to win her over to his cause.
    • More or less confirmed in the next film. Grindelwald is quite happy to recruit from the Ministries, as he did with Abernathy. But Grindelwald is quite blunt with Queenie that Tina being an Auror causes problems for both of them. Tina does not seem to be willing to compromise her principles, so Grindelwald regrettably has to handle her as an enemy, even though she would be an appealing addition to his Acolytes.

     Grindelwald's remark 
  • The one he makes to Newt after he's been arrested - "Will we die, just a little?" What is that supposed to mean? Is it in reference to something notable?
    • It might be a reference to something, and it might come into play later, but my guess is that it's supposed to sound ominous to Newt. Kind of a "You got me arrested and so you're responsible for what happens to wizard kind after this." "Will we die. just a little?" could be translated to say "we" as in wizard kind. As in: Will wizards die, just a little?