Follow TV Tropes

Following

Headscratchers / Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Go To

Headscratcher pages are Spoilers Off. You Have Been Warned.

    open/close all folders 

    Dumbledore as DADA teacher 
Why is Dumbledore teaching a lesson on how to get rid of Boggarts? In Prisoner of Azkaban, this was taught by Lupin during Defense Against the Dark Arts. At the time the film takes place, the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor was Galatea Merrythought, not Dumbledore, who taught Transfiguration.
  • My guess is that Riddikulus is a spell that lies in a gray area in between Transfiguration and DADA - you are using it to forcibly transform something into something else, which is what Transfiguration is. It'd be no different than Prof. Flitwick teaching his class the Patronus Charm, which happens to be useful against dementors. DADA isn't a specific branch of magic like the other courses are. It's any type of magic that's used for self-defense, so there's probably a lot of overlap there. (Though this doesn't explain why Dumbledore is teaching in the DADA classroom.)
  • Maybe she got sick at that moment, and Dumbledore was working as a substitue DADA teacher, until she got better?
    • Or maybe it was supplemental lessons to prepare the students for the outside world during Grindelwald's reign of terror, unlike the Ministry in Harry's time?
  • Or filmmakers simply forgot about all these pesky details and retconned it.
  • Galatea Merrythought might have been on study leave, or on assignment with the ministry of magic. She taught Dumbledore so undoubtedly would trust him with her class, and we don't know if Dumbledore always taught transfiguration (undoubtedly he would be qualified to teach pretty much everything). He might have taken over the post for a year or so while Galatea was busy.
    • Dumbledore was removed from the position as DADA teacher by Travers during the events of the film, so the retcon is not as severe as previously thought.
      • It may not even count as a retcon at all; the books established that Dumbledore taught Transfiguration when Tom Riddle was a student, but I don't think that it was ever stated that was the only subject he ever taught.
  • Maybe this video will shed some light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgFPrXoW90g&index=345&t=0s&list=WL
Advertisement:

    Credence's identity (WARNING: Spoilers)  
Credence being Dumbledore's little brother makes absolutely no sense. According to JKR, Dumbledore was born in 1881. His mother died when he was 18 (1899/1900), his father has been in Azkaban since before that. Unless Dumbledore's dad somehow got it on in Azkaban, there is no way that Dumbledore can have a brother that, given that he was 16 in 1926, has to have been born around 1910.
  • Also, there is no way that Rita Skeeter wouldn't have mentioned that in her book.
  • I mean, it could be a lie, but what with the phoenix appearing it seems like we're supposed to think Grindelwald is telling the truth, and there is just no way it fits on the timeline.
    • Just because a Pheonix will appear when a Dumbledore needs them most doesn't mean a Pheonix *cannot* appear to anyone else. Is Harry Potter a Dumbledore because Fawkes has shown up to save his life twice? [Once in the Chamber of Secrets; and again to absorb a Killing Curse]. No.
    • What really bugs me is that Grindewald thought the Obscurial was an even younger child in the first movie, and a girl too. Did he not know at all about the Dumbledore connection then, and just get that knowledge between movies? Or is the timeline even more loose? That doesn't seem to fit his plan to use the Obscurial against Dumbledore, since the familial connection is probably part of the reason he thinks it'll work at all (Dumbledore is riddled with guilt over the death of a sibling, after all).
      • That's not the only problem with the timeline. Minerva McGonagall appears in a film set in 1927 (with a flashback to 1910) despite not having been born until 1935.
      • The movies very obviously don't follow the same timeline as the books to begin with. For better or worse, they are Adaptation Distillation - particularly the later ones, which were directed by Yates, just like these movies. First off, almost all of the adult characters excluding Dumbledore are given obvious Age Lift|s (a conscious decision by JKR, who felt like she had originally written Harry's parents and their contemporaries several years too young.) The Marauders' generation and Snape were all (or would have been) in their mid-late thirties by the end of the book series. The films age them more firmly into middle age, all played by older actors. [McGonagall], although seen as 'old' through the eyes of an eleven-year-old boy, is actually in her mid-fifties during Harry's first few years at Hogwarts and her mid-forties during the opening scene of Sorcerer's Stone in which a one-year-old Harry is left at the Dursleys'. Of course,
  • Nothing specifically says brother to Albus, Aberforth and Ariana, and as noted the timeline doesn't fit and Skeeter is someone who could and would let that secret see the light of day. However nobody has said that there couldn't be another branch on the Dumbledore family and they're cousins. Remember, Rowling is good at misdirect.
    • Indeed - Dumbledore is from the United Kingdom. Western European traditions (but especially English) is that if a man were to have multiple children, they would all carry his surname - so if Percival Dumbledore had a brother or two, and the had a child, they would ''also' 'be called Dumbledore.
  • Where did they say Credence is Albus Dumbledore's younger brother? I'm curious.
    • The only way I can see this happening without annihilating established canon in Deathly Hallows is if Credence is Albus's son?
      • I'm pretty sure Grindelwald says "brother" in the last scene and even if it's not true, it's undoubtedly what the audience is meant to come away believing. Plus, Word of God says that Dumbledore is gay so it'd be unlikely for him to have a son.
      • Dumbledore being gay doesn't mean he couldn't father a child. He might have slept with a woman attempting to forget Gellert, he might have wanted someone to carry family name, he might have wanted to avoid suspicion of homosexuality (this were rather homophobic times in Muggle world at the time) and taken a wife or a mistress. Plenty of possibilities.
      • He does say brother and according to the screenplay, Credence was born around 1901, which would fit, though again, he wouldn't be a Dumbledore if he were Kendra's child, as Percival was dead by that point. So yet another mystery.
      • This doesn't help the timeline issue, but Albus having a half-brother by Kendra and another Dumbledore not named Percival (perhaps Percival's own brother) isn't out of the realm of possibility. This movie literally ran on long-lost half-siblings as plot points. Also, we see a Love Triangle - of sorts, between two brothers that have or have had feelings for the same woman.note 
      • I saw a theory that Credence was Ariana's child by Grindelwald and he killed Kendra when she found out, blaming Ariana's magic. The three-way duel between the Dumbledore brothers happened when they found out the truth. Though that would only work if Grindelwald met Ariana and Kendra months before he met the others and disappeared for a time in between.
      • I have seen a WMG that Ariana may have been in love with Grindelwald at one point, but Ariana was about 14 when she died with Albus and Grindelwald being in their late teens/early twenties, so if the above theory is true.... yikes.
      • Interesting. Of course, there's a very good chance that he's mistaken. (Also didn't Rowling Flip-Flop of God and decide he was Asexual but homoromantic?)
  • Alternatively, Credence could be Albus' nephew by way of Aberforth. He might have a predilection toward furrier companionship but after everything that's happened to his family, who's to say that Aberforth didn't go on one hell of a drunken bender and had a one night fling with a lady? Obviously it wasn't right after the big falling out considering the age gap but he could have had quite a few benders over the years and I honestly don't blame him.
    • Not sure about this particular theory, but Aberforth likely knows something
  • Reading the script accounts at least for Credence's age. The script reveals that Leta switched them in 1901 which is close enough for the retcon to make more (though not complete) sense and makes Credence at least 25 in the first film. This does however leave the question of how Mary-lou managed to be his adoptive mother since if we assume she was late 30s like the actress was at time of filming then she was only roughly 14 years older than Credence.
    • Wasn't he just left at some child-care facility? Then she could adopt him later.
    • Credence does say that thenanny's name was on the adoption paper, though.
  • Not sure if this helps anything, but the screenplay also identifies the woman baby Credence was traveling with as his aunt. Just thought I'd toss that in. Also, isn't it possible that Grindelwald is lying about Credence's heritage? He wants Credence to act as an assassin who will kill Dumbledore for him, and we know that he's not above manipulating people (Dumbledore, Queenie, Credence himself in the first movie) to get what he wants.
  • The catch here is that Credence would not technically be a member of the Dumbledore family unless his father was a Dumbledore. Kendra was only a Dumbledore by marriage, and if she had a child by a father that was not a Dumbledore then the whole phoenix thing would not apply to that child as he would not be a member of the Dumbledore bloodline. Plus, according to his own hypothesis, Albus could have resolved the whole issue of Credence needing the love of a sibling by presenting himself to Credence as his older brother. This would not require Albus to violate his blood oath to not fight Grindelwald, since the oath does not say he cannot act to thwart Grindelwald's plans (which he is covertly doing), it just says he cannot personally fight Grindelwald.

    Queenie's defection 
Grindelwald wants to kill and enslave all muggles. Queenie can read minds, she honestly can't stop reading minds. How in the world did she decide it's a good idea to join him? Like, yeah, he promises her that she can marry Jacob, but he's really not subtle about his hatred for muggles. Queenie should have picked up on that. She is supposed to be charmingly naive, not completely stupid.
  • I think it is reasonable to assume that Grindelwald is a good occlumens and can thus hide certain thoughts from her and Queenie, being used to knowing what people think, is not used to (successful) deception, which makes her an easy target for people who have the capacity to actually hide their thoughts from her and on top of that she was in a very vulnerable state when she was contacted by Grindelwald and he told her exactly what she wanted to hear.
    • Also, it doesn't seem like Grindelwald thinks of it like that. He sees it as a revolution, a change in the world's order. That may be what Queenie sees/hears in his head.
      • Its certainly possible he wants to give Queenie the freedom to be with Jacob, but in the same manner he wants to give everyone else the freedom to own, mistreat, and forcibly “marry” muggles at their pleasure.
    • Assuming Grindelwald is an accomplished Occlumens or has warped thinking, his true intentions vis-a-vis muggles will (or should have) likely become painfully obvious to Queenie through reading Grindelwald’s supporter’s mind’s. Even if Grindelwald is a psychic poker face, those around him aren’t likely to be so subtle.
      • Supporters aren't always on the same page as their leaders. There have been hundreds of examples in real life where revolutions have been hijacked or teachings/philosophies corrupted because of supporters essentially picking and choosing what they want to think their cause stands for. It's entirely possible that Grindelwald keeps his mind clear of his plans for Muggles and if Queenie senses his supporters' hatred of Muggles, he can just write it off to her as being "a few bad apples who don't get it".
    • My personal thought is that she was drugged by something in that tea Vinda Rosier gave her that either made her more pliable to brainwashing or susceptible to mind-control. Either way though, Grindelwald likely thinks in German, so maybe she just can't understand his thoughts. She does say that she has a harder time reading British people's minds because of the accent.
    • In the real world, it's not uncommon for people with friends or loved ones from marginalized groups to get duped into supporting political leaders who persecute those groups (No Real Life Examples, Please! Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment). Like many real-world bigots, Grindelwald avoids explicitly saying he hates Muggles or that he wants them exterminated. This can trick a few well-intentioned people into thinking that their friends and loved ones will be spared because they are "one of the good ones."
    • Plus, Grindelwald says during the film that he doesn't want to kill Muggles...After all, beasts of burden will always be a necessary part of society. His plan to keep them in check using magic isn't that far off from what Queenie did by enchanting Jacob, and that might actually be her new endgoal due to falling out with him at the end of the film: she knows he's not going to accept her back willingly, so she's helping create a new world order where she can force him to love her without repercussions.
  • Grindelwald isn't from an English speaking country. Unless Queenie learned German, she'll have no idea what Grindelwald is thinking, and will have to rely on what he's saying.
  • Judging by her behavior, very different from the first film, one could suggest she became several screws loose from all that stress and is eager to believe anything as long as this lie will promise her happiness.
    • It's possible Grindelwald is insane enough to genuinely believes what he says while also blind to the hypocrisy of the methods he takes getting there. If Grindelwald thinks he's doing good, that's all Queenie will get out of him.
      • Moreover, Grindelwald would actually have to think about his intentions for Muggles in Queenie's presence for her to even have a chance to pick up on such a thought. And from what we've seen, he honestly doesn't think Muggles' lives or deaths or sufferings are worth bothering to think about. Murder a family in cold blood? Eh, no matter, let's check out this nice new French house we'll be staying in.
    • Problem with that (and Grindelwald's image as whole in this movie) that he does too many things For the Evulz to appear as Well-Intentioned Extremist. Unless they all are very good Occluments, I don't believe any Legillimens could look into their minds and be deceived, language barrier or not. They killed a few muggles and a child out of convenience, for crying out loud.
      • But Grindelwald himself didn't. He was outside the house when the parents were killed and he deliberately left the room before the child was killed. Of course he absolutely meant for them to die, but he's clearly giving himself deniability ("Oh, that was such an unfortunate incident; of course I didn't mean for those Muggles to die! I'm not a monster..."). To anyone else, he does appear as just a Well-Intentioned Extremist - the entire point of his rally (besides getting Credence) was to paint himself and his supporters as victims by essentially baiting the Aurors into violence. Think about the language he uses in that scene: he tells his supporters to let the Aurors pass, then instantly talks about how they imprisoned him and killed his followers and that of course it's only natural to want revenge against them... He creates a situation where violence is inevitable but still keeps himself deliberately separate from it. And in the end, it's ultimately him that Queenie is believing in.
  • But even in that case why couldn't Queenie and Jacob just stay in England and marry there? Wasn't that her plan to begin with?
    • She freaked out after the love charm was dispelled and left abruptly. Then he left to Paris, before she could return to her senses and be talked into this option. By the time they reunited, she already suffered mental breakdown and was roped in by silver-tongued G.

    Leta's backstory 
  • The whole reason for why there's such confusion over whether Credence is a Lestrange or not is because Leta and her brother Corvus were travelling by ship to be adopted for their own protection, Leta switched her brother with another baby that wasn't crying nearly as much, and baby Corvus drowned when the ship sank. So:
    • 1. Why put the children up for adoption at all, and why was baby Corvus being adopted too? Obviously Lestrange didn't care at all about his daughter and wanted her off his hands, but why would he give up his precious heir? Why didn't Lestrange simply use the Fidelius Charm to protect his children?
      • Leta was not put up for adoption. She was just accompanying the child and the nanny. Leta's father was putting Corvus where Yusuf could not find him. As for not using the Fidelius Charm, Lestrange was such an odious man he probably had nobody he trusted enough to make Secret Keeper.
    • 2. Why were they going to America to be adopted? Why wouldn't a wizarding family in France or England have taken them in?
      • Redundant precaution to throw Yusuf Kama off the baby's trail.
    • 3. Why were they even travelling by ship in the first place? There's a huge amount of unnecessary risk; case in point, the ship sank. Why didn't Lestrange simply organise for them to use a port key, the Floo network, or another form of instant magical transportation?
      • The whole point of sending them with the half-elf nanny was to leave as little a magical trail as possible. Sending them by ship fits that as well.
      • There's no evidence of anyone being able to travel across the whole ocean by magic alone. Newt travels to America by boat, too, after all. Another continent, so far away, is likely beyond the reach of portkeys and floo networks, let alone apparition.
    • 4. Assuming Leta didn't admit what she had done, since everyone else believed Credence was Corvus, how did the boy end up in a Muggle orphanage and then with the Second Salemers? Presumably it would have been arranged for a wizarding family to take him in, who wouldn't have repressed his magic and caused him to become an Obscurial.
      • Lestrange's paranoia account for this. Yusuf Kama would never believe that someone of Lestrange's pedigree would willingly send his only son and heir to be raised by muggles.
      • There also seem to be indications that wizards, aside from naming a baby's godparents at birth, don't seem to have the whole adoption thing figured out.
  • Did I miss something or do we never find out why Leta who was born presumably in France didn't go to Beauxbatons but Hogwarts instead?
    • The HP series establishes that every now and again higher-class pureblood families send their children to schools out of the country - particularly, it's implied, if they don't agree with the way the home country school does things. Draco Malfoy mentions in Goblet of Fire that his father Lucius originally wanted to send him to Durmstrang because they didn't have the same aversion to the Dark Arts as a Dumbledore-run Hogwarts - but he was talked down by Narcissa, who didn't want her only son going to school so far away from home. Conversely, Leta wasn't particularly cared about by her father after Corvus V was born - and it's fairly likely that her stepmother wouldn't be keen on having a living reminder of her husband's union with another woman nearby. Add to that the fact that it's almost explicitly stated that the Lestranges were very chauvinistic (which may sadly be the only reason Leta was treated the way she was) and you have a number of reasons why Leta may have been sent out of the country to attend school.
    • What's weird is that in an interview, when speaking about international wizarding schools (specifically whether American wizards could attend Hogwarts), Rowling stated that Hogwarts only services Britain and Ireland.

    Nagini and Voldemort 
  • Nagini says she opposes pureblood supremacy because they hunt Maledicti for sport. How, then, does she end up serving Voldemort?
    • By the time she becomes Voldemort's pet she is fully a snake incapable of returning to human form, probably for decades. It is impossible to know at this point if she remained sane enough to retain any memories or moral convictions from her human life.
    • Maybe later events will change her worldview?
    • Is there anything in canon to indicate that they're the same character and don't simply share a name — a name that means "female snake"?
      • The fact that both snakes look the same, maybe?
    • Parselmouths are extremely rare. The draw of someone who could actually understand her was probably strong enough to outweigh her moral reservations, especially after many years on her own as a sentient human trapped in a snake's body.
    • We don't even know that she remains a sentient human in a snake's body. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius said that the dementors didn't affect him as much when he was in dog form, since it had less complicated thoughts and emotions than his human self. If the form a Maledictus takes is anything like that (and it could be even worse, since it's identified as a curse, and snakes probably have even less complex emotions than dogs do), Nagini might actually lose her human mind and identity completely when she transforms into a snake.

    Credence's age 
  • According to the screenplay, the ship that baby Credence was in sank in 1901, meaning he was born in 1899/1900 and, in turn, making him about 26 years old during the first Fantastic Beasts film. However, everything in that film points towards him being a teenager, or barely an adult at the most. Seems like a retcon... But if it isn't, and Credence really was supposed to be in his late twenties, then why does he remain in an oppressive and much-hated household, being abused like a child? Why doesn't he just leave, or why doesn't his mother kick him out, for that matter? Specially since in that time period he'd be old enough to get a job, marry and have children of his own.
    • Mary Lou may have manipulated him enough to believe that he owed it to her to stay with her and wouldn't survive in the outside world. Or, since we don't know how long Graves was manipulating Credence, he may have believed that he had to stay to find the Obscurial. Or he stayed to protect his sisters.
    • To this troper, the previous movie clearly shows him as not much mentally developed, so he easily can act as if he were much younger than his actual age, like a child even. As to why doesn't his mother kick him out: why would she? She needs him to do chores.
    • For what it’s worth, Credence’s adoption certificate apparently gives his birthday as being in 1904, which would make him slightly younger than the screenplay indicates.
Advertisement:

    Hogwarts' apparition limits 
  • This movie shows what seems be the closes to Hogwarts one can apparate -namely the middle of the stone bridge. Am I alone in thinking this is awfully close to the castle? The books were vage about it, but the general sense was that no-one could apparate within the castle grounds, and that included a good chunck of the Forbidden Forest (as mentioned in The Goblet of Fire). The spot where Newt and company apparate at the end to meet Dumbledore is literally the threshold of the castle. Is this a retcon, a change in the school's limits over the past century, or simply a cool visual that the filmmakers didn't think through?
    • Considering that this movie shows one of the earliest chronological appearances of Hogwarts, it may also predate the need for the previously seen levels of security. Both Grindelwald's and Voldemort's wars are in the future. In previous times, allowing visitors to apparate on the bridge would be seen as a courtesy to spare them the danger of moving through to the Forbidden Forest to reach the castle.
      • Why do people constantly forget that Half-Blood Prince clearly explains that the Headmaster-of-the-day can lift the Anti-Apparition and Anti-Disapparition spells temporarily in areas of the castle? All it takes is for the Ministry of Magic to send a few owls to the Headmaster-of-the-time, asking for permission (and the ability) to Apparate to the castle for a quick briefing with Dumbledore.
      • Because this was only true for the movie, and even then the idea is presented as being a perk of the job, as in "the anti-apparition rule doesn't apply to the Headmaster". It never states that the barrier can be lifted in specific areas nor for a certain amount of time.
      • Have you even read the book? Because you’ll find there are several chapters explaining that the Headmaster can lift the spell temporarily in certain areas of the castle for the Sixth and Seventh Years to practise Apparition in the Great Hall, such as Chapter Eighteen. Also, the script for Half-Blood Prince explains that Dumbledore made a “window” of some sort to allow him and Harry to Apparate.
      • People didn't forget, it's just a flimsy explanation. Sure, Dumbledore could have removed the magical barrier, but there is no reason to Berliner he did. This is like the US government allowing you to land a jet in central Manhattan because you can't be arsed to take a taxi from JFK airport.
      • Is the apparition limit even established as being in place before the 6th book? If not then the restriction could have only been put in place as part of the new security measures put in place that year and it's possible that apparition to Hogwarts was possible back in the 20s when the ministry felt that Grindelwald had little to no interest in Hogwarts (outside of Dumbledore who the ministry felt might side with Grindelwald) whereas Voldemort in the 90s was known to be targeting a Hogwarts student and, potentially, Dumbledore.
      • Hmm, I wonder if it was ever mentioned... Oh wait! Hermione near on constantly says you can’t Apparate or Disapparate in and out of Hogwarts as early as the Prisoner of Azkaban, possibly even earlier. So yes, the limit was mentioned before the 6th book.
  • This was before Voldemort came along and Grindelwald was actively avoiding Britain and Dumbledore. It is very likely that the wards protecting Hogwarts are not as extensive during this time period because nobody expected anyone to lay siege to the castle. It is, after all, filled with professors who are very skilled at magic (including Dumbledore himself) and it would take a significant attacking force to get far past the entrance, especially if you cannot apparate any closer than halfway across the bridge.

    Boat journey 
  • Do we know that the boat sailed from France, and if so, why were the Dumbledores on it? Or if it didn't sail from France, did the Lestranges travel to England?
    • It's highly unlikely that any Dumbledores were at the boat, considering that the woman caring for little Aurelius tried to save "him" muggle-style (namely, diving desperately towards the sinking bundle), and failed to. Had there been any of his relatives, a simple spell could have saved his life.
    • About the country of departure, it wasn't uncommon of ships to travel from France to the United Kingdom or viceversa before crossing the Atlantic; the Titanic herself would do so a decade later, stopping at England, France and Ireland before starting her journey.
  • For that matter, unless the child was a Squib, why didn't his own magic save him? We have plenty of examples of magical children falling out of a window and bouncing, or leaping all the way onto the roof to escape a beating. Shouldn't young Corvus have floated to the surface inside a magic bubble or bounced off of the water instead of falling in or something?
    • Harry almost drowned in the Black Lake and he almost drowned in that lake in the Forest of Dean. Just because underage or accidental magic usually protects the wizard doesn't mean it always will protect said wizard. And doesn't Neville mention in Philosopher's Stone that his Uncle Algie pushed him off the pier at Blackpool and he nearly drowned as well before another relative got him out?

    Professor McGonagall 
  • How is Minerva McGonagall teaching at Hogwarts in 1927 when she wasn't born until 1935, based on the information she gives Umbridge and what we get from Pottermore? It can't be her great-grandmother whom she's named after because she wasn't a McGonagall.
    • Who says it has to be that Minerva? There could have been a relative on her father's side with that name, too. We don't assume that the MacLaggin we see in this movie is the exact same one who Hermione Confunded, why does everyone think there can only be one Minerva MaGonagall?
    • Did they ever actually call her Minerva? I only heard them call her "Professor McGonagall" in the movie, so she could easily be a grandmother or great-aunt or something.
      • Except the McGonagall name is from her Muggle father's side. Repeat: Muggle father. Minerva McGonagall is the half-blood daughter of the witch Isobel Ross and Muggle Robert McGonagall. The original screenplay of the film even directly calls her YOUNG MINERVA MCGONAGALL. So we're stuck grasping at straws as to how a woman born in October, 1935, was teaching in her early twenties in the 1920s.
    • Simple enough: Writers Cannot Do Math. A mistake with dates not matching up is nothing new on Rowling's part, and the screenplay writers obviously didn't bother to check Rowling's established dates on Pottermore. A Continuity Snarl either way, but my guess is we're meant to assume movieverse McGonagall is older than her book counterpart, which is the easiest handwave.
      • Except that Rowling herself wrote the screenplay which means she didn't bother to check her own established dates. So, again, Writers Cannot Do Math.
      • JKR freely admits that she is rubbish wit math and precise details. The earlier books are full of similar mistakes, and JKR has said that Hogwarts has flexible geography and moving staircases simply because she knew she would never be able to keep it straight. It was probably meant as a fun throwaway Easter egg for the fans, and no one thought it all the way through. It's also one line in a very long movie, does it really matter this much?
    • This is the same woman who gave Hermione a Time-Turner so she could take more classes, and furthermore, according to Miss Granger, "She had to write all sorts of letters to the Ministry of Magic so I could have one." So maybe she's doing the mother of all time-missions for the Ministry.
      • Except Time-Turners can only go back five hours. We're talking a minimum of 50 years. And how does one come up with the conclusion that Minerva is working on a time mission for the Ministry from her simply writing letters to the Ministry about letting a responsible girl use a highly dangerous magical object to attend more classes at the same time?
    • Or maybe she's a... wait for it... TIME LORD!
  • The easiest answer is that JKR simply decided to retcon McGonagall's age.
    • The only reason she was thought to have been born in 1935 is that some fans ran some math based on the information available at the time, and JKR went with it until recently. (Now, of course, she has to explain what McGonagall was doing the rest of the time. Or not.)
    • Something similar happened with regard to Harry's parents — Rowling has admitted that she did not intend for them to be so young at the time of their deaths. And I've heard that Maggie Smith (who was about a decade or so older than book-McGonnagall's math-based age) was someone Rowling always had envisioned as playing the part. So she probably always imagined her as being older and didn't think through the exact numbers that she put into her books.

    Tina in the French Ministry 
  • Why isn't Tina in the records of the French Ministry of Magic? When Queenie asks for her, the secretary acts as if she had never even heard of her. Did Tina travel to France and go about her mission as a foreign auror without even notifying the host goverment? If not, wouldn't she feature in the records of active aurors opperating in national grounds, or something like that? If the secretary meant that Tina wasn't at the Ministry at that moment, then why did she behave like an unhelpful, uptight jerk, effectively misleading an already lost and vulnerable Queenie?
    • Tina might have used an alias to stay undercover.
    • Maybe her mission was secret enough not to disclose her presence to some random ditzy askers?
    • The screenplay explains: Tina told Queenie she was going to France on official business, but actually went there off the books to look for Credence. She didn't inform the French Ministry she was coming, but Queenie didn't know that.
      • Problem with that: how is Tina going to lie convincingly to a telepath who is probably at this point the one person around who knows her best and has the closest emotional bond with her? Even if Tina leaves some crucial details out of what she's saying, she'd have to be thinking about those details to avoid blurting out info she doesn't want her sister to know.
      • As Queenie tells Newt, she and Tina haven't been on speaking terms lately, since the latter disapproves of her seeing Jacob again. She could've left a note telling Queenie where she was going, or written to her about it in a postcard. If not that, these are sisters we're talking about — Tina probably picked up on how to lie convincingly to a Legilimens out of necessity just from growing up with one.

    French Ministry Security 
  • What's with the flagrant security breaches within the Ministry? Newt and Tina are given free access to the archives by dropping the name Leta Lestrange, without giving nor being asked any proof. Presumably, this is how Grindelwald's lackeys managed to steal the book, too. Yes, the gatekeeper witch gives a malign knowing look, but she never stops them from waltzing inside the vault with zero supervision for an absurd amount of time. And yet, if that wasn't easy enough, Leta later checks on the archives from the second floor, apparently skipping the formality with the gatekeeper! This is sensitive information about the wizarding families they keep there, why isn't it better protected?
    • My theory is that the clerk did know they weren’t who they said they were, but was toying with them, and it took her so long to get them because it took her a while to find/summon the Matagot things. And with Leta, she is a visiting member of the British Ministry of Magic with French ancestry - perhaps she was given permission to find her family archive in the Archive Vault without consulting the clerk (or the clerk had vanished to get the Matagots, so Leta took initiative and went to the second floor to summon her archive there because she can’t open the door).
    • The screenplay doesn't say anything about Leta bypassing security using the second floor — it says she entered the archives the same way Newt and Tina did, so I'm guessing the second floor is just an alternative, but equally secure way of accessing them. As for how Newt and Tina got in so easily, I'm guessing the receptionist knew or was expecting someone to come searching for the Lestrange family tree, since the reason Theseus and the British Aurors are there is to use it to verify Credence's identity. So when two people who resemble Theseus and Leta request access into the records room, she doesn't really think anything of it until the real Leta also shows up.
Advertisement:

    Summer in Hogwarts 
  • Small detail, but in Leta's flashback we hear some students mocking her for (among other reasons) staying in Hogwarts during the summer vacations because, apparently, her family didn't love her enough. Why is she allowed to stay when many years later both Harry and Tom Riddle are denied this exact petition? Specially unfair since young Tom lived during WWII, a time when London was under the threat of air bombings, and yet Dumbledore had no qualms in sending him back there rather than allowing him shelter in the school.
    • Dippet was headmaster during Tom Riddle's era, not Dumbledore, so it wasn't up to him. Maybe as Lestrange had the money, he could bribe the Headmaster or the Board of Governors into letting her stay?
    • Dumbledore said that Harry had to go home every summer and return to Lily's family so that her charm would continue, and wouldn't let him stay over the summer because of that.
    • As far as I remember, Dippet only said Riddle couldnt stay because the Chamber Beast was on the loose. Once Riddle framed Hagrid and his spider for that and then stopped opening the Chamber, it seems likely he would then be allowed to stay during the summer. Especially since Dippet said that if it wasnt for the trouble at the time "special arrangements" could be made. Harry had to go back to Privet Drive once a year to keep the protection spell Dumbledore put on him valid. I assume "special arrangements" were made for Leta too.

    Statute of Secrecy Destroyed 
So... Does no-one care about the statute of secrecy anymore? It was a big deal in the first Fantastic Beasts movie, but in this one we have a few instances of obvious magic being displayed in front of muggles and nobody even bats an eye...

To be more specific, we have: Newt creating an extremely powerful current of wind that affects only one man, to the surprise of all the people walking right beside him; a feather that flies on its own accord trapped in a glass jar in a street cafe (maybe in that French Diagon Alley, but we can't be certain); a Chinese lion-dragon wreaking havoc in the middle of Paris (definitely not in the French Diagon Alley, because the thing turns over a few cars); having this fantastic beast disappear inside a tiny suitcase; and, of course, the gigantic fiendfyre dragon that flew over the city, blowing up tombstones and being destructive in general. Why is none of this an issue?

  • Perhaps the same reason that the Knight Bus is legal and Wizards are allowed to live among Muggles (Ariana's magic is witnessed by Muggles and the only reason the family was prosecuted was because Percival went after them) and things that, that aren't overt are tolerated?
    • The feather was in the French version of Diagon Alley, and the hurricane-on-a-single-person could be explained by virtue of Muggles with a rather good Weirdness Censor, but as for the Zouwu and the Protego Diabolica spell...yeah, I got nothing.
  • For several weeks to come the Parisians will speak of great fireworks display - I swear, that one looked like a dragon, darnedest thing, really, probably reflected off a cloud, you know how clouds make shapes all the time - and the lion that escaped from zoo or circus, probably spooked by fireworks, and rampaged in the streets - My maid saw it, swear it had tusks like a boar, tail like a peacock and was the size of a house, haha, you know how fear warps the perception, of course it seems the size of a house when it runs towards you. Minor news - someone vandalized the whatever cemetery.
  • Or the Zou Wu is likely one of the many magical creatures that are either invisible to Muggles such as dementors, thestrals, or have their own brand of magic to make themselves scarce like house-elves.
  • I once read something somewhere suggesting that the French wizarding community is just in really, really bad shape as it is, so much so that the events of the film don't really matter in comparison to all the other issues it's facing. You've got a Diagon Alley equivalent with a circus that features people as one of its acts, a Ministry that isn't interested in helping people who are clearly lost and in search of someone, a records department that lets people in without checking for any identification, a guy who can use the Imperius Curse to take someone as his wife without facing any legal repercussions...Plus, when Grindelwald publicly announces a rally he's holding and basically invites all the Aurors in Paris to attend, the only ones who show up seem to be British Aurors under the command of Theseus.
  • Of note is that this movie happens in the middle of the international magical community's ongoing war with Grindelwald, due to which the Statute of Secrecy has already been compromised before. If the Zouwu and the Protego Diabolica spell aren't written off by the Parisian public by default, they're likely to be absorbed into French Ministry/ICW's growing list of things that will need be Obliviated anyway. We know that by the time of the original Harry Potter series, there don't seem to be any threats of magical exposure on record, so it's a Foregone Conclusion that everything will turn out alright.

    Grindelwald's Holocaust Vision 
  • Grindelwald tries to recruit followers by showing them visions of a future world war (i.e. World War II), stating that joining him will allow to prevent a disastrous global war to happen again (the movie is set during the The Roaring '20s; IRL everyone at the time was traumatized by the Great War's bloodbath, especially in France, where the scene happens). Most of the visions make sense (visions of battles, of destruction, of ruined towns), but one of them doesn't. It shows people being loaded inside trains. To modern audience, this immediately remind the Holocaust, but to people from the 1920s (well before Hitler gained the power in Germany), it couldn't (since, well, it didn't happen yet; also, a scene where people board trains wouldn't seem as horrible, out of context and without knowledge of this future). Why did the screenwriters choose to use footage of a scene which wouldn't mean anything to the In-Universe audience? There would have been other scenes which could have been used to evoke the Holocaust to the movie viewers while being consistent with the War Is Hell theme of the sequence to the In-Universe audience: for instance, piles of starved corpses, a group of skinny and diseased-looking persons standing behind barbed wires, etc.
    • Even though we associate it with the Holocaust, to Grindelwald and his followers might just have been an endless line of refugees whose life has been destroyed, which is another real consequence of war, and also bad enough to feature in his vision. Maybe Grindelwald himself didn't even know what it really was.
    • As I understand he sees and feels stuff from the future, but gets no context. Holocaust was very impactful, so it sent ripples back in time regardless of whether a seer picking them up could interpret them.
    • This fits with what we see of seers elsewhere in the Potterverse; Trelawney's powers don't work the same as Grindelwald's, but she also just gets snatches of important future events, not their full context. I'd assume Grindelwald was just showing his followers what he'd seen and trusting the whole was ominous enough to freak them out even if they didn't understand every piece any more than he did.
      • Isn't he just playing that vision from the skull? In that case he cannot do anything - what's there is there, and you interpret what you can, leaving everything else to occur in due time and be understood.
    • You could just as well say that the mushroom cloud isn't really applicable since the atomic bombs were only dropped on Japan. The fact that the viewers don't personally know the people in the vision isn't important. What matters is that they're seeing people — any people, from anywhere — whose lives are being displaced or taken away by a war that can be avoided, if only the wizards step in to prevent it.

    Dumbledore and Grindelwald's duel 
  • We learn in this movie that Dumbledore and Grindelwald made a vow not to fight each other. But they did duel when Grindelwald attacked Aberforth, so maybe Ariana died because when one or the other tried to kill each other, the spell backfired?
    • It's very likely this is the reason why Dumbledore is so reluctant to go against the oath, lest it backfire again and harm more innocent bystanders.
    • I assumed they made the oath AFTER the incident.
      • Considering the sole footage we have about them creating the blood oath, in which they both look very invested in each other, it's quite unlikely that that scene played out AFTER the huge argument and three-way duel that ended in the death of Dumbledore's sister. After all, isn't her death the point when Dumbledore's and Grindelwald's relationship shattered completely?
    • It may depend on the precise mechanics of the oath; it might not prevent them from fighting so much as prevent them from actually harming each other if they do fight - after all, the only casualty of the altercation was Ariana, who presumably wasn't a party to the oath...
    • My theory is this: the oath doesn't actually physically stop them from fighting, but causes serious consequences/casualties for fighting each other (like the Unbreakable Vow, which imposes the magical consequence of death for failing to fulfill the vow). Ariana's death was the result of Dumbledore and Grindelwald fighting even though they had taken an oath not to.
    • Do we know for sure that Albus and Gellert were on opposing sides during the duel? There could be something I'm not remembering, but if Albus didn't realize the error of his ways until after he realized his sister had been killed in the duel, why would he have wanted to attack the guy he thought he was still friends with? Maybe he was actually helping Gellert against Aberforth, or just standing in the middle and trying to stop both of them.
      • My headcanon is a mix of this and that the oath makes bad things happen if they fight. Personally, I like to believe that Dumbledore was trying to stop the fight. He parries a blast from Aberforth, and shoots a stunning spell at Gillert, but wait, the spell backfires and a big boom happens, and now Ariana's dead.

    Newt's DADA proficiency 
  • How is Newt even able to defend himself from Grindelwald's uber-powerful blue fire dragon when most accomplished aurors just died on spot? Isn't he supposed to be your everyman in regards to magic, and only stand up when magical beasts are concerned?
    • When Fred and George started their dark-art protection product line, they were surprised with amount of requests from aurors, so it must tell you something about their proficiency. As to him defending successfully: seems like it depends on your reflexes in general - aurors were caught off-guard, and he's quick-witted enough to react correctly.
    • I always figured that Newt was a very formidable wizard, its just that he was too focused on beasts. Consider his creating of massive magical zoos (complete with large tracts of wilderness) in a regular basement and in a suitcase. Also the Ministry wanted him even though he was kicked out of Hogwarts - heck, in this movie they try their hardest to get him work as an Auror, which would require either a lot of training, or a lot of raw talent. He didn't finish Hogwarts so guess which he had. Also we know that magical prowess is kinda genetic, and Newt's brother is a strong and famous Auror, so it stands to reason Newt is rather talented as well.
    • It's an uber-powerful blue fire dragon. If anyone would be sufficiently fascinated by the bestial forms in which Fiendfyre manifests to develop a Fiendfyre-deflection spell just so he could get a proper look at them and determine if they were something he could befriend, it's Newt.
    • Prisoner of Azkaban sets the precedent of spells being more powerful (or having completely different effects) when they’re cast by more than one person simultaneously: when Harry, Hermione, and Ron Disarm Snape at the same time, the result is so strong that it slams him into the wall and knocks him out. So even an average wizard like Newt teaming up with an accomplished Auror like Theseus could conceivably manage to hold the blue flames at bay, for a time, at least — especially since they clearly aren’t doing it especially well. It takes their all just to remain on the brink of being swallowed up.

    Recognizing the blood oath 
  • Newt might have been able to recognize the blood oath for what it was, but how did he come to the conclusion that it belonged to Grindelwald and that it involved Dumbledore, too? It was unlikely he ever saw it in Grindelwald's possession (being inside a pocket, and whatnot), and he only found it after the niffler had snatched it, in a room with a crowd of a couple hundred people, so it could belong to anyone there. Now, Dumbledore did mention a while back that he couldn't fight Grindelwald himself, but it was quite a bold shot in the dark on Newt's part to connect all the dots and come to the conclusion that the blood oath was theirs.
    • Grindelwald was wearing it openly during that speech, and Dumbledore adamantly refusing to fight Grindelwald is widely known fact, perhaps their previous connection is leaked in the gossip too - Ministry men shown him a record, referring to it as a known fact. Still a big leap, but not ridiculously so.
    • We've also seen Newt use magic that reveals traces of people and actions. It's reasonable to think that he used a similar spell on the blood oath and found traces of Grindelwald on it.
    • Wasn't there an Auror or someone who saw the vial as Grindelwald was being prepared to be transferred overseas, before Grindelwald took it back? From what I remember, MACUSA gave it to him as one of Grindelwald's possessions, and he survived the escape attempt — he could've been the one who identified the vial as belonging to Grindelwald. And as for linking it to Dumbledore, my guess is that they didn't. At least not directly — once they realized it was a blood pact, they just asked themselves, "Hmm, now who would be close enough to Grindelwald to want to make one of those...?"

     Albus not telling anyone about Blood Oath 
Why hasn't Dumbledore TOLD anyone why he couldn't fight Grindelwald? Sure, he might consider it embarrassing, but when the Ministry forbids him to teach DADA and puts those spell-detecting bracelets on him - which are both humiliating and intruding on his privacy - you'd think he'd tell them. Also it is a selfish thing not to say - while everyone is counting on him, he's holding them back. Plus maybe they could, you know, help him - devise a counterspell for Blood Oath, steal the vial from Grindelwald, stuff like that. It is implied one of Grindelwald's followers was a spy, he had a realistic shot at that. It is only by sheer luck that Newt decided to bring a niffler along to Paris (or, more likely, he peered through the fourth wall and saw how popular it was). And notice that Dumbledore doesn't even act all embarrassed or humiliated when Newt openly reveals that Blood Oath vial. So was there any reason besides "viewers weren't supposed to know"?
  • Sure, he could tell them, but there's no guarantee they would believe him. I would imagine something like that would be difficult to prove (unlike an Unbreakable Vow, which leaves scars, without the actual vial it's just his word). Theseus was the one who took his side and released the Ministry tracking after Newt returned it, and that was only after he had personally fought off Grindelwald and after Newt had (probably) explained to him what exactly it was and what it meant for Dumbledore.
  • Also, I envision the conversation going something like this: "Oh, so you made a blood oath with Grindelwald? You must be on his side."
  • Albus is also secretive; he rarely tells people important information unless he thinks they absolutely need to know. We see this throughout his interactions with Harry and Snape as well, and Aberforth explicitly calls it out as a flaw of his in DH ("he learned secrecy at our mother's knee.")
  • He has enemies in the Ministry, both G.'s moles and simply haters. As soon as he tells about the oath, he's branded as G.'s secret ally, accused of sabotaging resistance efforts, detained and maybe even thrown in Azkaban.
  • Even worse than that: if the Ministry's hard-liners learned about the Blood Oath, and if the Oath's magic is of a kind that - like an Unbreakable Vow - would kill whichever one of them fought the other, then the Ministry's agents might well force Dumbledore to confront Grindelwald anyway (perhaps by threatening Newt and Albus's other friends) while wearing a disguise, fully expecting that both Albus and Gellert would be struck dead on the spot by the Oath. Because with so many Aurors' and innocents' lives already squandered in the pursuit of Grindelwald, what's one more life - even that of a popular Hogwarts professor - sacrificed to the cause?
  • If you ask me, his reaction to finding out Newt has the vial does look marginally humiliated. So a little embarrassment could've factored into it, as well.
    • In fact, the screenplay actually calls for Dumbledore to look “tormented” and “bitterly ashamed” at the revelation that Newt has the blood pact and that he knows what it is.

    Murderous Auror 
Why did the Auror use a Killing Curse on the young witch at Grindelwald's rally, rather than something non-lethal such as a Stunning or Incarcerating spell? Sure, she was about to attack him, but Aurors in the franchise so far tried to avoid using lethal force as much as possible.
  • That particular Auror didn't avoid using lethal force, that's all. He was on edge, he was being attacked, he was in a crowded space full of people who were all just as likely to kill him. Maybe he was the loose cannon of the Auror force sent out.
  • The screenplay confirms it; he just happened to be the jumpiest member of the squad.

    Grindelwald's accent 
Grindelwald presumably grew up on the continent and went to England around age 18. So shouldn't he have a German/Scandanavian accent instead of an English one?
  • It's possible for people to hide their accents to appear more presentable to their peers, especially someone whose greatest asset is their ability to speak with people. His English is just very good.

    Tongue Removal 
Why is the fact that the US Ministry removed Grindelwald's tongue such a big deal? The way the President says it, and the way it's filmed, it seems like a badass move on her part, not taking any of Grindelwald's bullshit... But later in the movie, we see little Leta do the same thing in Hogwarts, and to a schoolmate no less! And then McGonagall does it casually to that same student when she's being obnoxious! So what gives? Is it something edgy and borderline cruel to do to a prisioner, or little more than a school prank?
  • Are you seriously comparing actual physical removal of a tongue with a simple jinx that can be fixed with a flick of a wand?
    • Well, yes. The effect is virtually the same, and how painful can the tongue removal be, considering Harry got all his arm bones removed without feeling anything? And Grindelwald also returned Abernathy's tongue with a flick of his wand, so is not like it was permanent.
    • A jinx is inherently magical effect. It is reversed by a simple countercharm. Actual body mutilation is harder to fix as it requires actual healing magic - which takes time and effort as we've seen a lot of time in Harry Potter books. Grindelwald healing Abernathy was so easy because its one of the most powerful wizards of all time using Elder Wand. It would probably take a LOT more effort for anyone else. And what has pain to do with it? The point was that they physically mutilated him to make him shut up, probably because he could nonverbally dispel simple jinxes wandless, I wouldn't be surprised.
    • Was what Leta did tongue removal? It looked more like she just fused her mouth shut.
    • Leta fused her classmate's mouth with a jinx that was easily reversed (and they were still students, it can't have been that difficult of a jinx). MACUSA maimed a prisoner (illegal) by removing a piece of his body. And it's Grindelwald, so you can bet they didn't care about making it less painful. It's also explicitly stated that they outright tortured him.

     Names 
  • Why does the text at the beginning of the movie identify MACUSA as the American Ministry of Magic?
    • Convenience for the audience? Either that, or just lazy editing.

     Lack of love potions 
  • In this story we have two instances of people using magic to...have their way with someone they've admired — Leta's father used the Imperius Curse, and while the method Queenie went with isn't spelled out, Newt does say that she's "enchanted" Jacob and is able to use a spell, rather than an antidote, to undo its effects. Lestrange Sr. using Imperio makes a bit of sense, but why would Queenie use magic instead of a love potion on Jacob? (Also, is there magic that can make someone fall in love with you, apart from an Unforgivable? If so, what's even the point of love potions?)
    • Imperius aside, it seems like both charms and potions have some side-effects and generally are of limited duration. As to why she didn't use potion on him - judging by Ron's behaviour under the potion, it works like aphrodisiac with selective targeting, while charm clouds general reasoning. First one is useful when you're trying just to boink someone, for pleasure or child, and charm is to nudge one to certain decision, like marrying. When potion wears off, victim can claim it's Date Rape, and the only thing holding them would be blackmail, while charmed person will admit they considered such choice (otherwise they would shrug it off eventually - remember, HP could resist even Imperius with his will alone) and suck up to it.
    • In Chamber of Secrets, Lockhart mentions "Entrancing Enchantments." This might be one in action.

     Escape from custody 
  • The one thing I don't get about the escape sequence is why it had to happen in the first place? As we find out, the Grindelwald inside the carriage is really a Polyjuiced/Transfigured Abernathy and the Abernathy who went chasing after the carriage is really Grindelwald. But that means Grindelwald was free to leave MACUSA from the very beginning — the only reason he went after the carriage was to retrieve his Dumbledore-blood-oath vial, which was something he (as Abernathy) turned over before the carriage left. Unless the real Abernathy was really important to him for some reason, what was stopping Grindelwald from leaving with his wand and vial earlier?
    • It could just be showcasing that Grindelwald is much different to Voldemort in that he doesn't just think of his followers as pawns that can be expended to protect the higher pieces (in Voldemort's case, himself and his Horcruxes), but actual people who will be rewarded. Also, we don't know exactly when Grindelwald switched with Abernathy - it could have been literally an hour before Speilman showed up. As for having to go after the blood pact - he had to hand it over because President Picquery was standing right beside him and knew about it herself.
      • Well, we know the switch had to have happened before the transfer, since Abernathy was really the one who had his tongue cut out. As shown when Grindelwald gives him a new one.
      • Then a new theory - the switch did happen not too long before the transfer (we'll say an hour), but it was actually Grindelwald who had his tongue removed (which we'll say happened a few days ago). Just before he had it removed, he was trying to presuade Abernathy to join his cause, got discovered, and had his tongue cut out. But MACUSA was too late in doing so, as Abernathy, while able to hide it (somehow), was swayed to join Grindelwald, and decided to help him. So, after learning that Grindelwald was planned to be moved to Europe in a few days, Abernathy plotted an escape route for his new master. Checking over these plans, Abernathy made sure he would be on guard the day Grindelwald was due to be transfered, and got him out, but, not knowing how to regrow a tongue (for sake of arguement, let's say this is not common knowledge for...Rowling knows what), chose to willingly cut out his own tongue and let Grindelwald have it, meaning that the tongue Grindelwald now has is in fact Abernathy's. Grindelwald then used some Polyjuice Potion that Abernathy happened to have (again, for sake of arguement, let's say Abernathy found some in MACUSA)to transform both him and Abernathy into each other, meaning Aberwald was now locked up, and giving Grindelnathy enough time to locate his wand, and the blood oath vial, before Speilman arrived to take who everyone thought was Grindelwald. Grindelnathy then chose to reward his new follower by freeing him, as well as retrieve the vial, give Abernathy a new, if forked, tongue, and use the carriage as a free ride to Europe, this time on his own terms. Incredibly long theory, yes, but it's the best way I can see this all taking place.
    • In addition to all of the above (valuing Abernathy, retrieving the Blood Oath)taking the carriage also provided transport to Europe. No one has been shown to Apparate or use Port Keys to cross oceans or the involved governments wouldn't have used a carriage in the first place.

     Dumbledore's profession 
  • So the movie answered the "Why is Dumbledore teaching DADA in the trailer?" question by showing Travers removing him from the position after he refuses to stand against Grindelwald, suggesting that he only resorted to teaching Transfiguration as an alternative. But at the end of the movie, the two cuffs that were tracking Dumbledore's magic use were shown being removed — doesn't that mean he's off the hook and could go back to teaching DADA? He was only off duty for a couple of days, it seemed.
    • We have no clue as to when Dumbledore started teaching Transfiguration, only that it was around the time Riddle started attending. Perhaps he decided to take over teaching it when the previous teacher left, but no one else was qualified to do so, but there were many candidates for DADA.

     Out-of-character characters 
  • As much as I loved this movie, there are two characters who I feel are portrayed a little strangely considering what we're told about them in this and the first film - Leta, and Newt's brother Theseus.
    • In the first movie, Newt acted as though he and Leta have grown apart and gone in very different directions since he left Hogwarts, and Queenie surmised from his thoughts about her that they had a sort of toxic or unhealthy relationship, with her being All Take and No Give. In this movie, though, Leta comes off as a perfectly decent person and never seems like she's taking advantage of Newt, even during the flashbacks to their time at Hogwarts. Even though she's engaged to his brother, the two of them appear to get along perfectly fine, without any major hints of animosity.
    • As for Theseus, he also seems like a perfectly decent older brother, and I never got the impression that there was anything wrong with him as a character. But the film almost has this undertone of there being tension or a rivalry between him and Newt, and Newt's response to seeing him tied up and bound to a chair is "That was the greatest moment of my life," even though we're never shown anything to suggest that Theseus deserved this. If anything, the film kind of portrays Newt as the aloof sibling and Theseus as the well-meaning one.
    • Eddie Redmayne does portray Newt as being on the autism spectrum, so it is entirely possible that Newt misinterprets aspects of his relationships with Leta and Theseus. With Leta, it could be that she found his fixation on magizoology to be a problem. She does not appear to be the sort who would enjoy gallivanting around the wildernesses of the world looking to bond with dangerous magical beasts. Theseus seems to be more emotionally and physically affectionate than Newt is comfortable with. Plus he's a By-the-Book Cop style Auror in the present, and his one mentioned instance of prior rebellion was choosing to fight in World War I. So it could just be that their personalities confound Newt and thus he views his relationships with them as "complicated". Queenie was only reading Newt's mind, and if his perceptions were skewed then so might Queenie's interpretation of them be.

     Keeping up with Dumbledore 
  • Through most of their discussion about Credence, Newt and Dumbledore use side-along Apparation to stay together as they move throughout the streets of London. However, there's one point where Dumbledore Disapparates without taking Newt with him, yet Newt is able to Apparate to his next location seconds later. How did he know where Dumbledore was going in that instance?
    • Maybe Newt is just so good at Apparition that he can think of a person but not the location to Apparate to them? Either that, or this is a regular occurrence and Newt was able to remember all the locations he and Dumbledore had previously visited and what order to go to.
    • Also Dumbledore is sort of the master of apparition (The Deluminator in book 7 shows this) so he could have done something to help Newt find him.

     Going to Queenie's aid 
  • So, Grindelwald's right-hand woman...Did she know that Queenie was a witch when she found her in the street? Grindelwald's plan revolves around subjugating Muggles, so it seems odd that one of his followers would care that much about a random Muggle woman being lost and alone in the middle of the city, but I don't know how she would've known Queenie was magical or not.
    • Grindelwald (as Graves) had worked in MACUSA meeting both Tina and Queenie more than once. After Newt and Tina took him down in New York, he may simply have told his followers to be on the look out for certain people. She saw Queenie in a vulnerable state and thought she could turn an enemy into an ally...and it worked. That's what I'm thinking at least.
    • Grindelwald is also a seer. Nobody's appearance in the film seems to surprise him. He might have seen that Queenie was in Paris and, as noted above, remembered her from when he was masquerading as Graves at MACUSA. So he sent out his henchwoman to go bring her in.

     How do they know there was any damage? 
  • The British Ministry of Magic has banned Newt from travelling internationally due to the "damage" his escaped beasts caused in New York in the first movie. Even if MACUSA still wanted to hold anything his creatures did against him after he Oiviated the city for them, how do they tell what he's responsible for apart from what the Obscurus did? Especially since Newt seemed pretty diligent about repairing the damages his beasts caused — Jacob's apartment, the zoo enclosures — and everyone who could've remembered it had their memories wiped anyway.
    • Because the International Confederation of Wizards delegation was present when Newt was initially arrested, including a member of the British Ministry of Magic, so he knew that something had transpired that involved Newt and his creatures, so probably filed a report with the British Ministry of Magic at the first chance. Plus, MACUSA most likely was required to file a report of all the events that had occurred that led to a near breach of the International Statute of Secrecy the likes of which the Wizarding World had never seen, which just so happened to include the damages, however small, that Newt's creatures caused, even if Newt was diligent enough to repair the damage near enough instantly after it was caused. And as for who helped distinguish the damage Newt's creatures made from the Obscurus? Well, Tina and Queenie were present (or, at least, witnessed the aftermath) when Newt's creatures did cause any damage.

     Credence and Grindelwald 
  • Does Credence in this film know that it was Grindelwald pulling all those manipulations on him in the last one? Maybe this was explained in a deleted scene or some such, but if he does know, why is he so eager to trust him again? If Grindelwald lied to him once, he'd certainly do it again. If he doesn't, why doesn't anyone just tell him? Even with Yusuf's story occupying most of their attention, Tina and Newt both had plenty of time to explain this in the Lestrange family's tomb. I feel like that would've at least had the chance to keep him from switching sides.
    • Credence was blasted apart before Newt revealed that Graves was really Grindelwald, so he wasn't a witness to the reveal and he certainly wasn't on speaking terms with MACUSA or any other nation's Ministry afterward. It is very likely that President Picquery didn't want to call attention to the fact that Grindelwald had managed to infiltrate MACUSA and impersonate their head Auror. So that part of events was probably never told to the wizarding public and Credence had no way of learning about it.
    • Okay, but the second question: why don't Newt and Tina tell him when they meet up in the Lestrange tomb? He's the reason both of them were in Paris in the first place, and they were nearly able to talk him down in the last movie, so you'd think he would listen to them if just about this one thing.
    • The last time that Credence listened to Newt and Tina he literally got blasted to bits by MACUSA Aurors! Why would he trust them or listen to them again? You will notice in the big final battle that Credence outright ignores it when Newt calls out to him. He does not see them as friends. It would have taken some time for Newt and Tina to explain about Graves having really been Grindelwald and even then they had no proof other than their own word, which Credence had no reason to believe.

     Travel ban 
  • How would the Ministry know if Newt had left the country? I'm hardly an expert on international travel, but if he uses a Muggle form of transport, and goes through Muggle customs inspection...wouldn't any of his information only get passed through a Muggle network? It was established in Half-Blood Prince that the Prime Minister is the only authority figure who holds knowledge of the existence of the wizarding world, and Black's escape from Azkaban was deemed a special enough case to have him make the Muggle world aware of it...Are we meant to believe that the Ministry also gives him/her a list of magical people who aren't allowed to leave the country? Newt was able to take a Portkey to France, so it's not like they were keeping track of him some other way.
    • The Ministry could still prosecute Newt if they ever found out that he left the country and, as we have seen repeatedly, their idea of "justice" tends to be rather arbitrary. He could face very severe punishment if they were feeling spiteful. This is probably why Theseus makes a point to warn Newt that he's being spied on. There is room for some coercion here as well, since the Ministry would most certainly not properly care for Newt's beasts if they threw him in Azkaban and Newt knows it.

     Tina Overreacting 
  • A fair chunk of Newt's storyline in the movie centers around tracking down Tina, who is very angry with him because she thinks he got engaged to Leta Lestrange. This was due to her reading a mistaken article about it in an American wizarding tabloid. Since we know that wizards have international postal service, plus Tina is an Auror and the various international Auror offices seem to work together, why didn't she just do a little investigating before getting into a snit over Newt's non-existent engagement? Surely one inquiry to the British Ministry about the Scamander wedding would have quickly revealed that Theseus was the one engaged to Leta. Especially since Leta seems to have been something of a target for gossip and it was also no secret that Newt wasn't allowed to leave Britain, which would account for why he had not come back to see Tina in New York.
    • People will overreact when they see or hear something that insinuates their loved one/crush is seeing another person. Tina was already aware that Newt had a thing for Leta in the past, and so probably thought it was true because it made sense in her mind (even if she didn’t like it).
    • That Magical Law Enforcement in most countries is grossly unprofessional (and unethical) is a staple of the Potterverse. But honestly, an Auror takes tabloid news as fact without further evidence? That's just plain scary!
    • It's very possible she just didn't realize how much the story had been misconstrued when its country of origin was an ocean away from her. Alternatively, the possibility of a mixup didn't occur to her because Newt clearly didn't mention anything in his letters about Leta and Theseus, so how was she expected to think that there may've been a misprint? All she knows is that Newt knew Leta from school, so him being engaged to her and purposely not telling Tina about it is automatically going to sound more plausible than his brother being engaged to her and him neglecting to mention it to Tina...just because, I guess. Even if we accept that Newt is impersonal and not that close with his brother, it still is a wonder that the engagement never came up in passing, especially since he's supposed to be best man at the wedding.

    Jacob entering magical places 
  • Not an avid fan so maybe missing something, but how was Jacob able to enter the Parisian equivalent of Diagon Alley on the statue pedestal? Aren't muggles physically unable to enter those sorts of locations as mentioned for Platform 9¾? AFAIR he never entered a location like that in the previous movie, which is why it's not brought up, but here...?
    • I can't speak for the books, but in the Chamber of Secrets film, we see Hermione's Muggle parents in Diagon Alley buying schoolbooks for her, and I don't recall anything saying Muggles couldn't access the train platform either. Considering there are Muggle-borns all across the wizarding world, it would seem that there would be a constant need for them and their parents to be able to access magical locations as necessary.
    • Never, has it ever been stated that Muggles cannot enter magical places, only that they cannot normally see them. Also, there are several instances of Muggles in magical places - Hermione’s parents in Diagon Alley in CoS, Myrtle’s parents going to Hogwarts when she died in CoS, and Petunia and her parents on Platform 9&3/4 in DH, to name a few.
      • Then that just raises a different question: How has no Muggle leaned on the brick wall at King's Cross and accidentally fallen onto 9¾ yet?
        • We don't know that no one has. But going by the platform's depiction in the films, if a Muggle did stumble upon it by happenstance, they probably would think it was just another train platform at first glance; their biggest question would probably be what and where this "Hogwarts" place listed on the sign is supposed to be. As soon as they try and ask someone what's going on, they'd be outed pretty quickly as a Muggle and then Obliviated and sent back into the regular station, I bet.
      • There are more than likely spells put around that specific wall to prevent that from happening, such as Muggle-Repelling Charms - but having knowledge that it is there, and being brought through by another witch or wizard overrides the spells. Again, it has never, in the entirety of Potter history, been said that Muggles cannot enter magical locations, but neither has it been said that they can enter on their own - all notices of Muggles in magical places I gave were either the Muggles in question having been told about the place, or being accompanied by wizards.

    • Jacob arrived in France via magic and was in the company of a wizard. So the usual muggle-repelling charms probably did not apply to him. It would have been very different if he had tried to do this on his own.

     Transfer 
  • Is there a reason in canon why the ICW couldn't use a Portkey to bring Grindelwald back to Europe? Long-distance Apparation is only possible for powerful witches and wizards, but Newt is able to Portkey to Paris from Britain, implying it at least isn't limited quite as much by range. Was it said somewhere that even Portkeys couldn't cover the distance across the Atlantic Ocean, or was there some other reason?
    • It is unclear if portkeys can enable travel over such a large distance. England and France are close together, but the U.S. is on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean. We do know from canon that wizards and witches were traveling to and from America on Muggle ships, which they presumably would not bother to do if portkeys that could span the distance were readily available.

     What happened to Credence's Obscurus? 
  • In the first movie, it was stated that Obscurials weren't able to survive past the age of ten. Credence was supposedly powerful enough to be an exception to this, but even then, his Obscurus was still prone to lashing out and causing damage without his control, particularly during the climax, where it looks as though it's eating him up on the inside or something. Yet in this film, the fact that he has an Obscurus is only brought up once, and it appears to be brought out as a directed attack against the Auror who killed Irma and then is quelled moments later. Did Credence somehow learn to control it in between the two films? Why doesn't his life seem to be in danger anymore?
    • He does seem calmer than he was in the first film, along with being aware of what he is now, perhaps his "destruction" and reformation "fixed" the worst aspects of being an Obscurial, along with being the oldest living one and being a member of a powerful wizard family, perhaps in the time between films, he learned how to channel his powers, and the reason it seemed worse in the first film was because he only was able to use it in rage, maybe in blinding rage it ends up "burning him out" so to speak.
      • I would also like to point out that, while Dumbledore states an Obscurus grows in the absence of love, Newt says in the first film that it is developed through surpressing one's magical powers, which is why Harry never developed one. Credence, in this film, is no longer surpressing, but is in fact embracing magic, which may help when it comes to having an Obscurus. And the end of the screenplay states that, now Credence has a wand, the power of his Obscurus can be channeled.

     Yusuf's mission 
  • Yusuf's father told him to kill the person Corvus Lestrange (for brevity I'll call him Sr.) loved most. Yusuf believed this to be Leta until they met in the film. But we learn that Corvus never loved Leta, only Corvus Jr. But Corvus Jr's been dead for twenty years. Wouldn't the vow have become invalid since Corvus is dead?
    • Probably. But Yusuf didn't know Corvus was dead until Leta explained how it had happened in the tomb, so as far as he knows, the Unbreakable Vow is still in effect until he kills Credence or dies trying.
    • The Unbreakable Vow seems to have certain rules, with the person making the Vow having to know facts for the Vow to finish, perhaps if Yusuf had killed Creedence and Lita had not been present, the Vow would of counted as fufilled, as Yusef believed he killed Corvus, it seems to work on the fact that the Vow(ee?) has a strong enough belief that they have fufilled the Vow for it to release its' hold.
    • Note that Yusuf did not suffer any ill effects of failing to fulfill the Vow once he realized that Corvus Sr. didn't love Leta. It wasn't until he found somebody that Corvus did love that he was driven to fulfill it. The Vow didn't seem to stipulate that Corvus Sr. still had to be alive. So it is kind of a magical case of Loophole Abuse. The Vow does not apply until the terms of the Vow can be fulfilled. This is why Yusuf didn't fall over dead when Leta told him that her little brother died at sea. That was probably because his father made the mistake of choosing such a specific condition to assign to the Vow. Since that condition could not be met, the Vow is invalid. Mustafa Kama would have been wiser to choose a more general form of vengeance, rather than one that was so conditional and specific.

     Credence's heritage 
  • The Wizarding World has been previously established as being prone to buying into ridiculous rumors, but was there any evidence this time to make people start thinking that a random American boy like Credence was actually a member of the Lestrange family? The entire plot kind of hinges on it, but I can't stop myself from wondering how it came up or why anyone thinks it's so significant, apart from that book of poetic prophecies.
    • Desperation among the Purebloods probably played a large part in it. Since Leta was female, the Lestrange family name would not be carried forward when she married Theseus Scamander. That Credence might be the lost Corvus made him the sole potential male heir to the French branch of the Lestrange family. That said, notice that opinions were mixed. Newt and Tina, for example, cared more about Credence as an individual than as the Lestrange heir. The British Ministry (quietly supported by the French Ministry) was actually looking to kill him for being an Obscurial and a possible pawn of Grindelwald. This is why so many fans considered this subplot to be nothing more than padding.

     Yusuf's vow 
  • Related to the above, rather than Yusuf's vow being nullified when he learned that Corvus was dead...shouldn't he have died as well? It was established in Half-Blood Prince that the punishment for failing to uphold the vow is death. Maybe Yusuf would've been spared if Corvus Sr. never held any love for anyone, but that's not what happened — Yusuf was supposed to kill baby Corvus and specifically failed to do so before the boat sank. So what would constitute a failure of the vow to kill someone if they can still die of other causes?
    • It is doubtful that anyone would use Unbreakable Vows if they worked that way. The conditions need to be specific, and need to attainable. Baby Corvus did not live very long. So the Vow went dormant until Yusuf got wind that Credence might be the long-lost Corvus, miraculously still alive. Then he became compelled to hunt him down, only to find out that he was not Corvus. Which is why the Vow did not kill him right there in the tomb when Leta revealed the truth.
    • This. There's an evident difference between refraining from fulfilling an Unbreakable Vow, and it literally becoming impossible to fulfill the Vow you've sworn. The former kills you for your intentional defiance of the Vow's terms; the latter negates the Vow, because you aren't willfully failing to carry through.

     What the heck was Old Corvus thinking? 
  • From what we learn from Irma Dugard, Mary Lou Barebone was supposed to look after Corvus V (thought to be Credence). Mary. Lou. Barebone., who was well known for her active persecution of witches and wizards. Why would Old Corvus send his son, the person he loved most in the world, to someone that he knew would mistreat his child?
    • He probably didn't know Mary Lou would mistreat him. In fact, he might not have intended for Mary Lou to care for him at all and it just happened that way. Probably the same way that Dumbledore was hoping the Dursleys would care for Harry as their own.
    • Corvus IV probably had no idea what happened to his son. I do not recall it being outright stated, but I think that it was implied that he died in conflict with Mustafa Kama. Both Leta and Yusuf seem to refer to their fathers in past tense, even though wizards generally live longer than muggles in the Potterverse.
      • The movie never says or implies that Corvus Sr. was killed by Mustafa — in fact, it’s said he sent his children away after catching wind of how Yusuf has sworn revenge, which only happened after Mustafa’s death. Plus, Mustafa’s entire plan was to make Corvus feel the pain of losing someone he loved. He can’t feel that pain if he dies before his son does, so Mustafa killing him wouldn’t make sense.
      • Yusuf was placed under an Unbreakable Vow by his father, which could not have been done after Mustafa was dead. The Vow was originally impossible to fulfill, because Corvus IV did not love anybody until Corvus V was born. It is doubtful that Corvus IV would have sent his children to America out of fear of Yusuf, who was a much younger wizard than he was and who he could probably have defeated in a duel. But Mustafa might have decided to act sooner when it became clear that killing Leta would not have been the revenge that he wanted. She and Corvus V were several years apart in age. If Corvus IV had been engaged in an ongoing covert war with Mustafa, he would not have felt a need to send Leta away because he did not care about her. But when Corvus V was born he had reason to send his beloved son to safety. Regardless, Leta ended up at Hogwarts rather than Beauxbatons, which implies that by the time she returned to Europe she went to stay with the British branch of the Lestrange family. Given that she speaks of her father in past tense, the implication was that he was dead by that point. Yusuf was not a threat to her because she was not applicable to fulfilling the Vow. This can all be chalked up to a simple mistake. Characters in a story are not necessarily omniscient about the story that they live in. Mustafa probably had no idea how difficult it would be to fulfill the specific terms of the Vow he laid out. How many people do not love anybody?

     How are the upcoming films going to be spaced out? 
  • Crimes of Grindelwald takes place in 1927, about six months or so after the first film. There are supposedly going to be five of them in total, theoretically leading up to the duel in which Dumbledore takes down Grindelwald and wins the Elder Wand, which took place in 1945. If my speculations and math are both correct, there would have to be a timespan of 4.5 years or more between at least two of the movies in order for them to cover 18 years' worth of events before the finale. How in Hufflepuff's name are they going to manage that?

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report