December 19, 2018, 02:41:34 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
And whilst we're at it – what is it with Grindelwald showing images from the WWII to come? Has he found a means to time-travel forward to get some footage for his scare tactics?
I see his visions as like Trelawney's more successful prophecies but with better graphics. I think he has seen snippets of the future, but can't control them or at least not fully or else he could have identified the Obscurial without needing Credence's help. I did wonder if Rita blasting his skull hookah might stop these visions but it may just mean he can't share them as easily.

Hmm. If so, he could be removing his memories of these flashes pensieve-style to show others. It could also explain why he is (mis)interpreting things around Credence in the first movie and now these snippets from WWII. Is it me or does this make him more dangerous? Using half developed skills and making things up as he goes along, or should I say filling in details as they suit him best to influence others?

I am still not sure if these are true prophetic visions though. I keep going back to the fact that he was expelled from Durmstrang for his "twisted experiments" (see Pottermore). Could he be dabbling in some dark arts that could have vision like abilities. Or did he get a hold of a time turner or similar device (which could also explain some of big time-issues we have found around the whole Credence-is-a-Dumbledore story), whch he has used to step into the future to collect "visions". Is indeed Cassandra Trelawney (Sibyll's great-great-grandmother) part of his family-line somewhere, or did he "use" her in some way?

I think we have to be careful in comparing Voldemort with Grindelwald because we are seeing Grindelwald at an earlier stage while he is still gathering followers and he could become more like Voldemort later, but the main difference so far seems to be that Voldemort generally worked in secret and stayed in the background when he took over until the Hogwarts showdown, whereas Grindelwald seems a lot more open, actually inviting people to a meeting and trying to persuade people to his side, though of course that may just have been chosen to win Credence over.



Yes, I was thinking about that too. Yet, the little we know of Tom Riddle in his early days, he went about things in a secluded manner too though. He sought jobs that did not put him in the limelight – everyone expected him to go to the ministry but he works for Borgin&Burkes. He disappears for years. He has his close group of followers and it looks like he is very selective in who might be added to the ranks. So comparing that to Grindelwald there seems to be quite a different approach each has to their taking-over-the-wizarding-world schemes.
2
If not a legilimens, I think Grindelwald must clearly be an Occlumens -- otherwise, wouldn't Queenie know he was just telling her what she wants to hear and not necessarily what he's really thinking?
I mostly agree, but remember that Grindelwald is already directing fire at her sister and Newt and Krall and some Aurors has already been incinerated, so Queenie has seen some of what Grindelwald is capable of.
And whilst we're at it – what is it with Grindelwald showing images from the WWII to come? Has he found a means to time-travel forward to get some footage for his scare tactics?
I see his visions as like Trelawney's more successful prophecies but with better graphics. I think he has seen snippets of the future, but can't control them or at least not fully or else he could have identified the Obscurial without needing Credence's help. I did wonder if Rita blasting his skull hookah might stop these visions but it may just mean he can't share them as easily.

I think we have to be careful in comparing Voldemort with Grindelwald because we are seeing Grindelwald at an earlier stage while he is still gathering followers and he could become more like Voldemort later, but the main difference so far seems to be that Voldemort generally worked in secret and stayed in the background when he took over until the Hogwarts showdown, whereas Grindelwald seems a lot more open, actually inviting people to a meeting and trying to persuade people to his side, though of course that may just have been chosen to win Credence over.
3
Roonwit, your thought how a broken blood-pact could turn into a blood-curse intrigues me. It would be typical Rowling to introduce the two notions seemingly unrelated but close together to later make us go "doh, they're right next to each other!" But then if true, how on earth did Dumbledore get out of that one without turning that curse on him when getting rid of the vial. Or … is Dumbledore defeating, yet not killing Grindelwald the loophole? I.e. Dumbledore finds a way to weaken or interpret the pact in a way that allows him to imprison him for all intents and purposes unharmed (seeing Grindelwald lives quite a long life even though imprisoned). We have seen with the unbreakable vow that the used words in the vow are extremely important. Snape knew to use the loopholes. We don't know if words are spoken when the blood pact is made, but there might be other features to this bit of magic that could offer loopholes.


Twiddlethosedials, let's say for a moment that Credence past is fishy or there are reasons to keep it well underwraps. A ship-wreck is a perfect way to  indeed muddy the waters (great pun!). Even Leta swapping the babies could be influenced by someone staging the whole thing, whether through blatant means such as the imperius (followed by implanting false memories like Riddle did to his uncle) or by more subtle means. But then why would they lose track of the child unless someone else was trying to shield him after catching wind of what might have occurred (Dumbledore did that by placing Harry with his Muggle-family).


I'd love to see Bagshot too. I think she would an interesting character. But if she were on the boat, it would be weird that she would survive whilst the (swapped) baby dies. Though you could be right: we don't know if the baby was rescued unknown to Leta. But then again we have the family tree declaring she killed him. Oh the circles we are running!
4
If not a legilimens, I think Grindelwald must clearly be an Occlumens -- otherwise, wouldn't Queenie know he was just telling her what she wants to hear and not necessarily what he's really thinking?

I m currently reading the screenplay for the first movie (yes, I finally bit the bullet and bought them for both). When Graves is talking to Credence it becomes aparent that Graves (and thus Grindelwald) picks up on things but cannot grasp them clearly.

Quote
Scene 43
EXT. Alleyway - Night

CREDENCE stands, head bowed, at the end of a dimly lit alleyway. GRAVES joins him, moving in very close to whisper, conspirational:

GRAVES
You're upset. It's your mother again. Somebody's said something – what did they say? Tell me.

CREDENCE
Do you think I'm a freak?

GRAVES
No – I think you're a very special young man or I wouldn't have asked you to help me now, would I?

A pause. GRAVES rests a hand on CREDENCE'S arm. The human contact seems to both startle and captivate CREDENCE.

GRAVES
Have you any news?

CREDENCE
I'M still looking. Mr Graves, ij I knew whether it was a girl or boy –

GRAVES
My vision showed only the child's power. He or she is no older than ten, and I saw this child in close proximity to your mother – she I saw so plainly.

CREDENCE
That could be any one of hundreds.

GRAVE'S tone softens – he's beguiling, comforting.

GRAVES
There is something else. Something I haven't told you. I saw you beside me in New York. You're the one who gains the child's trust. You are the key – I saw this. You want to join the wizarding world. I want those things too, Credence. I want them for you. So find the child. Find the child and we'll all be free.

I've quote the scene in full here as there are several things that stand out for me.
  • If Grindelwald was a legilmens, than either Credence is a great untrained occlumens (which doesn't feel right as he seems to wear his heart on his sleeve) or he is making quite a mess of things. This scene is after Credence being called a freak and trash by senator Shaw. So to me it looks like Graves/Grindelwald is picking up on his emotions and assuming it has to do with his mother. Yet he cannot "read" who hurt Credence let alone any specifics of the potential child he is looking for, even though Credence would be in close contact in Grindelwald's interpretation of things.
  • I think we can assume Grindelwald/Graves's "vision" is more like research. It sounds nice and dramatic to talk of a vision, plus it is easier for him to excuse things he does not know without question. But still if he indeed is looking for the child lost at sea (if we are to believe it is a Dumbledore), shouldn't he know the child would be older? Or has he already figured out that they are dealing with an obscurus, which means he is looking for the obscurus as well as the lost Dumbledore child? And if so, has he asked Credence "to help", because he has recognised the lost Dumbledore (yet not hte obscurus) in him somehow?
I thought it was really interesting to think about how Grindelwald and Voldemort are both similar and different. Grindelwald and Voldemort both seem to have some kind of irresistable charm and charisma to their followers -- but Grindelwald's is, I think, somehow scarier just because he is better able to fool his followers into thinking that his way is the right way -- where Voldemort's followers seem to know what they're doing is bad.


I am not sure all of Voldy's followers would say they are doing something "bad". Against the law? yes. Against what others see as right? yes. I have a vague memory of Jason Isaacs speaking about how he developed his portrayal of Lucius. He spoke of how he would see things through his eyes, where things were no longer wrong, or bad but part of his point of view and way of life. If you truly see muggle-borns as lesser and a problem, then your acts are not "bad" but necessary to get rid of them. See at how slaves were carefully degraded to non-human status to enable their masters to still go to church and not worry. Think of how Jews and gays, were also degraded in the same way to justify their extermination in WWII. So I would say Voldemort found followers who already thought how he wanted them to, or were on teetering enough on the brink of that way of thought he could easily sway them.


I agree that Grindelwald is more the charismatic leader. He will seek out common themes those he wants to win for his cause are desperate about and use them as bait. His followers are not forced sign up for the dogma of his crusade (as with Voldemort) but he makes his creed moldable so that it speaks to many. I agree that in that respect Grindelwald is more dangerous, as he can gather a more diverse crowd.

And that reminds me of close Rolwing is playing him to the WWII. She has not only chosen to name him after a town in Austria (the land where Hitler is born) but at the end of the movie he has taken Credence to nurmengard castle in Austria, which smacks of Hitler's berghof residence just against the Austrian border (Bavaria).

And whilst we're at it – what is it with Grindelwald showing images from the WWII to come? Has he found a means to time-travel forward to get some footage for his scare tactics?
5
But that said. I would not be surprised that he is a legilimens. It feels like it is skill typical or available to well accomplished wizards.
He might be, but if he was why would he need Queenie on his side? If he is a legilimens then I think he isn't as good as Queenie or maybe just reading feelings rather than thoughts.


I wonder. Could actively using legilmens weaken your own guard against others reading you? That is can you be defensive and offensive at the same time? If so, that could explain why he would want another. Voldemort used the fear for him to keep people from prying I think, or he was more powerful.


If that is not it. Grindelwald cannot be everywhere and just might want more "capable" people on hand he can send out to gather information.

If not a legilimens, I think Grindelwald must clearly be an Occlumens -- otherwise, wouldn't Queenie know he was just telling her what she wants to hear and not necessarily what he's really thinking?

I thought it was really interesting to think about how Grindelwald and Voldemort are both similar and different. Grindelwald and Voldemort both seem to have some kind of irresistable charm and charisma to their followers -- but Grindelwald's is, I think, somehow scarier just because he is better able to fool his followers into thinking that his way is the right way -- where Voldemort's followers seem to know what they're doing is bad.
6

As to Credence being the borther. I guess it is really said in the movie, so I'll have to swallow that pill. The huge time-line problem aside. one thing does make sense: All the Dumbledore children's name's start with an 'A'. So in that respect he slots in – even if it is just a detail that fits. The only thing I can see that only half fits is that Percival would have fallen in love – or was charmed/forced/jinxed – by a female inmate at Azkaban. We still face hin having died by the time Kendra dies (I believe the Dumbledore children are described as orphaned when that event occurs), but it's a little easier to overcome than him and Kendra already being apart several years by that time. I don't know how wizarding law would handle Kendra having another child after Percival's imprisonment (or death) as to which surname the child would receive – otherwise that might be a possibility too, I guess.

That's why I'm thinking blood magic might be a possibility - it solves the time line problem. But you're right -- if Grindelwald did create Credence, he should have known where he was -- unless he used the blood to create Credence but didn't stick around to see him born, etc. The shipwreck situation muddies those waters (pun intended). Although they also raise some other questions, like... who was WITH Credence on the boat when he was swapped with Corvis?

Another possibility, if it's not a blood magic situation, is that Kendra was maybe expecting Aurelius before she died, which would make him a lot younger than the other Dumbledores (though the age is still problematic -- could a wizard be put in some kind of stasis?). We still don't know who put him on the boat and was accompanying him. I like the idea of Bathilda Bagshot being somehow involved -- I'd love to meet her in a future movie.

Side note... do you guys think Corvis is officially drowned and dead? Or do you think there's a possibility he survived and will make a future appearance?


I am not sure whether wizards are capable of creating or transfiguring a human being or not, but if Grindelwald had been able to do this, why would he not know Credence in the first FB story and even seemed to be wondering if Modesty, the little girl, were the Obscurial. On the other hand, he very much prizes the vial of mixed blood, and it hard to imagine that is strictly sentimentality that motivates him.
Why does he need it? what does he intend to do with it? what are its powers? JKR has deliberately withheld such information.


I agree. The body Pettigrew forms with Voldemort help, is only interim and it seems like it would not survive. Seeing Credence does not already exist as a soul it seems unlikely Grindelwald could have used a similar approach to Voldemort's resurrection.


I think the vial is a safety for Grindelwald. At the end of the film Albus hints that he might be able to destroy it. Just like a horcrux is a safety for the soul, the blood-pact is an object that provides safety that neither can touch the other. Might it even be the destruction of the blood vial that later helps Dumbledore figure out howto destroy horcruxes?

Yeah, that's my chief problem with my theory. But I'm thinking about whether he could have used the blood to create Credence using a surrogate (Ew, sorry) -- and then came back later, tracking him using the blood to witch hunter's home, but was unable to figure out which person in the home was the Dumbledore (kind of like the Trace knew where Harry lived, but not who cast a specific spell).

I dunno... I could be way off here.
7

Hi twiddler, so great to see you :)
The question then becomes HOW Dumbledore would have known either were there. Grindelwald was in disguise, but is there a way Dumbledore could have known his general whereabouts because of the blood pact? Some kind of blood magic trace?
I wonder if he even needs that. We know that Dumbledore is very astute (at least in later life) in recognising magic signature.
The problem here is that I think he would have to be on the scene or nearby to detect magical traces and I doubt that he went to New York as I suspect that might count as acting against Grindelwald which the blood pact stops (this may also be part of why his instructions to Newt are indirect; telling him about the trafficed Thunderbird knowing it would take Newt to New York, and later telling him that Credence is in Paris) and he doesn't want to add to the suspicions that the British Ministry already have about him. I think Dumbledore is simply getting reports of unusual activity through his international contacts such as the young Ilvermorny professor that encourages Flamel to go to the cemetery (though it may be Flamel who is leading the group), and he could well have deduced the presence of an Obscurus in New York from the events there. In addition the newspaper montage at the start of the first film implies that the magical newspapers are speculating about the possibility of Grindelwald being in New York by ending with a newsprint picture of the Statue of Liberty.
As to Credence being the borther. I guess it is really said in the movie, so I'll have to swallow that pill. The huge time-line problem aside. one thing does make sense: All the Dumbledore children's name's start with an 'A'. So in that respect he slots in – even if it is just a detail that fits. The only thing I can see that only half fits is that Percival would have fallen in love – or was charmed/forced/jinxed – by a female inmate at Azkaban. We still face hin having died by the time Kendra dies (I believe the Dumbledore children are described as orphaned when that event occurs), but it's a little easier to overcome than him and Kendra already being apart several years by that time. I don't know how wizarding law would handle Kendra having another child after Percival's imprisonment (or death) as to which surname the child would receive – otherwise that might be a possibility too, I guess.
It is implied rather than stated in the film with Grindelwald (who could be lying) being part of the source so I am treating it as possible but not certain. If it is true that Credence is Albus' brother then he is most likely Percival's son - Kendra would have be alive 2 years after she is supposed to have died, but it would just take Rita to be wrong about Albus being an orphan when Kendra died and a loose interpretation of him being "head of the family" for Percival to be alive long enough to father another child, presumably as you suggest with another inmate of Azkaban or possibly a visitor. It would also explain why there was no mention of another Dumbledore child in the HP books, which would be obvious if it was Kendra's, much less so a child of Azkaban, possibly with an unidentified father.
I think the vial is a safety for Grindelwald. At the end of the film Albus hints that he might be able to destroy it. Just like a horcrux is a safety for the soul, the blood-pact is an object that provides safety that neither can touch the other. Might it even be the destruction of the blood vial that later helps Dumbledore figure out howto destroy horcruxes?
I agree that the vial is protecting Grindelwald. We don't know the consequences of breaking a blood pact but I suspect it is bad enough to stop him acting directly against Grindelwald (would it make sense for it to result in a blood curse?). However I doubt it will be easy for Dumbledore to destroy the vial safely without it counting as breaking the pact. It is probably protecting Dumbledore from Grindelwald as well though perhaps not if he acts through another person of Dumbledore's blood.
8
But that said. I would not be surprised that he is a legilimens. It feels like it is skill typical or available to well accomplished wizards.
He might be, but if he was why would he need Queenie on his side? If he is a legilimens then I think he isn't as good as Queenie or maybe just reading feelings rather than thoughts.


I wonder. Could actively using legilmens weaken your own guard against others reading you? That is can you be defensive and offensive at the same time? If so, that could explain why he would want another. Voldemort used the fear for him to keep people from prying I think, or he was more powerful.


If that is not it. Grindelwald cannot be everywhere and just might want more "capable" people on hand he can send out to gather information.
9

Hi twiddler, so great to see you :)
The question then becomes HOW Dumbledore would have known either were there. Grindelwald was in disguise, but is there a way Dumbledore could have known his general whereabouts because of the blood pact? Some kind of blood magic trace?


I wonder if he even needs that. We know that Dumbledore is very astute (at least in later life) in recognising magic signature. I believe he comments on this in Half-Blood Prince that he knows how Tom Riddle thinks and casts spells. I would not be surprised if he has kept an eye on Grindelwalds movements im part also in the traces he leaves behind. Just because nobody in MCUSA suspects Graves is not who he seems to be, does not mean that Dumbledore might not recognise little things in reports, whether these be in newspapers or he learns tidbits through the British Ministry or other ways.



Haunted by the guilt over Ariana's death, would [Albus] have been interested in tracking the Obscurus in order to help prevent another disaster? Or to look at how he could have saved his sister?
I think Ariana's death will play a big role in his actions. And I have a feeling it might also be shapingn Grindelwald's actions in a way. He has seen with her how powerful raw magical energy is, and maybe thinks he hasl learnt some things through his experience with her to "help" him "guide" Credence. Likewise Albus will be driven by her loss, to stop others from meeting a similar fate. Obscurus or not, he will have seen how devastating it is for someone who is trying to suppress their magical abilities.

As to Credence being the borther. I guess it is really said in the movie, so I'll have to swallow that pill. The huge time-line problem aside. one thing does make sense: All the Dumbledore children's name's start with an 'A'. So in that respect he slots in – even if it is just a detail that fits. The only thing I can see that only half fits is that Percival would have fallen in love – or was charmed/forced/jinxed – by a female inmate at Azkaban. We still face hin having died by the time Kendra dies (I believe the Dumbledore children are described as orphaned when that event occurs), but it's a little easier to overcome than him and Kendra already being apart several years by that time. I don't know how wizarding law would handle Kendra having another child after Percival's imprisonment (or death) as to which surname the child would receive – otherwise that might be a possibility too, I guess.


I am not sure whether wizards are capable of creating or transfiguring a human being or not, but if Grindelwald had been able to do this, why would he not know Credence in the first FB story and even seemed to be wondering if Modesty, the little girl, were the Obscurial. On the other hand, he very much prizes the vial of mixed blood, and it hard to imagine that is strictly sentimentality that motivates him.
Why does he need it? what does he intend to do with it? what are its powers? JKR has deliberately withheld such information.


I agree. The body Pettigrew forms with Voldemort help, is only interim and it seems like it would not survive. Seeing Credence does not already exist as a soul it seems unlikely Grindelwald could have used a similar approach to Voldemort's resurrection.


I think the vial is a safety for Grindelwald. At the end of the film Albus hints that he might be able to destroy it. Just like a horcrux is a safety for the soul, the blood-pact is an object that provides safety that neither can touch the other. Might it even be the destruction of the blood vial that later helps Dumbledore figure out howto destroy horcruxes?
10
I am not sure he has to be a legilimens to have picked up on her love for Jacob. She lives it rather openly. I would not assume that he "only" has the information we have from the scenes we see of them in the film. There might be other clues he gathered (himself or through his agents) that could well have helped him to form a picture of her. And let's not forget she had her little shouting with Jacob on the street infront of Newt's house. I wouldn't be surprised they were keeping an eye on him, so could well have been privy to what she said there.
He might have picked something up when he was pretending to be Abernathy back in New York. And if Rosier followed her from the French Ministry (which I think is likely) she could have heard her calling out for Jacob.
But that said. I would not be surprised that he is a legilimens. It feels like it is skill typical or available to well accomplished wizards.
He might be, but if he was why would he need Queenie on his side? If he is a legilimens then I think he isn't as good as Queenie or maybe just reading feelings rather than thoughts.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10