April 24, 2018, 01:54:11 AM

Author Topic: Spoiler Warning for Beast Film: Puzzling Parts of Plot?  (Read 1610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

November 16, 2016, 10:04:30 PM

Evreka

  • Quibbling Queen
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
    • Try & Trix
So, you've seen the film, right? If not, pick another thread or you better don't mind spoilers!


Puzzling Parts of Plot


Are there any aspects of the film that left you with question marks?

Are there any parts or aspects of the plot that left you with question marks or a growing sense of something weird and possibly not yet fully revealed that might have flickered through the screen? Or did you spot anything that might be a glimmer of a seed for future films?

We want to know! Come here so we can discuss it together and see what might come out of it... You never know!  :grouptalk:



Some of the things I wonder about are:

* Do you think miss Lestrange (Lita was it?) has anything to do with this accident with a Beast of Newt's that is mentioned by Graves? Will we find out more about this?

By the way, did you catch if he was nearly expelled or actually expelled - from Hogwarts? I though they said the latter but then he ought not to have had a wand, so I assume I misheard it.

* How on earth have the young girl (Modesty?) got hold of a wand if those are only given to children when they attend Ilvermorny?

* What happened to her in all that mess? Will we ever find out?

* The connecting wands in the duel - I doubt those wands are brothers. What do we make of this?

If you have any thoughts on this or other puzzling parts, post away!  :typing:
Logged
November 17, 2016, 08:37:37 AM
Reply #1

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
* Do you think miss Lestrange (Lita was it?) has anything to do with this accident with a Beast of Newt's that is mentioned by Graves? Will we find out more about this?

Yes, I got that impression, too. The only other explanation I could think of is that there was already a prior meeting with Grindelwald, as there seems to be a recognition between the two, when they carry gellert bast Newt. If this is the case, could Lita have been involved in this previous meeting. Either getting in the way or showing her Lestrange-side by siding with Grindelwald's sentiments?

By the way, did you catch if he was nearly expelled or actually expelled - from Hogwarts? I though they said the latter but then he ought not to have had a wand, so I assume I misheard it.

I thought they said expelled. As we don't know when this happened in his school carrier, or how much Dumbledore supported him, there might be a way he escaped with his wand, or was able to receive a new one. For example if a student is expelled when they are past 17 years old (or OWLs), can they rightfully take his wand away, as he completed most/basic training?

* How on earth have the young girl (Modesty?) got hold of a wand if those are only given to children when they attend Ilvermorny?

* What happened to her in all that mess? Will we ever find out?

See I am not sure she is magical. We are lead to believe she is, due to how scenes are put together and references are made. How would Credence know to find a wand under her bed. He could have put it there to distract attention from him. Also, is it a real wand. When it was snapped, there was no core to be seen or any magical spark (not sure if this is canon but I also had the impression the wand would put up a fight or give a spark) – plus could you snap a wand that easily. The magic in it would make it more sturdy I think.


* The connecting wands in the duel - I doubt those wands are brothers. What do we make of this?

We've seen Dumbledore and Voldemort's wands connected. Like there there was no priori incantatem or similar, so I believe this is more common in duels. A means to keep the opponent there (she was told to keep him busy, or similar), as the connection both stops the other from casting spells or going away.

When I left the theatre, the main thing I was wondering was: Is Graves Grindelwald throughout the entire movie, or did Gellert kill or imprison him somewhere along the line to replace him. I am leaning towards the first, but even then it feels like at some point he did make the switch, as Graves seems a well established figure in the Magical Congress and I wonder whether Grindelwald would really spend so much time in the US to establish himself in politics.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
November 18, 2016, 08:58:31 PM
Reply #2

RiverSpirit

  • You can count on me!
  • Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Maroon to the Bone
My thoughts revolve around Graves/Grindelwold and the subway scene. He seemed to really struggle in his battle with Newt which surprised me as he is supposedly so powerful.

I am guessing that he was constantly using Polyjuice Potion to become Graves so would he then only have the magical capabilities of Graves?

Also would that mean he has Graves stashed away somewhere?

Or are his own powers just weakened?

Any thoughts?
  
Logged
November 19, 2016, 08:46:07 AM
Reply #3

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
See i am not sure it is polyjuice. Before we always at least saw some hint like a flask when polyjuice was used. We've seen transfiguration spells being used, and I would not be surprised that we are seeing more of that.

As for his weakness – I had not considered that. Thanks for bringing it up. When they reveal him as Grindelwald he looks ill – unless that is the Voldy-type look they are going for (I hope not). So they might be alluding to him not being well for some reason? Was Graves keeping him prisoner to some point, which weakened him, living him just strong enough to overwhelm him and take his place … but again, when would that have happened? Was he Graves from the start, Grindelwald living for years in the US under disguise?

If we are looking at polyjuice I had the feeling the witch or wizard retained their magical abilities, but I'd have to think about where I got this idea from.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
November 19, 2016, 09:40:43 AM
Reply #4

Evreka

  • Quibbling Queen
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
    • Try & Trix
* How on earth have the young girl (Modesty?) got hold of a wand if those are only given to children when they attend Ilvermorny?

* What happened to her in all that mess? Will we ever find out?
See I am not sure she is magical. We are lead to believe she is, due to how scenes are put together and references are made. How would Credence know to find a wand under her bed. He could have put it there to distract attention from him. Also, is it a real wand. When it was snapped, there was no core to be seen or any magical spark (not sure if this is canon but I also had the impression the wand would put up a fight or give a spark) – plus could you snap a wand that easily. The magic in it would make it more sturdy I think.
I got the impression that Credence was snooping around under her bed, looking for anything incriminating to pinpoint her to be the child "Graves" wanted to get in touch with. And he found more than he bargained for.

We've seen her behave oddly through the film: getting rid of all pamphlets instead of distributing them, Credence tells us she longed for her birth family and what's about the rhyme on killing witches that she often chants? It doesn't add up.  It adds up even less when we add her claiming it is her wand. Why would she do that if it isn't?

As to wands snapping in two - we've met the concept several times in the HP series: Hagrid's wand, Odo's and even the Elder one were all snapped straight off, Ron's were broken and Harry's too. It can be done.


* The connecting wands in the duel - I doubt those wands are brothers. What do we make of this?
We've seen Dumbledore and Voldemort's wands connected. Like there there was no priori incantatem or similar, so I believe this is more common in duels. A means to keep the opponent there (she was told to keep him busy, or similar), as the connection both stops the other from casting spells or going away.
Only in the films though, never in the books. And this is Jo's script.... Although it is still Yates film, so it will be interesting to find out if they connect in the script...  :hmm:


When I left the theatre, the main thing I was wondering was: Is Graves Grindelwald throughout the entire movie, or did Gellert kill or imprison him somewhere along the line to replace him. I am leaning towards the first, but even then it feels like at some point he did make the switch, as Graves seems a well established figure in the Magical Congress and I wonder whether Grindelwald would really spend so much time in the US to establish himself in politics.
Well, we know very little about Gellert so far, but I find it interesting that Tina's informant goblin - whatever his name was - was so reluctant to answer questions about him. Seems Graves history is rather mysterious and none to healthy to look too deeply at... I guess it was a warning that he might not be an altogether nice guy... So I think it's possible that he was Graves all along. Particularly as we don't know how long "Graves" were known in the US before becoming an Auror at MACUSA.


See i am not sure it is polyjuice. Before we always at least saw some hint like a flask when polyjuice was used. We've seen transfiguration spells being used, and I would not be surprised that we are seeing more of that.
On the one hand, I think any character seen to take frequent swigs from a flask would get any HP fan in the audience to go: "Hey! I wonder..." And so we are unlikely to get that particular warning again, maybe?

On the other hand, Graves was revealed by a Spell whereas Crouch Jr reverted back to himself after an hour, which Albus was happy to wait for. So I, too, wonders if this was Polyjuice, it didn't seem to fit the previous description? Although, of course the waterfall at Gringotts' washed the effect off instantaneously, so who knows? Still, can you even brew it in America? All ingredients might not exist there?

I thought the revealed Gellert looked older than I would have assumed. Pottermore lists Albus birth year as 1881, which means that it is likely that Grindelwald is roughly of that age as well. Do we have a more exact date for Gellert? That would make him roughly 50 (rounded) years old in 1927? But with the white hair and withered look he seemed at least 10 years older, although I guess it wasn't many seconds worth of look at him... so that could be off.


* Do you think miss Lestrange (Lita was it?) has anything to do with this accident with a Beast of Newt's that is mentioned by Graves? Will we find out more about this?
Yes, I got that impression, too. The only other explanation I could think of is that there was already a prior meeting with Grindelwald, as there seems to be a recognition between the two, when they carry gellert bast Newt. If this is the case, could Lita have been involved in this previous meeting. Either getting in the way or showing her Lestrange-side by siding with Grindelwald's sentiments?
One doesn't have to rule the other out, though. But reading this gave food for an idea, that's been eluding me at posting times until now: If Gellert has somehow been involved with Lita and/or had anything to do with the accident at Hogwarts - it would explain how "Graves" knew about it when he interrogated Newt. So I agree it's likely Newt and Gellert has met - or otherwise know of each other - before.

If we are looking at polyjuice I had the feeling the witch or wizard retained their magical abilities, but I'd have to think about where I got this idea from.
Well, the trio certainly kept theirs, as did Crouch Jr.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 11:07:08 AM by Evreka »
Logged
November 20, 2016, 11:42:20 PM
Reply #5

wordsaremagic

  • The Only Wizard Bob the Duck Ever Feard
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 184

Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
The story misdirects our attention to the young girl, leading us to speculate that she is the source of the trouble, when all the time it is Creedence.
(who would ever expected poor stuttering Quirrell while Snape is around).
When Percy Graves hangs the sign of the Deathly Hallows around the neck of Creedence, I thought it odd. Now that re-think, I should have been shouting "Grindelwald!" That was his mark (as Viktor Krum tells us).
A book is much easier to analyze. It's hard to underline a passage in a movie or write notes in a margin.
But as I said, these things struck me as being typical of Rowling's narrative style.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2016, 11:44:13 PM by wordsaremagic »
Logged
November 21, 2016, 12:47:33 AM
Reply #6

roonwit

  • *****
  • Posts: 477
As to wands snapping in two - we've met the concept several times in the HP series: Hagrid's wand, Odo's and even the Elder one were all snapped straight off, Ron's were broken and Harry's too. It can be done.
However the Elder wand was only snapped in the film - we don't know if it is snapped from the books where it sounds like it was just going to be put back where it was found.
* The connecting wands in the duel - I doubt those wands are brothers. What do we make of this?
We've seen Dumbledore and Voldemort's wands connected. Like there there was no priori incantatem or similar, so I believe this is more common in duels. A means to keep the opponent there (she was told to keep him busy, or similar), as the connection both stops the other from casting spells or going away.
Only in the films though, never in the books. And this is Jo's script.... Although it is still Yates film, so it will be interesting to find out if they connect in the script...  :hmm:
I didn't notice any mention of the wands connecting in the script, so I suspect this is just the film way of showing the duel.
When I left the theatre, the main thing I was wondering was: Is Graves Grindelwald throughout the entire movie, or did Gellert kill or imprison him somewhere along the line to replace him. I am leaning towards the first, but even then it feels like at some point he did make the switch, as Graves seems a well established figure in the Magical Congress and I wonder whether Grindelwald would really spend so much time in the US to establish himself in politics.
Well, we know very little about Gellert so far, but I find it interesting that Tina's informant goblin - whatever his name was - was so reluctant to answer questions about him. Seems Graves history is rather mysterious and none to healthy to look too deeply at... I guess it was a warning that he might not be an altogether nice guy... So I think it's possible that he was Graves all along. Particularly as we don't know how long "Graves" were known in the US before becoming an Auror at MACUSA.
I suspect Graves is an assumed character of Grindelwald with a faked history rather than polyjuice replacement. I think a wizard of Grindelwald's abilities would prefer a tranfigured identity, rather than relying on polyjuice and the disadvantages that has.
* Do you think miss Lestrange (Lita was it?) has anything to do with this accident with a Beast of Newt's that is mentioned by Graves? Will we find out more about this?
Yes, I got that impression, too. The only other explanation I could think of is that there was already a prior meeting with Grindelwald, as there seems to be a recognition between the two, when they carry gellert bast Newt. If this is the case, could Lita have been involved in this previous meeting. Either getting in the way or showing her Lestrange-side by siding with Grindelwald's sentiments?
One doesn't have to rule the other out, though. But reading this gave food for an idea, that's been eluding me at posting times until now: If Gellert has somehow been involved with Lita and/or had anything to do with the accident at Hogwarts - it would explain how "Graves" knew about it when he interrogated Newt. So I agree it's likely Newt and Gellert has met - or otherwise know of each other - before.
It may simply be that Grindelwald keeps a close eye on what Dumbledore is doing and those he associates with, because he expects Dumbledore to be a threat to him sooner or later. It is reasonable to expect Leta (as a Lestrange) to be drawn to dark wizards, but Grindelwald was never obviously active in Britain, so it is less likely she would associate with him. I suspect the accident was more of a Draco v Buckbeak type of incident with a potentially more dangerous animal being treated inappropriately or acting to defend Newt.
Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
The story misdirects our attention to the young girl, leading us to speculate that she is the source of the trouble, when all the time it is Creedence.
(who would ever expected poor stuttering Quirrell while Snape is around).
When Percy Graves hangs the sign of the Deathly Hallows around the neck of Creedence, I thought it odd. Now that re-think, I should have been shouting "Grindelwald!" That was his mark (as Viktor Krum tells us).
A book is much easier to analyze. It's hard to underline a passage in a movie or write notes in a margin.
But as I said, these things struck me as being typical of Rowling's narrative style.
The symbol of the Deathly Hallows did shout Grindelwald to me, but I assumed Graves was a follower rather than Grindelwald himself.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 12:51:18 AM by roonwit »
Logged
November 21, 2016, 08:32:22 PM
Reply #7

Evreka

  • Quibbling Queen
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
    • Try & Trix
As to wands snapping in two - we've met the concept several times in the HP series: Hagrid's wand, Odo's and even the Elder one were all snapped straight off, Ron's were broken and Harry's too. It can be done.
However the Elder wand was only snapped in the film - we don't know if it is snapped from the books where it sounds like it was just going to be put back where it was found.
Ah, yes! I'd forgotten that! It never really made sense to me as it had already been brought around once from that place it seemed as a not so safe idea to put it back there.


Only in the films though, never in the books. And this is Jo's script.... Although it is still Yates film, so it will be interesting to find out if they connect in the script...  :hmm:
I didn't notice any mention of the wands connecting in the script, so I suspect this is just the film way of showing the duel.
Thanks for sorting that out. :)


When I left the theatre, the main thing I was wondering was: Is Graves Grindelwald throughout the entire movie, or did Gellert kill or imprison him somewhere along the line to replace him. I am leaning towards the first, but even then it feels like at some point he did make the switch, as Graves seems a well established figure in the Magical Congress and I wonder whether Grindelwald would really spend so much time in the US to establish himself in politics.
Well, we know very little about Gellert so far, but I find it interesting that Tina's informant goblin - whatever his name was - was so reluctant to answer questions about him. Seems Graves history is rather mysterious and none to healthy to look too deeply at... I guess it was a warning that he might not be an altogether nice guy... So I think it's possible that he was Graves all along. Particularly as we don't know how long "Graves" were known in the US before becoming an Auror at MACUSA.
I suspect Graves is an assumed character of Grindelwald with a faked history rather than polyjuice replacement. I think a wizard of Grindelwald's abilities would prefer a tranfigured identity, rather than relying on polyjuice and the disadvantages that has.
I was catching up on pottermore yesterday, and found this:

Quote
In the 1920s the President of MACUSA was Seraphina Picquery from Savannah. The Department of Magical Law Enforcement was headed by Percival Graves, a well-respected descendant of one of the original twelve American Aurors.
Source: MACUSA on Pottermore.
Maybe there is a real Graves and a fake one after all?


... But reading this gave food for an idea, that's been eluding me at posting times until now: If Gellert has somehow been involved with Lita and/or had anything to do with the accident at Hogwarts - it would explain how "Graves" knew about it when he interrogated Newt. So I agree it's likely Newt and Gellert has met - or otherwise know of each other - before.
... I suspect the accident was more of a Draco v Buckbeak type of incident with a potentially more dangerous animal being treated inappropriately or acting to defend Newt.
That could very well be the case.



Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
The story misdirects our attention to the young girl, leading us to speculate that she is the source of the trouble, when all the time it is Creedence.
(who would ever expected poor stuttering Quirrell while Snape is around). ...
A fair point, which makes a lot of sense. But I still don't understand either where the wand came from or why the girl would want to take the blame for Credence? Unless he Imperiused her to say it, but would he know how to do that...?  :crabbegoyle:


Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
... When Percy Graves hangs the sign of the Deathly Hallows around the neck of Creedence, I thought it odd. Now that re-think, I should have been shouting "Grindelwald!" That was his mark (as Viktor Krum tells us). ...

The symbol of the Deathly Hallows did shout Grindelwald to me, but I assumed Graves was a follower rather than Grindelwald himself.
Me too, I also thought Graves could be a follower to Grindelwald and it never occurred to me that he could be him. I've always associated Grindelwald to eastern Europe and did not expect to find him in the US. Even in the beginning of the film, when the news paper flashes by and he is discussed by the Aurors and Seraphina they're approaching it as related to Grindelwald's activities in Europe (although I don't remember the exact wording). I didn't know he went to the US, should I have known this from somewhere?  :crabbegoyle:

 However, I actually thought that Credence was a wizard who lived in disguise in that family - and that's why Graves knew to contact him. And still I missed that it made Credence the most likely to be responsible for the attacks.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 08:35:01 PM by Evreka »
Logged
November 22, 2016, 09:47:21 AM
Reply #8

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
The story misdirects our attention to the young girl, leading us to speculate that she is the source of the trouble, when all the time it is Creedence.
(who would ever expected poor stuttering Quirrell while Snape is around). ...
A fair point, which makes a lot of sense. But I still don't understand either where the wand came from or why the girl would want to take the blame for Credence? Unless he Imperiused her to say it, but would he know how to do that...?  :crabbegoyle:

I feel it is love here (magic beyond all right?). They only have each other against this woman that is suppressing them. Whether the girl is also magical or not would not stop her from wanting to help who she might see as her brother. It seems that he has taken beatings for her, so why should not she not want to return the favour? There might even be a sense that if they stand together they are stronger, make a change or overpower her. They both know there is magic between them, whether one or both of them, and as it bursting from the seems there might be a sense of being able to work together – whether consciously or unconsciously.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
November 23, 2016, 04:56:16 PM
Reply #9

roonwit

  • *****
  • Posts: 477
Two elements that are classic J.K. Rowling: misdirection and THIPS (things hidden in plain sight)
The story misdirects our attention to the young girl, leading us to speculate that she is the source of the trouble, when all the time it is Creedence.
(who would ever expected poor stuttering Quirrell while Snape is around). ...
A fair point, which makes a lot of sense. But I still don't understand either where the wand came from or why the girl would want to take the blame for Credence? Unless he Imperiused her to say it, but would he know how to do that...?  :crabbegoyle:

I feel it is love here (magic beyond all right?). They only have each other against this woman that is suppressing them. Whether the girl is also magical or not would not stop her from wanting to help who she might see as her brother. It seems that he has taken beatings for her, so why should not she not want to return the favour? There might even be a sense that if they stand together they are stronger, make a change or overpower her. They both know there is magic between them, whether one or both of them, and as it bursting from the seems there might be a sense of being able to work together – whether consciously or unconsciously.
The toy wand was under Modesty's bed, and she demands that Credence give it back so it is (now) hers. I think this suggests that either Modesty comes from a magical family or has found the wand (it might perhaps have belonged to Credence but he hid it a long time ago to stop Mary Lou finding it). So Credence is going to take the beating for his (adopted) sister, but Modesty won't let him.

I would like to ask something else as I don't really understand Grindelwald's parting remark to Newt "Will we die, just a little?". Does it make sense to anyone else or is it some sort of clue to things we don't know about yet?
Logged
November 23, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
Reply #10

wordsaremagic

  • The Only Wizard Bob the Duck Ever Feard
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
I would like to ask something else as I don't really understand Grindelwald's parting remark to Newt "Will we die, just a little?". Does it make sense to anyone else or is it some sort of clue to things we don't know about yet?
It puzzles me too. First, what does it mean? Second, why to Newt?
I can imagine different things, but there is no evidence to suggest any are right. Imagine the death of a Horcrux. Or, imagine the idea that we die just a little when we kill? Or imagine the idea that we die just a little when another dies  (sort of Do not send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee).
So, I really do not know.
Logged
November 25, 2016, 07:32:30 PM
Reply #11

HealerOne

  • Staffer
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
    • Chasing the Tale
Hmm just looking over the script again - in the scene where Graves tells Madame Picquery that the secrecy law is wrong because it protects the No-Majs not magical folks. At her order the Aurors start the fight by trying to take away Graves wand. "A white light suddenly appears ... blocking his path." Then he (Graves) starts fighting the Aurors. Newt sends out a caccoon (the Swooping Evil) which shields himself and the Aurors from Graves spells.  Newt then "slashes the air" with his wand and a " crackling rope of supernatural light wraps itself around Graves like a whip." It tightens and Graves falls to his knees. Newt then uses a Revelio charm/spell to reveal Graves identity. To me, this would indicate that Newt actually has some very powerful magic in his corner.


But the movie interpretation doesn't seem to be like that - I, too, remember that Newt and Graves engage in a duel with the wands merging in a bright light. I guess I will have to see the movie again to see which happens...

[Just a thought but perhaps Newt's wand uses a Thunderbird feather and thus a bond between the wand cores exists. However if this is true, why wouldn't Voldemort recognize the phenomenon when Harry's wand bond with his?] 

The comment "Will we die, just a little?" I took it to mean that when an Obscurial dies, a little of the people that cause it to die, also die. Both Newt and Grindelwad have witnessed, or been part of killing an Obscurial. Think about the Dumbledore brothers - isn't that what happened when Ariana dies?

And then there is Leta LaStrange who apparently was the same age as Newt or at least close to it because Queenie reads Newt's mind and says they had a close relationship in school and for sometime afterwards. We know from Order of the Phoenix that Rodolphus LaStrange had a brother, Rabastan. But that's all the lineage we know at this point. Sigh, what I wouldn't give for a copy of Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy. Wonder if Leta was blasted off the Black Tapestry?
Logged
November 25, 2016, 10:30:12 PM
Reply #12

roonwit

  • *****
  • Posts: 477
Hmm just looking over the script again - in the scene where Graves tells Madame Picquery that the secrecy law is wrong because it protects the No-Majs not magical folks. At her order the Aurors start the fight by trying to take away Graves wand. "A white light suddenly appears ... blocking his path." Then he (Graves) starts fighting the Aurors. Newt sends out a caccoon (the Swooping Evil) which shields himself and the Aurors from Graves spells.  Newt then "slashes the air" with his wand and a " crackling rope of supernatural light wraps itself around Graves like a whip." It tightens and Graves falls to his knees. Newt then uses a Revelio charm/spell to reveal Graves identity. To me, this would indicate that Newt actually has some very powerful magic in his corner.
I think Newt, as well as his animal knowledge, is actually very good at charms. I think this because I think Newt must have enchanted his case himself, and as well as its vast size, he has created appropriate habitats for several different animals, including for the thunderbird which he must have acquired relatively recently.

But the movie interpretation doesn't seem to be like that - I, too, remember that Newt and Graves engage in a duel with the wands merging in a bright light. I guess I will have to see the movie again to see which happens...
I don't remember a spell connecting duel between Newt and Graves in the movie, though I am pretty sure that Tina does have one with him.

[Just a thought but perhaps Newt's wand uses a Thunderbird feather and thus a bond between the wand cores exists. However if this is true, why wouldn't Voldemort recognize the phenomenon when Harry's wand bond with his?]
I think Frank the thunderbird is a relatively recent acquisition and this is probably Newt's fist visit to the US, so I doubt Newt would have had an opportunity to get a thunderbird core wand. Newt's wand may be his original (presumably) Ollivander wand, though he may have the skills to make his own wand. If his original wand was snapped he is clearly allowed to have a new one because he works at the Ministry, so they must have noticed he now has a wand.

And then there is Leta LaStrange who apparently was the same age as Newt or at least close to it because Queenie reads Newt's mind and says they had a close relationship in school and for sometime afterwards. We know from Order of the Phoenix that Rodolphus LaStrange had a brother, Rabastan. But that's all the lineage we know at this point. Sigh, what I wouldn't give for a copy of Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy. Wonder if Leta was blasted off the Black Tapestry?
It may just have been at school as Queenie's remarks are ambiguous about when they were very close. It is unlikely Leta would have been on the Black tapestry as she would have to be close descendant of a Black or married to one. I also think it is more likely that Leta turned out to be the sort of person Mrs. Black would quite happily leave on the tapestry.
Quote
In the 1920s the President of MACUSA was Seraphina Picquery from Savannah. The Department of Magical Law Enforcement was headed by Percival Graves, a well-respected descendant of one of the original twelve American Aurors.
Source: MACUSA on Pottermore.
Maybe there is a real Graves and a fake one after all?
I am starting to think that there must have been a real Graves at some point which Gellert replaced - it would take a lot of confunding to invent a new descendant of one of the original twelve American aurors, including ancestry and a school career at Ilvermorny followed by a MACUSA one. On the other hand he might have been Graves for some time - it would be a good hiding place for a dark wizard to be an auror in an unexpected country.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 12:00:09 AM by roonwit »
Logged
November 26, 2016, 12:50:38 PM
Reply #13

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
Just reading all your thoughts, two things come to mind.

A) Newt seems to have been expelled rather late from Hogwarts. Even if he is very talented I feel like you need at least OWLs wizarding level to develop so good a use of magic in its many ways. He is not only dueling against a top opponent, but also using complex magic with his case. We see him use potion skills to heal Jacob's bite [btw … I found it interesting they made a point of showing the bite at the end. Linking to why he still has some residue of memories, or more to come?) I also noticed that Newt always says his spells. Either the film makers wanted to help us know what is happening, or he got expelled before learning non-verbal spell casting (in his 6th year).

B) His wand: I recall wondering why there was a bit of spotlight on his wand in the beginning of the film. Had he registered it? Well, he had sent in the forms … and then it trails off with the feeling of how bureaucracy can create hold up or similar. On the flip side we know he was expelled – so could this also be them double checking that this is his by right (not retaining the wand that should have been snapped; did he steal it; make it or have it made on the black market … is it safe?).

Speaking of wands: can someone help jog my memory when Gellert steals the elder wand. I recall that Dumbledore wins it off him in his duel, but would Gellert already have it here? Because if that is the case: Newt is dueling (and winning) against the wand of wands. Which highlights even more how powerful and/or quick-thinking and agile he is.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
November 26, 2016, 04:13:12 PM
Reply #14

wordsaremagic

  • The Only Wizard Bob the Duck Ever Feard
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
The part about Newt being expelled troubles me.
In the original book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the one that JKR wrote for charity quite awhile ago, we find the following:

" ... Upon graduation from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Mr. Scamander joined the Ministry of Magic in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures."

In the film too we know that Newt had worked in the Ministry of Magic.

Whatever may have been involved in the incident Graves/Grindelwald was mentioning, Newt apparently did continue at Hogwart's.
----
ETA
It would be possible, I suppose for him to have been expelled after getting his OWLS but, ironically, not getting any NEWTS.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 04:34:41 PM by wordsaremagic »
Logged
November 26, 2016, 05:16:13 PM
Reply #15

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
Oh good catch, wordsaremagic. Another opiton I could see: Graves indicates that Dumbledore spoke up for Newt. Was he able to reverse the explusion, or enable Newts name to be cleared after some time so Net could come back and finish his studies?

Hmmm … it isn't like Rowling to make such a mistake. She has minor details she had to shift, but this seems major. Even more so, as she said that Newt was a character she knew more backstroy for than was "normal" for such a minor character.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
November 26, 2016, 11:08:20 PM
Reply #16

roonwit

  • *****
  • Posts: 477
A) Newt seems to have been expelled rather late from Hogwarts. Even if he is very talented I feel like you need at least OWLs wizarding level to develop so good a use of magic in its many ways. He is not only dueling against a top opponent, but also using complex magic with his case. We see him use potion skills to heal Jacob's bite [btw … I found it interesting they made a point of showing the bite at the end. Linking to why he still has some residue of memories, or more to come?) I also noticed that Newt always says his spells. Either the film makers wanted to help us know what is happening, or he got expelled before learning non-verbal spell casting (in his 6th year).
I think he does NEWT and post-NEWT quality magic (for example in creating his case and its creature zones), so I think he was able to continue developing his magical skills even after being expelled (perhaps Dumbledore helped him).
B) His wand: I recall wondering why there was a bit of spotlight on his wand in the beginning of the film. Had he registered it? Well, he had sent in the forms … and then it trails off with the feeling of how bureaucracy can create hold up or similar. On the flip side we know he was expelled – so could this also be them double checking that this is his by right (not retaining the wand that should have been snapped; did he steal it; make it or have it made on the black market … is it safe?).
The script implies that he hadn't actually applied for a US wand permit, but that sounds like a specific US requirement. But as Newt works at the Ministry, he must have been able to keep his wand or be allowed to use a new one.
Speaking of wands: can someone help jog my memory when Gellert steals the elder wand. I recall that Dumbledore wins it off him in his duel, but would Gellert already have it here? Because if that is the case: Newt is dueling (and winning) against the wand of wands. Which highlights even more how powerful and/or quick-thinking and agile he is.
The thief of the wand from Gregorovitch is described as a young man, so Gellert should own it by now. However it is possible that the wand Gellert is currently using isn't the elder wand, because if Gellert has replaced the real Graves (rather than for example faking an identity), he would probably keep using Graves' wand so the substitution was less likely to be noticed.
Oh good catch, wordsaremagic. Another opiton I could see: Graves indicates that Dumbledore spoke up for Newt. Was he able to reverse the explusion, or enable Newts name to be cleared after some time so Net could come back and finish his studies?
Hmmm … it isn't like Rowling to make such a mistake. She has minor details she had to shift, but this seems major. Even more so, as she said that Newt was a character she knew more backstroy for than was "normal" for such a minor character.
I had also spotted the line of the original FB book saying Newt graduated from Hogwarts, but assumed that Jo had changed things to suit Newt's expanded story (I do see as it a minor change). Of course it could be that Newt was allowed to return to Hogwarts later, or perhaps the publisher decided to gloss over the expulsion, thinking the book would sell better as a result.
Logged
November 27, 2016, 04:46:22 PM
Reply #17

HealerOne

  • Staffer
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
    • Chasing the Tale
I think that Dumbledore interfered with the expulsion of Newt from Hogwarts and was able to reinstate him. Just the way Graves/Gellert talks about Newt being a friend of Dumbledore. He certainly would be sensitive to anyone who was in favor with Dumbledore. And having Dumbledore stick up for you like that would perk up Gellert's ears for sure. I, too, think that Newt's high level of magical abilities, plus that he is working for the MOM, would indicate that he had finished his magical training plus more.

We still have the mystery of what happened to Graves. I caught a line in the movie that may indicate what happened. In the scene where Madame Picquery talks of a delegation that may be sent from the International Confederation because they think the attacks in NYC are linked to Grindewald. Graves says, "I was there. This is a beast." (My italics). Now he may be saying he was at the site of the attack or he might be saying that he was in Europe and witnessed Grindewald's attacks - or both.  If he was in Europe, that may indicate that Grindewald used Graves by killing him and taking over his identity, or by some other means impersonating him to escape to America. What do you think?
Logged
November 27, 2016, 05:43:50 PM
Reply #18

atschpe

  • April's Fool
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
We still have the mystery of what happened to Graves. I caught a line in the movie that may indicate what happened. In the scene where Madame Picquery talks of a delegation that may be sent from the International Confederation because they think the attacks in NYC are linked to Grindewald. Graves says, "I was there. This is a beast." (My italics). Now he may be saying he was at the site of the attack or he might be saying that he was in Europe and witnessed Grindewald's attacks - or both.  If he was in Europe, that may indicate that Grindewald used Graves by killing him and taking over his identity, or by some other means impersonating him to escape to America. What do you think?

It feels like he must have done something like this, so I wouldn't be surprised that you caught the right clue. (Hmm I'm starting to think I really should get a hold of the screenplay after all). He after all acts "for the greater good". He wants to be at the top of the pecking order by the sounds of it – so what better opportunity than to take the place of someone who is already in such a position, albeit in another country. Plus, he might consider being in another country whilst he develops he plans/skills further might be an advantage, away from those who know him and might be prejudiced against him (though with reason, even if he might not think so).

B) His wand: I recall wondering why there was a bit of spotlight on his wand in the beginning of the film. Had he registered it? Well, he had sent in the forms … and then it trails off with the feeling of how bureaucracy can create hold up or similar. On the flip side we know he was expelled – so could this also be them double checking that this is his by right (not retaining the wand that should have been snapped; did he steal it; make it or have it made on the black market … is it safe?).
The script implies that he hadn't actually applied for a US wand permit, but that sounds like a specific US requirement. But as Newt works at the Ministry, he must have been able to keep his wand or be allowed to use a new one.

Aha! And this could explain why his magic seems weak (as several have pointed out here). We know from Deathly Hallows how using an unfamiliar wand (especially if you have not won it) reduces your capabilities. He might have taken the wand without winning it from Graves. Or if he did win it, he might already have been so used to a superior wand, that his magic is dampened.
"Of course it is all in your head, but why on Earth should that mean it isn't real?" ~Dumbledore (DH)
Logged
December 01, 2016, 10:19:25 PM
Reply #19

Evreka

  • Quibbling Queen
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
    • Try & Trix
I would like to ask something else as I don't really understand Grindelwald's parting remark to Newt "Will we die, just a little?". Does it make sense to anyone else or is it some sort of clue to things we don't know about yet?
I can't say why I thought so, but wondered if it somehow alluded to a past between Newt, Leta and Gellert?



[Just a thought but perhaps Newt's wand uses a Thunderbird feather and thus a bond between the wand cores exists. However if this is true, why wouldn't Voldemort recognize the phenomenon when Harry's wand bond with his?]

Why would Voldemort necessarily recognize a phenomenon just because Gellert had experienced it??  :mcgonagall2:


Hmm just looking over the script again - in the scene where Graves tells Madame Picquery that the secrecy law is wrong because it protects the No-Majs not magical folks. At her order the Aurors start the fight by trying to take away Graves wand. "A white light suddenly appears ... blocking his path." Then he (Graves) starts fighting the Aurors. Newt sends out a caccoon (the Swooping Evil) which shields himself and the Aurors from Graves spells.  Newt then "slashes the air" with his wand and a " crackling rope of supernatural light wraps itself around Graves like a whip." It tightens and Graves falls to his knees. Newt then uses a Revelio charm/spell to reveal Graves identity. To me, this would indicate that Newt actually has some very powerful magic in his corner.
I think Newt, as well as his animal knowledge, is actually very good at charms. I think this because I think Newt must have enchanted his case himself, and as well as its vast size, he has created appropriate habitats for several different animals, including for the thunderbird which he must have acquired relatively recently.
Also, he manages to charm and handle all his Beasts, not least getting them all into the case to begin with. And he knows how to treat Jacob. I think this is one accomplished wizard. And as such even more surprising if he was truly expelled? 


Newt's wand may be his original (presumably) Ollivander wand, though he may have the skills to make his own wand. If his original wand was snapped he is clearly allowed to have a new one because he works at the Ministry, so they must have noticed he now has a wand.
Well, that's a possibility of course that he made his own new wand. But why would that be OK when Hagrid could not get a new one? Could he have been pardoned later and then allowed to get a new wand?



Wonder if Leta was blasted off the Black Tapestry?
... It is unlikely Leta would have been on the Black tapestry as she would have to be close descendant of a Black or married to one. I also think it is more likely that Leta turned out to be the sort of person Mrs. Black would quite happily leave on the tapestry.
I agree that the hints we have so far make her appear as a Mrs Black "ally" for want of a better description. However, Sirius was born 3 November 1959. Mrs Black, hence, is likely to be a child (or might not even be born) in 1927.  Either way, Leta is probably older and may well be at least 20 years older. So just because the Lestange family is on the Tapestry in the 1990's, they do not have to have been so closely related to the Blacks 90 years earlier that Leta would find her way onto it in the first place.


A) Newt seems to have been expelled rather late from Hogwarts. Even if he is very talented I feel like you need at least OWLs wizarding level to develop so good a use of magic in its many ways. He is not only dueling against a top opponent, but also using complex magic with his case. We see him use potion skills to heal Jacob's bite [btw … I found it interesting they made a point of showing the bite at the end. Linking to why he still has some residue of memories, or more to come?) I also noticed that Newt always says his spells. Either the film makers wanted to help us know what is happening, or he got expelled before learning non-verbal spell casting (in his 6th year).
Good catch! :owlso:

I suppose it is fully possible it is for the movie goers benefit, but it does give room for interpretation. If he was expelled in his 6th or 7th year, maybe the wand wouldn't be snapped as he had graduated at OWL level? That might be a scape goat for wordsaremagic's catch as well:

The part about Newt being expelled troubles me.
In the original book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the one that JKR wrote for charity quite awhile ago, we find the following:

" ... Upon graduation from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Mr. Scamander joined the Ministry of Magic in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures."

In the film too we know that Newt had worked in the Ministry of Magic.

Whatever may have been involved in the incident Graves/Grindelwald was mentioning, Newt apparently did continue at Hogwart's.
----
ETA
It would be possible, I suppose for him to have been expelled after getting his OWLS but, ironically, not getting any NEWTS.
After all Gred & Forge can use magic after school despite leaving before NEWTS and just having scraped 2-3 OWLs. So maybe being expelled between OWLs and NEWTs could explain it?

On a side note: Can you imagine NEWT not to get his NEWTs...  :( Tragic!

B) His wand: I recall wondering why there was a bit of spotlight on his wand in the beginning of the film. Had he registered it? Well, he had sent in the forms … and then it trails off with the feeling of how bureaucracy can create hold up or similar. On the flip side we know he was expelled – so could this also be them double checking that this is his by right (not retaining the wand that should have been snapped; did he steal it; make it or have it made on the black market … is it safe?).

I'm wondering if this conversation is generated not because of missing permits but because Grindelwald knows (through Leta?) that his wand is a sore thumb of Newt's?


Speaking of wands: can someone help jog my memory when Gellert steals the elder wand. I recall that Dumbledore wins it off him in his duel, but would Gellert already have it here? Because if that is the case: Newt is dueling (and winning) against the wand of wands. Which highlights even more how powerful and/or quick-thinking and agile he is.

As I recall it he was in his teen ages or otherwise early 20's, which means he would indeed have the Elder wand. However, if he is impersonating Graves, wouldn't he have to use Graves' wand to be believed? With the wand permits that ALL wizards and witches live with in the US, Graves wand must be well known and pretty impossible to replace with the Elder wand out of the blue. So I guess he hid that and used Grave's?


Anyone else who wonders if Graves has the name he has because he is indeed in a grave by the time this story starts?

Oh good catch, wordsaremagic. Another opiton I could see: Graves indicates that Dumbledore spoke up for Newt. Was he able to reverse the explusion, or enable Newts name to be cleared after some time so Net could come back and finish his studies?
That was my first option, but then he wouldn't actually have been expelled. And you all say he was.

Hmmm … it isn't like Rowling to make such a mistake. She has minor details she had to shift, but this seems major. Even more so, as she said that Newt was a character she knew more backstroy for than was "normal" for such a minor character.
I agree, this seems like a weird thing to change. Unless the early book refers to an OWL graduation?  :crabbegoyle:

..., or perhaps the publisher decided to gloss over the expulsion, thinking the book would sell better as a result.
Also possible, of course.


We still have the mystery of what happened to Graves. I caught a line in the movie that may indicate what happened. In the scene where Madame Picquery talks of a delegation that may be sent from the International Confederation because they think the attacks in NYC are linked to Grindewald. Graves says, "I was there. This is a beast." (My italics). Now he may be saying he was at the site of the attack or he might be saying that he was in Europe and witnessed Grindewald's attacks - or both.  If he was in Europe, that may indicate that Grindewald used Graves by killing him and taking over his identity, or by some other means impersonating him to escape to America. What do you think?
I'm inclined to think that refers to him seeing the incident and thus claiming to know it was a beast.


Aha! And this could explain why his magic seems weak (as several have pointed out here). We know from Deathly Hallows how using an unfamiliar wand (especially if you have not won it) reduces your capabilities. He might have taken the wand without winning it from Graves. Or if he did win it, he might already have been so used to a superior wand, that his magic is dampened.
Well, seeing as he owns the Elder Wand, he most likely won the allegiance of Graves wand. But even so, it didn't choose him to begin with and might contain materials that doesn't exactly fit Gellert as a glove. Perhaps the fact that he gets it to work as well as he is, is a tribute to his skills. Possibly?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 06:09:40 AM by Evreka »
Logged