|
Message[]
Hello ! I am not English so I don't dare changing the existing text, just in case, but I saw something that seems weir to me :
- "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will an upcoming trilogy of films based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, one of the companion books to J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series."
- — First sentence
.
Could someone say me if it is normal or not ?
Tank you,
Maybe was Jacob Erland
Maybe was Jacob Erland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nguonnhanluc853 (talk • contribs).
Updating required:[]
There have been a updated explanation of the film plot and the roles of the characters. Please check it up on Wikipedia and add missing information accordingly. :-)
Ninclow 19:21, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Does this film exist in the book universe? Darth DarkDarth (talk) 06:55, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
Article for Second Movie[]
There are already a few articles about the second movie in this trilogy, should we create another article with an "are you a wizard or not?" template at the top, and possibly redirect the page once a better title is given?
Samanthawrites (talk) 02:55, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Some countries are showing the movie already[]
Although pretty much all sources says the movie is set to premiere in most of the world tomorrow (November 18) many European countries already premiered it today (November 17), including here in Denmark. In fact I just came back home from the second screening in a cinema closest to my home. I wonder why it's being showed early in so many places, or has there been some mistake? Lukas Exemplar (talk) 14:35, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
No, not a mistake, I'm afraid. Asian countries also show films earlier than in the US. Here in Singapore it has already premiered. HarryPotterJerv (talk) 14:40, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean is it a mistake that most sources online says that the world premiere is on November 18? Lukas Exemplar (talk) 16:57, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
- EDIT: Oh, nevermind, it says right there that the US release was November 10, the UK November 15 and November 18 for the worldwide release, which has now been proven to be around 17-18 rather. However, with that information, shouldn't the article say that the movie has already come out? Lukas Exemplar (talk) 17:01, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
Gallery Cleanup[]
I think we need to cleanup the gallery on this page and remove any of the pictures which are not promotional posters for the film, i.e. the screenshots. It is really long which is making the editor take a while to load. I feel the page is kind of cluttered enough without the gallery taking up more space than it is needed. Is is okay if I remove a lot of the pictures?
I have also found the use of a gallery to be an issue on some of the character articles. They have unnecessary galleries as well and since the article is supposed to be written from an in-universe perspective, should they even have the Pottermore logo on them? --Kates39 (Talk) 16:30, December 12 2016 (UTC)
- In general, Layout Guide says that images should be integrated with the text and not interrupt it. I agree that the galleries should be trimmed down or just replaced entirely by category pages such as Category:Images from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) or Category:Images of promotional posters or new Categories as needed. I also agree that watermarked images are out of universe and shouldn't be used in the main article.
- As noted before on the forum discussion, the galleries have been acting as holding pens for images until we had enough story text with which to integrate them. We should be at this point for character pages so the appropriate images can be added to the article text and the galleries removed IMO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:12, December 12, 2016 (UTC)
- I will get started on trimming down the gallery in this article and maybe putting some of the screenshots minus the Pottermore logo on other pages where appropiate. But I love the idea of replacing the galleries with category pages. It will make the articles look much better and much simpler. I will keep the promotional posters in the gallery on this article for now until we make a decision on that, but I will also make a start on removing the galleries altogether on some character articles once I have sorted this one out. --Kates39 (Talk) 17:53, December 12 2016 (UTC)
The opening scene is a false trail[]
I was just re-watching the film yesterday, and I noticed something rather interesting when I looked through my copy of the screenplay afterwards: The Dark wizard we see in the opening scene is not the real Grindelwald.
With reference to SCENE 1 EXT. "SOMEWHERE IN EUROPE"—1926—NIGHT. While the screenplay do refer to the individual who attacked the five Aurors at the [[Derelict château]|derelict château]] as "Grindelwald" to preserve the red herring in script form, there is ample proof that this individual was one of his followers in disguise and not the real Grindelwald. For example, we're informed that Newt's arrival in SCENE 2 EXT. SHIP GLIDING INTO NEW YORK—NEXT MORNING, but in SCENE 22 INT. MAJOR INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT—DAY, when Tina takes Newt into custody later that day, we get this description: "Among them is Graves, examining the newspaper, his face cut and bruised from last night’s encounter with the strange entity", meaning "Graves" encounter and was injured the same evening that "he" was ran to ground in Europe and killed those five Aurors. Add to that the claim that the New York Ghost articles from the same day that eludes to both "Grindelwald"'s escape from the château and how "authorities were investigating claims of Grindelwald sighting in Bratislava", it's is made clear that Grindelwald is cleverly using disguised acolytes as decoys to keep the public eye and perception on "his" attacks in Europe so as to facilitate his infiltration of MACUSA as Graves.
In addition to this, there's an interview with Rowling after fans questioned why Newt didn't simply Apparate to New York, to which she replied: "Apparition becomes increasingly risky over long distances. As with most magic, much depends on the skill of the spell-caster: Apparition requires knowledge of the terrain to which one is moving, or the ability to visualise it clearly. Cross-continental Apparition would almost certainly result in severe injury or death". And it doesn't have to be cross-continental Apparition to be dangerous; in book 7, even Lord Voldemort has to fly part of the way between Austria and England before to g et close enough that he could Apparate safely. I think it's therefore confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that Grindelwald was already in New York in scene 1.
I also feel I should round off by pointing out the logistical impossibility of "Grindelwald" in SCENE 1 being Grindelwald: By the time we see Newt arrive in New York, Grindelwald have already traveled from Europe to New York, found himself a target in Percival Graves, gotten him alone, killed him, taken his identity, infiltrated MACUSA and established a small network of MACUSA employees, like Bernadette, willing to obey him unquestioningly, even if orders were unlawful. And then he would have to meet and establish enough of an rapport with Credence to emotionally manipulate him the way he does. It doesn't matter how magically accomplished one is, this would have been beyond the scope of any wizard to pull off between nighttime and daybreak, regardless of skill. Not least of all because this goes beyond magic. When the Trio infiltrated the Ministry in book 7, they did so planning to get in and out the same day. Grindelwald meanwhile, played the long game. He had to find a suitable person to impersonate with the influence and authority he needed to properly utilize MACUSA's resources to help him locate the Oscurus, know how these resources worked and use them properly, and like Barty Crouch Jr., have a firm enough grip on Graves' mannerisms that he could interact with longtime colleagues of the real Graves on a daily basis without arousing suspicion, including trained Aurors. He was familiar enough with Graves' co-workers to know names and faces that he needed to know to impersonate Graves, be familiar enough with the city of New York to Apparition around it when needed, and know the layout of the MACUSA HQ well enough to move around without getting lost or forgetting where things are. All of this is independent of magical ability, and takes time, planning and preparation.
All of this, plus how his interactions with Abernathy in the Wand Permit Office perfectly mirrored how Arthur and Kingsley pretended to barely know each other at the Ministry in book 5, points towards the fact that Gellert Grindelwald had been in New York for some time by the time Newt arrived. Now I wonder how we can best reflect this little oversight on our part in the articles? Ninclow (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this sounds more like a fan theory than fact, and it's certainly not true. Every source: the film, screenplay, companion books, and official site; confirms it's Grindelwald, not anyone else. Even if there are inconsistencies or things that don't make sense, they belong in the BTS section as notes, not stated as facts to justify changes across the wiki. That said, I see no contradiction to begin with.
- The screenplay states: "Among them is Graves, examining the newspaper, his face cut and bruised from last night's encounter with the strange entity". This cannot refer to the château event. The line is clearly meant to hint at "the strange entity", referring to the Obscurus attacking New York, later revealed to be Credence Barebone. The definite article "the" before "strange" implies it's already known, further pointing to Credence. Therefore, "last night" means Graves (Grindelwald) was already in New York.
- As for the claim that Grindelwald couldn't have done all this in one day: traveling to New York, capturing Graves, impersonating him, infiltrating MACUSA, and forming a network; it's flawed. First, he didn't do it all in a day, as established above. Second, there's no strong evidence he built a loyal network in MACUSA before the events, except for Abernathy, who could have joined much later in 1927. So it's plausible he simply captured (not necessarily killed, we don't know what happened) Graves and began impersonating him. The trio pulled off a similar impersonation in the Deathly Hallows; Grindelwald, being far more skilled, could easily do the same.
- In short, your theory doesn't hold. And even if it could, it's still invalidated by all official sources identifying the character as Grindelwald. - Peregino (talk)
03:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I appreciate the time and thought you put into analyzing my argument, and your concern for preserving the integrity of the wiki by grounding claims in verifiable sources. However, I'd like to offer a respectful counterpoint, integrating some new insights and clarifying the intent behind my original observation.
- First, I want to acknowledge a point I overlooked earlier: Abernathy. You are absolutely correct in noting that my earlier interpretation of Abernathy's role may have been premature. Upon further review, I now recognize that Abernathy was one of the Aurors in the third change of Grindelwald's guards, as seen in The Crimes of Grindelwald—which took place in 1927. Coupled with Grindelwald’s line, “You have joined a noble cause, my friend”, it’s clear he, "Abernathy", was tasked with ensuring that "Grindelwald" was secure and ready for transport after they swapped places, and that Abernathy’s loyalty was indeed freshly gained, not longstanding. But this does not undercut the primary structural point I made earlier: that environmental storytelling informs us that Grindelwald was already in New York by Scene 1, regardless of Abernathy’s timeline. His absence from that early infiltration simply becomes a non-factor.
- I understand why, at first glance, this may sound like a fan theory—especially to someone primarily interpreting stories via explicit exposition. But fiction, particularly film, isn’t only advanced through direct statements. It’s also told through structure, framing, and visual subtext. When inconsistencies arise between textual exposition and onscreen logic, it's not "headcanon" to analyze them, it's reading the medium as it's meant to be read. This is the difference between explicit and implicit storytelling:
- Explicit: “Grindelwald escaped.”
- Implicit: We are shown a bruised “Graves”, who is later revealed to be Grindelwald, the day after an event in Europe that he could not physically have participated in, combined with a narrative that involves strategic misdirection.
- These aren’t fan theories: They’re part of the film's storytelling mechanics.
- As to the point about the screenplay calling the character in Scene 1 “Grindelwald”, I would argue this is a misreading of how screenplays function as storytelling tools. Script and screenplays are guides to how the rest of the crew is going to tell the story visually on camera, and are hence written with the audience’s perspective in mind, not diegetic truth. The intention here is not to confirm identity from an in-universe standpoint, but to preserve the story as is for those working to tell it to us. For example, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Barty Crouch Jr. is referred to as "Moody" throughout the script until the reveal. That didn’t make him the real Alastor Moody. The same principle applies here. And if anything, it becomes particularly relevant in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, which wasn't merely posted online where fans could read it if they liked, but deliberately published and sold to us fans. If the character wasn't labeled “Grindelwald”, it would spoil the twist. As such, labeling a decoy as “Grindelwald” in the screenplay is not evidence of identity, it's a deliberate illusion crafted for viewers and readers alike. In short: the script’s internal naming conventions are subordinate to in-universe story being told, which aims to preserve the narrative misdirection.
- Regarding the line: "Among them is Graves, examining the newspaper, his face cut and bruised from last night’s encounter with the strange entity..."
- You’re correct that the “strange entity” is later revealed to be the Obscurus. However, the timing and physical state of “Graves” raises some internal contradictions when you try to interpret the château scene as involving the real Grindelwald. If Grindelwald was physically involved in a violent, deadly skirmish in Europe just hours earlier, how is he already impersonating Graves in New York, completely embedded in MACUSA, with bruises attributed to a separate event (an encounter with the Obscurus) around the same time?
- Scene 1: Grindelwald/“Grindelwald” slaughters Aurors in a derelict château in Europe at night.
- Scene 2: Newt arrives in New York the next morning.
- Scene 22: Later that same day, “Graves” has bruises from “last night.”
- This timeline becomes highly compressed, even logistically impossible. If the château attack was truly Grindelwald himself, he would’ve had to: Travel from Central/Eastern Europe to New York overnight (non-apparition travel, per Rowling's own remarks on the danger of cross-continental apparition), kill a senior MACUSA official (Graves), (whom Colin Farrell confirmed to be dead when asked if he would return later on in the FB franchise after film 1 came out), assume his identity, establish enough familiarity with MACUSA to not arouse suspicion, and already begin working over Credence emotionally, all by mid-morning the following day. Unless Grindelwald time-traveled, he could not have both been in Europe “last night” and been injured by an entity in New York the same night.
- That is not just stretching credibility, it directly contradicts every example of polyjuice-style impersonation we've seen in canon. The trio's Ministry infiltration in Deathly Hallows is the closest analogue, and even then, they made mistakes, raised eyebrows, and relied on luck. They planned meticulously but still only hoped to stay in for a few hours. Yet Grindelwald is supposedly doing a flawless infiltration of a foreign government in a strange country within hours of a massive transcontinental escape? Not only is it magically impossible to pull off for a whole host of reasons not tied to magical talent alone, but it is narratively and practically implausible, especially considering Grindelwald’s stated modus operandi: long-game infiltration. He is patient, persuasive, and calculating—not reckless. That’s why his approach mirrors Barty Crouch Jr.’s impersonation of Moody more than it does the Trio’s hit-and-run infiltration of the Ministry.
- So while I understand and respect the desire to stick closely to official sources, I would argue that narrative consistency, canon-compliant logic, and Rowling’s own interviews confirms that the man we see in the opening scene is a magically disguised acolyte of Grindelwald, serving as a decoy, while the real Grindelwald had already embedded himself in MACUSA as Graves. If we accept what we are canonically shown in the story rather than a surface-level reading of the screenplay, This timeline contradiction disappears.
- Grindelwald may be more skilled magically than the trio put together, but the logistical detail shown in the Deathly Hallows infiltration of the Ministry underscores how deeply time-consuming effective impersonation is. It's not about magical skill; impersonation requires social engineering, infrastructure knowledge, and emotional manipulation, especially with a sensitive target like Credence. And "Graves" was working alongside trained Aurors, lest we forget, which would mean he'd have to be even more careful not do do anything out of character for the real Graves.