FANDOM


Broken Wand

The article compares Newt's expulsion with Hagrid's wand being broken when he was expelled. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hagrid's wand snapped because he was incorrectly found to be responsible for Myrtle's death? I really don't think merely being expelled gets you your wand snapped. Me, Hurray (talk) 19:12, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

I believe your right. It depends on why someone was expelled. It wasn't even Hogwarts that ordered Hagrid's wand to be broken, it was the Ministry of Magic shortly after he was expelled for opening the Chamber of Secrets and the death of Myrtle. I don't think being expelled means you may lose your wand - and I don't think whether it happened before you took your O.W.L.s has an influence on the matter. I don't think it needs to be mentioned. It's speculation! --Kates39 (talk) 19:37, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
So I added back in a version of this paragraph to try and address the unknowns. I agree that it is all speculation but there have been several different versions on this point raised on Newton Scamander so it's very popular speculation. I would rather have some "catch-all" paragraph in place, than leave it blank, so the point doesn't get added back in again with someone else's speculation that the wand had to be snapped (like our one expulsion example Hagrid) or clearly not snapped (because of difference x,y,or zed). Hope that makes sense! --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:55, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry if my clearing it was premature. Me, Hurray (talk) 22:34, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
Nah, it's probably the "right" thing do, but figure some it's easier to just note the possibilities, avoid the back and forth editing, and hope we get a clear answer in 47 days! --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:07, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

Materials: In-universe vs prop?

While the notes from The Case of Beasts: Explore the Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them explain how the props were made, I'm wondering if we can assume this carries over to what the materials are supposed to be in-universe. Given the differences in Newt's wand wood previously described (lime) compared to the prop wood (ash), can we assume prop materials = in-universe material? --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:17, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the implication is that the wand is made from both ash and lime wood, along with bone and shell. The material from "The Case of Beasts" describes the wand as having an "ash tip", but the wand overall also changes materials and colors as you work your way down to the handle. Newt's wand is the only one currently known with confirmed multiple materials. I see it as being more likely than not that his wand contains two different wand woods, as opposed to just one or the other. PhoenicisLunae (talk) 03:14, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
But as noted for Seraphina Picquery's wand where the prop material is ebony and the in-universe material is swamp mayhaw these don't always align. I don't think we have enough info to know for sure what this means for Newt's wand, but it's something that needs clarification for any wand whose material is based on prop details. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:40, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
Bumping this - thoughts on how to resolve the in-universe vs prop materials? Is there ever a description provided that is clearly in-universe? --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:40, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Seraphina's and Graves' wands props were both made from ebony, and Queenie's from rosewood. The elder wand prop was even made from English oak. No description is provided in-universe, so like on the Graves, Seraphina, and Queenie pages, the prop materials are included in behind the scenes. The same should be done for Newt's wand. Nightstar5877 (talk) 06:33, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

Ash?

The reference added by the editor who changed the wand wood to ash, actually has no mention of Newt's wand wood. I vaguely remember reading that the prop designer made the tip with ash, but there was no confirmation from anyone else that it was the actual wand wood of Newt's wand. Am I missing any new information? Would that be accepatable evidence for now or would the page need to be altered again to say it's unknown? And there's certainly no evidence it was made by Ollivander yet. - Kates39 (talk) 20:44, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Bumping. - Kates39 (talk) 11:59, March 28, 2018 (UTC)
No new information that I am aware of - seems to refer back to the prop so probably best to remove again. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:17, March 28, 2018 (UTC)
I just found another video where Eddie Redmayne said "it certainly came from (Ollivanders)" and that it was "ashwood" with a shell of "mother-of-pearl", but that was what the prop designer kind of said. Should we take Eddie's word for it? - Kates39 (talk) 17:26, March 28, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Wizarding World Collection