The Ringer - Everything You Need to Know About ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ 2018-11-20T11:55:34-05:00http://www.theringer.com/rss/stream/178559712018-11-20T11:55:34-05:002018-11-20T11:55:34-05:00‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Movie
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LChfEZI5xObEJX6ICYl9miBu4Ik=/240x0:1680x1080/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62367251/ttty.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>Mallory Rubin and Jason Concepcion continue their journey through the Potterverse by examining the second prequel film and its theme of persuasion</p> <p id="aqisYO">Hello! (Yeah!) And <a href="https://www.theringer.com/binge-mode">welcome to <em>Binge Mode</em>!</a> Mallory Rubin and Jason Concepcion <a href="https://art19.com/shows/binge-mode-game-of-thrones/episodes/18aea3b3-f0b5-45fd-904e-6869d5986870">continue their exploration of the <em>Harry Potter</em> universe</a> by diving deep into the movie adaptation of <em>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>. To help guide you on that journey, here is a map of the 51st episode of <em>Binge Mode: Harry Potter</em>. It’s not quite as detailed as the Marauder’s Map, but don’t fear: The podcast is just as magical.</p>
<div id="sSYttX"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/583sWUkA5U8AymgGt1yOo9" style="border: 0; width: 100%; height: 232px;" allowfullscreen="" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe></div>
<p id="cnzVXZ">On this episode of <em>Binge Mode</em>, after taking a journey on the Hogwarts Express, Mallory and Jason analyze the movie via seven big questions and awards:</p>
<ol>
<li id="D7m3gG">The Big Idea</li>
<li id="qKpL99">Best Connection to Established Canon, Worst Connection to Established Canon</li>
<li id="Xqci6Q">The [<em>Extremely </em>Goblet<em> Voice</em>] “I Love Magic” Award for Best Use of, Depiction of, or Introduction of a Magical Ability or Item</li>
<li id="smiFRs">The “HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!” Award for Most Effective Snapshot of Angst (or Romance)</li>
<li id="BRROy8">Sights and Sounds (Most Notable Hair, Costume, Score, or CGI Element)</li>
<li id="NjXrGl">Best Quotes</li>
<li id="tSOQyH">Winner of the Movie</li>
</ol>
<p class="c-end-para" id="ObSIhO">For the full podcast, subscribe on <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fitunes.apple.com%2Fus%2Fpodcast%2Fbinge-mode-game-of-thrones%2Fid1243247464%3Fmt%3D2">Apple Podcasts</a>, <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ringer/binge-mode-game-of-thrones">Stitcher</a>, <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/6u8aqT4yaqnXiAwSHQP0NN">Spotify</a>, or wherever you get podcasts, and follow along on <a href="https://twitter.com/binge_mode">Twitter</a> and join the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/BingeMode/">Facebook group</a>, which is just for <em>Binge Mode</em> fans. We await your digital Owl Post!</p>
https://www.theringer.com/binge-mode/2018/11/20/18104838/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-movieMallory RubinJason Concepcion2018-11-19T09:55:02-05:002018-11-19T09:55:02-05:00The ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Exit Survey
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HsYXnqALC4BD4e60mxEsQUfQxM4=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62356815/grindelwald_exitsurvey_warner_ringer.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros./Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Did that huge reveal violate canon? Is it possible to give Hot Dumbledore enough screen time? Are the beasts still fantastic? The Ringer’s magical creatures attempt to sail to clarity about the latest installment in the ‘Harry Potter’ wizarding world.</p> <figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Spoiler alert" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/G9ttYqfu3fPR8k9npj-cWkEQvJQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10691643/spoiler_alert__2_.gif">
</figure>
<p id="CqpRCI"><em>Our resident </em>Harry Potter <em>fanatics have pulled the tentacles out of their eyes; followed the feather; and gone middle head—just like Newt would want—to figure out what to make of the </em>Fantastic Beasts <em>franchise’s second installment, a Kelpie-sized conundrum that confounds as often as it delights. </em></p>
<hr class="p-entry-hr" id="SouAlo">
<h4 id="mTdFIS">1. What is your tweet-length review of <em>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>?</h4>
<p id="QB2Km6"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/jason-concepcion"><strong>Jason Concepcion</strong></a><strong>: </strong>Fun film that also, unfortunately, threatens to overturn nearly two decades of canonical understanding of this story. </p>
<p id="tivnDS"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/zach-kram"><strong>Zach Kram</strong></a><strong>: </strong>Was this how people felt leaving the theater after watching <em>The Phantom Menace</em>?</p>
<p id="bJn4Ra"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/mallory-rubin"><strong>Mallory Rubin</strong></a><strong>: Newt:</strong> Safe house? Why would I need a safe house in Paris? <strong>Me:</strong> One hopes you won’t, but should things at some point go terribly wrong, it’s good to have a place to go. You know, for a cup of tea. Or to talk yourself into “King’s Cross” remaining a perfect gem untouched by time.</p>
<p id="24R0Jf"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/claire-mcnear"><strong>Claire McNear</strong></a><strong>: </strong>Too dark, too serious, too scattered. All the people and beasts are beautiful, however.</p>
<p id="dQAucg"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/isaac-lee"><strong>Isaac Lee</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Besides the alarming vacuum of fleshed-out exposition, it was an effective display of bombarding the audience with one presumably significant event after another—like <em>Mad Max: Fury Road</em>, except it actually needs the explanation.</p>
<p id="TG2DnK"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/jason-gallagher"><strong>Jason Gallagher</strong></a><strong>:</strong> It’s probably the most disappointing <em>Harry Potter</em> movie to date. Other than that though ... </p>
<p id="biUvpX"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/sean-yoo"><strong>Sean Yoo</strong></a><strong>:</strong> </p>
<div id="OAY9lK">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Instant review of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CrimesOfGrindelwald?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CrimesOfGrindelwald</a>: we needed lower thirds for the entire movie</p>— Sean Yoo (@RealSeanYoo) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSeanYoo/status/1062579235422752768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="29YgcI"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/kate-halliwell"><strong>Kate Halliwell</strong></a><strong>: </strong><em>Fantastic Beasts 2: Not Canon</em>.</p>
<div id="EVa9IT"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBLRQYGBFBE?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="k7gKhJ"> </p>
<h4 id="moIu6G">2. What was the best part of the film?</h4>
<p id="zeZXeB"><strong>Kram: </strong>Dumbledore in the books is all mystery and twinkle, the latter in particular an omnipresent part of his personality that went largely missing through the core eight movies. Jude Law, conversely, twinkles and dazzles and shines in his first turn as Albus, easily making him the best Dumbledore portrayer yet.</p>
<p id="KDzHaX"><strong>Rubin: </strong>Yumbledore, who embodies everything that book readers cherish about this brilliant, complex, quirky, nuanced, wise, fallible, charming creation—and happens to do so while expertly wearing tweed. </p>
<p id="c1I5aG"><strong>Lee: </strong>The scene with Newt in his basement with all his beasts … and Bunty. Truly delightful to see all the various beasts as well as Newt’s complete and utter obliviousness to Bunty’s horniness toward him.</p>
<p id="eTDT50"><strong>Yoo: </strong>While there weren’t many highlights in this movie, the majority of the scenes involving Dumbledore stood out above the rest. Specifically, the scene in which Newt and Albus first chat. It reminded me of when a spy gets the details for his new mission from the suave yet mysterious head of operations. Dumbledore and Newt go from the rooftops of St. Paul’s through the city in a slightly scared and anxious mood that is highlighted by Jude Law’s signature charm and Eddie Redmayne’s general shy awkwardness. More Dumbledore please. </p>
<p id="VEAoFW"><strong>McNear: </strong>I loved seeing J.K. Rowling build out the international architecture of the wizarding world. The American Ministry of Magic! The French Ministry of Magic! In the original <em>Harry Potter</em> books, it sometimes felt as though the whole magical universe was confined to about 200 people—just three prep schools, graduating to jobs at the Ministry or nowhere, etc.—and it’s a delight to see her start to fill in the rest (in a venue more public and/or canonical than Pottermore and Twitter, anyway).</p>
<p id="L8g3Gg"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>Our introduction to Jude Law’s Young Dumbledore, atop St. Paul’s Cathedral. </p>
<p id="6r1cqG"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>Jude Law’s 15 minutes of screen time, no question. Also Leta’s fabulous purple dress. </p>
<p id="Y6KyJ6"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>I’ll let my colleague, Kate Halliwell, <a href="https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledore">take this one</a>.</p>
<aside id="yPwJmY"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Is ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Good? We Won’t Know Until ‘Beasts’ 3.","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18098919/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-review-harry-potter-jk-rowling"},{"title":"An Ode to Hot Dumbledore, the Highlight of ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ ","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledore"},{"title":"‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’: The Seven Key Questions","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/15/18097940/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-the-seven-key-questions"},{"title":"‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Exit Survey","url":"https://www.theringer.com/2018/11/16/18098326/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-exit-survey"}]}'></div></aside><h4 id="FZTTfx">3. What was your least favorite part of the movie?</h4>
<p id="VfkaQQ"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>Let me start by saying that many babies look alike. I get it. But if you’re a halfway decent parent, nanny, relative, or whatever, you would notice within seconds if someone handed you the wrong LIGHT OF YOUR GD LIFE. For both guardians in this scenario to fail to notice that someone has handed them something other than THE MOST PRECIOUS THING IN THEIR POSSESSION, is more unbelievable than all of Leta’s character choices combined. It’s more unbelievable than Hot Dumbledore being in love with what appears to be a middle-aged Hot Topic model. It’s more unbelievable than a giant dragon made of blue fire showing up at a real-life political rally. </p>
<p id="uvK8vk">As a parent, the swapping babies thing is honestly insulting to my intelligence—and I haven’t even talked about how Leta killed a baby because it cried too damn much. </p>
<p id="6BpN0H"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>Wow, unfortunately there are several things to choose from here. I’m going to say (simply because there’s no good explanation for it): Minerva McGonagall appearing as a teacher at Hogwarts despite it being <a href="http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Minerva_McGonagall#cite_note-pottermorebio-0">well established that she was born in 1935</a>, eight years before the events of the film. Tough one. </p>
<p id="6wwcJR"><strong>Kram: </strong>If Rowling messes up Dumbledore’s familial backstory via Credence, she doesn’t just risk ruining the prequel series; she risks compromising the integrity of the “King’s Cross” chapter in <em>Deathly Hallows</em>, one of the most beloved in the entire <em>Potter</em> series. The movie itself was confounding enough on its own; that it might generate much fiercer ripples in the <em>Potter</em> canon is far, far worse.</p>
<p id="mWNrcA"><strong>Lee: </strong>The timeline math. Minerva McGonagall—if the one who appears in this film is indeed the same McGalleon we know and love—was born in 1935. This movie takes place in 1927, and the flashback sequences in which she also appears occur 17 years previously. That means that in this film McGonagall is NEGATIVE 8 and NEGATIVE 25 YEARS OLD, respectively.</p>
<p id="npxplB">Also, the ship that Leta, Corvus V (a.k.a. crying baby), and Credence are on is supposed to have sailed in 1901. That means Credence is AT LEAST 27 YEARS OLD! WHAT?????</p>
<p id="GkNYbH">I’ll take my answer off the air, thank you.</p>
<p id="zHQb3p"><strong>McNear: </strong>That there was no room left for silliness. The original books (and movies) proved that you (or, well, Rowling) can tell a very serious story about this world and still have room for whimsy; it was a shame there was almost none here, especially when that’s what made the first <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> movie so delightful.</p>
<p id="21VARN"><strong>Yoo: </strong>There were so many things that disappointed me in this film: the frantic pacing, the underdeveloped character motives, and the severe lack of Dumbledore. But the last five minutes of the film are what will stick with me the most—and that’s mainly because they left me in a state of pure confusion. The only relief I felt was seeing the same look on the faces of Isaac Lee and Zach Kram, two <em>Harry Potter</em> megafans, who were probably more shook by the events that occured than I was. </p>
<p id="YLwthC"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>Hard to pick just one, but I’ll go with the baffling undermining of Queenie’s character and her endless relationship drama with Jacob. </p>
<p id="ViISaW"><strong>Rubin: </strong>The prospect of the Credence reveal upending established canon, but since I can’t allow myself to believe that might occur, I’ll instead go with the failure to explain the Elder Wand’s return. That kind of shortcut story mechanic feels as out of place in a J.K. Rowling tale as Vernon Dursley in Flourish and Blotts; it undercuts the significance that understanding wandlore and examining the subtle nature of wand mastership plays in the original series; and it makes the film’s Hallows-centric marketing campaign feel like a bait-and-switch. In <em>Deathly Hallows</em>, Xenophilius says that “the bloody trail of the Elder Wand is splattered across the pages of wizarding history.” I’m sure we’ll get more Elder Wand action in future <em>Beasts </em>films, but I wish the Deathstick’s bloody trail had been splattered across the pages of this script, too. </p>
<div id="sPDxrq"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/2myCwCdbAWZ2epIWsLVdc8" style="border: 0; width: 100%; height: 232px;" allowfullscreen="" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe></div>
<h4 id="UPVjpu">4. Finish this sentence: Jude Law’s Albus Dumbledore is …</h4>
<p id="1i5amM"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>… stupid hot and the only hope for this increasingly doomed franchise. </p>
<p id="uG0pqS"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>The best screen Dumbledore. Neither of the two actors who previously played Dumbledore—the legendary old British lion Richard Harris and Michael Gambon—managed to convey Dumbledore as he exists on the page: brilliant and powerful but mistrustful of power; weighted down with regrets, and yet buoyant; his eyes as likely to be twinkling with tears as mirth. Law nails the nuances of this highly nuanced man. </p>
<p id="c1LX0T"><strong>Yoo: </strong>The best cinematic portrayal of the character that we’ve ever seen and also a fall-style icon. </p>
<p id="X8fOkR"><strong>Kram: </strong>… transcendently great to the point that he better have been every respondent’s answer to question no. 2.</p>
<p id="9b63L1"><strong>Rubin: </strong>The best on-screen Dumbledore we’ve ever had. Warm, wise, and winning—and definitely not someone who would grab a terrified 14-year-old and throw him into a trophy case while asking, with the rage of a dragon, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3xrYjreN4"><em>DIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIYAH</em></a><em>?</em></p>
<p id="OL1BYz"><strong>Lee: </strong>Extremely fashionable! I thought wizards were terrible at dressing in Muggle clothing, but I guess Dumbledore transcends even that convention.</p>
<p id="mUiXEs"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>Pretty perfect. </p>
<p id="BAUALz"><strong>McNear: </strong>Not my real dad. This is unfair, and knee-jerk, and a sentimental failure of imagination, but I just don’t buy Judeledore yet. It’s strange, of course, to see someone we previously knew as wise while he’s still in the process of gathering wisdom. I think it’s also that we haven’t really seen much of the Dumbledore humor or off-the-wall weirdness that made him so singular in the books. I hope we will in the future!</p>
<div id="8xU8QK"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/2EvlS2VIUsptVfu9iEqduP" style="border: 0; width: 100%; height: 232px;" allowfullscreen="" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe></div>
<h4 id="UKKy6n">5. OK, let’s talk about that reveal: Do you believe that Credence is really Dumbledore’s secret brother? </h4>
<p id="XXajN2"><strong>Lee: </strong>[<em>Deep inhale</em>]</p>
<p id="y1JsbV">WHY THE FUCK YOU LYIN’</p>
<p id="lJYcKT">WHY YOU ALWAYS LYIN’</p>
<p id="1L8qGq">MMMMM OH MA GAWD</p>
<p id="hhoJQJ">STOP FUCKIN’ LYIN’</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cgcyR8U0_tHLwRf5fBBGrenr0CM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13454731/why_you_always.png">
</figure>
<p id="6GFbzx"><strong>Kram: </strong>[<em>Deep breath</em>] Do I think Credence is <em>actually</em> Dumbledore’s secret brother? Unfortunately yes, because despite Credence looking no older than 18 in the first movie, and despite actor Ezra Miller saying as much, and despite multiple characters calling him “boy,” the <em>Crimes</em> screenplay apparently reveals that the fateful shipwreck occurred in 1901, meaning he’s in his mid-to-late 20s (???) and therefore the right age to be the final child of Kendra Dumbledore, Albus’s mother, before her death in 1899.</p>
<p id="g9HFTR">Do I think he <em>should</em> be Dumbledore’s secret brother, however? That’s a different question entirely—and one that I answer with a resounding no. The best possible interpretation of the final scene is that Credence is just a random boy who somehow became attached to the surviving Obscurus after the death of Ariana, Dumbledore’s sister. This is the best answer, but I’m not confident it’s the right one at this point.</p>
<p id="078nY8"><strong>Yoo: </strong>I feel really good about saying Grindelwald is lying to Credence. He’s not Dumbledore’s secret brother, he’s actually a long lost Targaryen … </p>
<p id="bAXWDR"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>I’m speaking, now, of my hopes, more than anything else. I do not believe that Credence is Albus’s brother. I just can’t get there right now. The theory I subscribe to—which has the advantage of being compelling and preserving existing canon—is that Credence’s Obscurus, not him, is Dumbledore’s brother. Under this hypothesis, the Obscurus was previously attached to Dumbledore’s sister Ariana, who died in the infamous three-way duel between Albus, his brother Aberforth Dumbledore, and Grindelwald. Recall that, in <em>Crimes</em>, Dumbledore describes an Obscurus as “a dark twin, an only friend,” which “grows in the absence of love.” I think this dark twin, the parasitical sibling, is the entity Grindelwald is referring to.</p>
<p id="uEbrIW">To support this, I would point to Grindelwald’s interest in Queenie. I think it’s pretty clear—from the way Vinda Rosier finds her on the street and how close Queenie seems to be to Grindelwald at Nurmengard—that the dark wizard purposefully targeted Queenie. Why would he need a Legilimens, an empath, after all? Credence is all too happy to talk about his feelings, his desire to know who he is and where he comes from. Want to know what he’s thinking about? Just ask him. That, obviously, is not the case with an Obscurus. The only way for Grindelwald to communicate with it would be through Queenie. </p>
<p id="NrvR9o"><strong>McNear: </strong>As the great Michael Scott once said: No! God! No! God! Please! No! No! No! NOOOOOOO! If it’s true, it’s totally at odds with everything we know about Dumbledore; if it’s not, it’s a pretty vicious pump fake by J.K.</p>
<p id="77uda5"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>Yes, if only because they changed his identity approximately 500 times in the final 30 minutes of the movie. I did read something interesting about this, though. Now, according to canon, one more character identity twist for Credence means he’s something far more significant than a Dumbledore or a Lestrange—it would mean he’s officially … (omg) ... a bit. </p>
<p id="gAPLCN"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>Yes, because J.K. Rowling will do anything in order to stay relevant, including blowing up everything I loved about her books. (Sorry, Mal.) </p>
<p id="FUK6df"><strong>Rubin: </strong>I forgive you, Kate, just like I’m ready to forgive this twist! My faith in the <em>Harry Potter </em>saga has yet to go unrewarded, and as distressed as I am by the possibility that this reveal could be true—and thus forever alter Dumbledore’s soul-bearing in “King’s Cross,” a chapter I love more than I love most people—I believe there are highly compelling cases for at least two other theories that would leave established canon blissfully intact: 1. that Grindelwald is lying and 2. that Albus is the brother not to Credence, but to Ariana Dumbledore’s Obscurus, which attached itself to Credence’s life form after separating from her, à la Voldemort’s soul shard latching onto Harry. To hear approximately 900 more hours of talk about these theories (and others!), please listen to and watch <a href="https://twitter.com/binge_mode"><em>Binge Mode</em></a>. There’s a story in our podcast studio that a phoenix will come to any listener who is in desperate need. </p>
<h4 id="xCpazf">6. Who are you shipping in these love triangles? (And which Scamander brother was Leta saying “I love you” to?) </h4>
<p id="umRYkz"><strong>Rubin: </strong>Leta was saying “I love you” to Newt—or at least that’s what I’ll tell Theseus when I tuck him into our bed at night. Also, please protect Bunty—preferably with ointment—at all costs. And please give Newt, who clearly has a foot fetish, a shoe catalogue to look at—as long as it’s not part of <em>Spellbound</em>, which cock-blocked him and his Salamander-eye talk and is clearly fact-checked by the same people who let Dogbreath Doge’s obit run. </p>
<p id="L3Nclg"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>I ship Dumbledore with every single person in this movie, and also Colin Farrell. </p>
<p id="RxZHYC"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>Newt Scamander and Leta Lestrange. Listen—no shots at Tina, who is firmly a middle head and very accomplished. But Leta is next level. Hopefully we’ll eventually get to see how she ended up with Theseus instead of Newt. </p>
<p id="1vaFge"><strong>McNear: </strong>Color me cynical, but it seems like Leta and Theseus had a loving and fulfilling relationship (that tender kiss and request that he be careful? C’mon!), and the Newt weirdness was mostly her trying to be careful of his feelings. You can have fond memories of teenage relationships and also very much not wish you were still in them. Also, he seems to be very into Tina, so.</p>
<p id="8BkwlU"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>I think Leta was in love with Newt and not his brother, a.k.a. “Hotter Scamander.” Otherwise, what was the point of Leta’s Hogwarts flashback? Plus, I desperately want to live in a world where both Katherine Waterston and Zoë Kravitz fall in love with someone that socially uncomfortable. </p>
<p id="Pm1bEM"><strong>Yoo: </strong>No offense to our good pal Newt, but Leta deserves someone who can at least hold a conversation. My vote is for Theseus. But I also want to believe that Leta said “I love you” to Newt, who was her first love, and the one who cared for her when literally no one else did. </p>
<p id="5lL5QX"><strong>Lee: </strong>Well—spoiler warning, if you haven’t read the textbook <em>Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them</em>—we know that Tina and Newt end up getting married, but even setting that aside, I did like the coupling of Leta and Theseus: They look like a power couple. And Leta was most definitely saying “I love you” to both, in different ways.</p>
<p id="j0C3md"><strong>Kram: </strong>I’m rooting for Bunty.</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UQou7PPRnCMpLQUF2C6e3wVyZ-k=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13454730/Screen_Shot_2018_11_18_at_10.47.46_PM.png">
</figure>
<h4 id="R9wPEQ">7. Which beast (new or returning) was the most fantastic? </h4>
<p id="roQA1p"><strong>McNear: </strong>I was already in the tank for Nifflers, but now they’re out here pickpocketing megapowerful dark warlocks in the name of justice? Come to my home, little buddy. I’ll take you to Forever 21 and buy you all the rhinestones you could ever want.</p>
<p id="bHUQo0"><strong>Kram: </strong>Pickett matches Marvel’s Groot branch for branch in the surprisingly competitive “fictional tree in popular IP” power rankings. Secondary plaudits go to the sewer dragon parasite that invades Kama’s eyeball, which is a fun phrase to write about a mass-marketed movie for children.</p>
<p id="OZkINm"><strong>Lee: </strong>The Kelpie! Besides it causing the most overt display of thirst in the history of cinema, when Bunty asks Newt to take off his shirt, it looked like a fascinating creature that perhaps might come into play again in later installments—for a beast that had an entire CGI sequence dedicated to it, it was largely inconsequential in this film.</p>
<p id="nzMjP4"><strong>Yoo: </strong>Got mad love for my day-one homie Pickett, but the Zouwu, the majestic lion that can travel 1,000 miles in a day, was extremely dope. Not only was it a beautiful creature and eventual companion to Newt, but it also kicked major ass against those creepy big-eyed French Ministry cats. I did not like those cats. </p>
<p id="F6M2d6"><strong>Rubin: </strong>I think I’d commit an actual crime to protect Pickett (both because I love him and because I know that he’d then break me out of jail). </p>
<p id="1XT3nM"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>The Nifflers stay undefeated!</p>
<p id="GROCNT"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>Shouts to the Zouwu, the magical beast that can travel a 1,000 miles day and has a certain fondness for cat toys! </p>
<p id="dh6Dte"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>This is the last time I’ll point to <a href="https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledore">Kate’s article</a>. I swear.</p>
<h4 id="oy4TMv">8. Which character deserved more screen time?</h4>
<p id="edUmPo"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>[<em>Sees this question.</em>]</p>
<p id="Xuy9QC">My brain: </p>
<p id="MFO1d4">don’t do it</p>
<p id="u9Anmi">don’t do it</p>
<p id="65vC3F">don’t do it</p>
<p id="SoXvn5">(X10)</p>
<p id="6NGFCO">I’m sorry. <a href="https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledore">Take it away, Kate</a>. </p>
<p id="roz2EU"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>Nagini! We just discovered that Voldemort’s loyal pet snake is … A PERSON. A Maledictus, who, by the time of the <em>Harry Potter</em> books, has changed permanently into her beast form. AND SHE HAS, LIKE, THREE LINES! I need much more information. Starting with—does this mean that in the books, Dumbledore knew who Nagini was? </p>
<p id="FNDts2"><strong>McNear: </strong>I hate that Nagini was just left to be a damsel in distress. What little we know about her past is fascinating; we also know how her story ends, and her journey from blood cursee to captive circus performer to agent (and Horcrux) of Voldemort must be a fascinating one. She could—and, hopefully in future installments, will—be a rich and illuminating character, and the sort of lost and lonely figure Rowling has proved so adept at giving life to, but we were given very little to work with here. What a bummer for a figure we know will have great importance just a bit down the road.</p>
<p id="Z6SsR0"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>Dumbledore, obviously!</p>
<p id="IdM75Q"><strong>Yoo: </strong>Nagini. I’m sure there will be plenty of Claudia Kim in <em>Beasts</em> 3-5, but I wanted more from the character here, especially since the trailers made it seem like she would have a larger role in the movie. </p>
<p id="PToEpo"><strong>Kram: </strong>Which is greater: the number of lines Nagini speaks in this movie, or the number of characters she kills in snake form in the core <em>Potter</em> series?</p>
<p id="mEIELe"><strong>Rubin: </strong>Considering that 11 years of <em>Hallows </em>canon now rests on his mountain-crushing shoulders, I’d like to spend a little more time with Credence! And I’d really like to learn more about Nagini. The idea that two people made to feel like freaks and tormented by the idea of not knowing who they are or what they might become would find each other in a way station for lost souls is so perfectly Rowlingian that I can’t help but long for a deeper exploration of their bond. “He knows what you were born,” Nagini tells Credence, “not who you are.” I want to know both of those things about both of them. </p>
<p id="EWZF9J"><strong>Lee: </strong>Leta (RIP). Her character was not established enough to warrant the emotional weight of her confession scene or her sacrifice. Hopefully she comes back via flashback in the next installment!</p>
<h4 id="FOjuND">9. Were the number of connections to the original canon not enough, too much, or just right? And does the film change your opinion of the Potterverse at large? </h4>
<p id="02Pc2W"><strong>Rubin: </strong>In “King’s Cross,” the chapter that you’ve heard so much about here today and will continue to hear so much about from Potterheads worldwide, Harry wakes facedown and alone, and realizes that he’s naked. He thinks to himself: “He wondered whether, as he could feel, he would be able to see. In opening them, he discovered that he had eyes. He lay in a bright mist, though it was not like mist he had ever experienced before. His surroundings were not hidden by cloudy vapor; rather the cloudy vapor had not yet formed into surroundings.” This is how I’m choosing to think about <em>Crimes</em>’ connections to established canon. Sure, I’m harping on what some of this film’s choices could mean once they come into focus, but I’m also confident that if I decide not to board the train before I’m ready, J.K. will take me back, as she always has and I hope always will, to where the vapor has cleared and my surroundings are as familiar as the freckles on Ron’s nose and the curls of Hermione’s hair. </p>
<p id="KWKbHx">It’s my choice to believe that, just as it was Harry’s. I spent much of the run-up to <em>Beasts </em>1 and the time between films craving more Dumbledore backstory; I’m a rational enough person to acknowledge that I can’t say I want that and then complain about what I get. And I liked a lot of what I got! I’m beginning to worry that there might be an unsolvable dissonance at play for fans like me who want to learn everything we can about the universe we adore and the characters who inhabit it, then bristle when Madam Malkin’s plot pins pierce our skin unexpectedly, but I’m also not ready to stop trusting in my queen’s ability to make me say, time and again, “All was well.” </p>
<p id="P3xFpS"><strong>Kram: </strong>Two years ago, before the first <em>Beasts</em> film, <a href="https://www.theringer.com/2016/11/17/16043502/our-dream-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-scenarios-fcec009f20f0">I wrote about my desire</a> to see as little of the known Potter-centric wizarding world as possible in the new franchise. Seeing known characters would yield “narrative somersaults,” I worried at the time—and given the absurdity of Professor Minerva McGonagall’s appearance in <em>Crimes </em>in both the 1910s and 1920s, despite existing canon showing she wasn’t born until the 1930s and didn’t start teaching at Hogwarts until the 1950s, is proof that my fear has already materialized. That doesn’t change my opinion of the core seven books, which remain my favorite fictional series ever put to paper, but Rowling is flirting with danger regarding the internal logical consistency of her broader invented universe.</p>
<p id="y3zFgj"><strong>McNear: </strong>I’m bummed. I’m not nearly as much of a Potterhead as some of my colleagues, but I consider myself reasonably invested/indoctrinated—and yet I couldn’t fathom, for example, why we were supposed to care so much about the bloodline of the Lestrange family, other than that the Lestranges lay some bad (and significant) eggs down the road. I think <em>Fantastic Beasts </em>is strongest when its lore connections are more Easter egg than grand reveal, and we got far too much of the latter here.</p>
<p id="iPmwvY"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>Both not enough (tell us more about the Elder Wand!) and too much (don’t fuck with the Dumbledore canon!).</p>
<p id="cFGbaE"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>With all the Deathly Hallows teasing we got in the marketing campaign, I thought we’d be flooded with answers and connections to original canon. Instead we got more questions and debates about whether the <em>Titanic</em> was in the film or not. </p>
<p id="seHoY8">Spoiler: It wasn’t . </p>
<div id="4If10v">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">A live look at <a href="https://twitter.com/ameliadeew?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ameliadeew</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSeanYoo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RealSeanYoo</a> and I as the <a href="https://twitter.com/binge_mode?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@binge_mode</a> crew 100% debunks our beloved 'The Titanic was in Fantastic Beasts 2' take. <a href="https://t.co/nLCkuG2xFI">pic.twitter.com/nLCkuG2xFI</a></p>— Jason Gallagher (@jga41agher) <a href="https://twitter.com/jga41agher/status/1063569632630497280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2018</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="dcbXCC"><strong>Lee: </strong>It’s less a matter of quantity than quality; many of the connections are disappointingly brief for a superfan such as myself, or poorly constructed—as in the case of Minerva McGonagall. And of course, the massive reveal at the end may alter so much of what we know about one of the series’ central figures. Still, my affection for the Potterverse remains intact; I just wish we had answers for these additions to canon.</p>
<p id="kzpcAv"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>In terms of quantity, there are the right number of connections. In terms of quality—to be determined. I’m not going to say I’m not distressed, or vexed, or troubled. (Negative-8-Year-Old Minerva McGalleon McGonagall appears in this movie!) But, in the end, I’m quite confident that nothing could change my overall opinion of the Potterverse, specifically the original seven books. <em>Canonical Protego! </em></p>
<h4 id="B6OLtn">10. What needs to happen in <em>Beasts 3</em> to win you back, or keep you loyal? </h4>
<p id="S4IAPj"><strong>Yoo: </strong>Some answers would be nice … </p>
<p id="7sjoQT"><strong>Kram: </strong>Is it too much to ask for a charming, well-written, intricately plotted movie populated with balanced, well-rounded, and relatable characters, which also appeals to both the hard-core and casual fans, solves some of the canonical riddles put forth in <em>Crimes</em>, and stands on its own as an entertaining product while also setting up similar entertainment in the rest of the <em>Beasts</em> series? I mean, for almost every other writer in the world, yes, but this is J.K. Rowling; she can still pull this off.</p>
<p id="XGATQL"><strong>Rubin: </strong>I loved <em>Beasts </em>1, so I know this franchise is capable of presenting more than this—capable of introducing us to new people and places and ideas and then marrying that seamlessly with connections to the magic we already know and love. If that stops being true, what am I going to do, hurl myself into Newt’s Kelpie cage or the black lake and wail until the end of days with Moaning Myrtle? No! I had Harry then. I have him now. I’ll have him forever. Always. </p>
<p id="6BaZLY"><strong>Concepcion: </strong>More Elder Wand. Many, many more Deathly Hallows tie-ins. And satisfying answers to the myriad plot questions which threaten to upend established canon. That’s all! </p>
<p id="Q9tKMv"><strong>Lee: </strong>Nothing, I will stay loyal to the franchise as long as J.K. Rowling keeps adding to the story of the Wizarding World.</p>
<p id="amfyFL"><strong>McNear: </strong>Have some fun again. The beauty of anchoring these prequels on Newt was that he made it possible to tell a smaller story that tied into something greater; here, it seems like they just tried to tell the big story outright, and lost a lot of the magic along the way.</p>
<p id="ovS4OB"><strong>Gallagher: </strong>I’m easy. Give me a fun movie in which things happen that make sense to the story and to the existing characters you’ve introduced, and I’m good. And a side of Hot Dumbledore. But easy on the baby swapping. </p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="2HwNJX"><strong>Halliwell: </strong>If we don’t get a Dumbledore makeout scene, I walk.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/19/18102515/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-harry-potter-exit-surveyThe Ringer Staff2018-11-16T14:31:06-05:002018-11-16T14:31:06-05:00Is ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Good? We Won’t Know Until ‘Beasts’ 3.
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Ya8oYdkHctm0-Bui5egfotfSzWA=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62345020/grindeewald_kram.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros./Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s a problem for the reveal-dependent movie and the ‘Harry Potter’ prequel franchise as a whole, because compelling fantasy can’t subsist only on the theories it inspires</p> <figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Spoiler alert" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/supg9flrfaahyIErldamGVqySMA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11921145/spoiler_alert__2_.gif">
</figure>
<p id="987IT0">“I don’t do sides,” magizoologist and protagonist Newt Scamander tells his government careerist brother early in <em>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>, which arrives in theaters Friday. He’ll soon learn the untenability of this position and the importance of finding his lane—but unfortunately for the viewer, the film doesn’t heed its own advice.</p>
<p id="viRvg5"><em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> tries to do a lot all at once to often disorienting effect, like Hermione taking extra classes but without the aid of a Time-Turner. It’s part mystery, part action romp, part PETA-lite advertisement, part heist caper, part class commentary, part romance, and part seven other things, and instead of blending together, those disparate elements remain separated, <a href="https://www.hp-lexicon.org/thing/in-essence-divided/">in essence divided</a>, leaving a crowded and chaotic movie in their wake.</p>
<div id="ikqXCQ"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBLRQYGBFBE?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="nuvOIr">Yet the second <em>Beasts</em> film is not unique because it’s messy. It’s not unique because it’s inscrutable to much of its audience. And it’s not unique because its pace is as scattered as Newt’s beasts across New York. Those issues have plagued previous <em>Potter</em> movies, on occasion <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">all at the same time</a>. <em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> is unique because it is the first wizarding tale from J.K. Rowling—who penned the seven <em>Harry Potter</em> books and has written the script for both <em>Beasts</em> movies—that doesn’t work as a self-contained story. It might well end up a satisfying part of a larger whole, but it’s not satisfying in and of itself—and the fact it doesn’t come close suggests a much broader issue than an overstuffed cast or convoluted plot.</p>
<p id="4KWUZA">A serialized story, broadly speaking, should seek to entertain both in the moment and as a component piece in a larger project. These dual demands can work in complement, but they prove a tricky balancing act for many such efforts. Tilt too far to the short term and each entry seems disconnected and stagnant; tilt too far toward the long term and the resulting story becomes so concerned with setting up its successors that it forgets the audience presumably wants to enjoy it just as earnestly as it wants to enjoy its sequels.</p>
<div class="c-float-left"><aside id="IKl4k9"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"An Ode to Hot Dumbledore, the Highlight of ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ ","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledore"},{"title":"Fantastic Hypebeasts: What We’re Most Excited to See in ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’ ","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/15/18097093/fantastic-beasts-crimes-of-grindelwald-excitement-preview-dumbledore-nifflers-hogwarts-harry-potter"},{"title":"‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’: The Seven Key Questions","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/15/18097940/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-the-seven-key-questions"}]}'></div></aside></div>
<p id="IJ7vkG">Rowling’s <em>Harry Potter </em>novels were so successful in part because they mastered this balance. As the seven-part book series progressed, each installment contributed to the larger battle between Harry and Voldemort—but still contained its own beginning, middle, and rewarding end. Even the first film in this prequel series, 2016’s <em>Fantastic</em> <em>Beasts</em> <em>and Where to Find Them</em>, which staggered to some extent from its fundamental mismatch between the best parts (the enchanting tour of Newt’s zoo and the animal interactions) and the most important ones for the long game (the dour scenes with Credence), zipped through traditional storytelling beats. It featured an expository period, followed by rising action and a climax that addressed the movie’s main problem and a denouement as sweet as Jacob’s Polish pastries—a classic example of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure#Freytag's_analysis">Freytag’s pyramid</a> for dramatic structure.</p>
<p id="4AH7mR">The sequel, though, largely eschews such norms, and thus flips its predecessor’s charming dynamic. The first <em>Beasts</em> was fun if not essential; the second tries to be so essential to the understanding of the Potterverse that it isn’t much fun at all. Here, the exposition is nearly ever-present, and neither of the primary problems receives much resolution.</p>
<p id="ycTvWi">Gellert Grindelwald’s rise is the obvious concern, and while it’s not a surprise to see the series’ villain survive to torment our heroes in future installments—especially in this series, which we must assume is leading toward the famed Dumbledore-Grindelwald duel in 1945—this specific ending thus felt flat and inconsequential. In the <em>Potter</em> books, Harry escapes Voldemort several times before the ultimate climax, but he also handles other meaningful challenges along the way; here, all of the various characters’ strands spin so tight around Grindelwald’s web of influence that nothing else breaks through.</p>
<div class="c-float-right"><div id="xROOGk"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/2myCwCdbAWZ2epIWsLVdc8" style="border: 0; width: 100%; height: 232px;" allowfullscreen="" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="GK5IXo">Credence’s family background is another motivating factor for the plot, but similar problems sprout from this branch. Given the weight the eventual reveal carries, the relative lack of screentime for the orphaned traveler poses a perplexing puzzle, for one, and it doesn’t come until the film’s final line, allowing no room for fallout. Meanwhile, the answer itself is so confounding that the same question will recur going forward, too. Grindelwald tells Credence that he is Albus Dumbledore’s brother, but the notion is preposterous enough that it might be wrong, which would mean two full movies built toward a lie. Or it’s true, in which case it’s quite possible that the new information we’ll learn about Dumbledore’s past will ruin his apparent maturation and honesty in the original series’ “King’s Cross” chapter—one of the most beloved in the entire canon.</p>
<p id="uxA3bW">This imbalance makes it difficult to judge this movie on its own merit. Does the ending work? Well, it depends on its ripple effects for the next film and wider <em>Potter</em> lore. Did the maledictus Nagini meet the trailer-born hype? No, but she might in the future. And so on. </p>
<p id="hoHPYk">To be fair, lots of contemporary storytelling functions in this fashion. As <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/arts/the-end-of-endings.html">Amanda Hess wrote</a> in <em>The New York Times</em> this week, in this age of sequels and prequels and reboots, “movies do not begin and end so much as they loiter onscreen.” That this description fits <em>Crimes</em> is an indictment of the film’s capacity to captivate, though, and Rowling’s story suffers from another related problem. If the movies maintain their planned every-other-year pattern, we’re still two years away from <em>Beasts 3</em> and six years away from the series-ending <em>Beasts 5</em>. It’s one thing when a <em>Game of Thrones</em> installment operates chiefly as a bridge from one episode to another and viewers must wait another week for resolution; it’s quite another when that weeklong period swallows an <a href="http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Engorgement_Charm">engorgement charm</a> and blooms into years, plural. That’s a long time for curiosity to curdle into exasperation. </p>
<p id="rfc4e0">For now, at least, curiosity about the Credence reveal is rampant, but it comes amid unique context for a Rowling story. The original seven books each reached a sensible stopping point with the cessation of another school year, and <em>Deathly Hallows: Part 1</em> aside (after Warner Bros. decided to split the seventh book into two movies), the films all followed the same pattern. The first <em>Beasts </em>also came to a natural resting point. All those stories yielded ample setup for the future, but they also answered many of the questions they put forth.</p>
<p id="38nS9i">Now we’ve stumbled upon a cliffhanger just for cliffhanger’s sake, which is new. Snape killing Dumbledore, Voldemort returning to power, Harry learning the prophecy—all of these developments dangled in front of readers in the space between books, but they also benefited from two key differences. First, they were almost as crucial for character growth as they were for the plot, and second, they were the logical results of intricate plotting, whereas this reveal sprung with scant prior hinting. In the core <em>Potter</em> series, Rowling also didn’t venture into an epilogue until the finale, but what else to call the closing scene in Nurmengard, which contained the film’s biggest revelation and an obvious tease for the next installment? It’s half a surprise that a cheeky “To be continued …” graphic didn’t fly on screen with Fawkes at the end.</p>
<p id="8prxyY">It might make for an effective marketing tactic for <em>Beasts 3 </em>as viewers scramble to learn what happens next (even as <em>Crimes</em> <a href="https://uproxx.com/movies/fantastic-beasts-2-opening-weekend/">is tracking</a> for the lowest domestic debut weekend for any film in the Potterverse), but that doesn’t make it an effective storytelling technique. Compelling fantasy can’t subsist only on the theories it inspires—howdy, <em>Westworld</em>—because the journey to the end should be just as entertaining as, if not more so than, the final reveal. In <em>Crimes</em>, though, the journey is rushed. <em>Deathly Hallows</em> sees Harry, Hermione, and Ron prepare for a full month for their infiltration of the British Ministry of Magic; in the new movie, Newt and Tina trade five lines in an alleyway as the entirety of their planning before sneaking into the French Ministry.</p>
<p id="2caiw3">Charitably, we might suggest that this set of related problems stems from the cinematic medium, which is still new to Rowling. She writes novels, and she writes them long—each of the last four <em>Potter</em> books tallied at least 652 pages, against which two hours and 14 minutes’ worth of screenplay is scant time for character development or a natural flow of time and events. Yet this plot likely would have seemed shockingly dependent on the other <em>Beasts</em> titles even in book form, and that’s not how she chose to tell this particular story—nor is it how she’s choosing to tell the next three <em>Beasts</em> installments, either.</p>
<p id="eiyO5z"><em>Crimes</em> is ultimately wholly beholden to what came before and, even more, what will come after. Perhaps it will arouse fonder reactions after everyone has also seen 2020’s <em>Fantastic Beasts 3: We Left a Cliffhanger So You’d Come Back</em> and 2022’s <em>Fantastic Beasts 4: Actually, There Are No Beasts, It’s a Dumbledore Series Now</em> and 2024’s <em>Fantastic Beasts 5: April Duel’s Day</em>. But to take that wager in 2018 is so risky that even Ludo Bagman might think twice before accepting—and <em>Crimes</em> didn’t inspire much confidence that we won’t feel the exact same way about its successor. What’s to stop Warner Bros. from releasing another transitional story in two years, as the interconnected chain of the series continues but each individual link falters under critical inspection?</p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="7g2URA">It’s a worrisome development for a creator who hadn’t erred in her story construction before—either within each discrete tale or within the larger collections they create—and for a fictional universe full of complex characters and rich settings and literally magical customs. So much happens in <em>Crimes</em>, the breakneck plot suggesting a stringent push for forward momentum, that the movie feels paradoxically stuck in place. There might be enchantments to come in the <em>Beasts</em> franchise; there probably are, given Rowling’s gifts as a creator of fiction. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a story worth fully exploring in the meantime.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18098919/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-review-harry-potter-jk-rowlingZach Kram2018-11-16T08:10:45-05:002018-11-16T08:10:45-05:00Podcast: ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ Exit Survey
<figure>
<img alt="A young man in ‘Fantastic Beasts: THe Crimes of Grindelwald’" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/A8CM6p6oKf__OKLncJbBCv6fo7Q=/0x0:1067x800/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62341260/Crimes_Of_Grindelwald.0.jpeg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mallory Rubin and Jason Concepcion join Sean Fennessey to react to the second film in the ‘Harry Potter’ ‘Fantastic Beasts’ series</p> <div id="99mztn"><iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/2myCwCdbAWZ2epIWsLVdc8" style="width: 100%; height: 200px; border: 0 none;" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>
<p id="IpMoUg"><a href="https://art19.com/shows/the-big-picture/episodes/a8d707e2-754e-420c-b705-8a95134497be"><em>Binge Mode </em>meets <em>The Big Picture</em></a><em> </em>as Mallory Rubin and Jason Concepcion join Sean Fennessey to react to the second film in <em>Harry Potter</em>’s <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> series.</p>
https://www.theringer.com/2018/11/16/18098326/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-exit-surveySean FennesseyMallory RubinJason Concepcion2018-11-16T05:50:02-05:002018-11-16T05:50:02-05:00An Ode to Hot Dumbledore, the Highlight of ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/v7W-sjap8AkiWVN6uh2Y3gxHh4c=/163x0:2830x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62340732/kate_hotdumble_warner_getty_ringer.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros./Getty Images/Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The latest film in the extended ‘Harry Potter’ universe may not get a lot right, but it knows one thing: Jude Law’s Albus Dumbledore is a bearded bright spot who makes tweed magical </p> <figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Spoiler alert" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/G9ttYqfu3fPR8k9npj-cWkEQvJQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10691643/spoiler_alert__2_.gif">
</figure>
<p id="pJkPya">In September, <em>Entertainment Weekly</em> ran a <a href="https://ew.com/movies/jude-law-hotness-ranking/?utm_content=link&utm_term=DD705C3C-BB6E-11E8-B919-0D04FDA12A29&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly_ew&utm_source=twitter.com#dumbledore-fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-2018">Jude Law Hotness Ranking</a>, which somehow saw Law’s impending Young Dumbledore take last place behind characters including <a href="https://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gigolo-joe.jpg">Gigolo Joe</a> and <a href="https://media.wmagazine.com/photos/5862f5a851f8c4835a88e2dc/4:3/w_1536/e45310970ed9bf9abb8445c0c3dbc5b83b6332e883a35da444742aee0b0c6b0a.jpg">Pope Pius XIII</a>. The logic? “Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore has more layers to him than Bertie Botts has bean flavors. He’s brilliant, with blind spots. He’s powerful, with weak spots. ... He is not, however, hot. Sorry.”</p>
<p id="xdELPI">I would like to strongly but respectfully disagree, for many reasons—the first being that even <em>old </em>Dumbledore is hot (it’s the <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/big-dick-energy-twitter-nominations.html">BDE factor</a>!). But that’s an argument for another day.<em> Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em> hits theaters this weekend, and Law’s performance as everyone’s favorite headmaster-to-be is the highlight by far. Also … just look at him. My brain is unable to process the assertion that someone could see this image and think … nah!</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/T-kx9qtppINahS4wzqUEXhwkWO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447504/MV5BMzAwNTI3MDMyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTc2NDMwNTM_._V1_SX1777_CR0_0_1777_743_AL_.jpg">
</figure>
<p id="9fOJkj">Dumbledore is a legendary wizard. Dumbledore is an icon. Dumbledore is hot. </p>
<p id="LhigY5">I personally think that the above photo is the only evidence needed to support my claim, but in the interest of serious journalism (and now that I’ve seen the far-too-short entirety of Dumbledore’s actual <em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> screen time), let’s lay out the vast, absurdly attractive evidence. </p>
<div id="3iS8Aj"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBLRQYGBFBE?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<h3 id="BJfckM"><strong>The Beard</strong></h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ifGpDMZWl0PR0DgiNhrP-Stjth0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447134/MV5BMjMzNTg2ODg0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzMyOTcxNjM_._V1_SX1777_CR0_0_1777_743_AL_.jpg">
<cite>Warner Bros.</cite>
</figure>
<p id="BbTr8S">Bigger is not always better, and in this case, I’m extremely thankful that the <em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> team didn’t just slap a giant fake beard on our man here and call it a day. Law <em>does</em> have a fake beard in the last scene of the movie and in <a href="https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/uvwhnUlL0SUsJSa91XJTogg_hzI/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2017/11/16/792/n/1922283/tmp_UwR0Oa_d2296a33fbeac84b_Screen_Shot_2017-11-16_at_9.59.31_AM.png">various promotional images</a>, which is offensive to both his face and our eyes, but which makes us appreciate the real thing, as seen above, even more. </p>
<p id="cYXNWM">Jude Law is rarely bearded in his movies, which I assume has to do with filmmakers not wanting to hide his objectively perfect face. I get it! But—and this is going to sound like a neg, so apologies to Jude—my guy is sacrificing hair from his head every day, and it stands to reason that he should make up for it elsewhere. His Dumbledaddy beard looks fucking great, and he’d do well to commit to it—both in future films, and in his everyday life. </p>
<h3 id="MPoitG"><strong>The Fits</strong></h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Q3Svw-UkdDWTrE5S6q24E1T7O5I=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447135/MV5BMTk5NjM2MTY5MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODMyOTcxNjM_._V1_SX1500_CR0_0_1500_999_AL_.jpg">
<cite>Warner Bros.</cite>
</figure>
<p id="V82xCo">Albus has always been a snazzy dresser, but his style in the original books and movies leaned more toward eccentric robes than three-piece suits and porkpie hats. So when he first appeared in trailers for <em>Crimes of Grindelwald </em>looking like a tweeded, bow-tied snack, reactions ranged from annoyed (“Why is he dressed like a Muggle?”) to, uh, instant, lingering analysis of certain shots. </p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/U--ffHvJYzFrG2-f0vHL2aabSDY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447137/Nov_15_2018_13_38_55.gif">
<cite>Warner Bros.</cite>
</figure>
<p id="m3Pl2h">Not only does Dumbledore <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V46hFOCWM60">“got style,”</a> but Dumbledore is straight-up jacked. Robes would do us a disservice here—as long as Jude Law plays Dumbledore, keep this man in stupid-tight waistcoats. Thank you. </p>
<h3 id="y1tvBR"><strong>The Swagger</strong></h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CHUmUnTRDcwgqy1Nk811vWehCio=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447142/Nov_15_2018_13_44_21.gif">
<cite>Warner Bros.</cite>
</figure>
<p id="DqyOSn">There’s a moment in <em>Crimes of Grindelwald </em>in which Dumbledore does not say a word, yet it’s immediately better and more badass than any movie representation of Dumbledore before. He’s confronted in his classroom by a pack of very rude Aurors and Ministry officials, one of whom orders his students to leave the room. Not a single student moves—they all just look to Dumbledore, who sticks his hands in his pockets and gives this cheeky fucking smile. </p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/W9SoPNClI_6IBpNc3tQeFasq2Aw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13447144/MV5BMjUzNDU4NDY1MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDA1OTE3NjM_._V1_SX1777_CR0_0_1777_744_AL_.jpg">
<cite>Warner Bros.</cite>
</figure>
<p id="cRnfid">The head of magical law enforcement guy’s brain basically explodes, which I would have been able to enjoy even more if my brain had not undergone a similar reaction in that moment, for an entirely different reason.</p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="cRLCY5">Dumbledore is a badass, and Dumbledore is hot. <em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> may not get much right, but at least it damn well knows that much. If the <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> franchise can get back on track, it will be at least in part because the right man is carrying the franchise on his surprisingly broad shoulders. </p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/16/18097915/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-jude-law-hot-albus-dumbledoreKate Halliwell2018-11-15T21:54:43-05:002018-11-15T21:54:43-05:00‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’: The Seven Key Questions
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6afE52xLdYyz6nadgMoMxJFLluo=/188x0:1628x1080/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62339740/binge_thumb_1.0.png" />
<figcaption>Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mallory Rubin, Jason Concepcion, Zach Kram, and Isaac Lee react to the latest ‘Harry Potter’ movie</p> <p id="LXk7EX">The <em>Binge Mode</em> crew sits down to give an instant reaction to the newest <em>Harry Potter</em> film, <em>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>, by sharing seven key questions from the movie. Please be advised, we solemnly swear that there will be massive spoilers!</p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/15/18097940/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-the-seven-key-questionsBinge Mode2018-11-15T13:37:28-05:002018-11-15T13:37:28-05:00Fantastic Hypebeasts: What We’re Most Excited to See in ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’
<figure>
<img alt="A collage of characters from ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GOwxXo9RAOt63vNCx9-n1kj7DHE=/206x0:2873x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62336821/staff_grindelwald_warner_ringer.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros./Ringer illustration</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our ‘Harry Potter’ enthusiasts are ready to head back to Hogwarts. Preferably with wardrobe assistance from Young Dumbledore and a cuddly Niffler by our side. </p> <p id="DVz4XZ">[<em>Extremely Cornelius Fudge voice.</em>] The wizarding world is back! <em>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</em> reaches theaters Friday, and with it comes the return of Newt Scamander, Albus Dumbledore, all manner of magical creatures, and—most importantly—J.K. Rowling’s wondrous creations. Like Newt into a pool with a Kelpie in the trailer, we can’t wait to dive back into this world, and here are the people, places, and magical objects we’re most excited to see. Warning: We solemnly swear that there will be spoilers for the original <em>Harry Potter</em> series and 2016’s <em>Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.</em></p>
<hr class="p-entry-hr" id="4I8AGt">
<h3 id="ZATOMc">The Mirror of Erised</h3>
<p id="7RAUVY"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/mallory-rubin"><strong>Mallory Rubin</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Since an 11-year-old Harry Potter, tousle-haired and pajama-clad, stood in front of the Mirror of Erised in <em>Sorcerer’s Stone </em>and gazed with fierce longing upon the family he never knew, the ornate object has occupied a special place in Potterheads’ hearts and minds. As Harry stared for the first time since he was an infant into his mother and father’s eyes, not knowing how the mirror worked, “he had a powerful kind of ache inside him, half joy, half terrible sadness.” Understanding came for Harry, as it so often did over the course of the original seven <em>Potter </em>books, from Albus Dumbledore. “It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts,” the Hogwarts headmaster said, but his explanation came with a warning: “However, this mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth. Men have wasted away before it, entranced by what they have seen, or been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or even possible.” As he asked Harry not to search for the mirror after it moved from that abandoned classroom to a new home, he issued one of the series’ signature lines: “It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that.” </p>
<p id="i8V4DJ">We have remembered that, and many of us have long suspected that Dumbledore’s gutting words of caution were informed by personal experience. And so seeing Jude Law’s Dumbledore gazing into the mirror in the second <em>Crimes of Grindelwald</em> trailer felt like soaring into the air on a Firebolt, or sipping a warm mug of Butterbeer, or wrapping ourselves in Molly Weasley’s comforting embrace. It felt invigorating. It felt predestined. It felt right. </p>
<p id="X9EaW1">It also felt shocking, because the trailer showed Dumbledore, hair curling on his forehead, fire in his eyes, looking not at thick woolen socks, as he told Harry in <em>Stone</em>, or at his dead sister, Ariana, and the rest of his family, as Harry and readers alike deduced in <em>Deathly Hallows </em>the headmaster would really see, but at Gellert Grindelwald, his boyhood friend and love, who fled after Ariana’s death and embarked on a reign of terror that ended only when Dumbledore bested him in a duel of legend in 1945. We know, based on Harry’s experience with the mirror in <em>Stone</em>, that people can envision different things based on the context of the moment: After seeing his parents earlier in the book, Harry sees the titular stone in the book’s climax. So Dumbledore seeing Grindelwald in this film does not mean he wouldn’t, in fact, have seen his family later. People change, and so do the inner workings of our hearts. Dumbledore has always been one of the series’ most complex characters, and the promise of the mirror in this movie is the promise of learning more about Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald, and power, and his own life-altering regret. It’s the promise of a key connection to the original canon and new information that some readers have thirsted after for two decades. It is the deepest, more desperate desire of our hearts. </p>
<h3 id="zBu70R">Nagini’s True Identity</h3>
<p id="XX7Izz"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/jason-concepcion"><strong>Jason Concepcion</strong></a><strong>:</strong> “Who is to milk Nagini?” It’s a timeless question, posed by Voldemort, who, before returning to the fullness of life, succored himself on the venom of his great and deadly pet snake and Horcrux. The snake that Neville Longbottom kills with the sword of Gryffindor. And we now know, after much HEATED internet theorizing, that the character called “The Maledictus,” played by Claudia Kim, is Nagini, the very same milkable snake and casing for a shard of Voldy’s soul. </p>
<p id="QTeZmo">So, what does this mean? Nagini being a person, albeit one trapped in beast form, opens up a host of fascinating questions. The Maledictus appears, in one of the trailers, on Hogwarts’s bridge with Newt and several Aurors who are meeting with Dumbledore. Does that mean that the eventual headmaster of the school knew, when he gave Harry, Ron, and Hermione their Horcrux-hunting mission, that they would necessarily be killing someone? How much, if any, of her human consciousness remains? How does Nagini come to be in Voldemort’s possession? Is Neville a murderer? And what are we to think of “Who is to milk Nagini?” now?</p>
<h3 id="eMmfkU">Hogwarts, Hogwarts, Hoggy Warty Hogwarts</h3>
<p id="9TDiE0"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/zach-kram"><strong>Zach Kram</strong></a><strong>:</strong> There’s a reason that after spending nearly a full year in the wilderness, the seventh <em>Harry Potter</em> book (and eighth movie) returned to Hogwarts for its climax. In these stories, wandlore is important, and character development is vital, and the ingenious mix of humor and drama is crucial, but like Fawkes’s second feather in Harry’s wand, Hogwarts is the core that lets the Potterverse produce magic.</p>
<p id="jUCWnL">The castle is the series’ most fully developed environment, but even the existing depth leaves room for further growth. <em>Beasts</em> is, to some extent, a <em>Potter</em> prequel, which will allow J.K. Rowling to explore both new places (America in the first movie, Paris in the second) <em>and </em>new time periods. How does Hogwarts look and act a half-century before all the time we’ve spent there as an audience, wandering its hidden passages and discovering its secrets and soaring through the air above its battlements? There’s a reason, too, that the first <em>Crimes of Grindelwald </em>trailer opened with a Hogwarts scene: After a full movie away, it’s time to head back, even if for only a few scenes, to dip our toes into the prefects’ bath once again.</p>
<h3 id="X0LYpe">A World Full of Nifflers</h3>
<p id="37w9PB"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/claire-mcnear"><strong>Claire McNear</strong></a><strong>:</strong> You can stake your claim on the best part of the <em>Harry Potter</em> universe. It’s a timeless tale of good over evil, you say. Or else a classic coming-of-age saga! Or a gripping story of friendship, and duty, and love!</p>
<p id="XZGUJY">But, c’mon, fellow Rowlingians: The most magical part of greater Potterdom is the world-building—all the kooky inventions and customs and creatures dreamed up by J.K. And above everything else she’s built, including but not limited to Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, the Quidditch World Cup, old-timey international magical detective work, and Butterbeer hangovers, I want to live in the world of the Niffler.</p>
<div id="wx432w"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UkLpdG7TcX0?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="B48j5U">Look at this damn thing! A kleptomaniac with a heart of gold. A bouncy little platypus with the face of a cat who’s just nudged something fragile off a shelf. A pocket-size amoral typhoon with superb comedic timing. Do I own a Niffler T-shirt? Am I seriously contemplating reworking my life around the <a href="https://www.etsy.com/search?q=niffler">surprisingly robust</a> selection of fan-made Niffler swag? Do I love the first <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> Niffler like my own child? Can you even freaking believe that <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald </em>is apparently going to <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/news/introducing-the-baby-nifflers-in-fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald">introduce us to a whole dang litter of fuzzy baby Nifflers</a>, meaning that since we last saw him (or her?), our Niffler has found love? My heart has been stolen by the Nifflers. I hope they keep it warm in their belly pouches forevermore.</p>
<h3 id="DqgT4u">Jude Law As Young Dumbledore</h3>
<p id="YWSYBV"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/kate-knibbs"><strong>Kate Knibbs</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Jude Law should be in everything, in my opinion, but he’s especially well-suited to play Young Dumbledore. Law excels at playing peevish, mischievous, charming-but-manipulative characters, and I think he’ll nail Dumbledore as a younger, less wise wizard. Dumbledore is always his most compelling in the <em>Harry Potter</em> universe when you’re not entirely clear what his motives are, and I think Law will be able to bring out the complicated human side wonderfully. </p>
<h3 id="aAp46O">Young Dumbledore’s Waistcoats</h3>
<p id="Z1Nlym"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/michael-baumann"><strong>Michael Baumann</strong></a><strong>:</strong> I <em>like</em> the <em>Harry Potter</em> Expanded Universe, but I don’t <em>love</em> the HPEU, and I ran hot and cold with the first <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> movie. But I am a man in his 30s, staring at an increasingly nebbish, increasingly bald future; how can I age gracefully out of my hoodie-and-baseball cap days and into a dignified middle age? I didn’t expect to find an answer in the <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald </em>trailer, but there it is, and in the Mirror of Erised, no less!</p>
<div id="uIt0qf"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.0915%;"><iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/5h9mTskXEfhcc568AU?html5=true&hideSocial=true" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="ksO7me">Here’s Jude Law as Young Dumbledore, sporting a thick fox hunter’s beard, a back-to-the-warning-track hairline, and a wonderful tweed waistcoat. Now <em>here’s</em> a fantastic beast. Sage but vigorous, professorial but rugged, polite but mischievous and almost flirtatious. Law’s Dumbledore sports a variety of sweaters and waistcoats that make him look like the kind of man who can go out and shoot a pheasant, cook it for you, pick out an appropriate wine pairing, and compose a poem about the pheasant’s place in the circle of life. Fashion, like life, is also cyclical, and I’m hoping <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald</em> sparks a renaissance for tweed and sweaters, because while I don’t look like Jude Law, I could totally dress like Dumbledore. </p>
<h3 id="PjSXlK">The New, Very Fantastic, Fantastic Beasts</h3>
<p id="XBuhsd"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/kate-halliwell"><strong>Kate Halliwell</strong></a><strong>: </strong>While I too am looking forward to ogling Yumbledore in <em>FB2</em>, I have to say that I can’t wait for a second helping of <em>Fantastic Beasts</em>’ fantastic beasts. However you feel about the first movie, I think everyone agrees that the visual representations of magic are extraordinarily well done. The spells are gorgeously rendered, the colors pop off the screen, and the creatures are everything from cute (Nifflers) to magnificent (Thunderbirds) to terrifying (Nundu). The second film looks to be no exception—baby Nifflers aside, we’ve got Kelpies (<a href="https://www.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fantastic-beasts-kelpie.jpeg">giant seahorse things!</a>); Augureys (<a href="https://cdn.potterish.com/wp-content/2018/07/22161404/Agoureiro1.jpg">giant bird things!</a>); our good friends the Thestrals and Boggarts; and some other as-yet-unidentified creatures, including <a href="https://cdn.potterish.com/wp-content/2018/07/22163415/gatos-eg%C3%ADpcios1.png">scary hairless cats</a> and some sort of <a href="https://cdn.potterish.com/wp-content/2018/07/22163231/essa-criatura1.png">Chinese dragon creature</a>. So if I can’t get a young Dumbledore–Grindelwald makeout scene, I suppose watching Newt seduce a bunch of wild new creatures will do. </p>
<h3 id="PaTVxY">Jacob Kowalski, My No-Maj King </h3>
<p id="Lmxl6E"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/miles-surrey"><strong>Miles Surrey</strong></a><strong>:</strong> I have what would politely be described as a cursory knowledge of the <em>Harry Potter</em>–verse: My understanding of <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald</em> begins and ends with the luscious fibers of Jude Law’s Dumble-beard. The Young Dumbledore notwithstanding, then, I’m pretty hyped for the return of Dan Fogler’s Jacob Kowalski. If you’re not a <em>Harry Potter</em> diehard, you should be, too. </p>
<p id="Q58dZM">Jacob is basically the only No-Maj—a.k.a. non-magical human—of any import in this franchise, and he makes for a perfect audience surrogate to viewers who aren’t privy to the Nagini, Maledictus, and Mirror of Erised of it all. My guy Jacob just wants to run a successful bakery: #goals. So when <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald </em>succumbs to magic speak that borders on the incomprehensible—sorry, I’m more of a Philip Pullman person myself!—I’ll be looking to Jacob to look just as perplexed as I am. </p>
<h3 id="51AiT5">The Role of the Elder Wand—and Wandlore at Large</h3>
<p id="Lt25pH"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/isaac-lee"><strong>Isaac Lee</strong></a><strong>:</strong> A key element in the marketing around this film is the sign of the Deathly Hallows, but the only Hallow actually seen in trailers and promotional images is the Elder Wand. The 15-inch Wand of Destiny, with a Thestral hair core, is the most famous wand in the Wizarding World, and one at the center of the mysterious Dumbledore-Grindelwald duel that the <em>Beasts</em> series seems to be building toward. It’s unclear how Albus Dumbledore defeated the titular Gellert Grindelwald when the Deathstick purportedly guarantees a win for its master, but it’s safe to assume that the method of ownership transference of the wand—which played a monumental role in the <em>Potter</em> series, and which we know has transferred many times across history despite the boasts of those who wield it—will be of great import. Some have speculated that Tina Goldstein and Newt Scamander teaming to disarm Grindelwald in the first <em>Beasts</em> film is significant in this regard.</p>
<div class="c-float-left"><aside id="T7QUmN"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Everything You Need to Know About the Elder Wand of ‘Harry Potter’ Lore for ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’","url":"https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/14/18093008/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-harry-potter-elder-wand-primer"}]}'></div></aside></div>
<p id="xevhvt">The Elder Wand, however, is not the only wand used by the duo. Before Grindelwald stole the Hallow from Gregorovitch, he used his original wand, which <a href="http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Gellert_Grindelwald%27s_wand">looks like a literal piece of bark</a>. Dumbledore’s pre-Deathstick wand, notably, <a href="http://www.mugglenet.com/2018/11/dumbledores-wand-is-cgi-throughout-much-of-crimes-of-grindelwald/">had to be redesigned via CGI</a> after J.K. Rowling noted that the original prop looked too similar to the Elder Wand. This intentional distancing, especially after the previous design was shown <a href="https://twitter.com/fantasticbeasts/status/930797574163873792">juxtaposed with the Elder Wand in a promotional photo</a>, only fuels suspicion that the two wands are related—after all, Dumblestick 1.0 looks an awful lot like the Pangaea-theory complement to the Deathstick. Is it possible that they possess twin cores? Could <em>Priori Incantatem</em> be at play again? And speaking of twin-core wands, I’m also on the lookout for Dumbledore’s faithful friend, Fawkes the phoenix, who may offer in these new films his tail feathers for the fateful wands that will later choose Tom Marvolo Riddle and Harry James Potter (lest we forget, this franchise is titled “Fantastic Beasts”). All of this will be running through my head as I hold my own, Wizarding World–issued wand in theaters.</p>
<h3 id="tNrwdb">The Sibling Rivalry Between Newt and Theseus Scamander</h3>
<p id="hczQwg"><strong>Amelia Wedemeyer:</strong> Instead of waiting around for a love scene involving one of the most beloved characters in literature that, let’s face it, is never happening, I’ve decided to turn my attention to the drama that will assuredly play out between the delightfully cute and freckled Scamander brothers.</p>
<p id="mpAts5">In incredible character backstory by J.K., the new <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> film will fully introduce us to Newt’s older, war-hero brother, Theseus, as well as Theseus’s fiancé, Leta Lestrange, who was briefly mentioned in the first film, and who—brace yourself—was Newt’s sweetheart while at Hogwarts. And with Tina Goldstein coming back, this love triangle is now a love square, which means the best dramatic story line will not be about hot, young Dumbledore and his lost love, but between two very different brothers and the choices they’ve made to get where they are.</p>
<h3 id="ZgiUqj">The Mysterious Leta Lestrange</h3>
<p id="rc9qD3"><a href="https://www.theringer.com/authors/sean-yoo"><strong>Sean Yoo</strong></a><strong>:</strong> In the first <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> movie, the name Leta Lestrange is briefly mentioned during a conversation in which Queenie asks Newt about his close, yet mysterious friendship with Leta. We then see a <a href="http://jokerofish.tumblr.com/post/153492134480/theory-leta-lestrange-got-newt-expelled-and">photo</a> of Leta, who looks awfully similar to Zoë Kravitz. Now, as we time-turn to the present day, the sequel is here, and, lo and behold, Zoë Kravitz is in fact playing Leta Lestrange, in what looks to be a significant role. Among the many reasons to be extremely hyped about this (I could write 1,500 words on Zoë Kravitz’s role alone), the biggest by far is that we’ll be getting an extended look at the Lestrange family, a member of the pureblood-proud Sacred Twenty-Eight, and one of the most infamous families in the Harry Potter universe. This is important, because—speculation warning—trailer breakdowns and other sources of internet sleuthing have informed us that Leta is the daughter of Corvus Lestrange IV, and that Corvus IV had a second child, also named Corvus, with a different woman. And thanks to some family tree stills from those trailers, we now believe that Credence Barebone, our shy yet powerful obscurial played by Ezra Miller, is in fact Corvus Lestrange V. Will there be a family reunion in store for us? </p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="3Fe6i5">There’s another equally important thing about Leta Lestrange that I can’t even begin to talk about without my blood pressure rising. But quickly, so as to not pass out at my desk: Leta, Newt’s former fling, is currently engaged to Newt’s brother, Theseus, who will be in this new movie. Can you imagine how uncomfortable the scenes between these two brothers will be, given Newt’s inability to hold a conversation with … anyone?!</p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/15/18097093/fantastic-beasts-crimes-of-grindelwald-excitement-preview-dumbledore-nifflers-hogwarts-harry-potterThe Ringer Staff2018-11-14T06:10:05-05:002018-11-14T06:10:05-05:00Everything You Need to Know About the Elder Wand of ‘Harry Potter’ Lore for ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/J2Y6UnDNeU6MdQxJZC2QnOhVR9Y=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62325495/kram_elderwand_alyceatinoyan.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Alycea Tinoyan</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Deathstick. The Wand of Destiny. The legendary object you know from the original series and have surely spotted in almost every tease for the new film. What is it? Why does it matter for ‘Fantastic Beasts’? And what might it tell us about the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship?</p> <p id="n1e4zt">For a full year, ever since the <em>Fantastic Beasts</em> movie series’s official Twitter account released an enticing photo of two wands side by side, we’ve known that the fabled Elder Wand would play a central role in <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>, the second film in a planned five-part franchise.</p>
<div id="yjWU5g">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wands at the ready. On 11.16.18 the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FantasticBeasts?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FantasticBeasts</a> story continues. Check back tomorrow for more <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MagicInProgress?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MagicInProgress</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WizardingWednesdays?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WizardingWednesdays</a> <a href="https://t.co/FLxxfXP1Am">pic.twitter.com/FLxxfXP1Am</a></p>— Fantastic Beasts (@FantasticBeasts) <a href="https://twitter.com/FantasticBeasts/status/930797574163873792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2017</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="pAEVKB">So with the sequel to 2016’s <em>Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them </em>Apparating into theaters later this week, it’s time to dive into the Potterverse’s Pensieve to consult everything we know about the Elder Wand, wandlore, and the transfer of magical power. From the <a href="https://www.theringer.com/video/2018/9/28/17914388/directors-commentary-fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-final-trailer">trailer teases</a> to the marketing efforts to the fact that the wand notably did not appear in the first <em>Beasts</em> film, all signs point to the Elder Wand gaining importance in the follow-up. Let’s go on a journey by examining seven questions about the wand and its possible role in the film. (Because seven, of course, is the most powerfully magical number.)</p>
<h4 id="G6fCPR">1. What is the Elder Wand?</h4>
<p id="Ien3Xl">Also called the Deathstick and Wand of Destiny, the Elder Wand is an object of immense magical power. Some consider it unbeatable, some merely the most potent means of channeling magic in existence, but either way, it has blazed a long and bloody trail through wizarding history. In addition, the Elder Wand is one of the three Deathly Hallows that gave the seventh Harry Potter book its title. The possessor of all three Hallows—the wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Cloak of Invisibility—is said to master death.</p>
<div id="P5zQSG"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9eBt00fYMl0?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<h4 id="r5aHWU">2. How was it made?</h4>
<p id="TAltn8">According to the legend related in <em>The Tales of Beedle the Bard</em>, the Elder Wand was a gift from Death to Antioch Peverell, the oldest of the three brothers who inspired “The Tale of the Three Brothers.” According to the musings of Albus Dumbledore, longtime possessor of the wand, though, it—like the other two Hallows—was more likely the invention of a talented wizard with talented siblings, whose creations inspired spurious mythmaking.</p>
<div id="JenAfA"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TgmEEDyeDv8?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="6yFBTv">The “elder” in Elder Wand doesn’t refer to its age but rather to the wood from which it was crafted; this is the rarest type used to make a wand and, <a href="https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/wand-woods">according to J.K. Rowling</a>, “scorns to remain with any owner who is not the superior of his or her company; it takes a remarkable wizard to keep the elder wand for any length of time.” That’s true of the Elder Wand, certainly, and writing in the voice of wandmaker Garrick Ollivander, Rowling adds, “Only a highly unusual person will find their perfect match in elder, and on the rare occasion when such a pairing occurs, I take it as certain that the witch or wizard in question is marked out for a special destiny.”</p>
<p id="U4sZki">Inside the 15-inch-long elder shell is <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20091229022703/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=25">a core</a> made from the tail hair of a Thestral, which is a similarly rare wand material that “can be mastered only by a witch or wizard capable of facing death.” Thestrals are the winged reptilian horses Harry and friends use on their rescue mission in <em>Order of the Phoenix</em>; they fit with Hallows lore because the only people who can see Thestrals have themselves witnessed death and gained an emotional understanding of the experience. As her initial series progressed, <a href="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html">Rowling once said</a>, she grew surprised nobody ever asked her what magical material formed the core of Dumbledore’s wand. The seventh book showed why that question mattered.</p>
<h4 id="VSPfBp">3. What is its ownership history?</h4>
<p id="zWd3cf">Antioch didn’t hold the wand for long. According to <em>Beedle</em>’s legend, the eldest brother’s first step with his new weapon was to challenge a rival wizard to a duel. He won, of course, and “boasted loudly of the powerful wand [that] made him invincible”—which, just as naturally, proved to be the last hubristic claim he’d make.</p>
<p id="mQ955n">“That very night,” the story continues, “another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother’s throat.”</p>
<p id="w1CYQv">Between that initial theft and the early 20th century, when <em>Beasts</em> takes place, the wand traced a more staccato path, with quieter periods punctuated by loud bursts. As Ollivander tells Harry in the middle of <em>Deathly Hallows</em>, “It is perfectly possible to trace the wand’s course through history. There are gaps, of course, and long ones, where it vanishes from view, temporarily lost or hidden; but always it resurfaces.”</p>
<p id="WjYcFK">The wizards who sought and then possessed the wand for a time were the kinds of wizards one would expect to desire an all-powerful wand, with names like Emeric the Evil and Egbert the Egregious and Barnabas Deverill. (Like George R.R. Martin, Rowling <a href="https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Field_of_Fire">has a way</a> with fantastic fictional names.) Notably, no witch is ever known to have possessed the wand, about which Rowling writes (in the voice of Dumbledore), “Make of that what you will.”</p>
<h4 id="IB0NYv">4. How does the wand interact with its master?</h4>
<p id="z17ACM">Before focusing on the relationship the Elder Wand specifically forges with its possessor, let’s think about wandlore more broadly. Rowling <a href="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1224-pottercast-anelli.html">has described</a> wands as “quasi-sentient” and “not exactly animate but … close to it.” Wands choose their wizards, of course—that much we learn as early as Harry’s trip to Ollivander’s shop in <em>Sorcerer’s Stone</em>. </p>
<p id="fiSA5D">But this relationship goes much further than a mere initial connection. Ollivander later tells Harry that wandworking is “a mutual quest for experience, the wand learning from the wizard, the wizard from the wand,” and in <em>Beedle</em>, Rowling writes (again in Dumbledore’s voice), “Those who are knowledgeable about wandlore will agree that wands do indeed absorb the expertise of those who use them, though this is an unpredictable and imperfect business.” </p>
<p id="q6o88c">Indeed, in the “King’s Cross” chapter in <em>Deathly Hallows</em>, Dumbledore theorizes that when Harry’s and Voldemort’s streams crossed in <em>Goblet of Fire</em> thanks to the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bujRZhOt9w">Priori Incantatem phenomenon</a>, Harry’s wand “imbibed some of the power and qualities of Voldemort’s wand.” Dumbledore goes on to speculate that Harry’s wand from then on “recognized” Voldemort and “regurgitated some of his own magic against him.” Notice those verbs: <em>recognized</em> and <em>regurgitated</em>. Dumbledore ascribes active thought and decision-making to Harry’s wand, and even though this particular connection results from a specific and unique interpersonal relationship, it’s emblematic of a broader pattern of wand-wizard relationships.</p>
<p id="RhqCms">The Elder Wand, Rowling shared <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/965566203694649344">in a tweet</a> earlier this year, is “more sentient than any other.” This singularity gives the wand powers even beyond its formidable reputation. Rowling writes (again in Dumbledore’s voice) that a wand that has passed through the control of so many dark wizards over so many years would both possess “a marked affinity for the most dangerous kinds of magic” and “accumulate wisdom, strength and power far beyond the ordinary.”</p>
<p id="a4xYk4">The wand thus becomes “almost an instructor” to subsequent masters. One possessor of the Deathstick, a wizard named Godelot, wrote a guidebook to dark magic and dangerous spells called <em>Magick Moste Evile </em>and attributed much of his learning to his “moste wicked and subtle friend”—yet another instance of the Elder Wand’s personification. Paradoxically, the one possessor of this potentially dangerous weapon who we know maintained mastery for a while was Dumbledore, but as he tells Harry in “King’s Cross,” “I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it.” Boasting inspires challengers, and dark magic begets more dark magic, but at least with this one Hallow, Dumbledore was sufficiently wise to spurn its tempting call.</p>
<h4 id="3ilfNl">5. How does the wand change owners?</h4>
<p id="TtKrpZ">Broadly speaking, any wand is ripe for the taking in a duel. As Ollivander summarizes for Harry in <em>Hallows</em>, “The manner of taking matters. Much also depends upon the wand itself. In general, however, where a wand has been won, its allegiance will change.”</p>
<p id="Yf6CV1">Yet while some thinking, feeling, quasi-sentient wands weigh different factors when determining their master, the Elder Wand knows what it wants. <a href="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1224-pottercast-anelli.html">Rowling said</a> in a 2007 PotterCast interview, “The Elder Wand knows no loyalty except to strength. So it’s completely unsentimental. It will only go where the power is.”</p>
<p id="xbZYo1">She then added an important clarifying line about one’s assumption of ownership of the Elder Wand: “You don’t need to kill with it.”</p>
<p id="3cuY58">This attitude parallels that of Ollivander, who tells Harry (italics in the original), “Whether it <em>needs</em> to pass by murder, I do not know. Its history is bloody, but that may be simply due to the fact that it is such a desirable object, and arouses such passions in wizards.”</p>
<p id="cXKu3v">This nuance was lost on Lord Voldemort, who wrongly assumed Severus Snape held the Elder Wand because he was Dumbledore’s killer, when in reality Draco had disarmed Dumbledore before Snape arrived on the scene, making Malfoy the wand’s true new owner. But Voldemort’s lack of interest in the intricacies and beauty of wandlore was a persistent flaw; he only ever connected wands to power, thinking of them as weapons rather than tools, and thus missed out on a wide range of knowledge. This failure to understand culminated in his downfall in the Great Hall, killed by his own backfiring curse as he tried to use the Elder Wand to smite its true master.</p>
<h4 id="zcMl1x">6. What might happen with the wand in <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>?</h4>
<p id="hy8ejK">Maybe Grindelwald will commit crimes with the wand!</p>
<p id="gGI2aA">Actually, we don’t know if Grindelwald even possesses the Elder Wand at this point. It’s a curious timeline. From the original series, we know that Grindelwald had acquired the wand by the time of the first <em>Beasts</em> movie—in <em>Hallows</em>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8q7bMATp4">we see him</a> take it as a “young man with golden hair”—but as he embodies the persona of Percival Graves in the first <em>Beasts</em> film, he wields a different wand.</p>
<p id="0fj3WU">Still, in that movie’s climax, Newt captures Grindelwald and Tina uses the <em>Accio</em> spell to take possession of his wand. Does one of them thus become master of the Elder Wand? If so, which one? Here, as Dumbledore says in <em>Half-Blood Prince</em>, we leave the firm foundation of fact and journey instead into thickets of wildest guesswork. </p>
<div id="fH7j2r"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cfjYl_k5LaI?rel=0" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="PvZgol">Let’s start by examining a <a href="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1224-pottercast-anelli.html">quote Rowling offered</a> in that 2007 PotterCast interview, in which she provided her most in-depth thoughts to date about the Elder Wand’s nature and wand transference in general. About the latter, she said:</p>
<blockquote><p id="IJjUrn">I have been asked a lot of times, well what about Duelling Club and so on? Well I think it’s clear there that in practice, where there’s no real weight attached to the transference of a wand, where it’s almost all for fun or purely for competition, there’s no enormous significance attached in either wizard’s mind to a wand flying out of someone’s hand. But there are situations in which the emotional state of wizards where a lot hangs on a duel, that’s something different. That’s about real power and that’s about transference that will have far-reaching effects in some cases. So I think the wand would behave differently then.</p></blockquote>
<p id="ACOo5Y">A close read of this response suggests that the <em>Beasts</em> climax should have yielded a change; it was an emotionally charged duel about real power, with enormous significance in at least one party’s case as to the outcome. And for purposes of Elder Wand ownership, moreover, it probably shouldn’t matter that the wand Grindelwald/Graves uses when Newt defeats him—and the wand Tina then beckons—isn’t actually the Elder Wand; in <em>Hallows</em>, Harry becomes the master by wrestling a different wand away from Draco. Additionally, a matter of unclear ownership—to which of two conquerors does the wand pledge allegiance, Newt or Tina?—has some precedent; as Xenophilius Lovegood shares in <em>Hallows</em>, at one point in the wand’s history, “the trail goes cold with Arcus and Livius. Who can say which of them really defeated Loxias, and which took the wand?”</p>
<p id="RHY5aw">Xenophilius doesn’t explore the matter of disputed Elder Wand possession any further, but it’s fair to guess that either Newt or Tina holds it at this point in the <em>Beasts</em> timeline. Fast-forwarding another two decades, we know, or at least we think we know, that Grindelwald has the wand by the time he duels Dumbledore. So we have a sense of Point A (Grindelwald steals the wand) and Point B (Grindelwald is arrested in New York without the wand) and Point Z (Grindelwald has the wand in 1945)—but what happens from C to Y?</p>
<p id="8gkbl8">There are a few possibilities. Option 1 is that Newt or Tina did obtain unwitting ownership of the Elder Wand and will lose it to Grindelwald later in the <em>Beasts</em> franchise. Option 2 is that these assumptions and extrapolations about existing wandlore knowledge don’t apply to the situation in question, which to be fair is full of oddities—maybe Grindelwald meant to be captured after spending some amount of time operating undercover in the U.S.’s wizarding congress, for example, and thus Rowling’s “enormous significance” rules don’t apply. Grindelwald appears to have physical, if not symbolic and spiritual, possession of the wand in <em>Crimes</em>’ trailers to date, so this theory might be more likely (or, like Voldemort in <em>Hallows</em>, he holds the Elder Wand without fully possessing it). And Option 3 is that even Points A and Z aren’t quite as simple as we think, which brings us to ... </p>
<h4 id="iAbG1g">7. And what does it mean for the broader Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship?</h4>
<p id="t7ZCm6">When Harry takes the Hogwarts Express in <em>Stone</em>, his first-ever Chocolate Frog card bears the picture and name of Albus Dumbledore, and the line of description summarizing the headmaster’s accomplishments says he is “particularly famous for his defeat of the Dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945.” In <em>Deathly Hallows</em>, Dumbledore’s friend Elphias Doge writes in an obituary, “They say, still, that no Wizarding duel ever matched that between Dumbledore and Grindelwald.”</p>
<p id="240lx2">Presumably, the five-part <em>Beasts</em> series leads to that fateful duel, which will serve as the climax of the final installment. It would make perfect cinematic sense: As a teen, Dumbledore thought of Grindelwald as a dear friend, <a href="https://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/j-k-rowling-explains-grindelwald-and-dumbledores-relationship-dracos-wand-transfer-71142/">possibly unrequited</a> crush, and partner in Hallows obsessing, and after parting ways following the tragedy of his sister’s death, he would have to confront him again decades later with the fate of the wizarding world at stake.</p>
<p id="SdWCq9">And yet, as the yellow journalist Rita Skeeter teases in <em>Hallows</em>, it’s possible that the magical battle of legend was a more muted encounter. “All I’ll say is, don’t be so sure that there really was the spectacular duel of legend,” she says in an interview promoting her Dumbledore biography. “After they’ve read my book, people may be forced to conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and came quietly!”</p>
<p id="XJVq7G">For all of Rita’s faults as a journalist, human being, and ethical witch, she usually has the most scandalous facts right. Her other claims about Dumbledore’s past cohere with the truth we learn from both Albus and Aberforth—could the allegation about the duel be true too?</p>
<p id="39yUcH">We don’t know much about the actual encounter, as even Dumbledore is circumspect about the details. In the King’s Cross conversation in <em>Hallows</em>, all he tells Harry is “I delayed meeting [Grindelwald] until finally, it would have been too shameful to resist any longer. People were dying and he seemed unstoppable, and I had to do what I could. Well, you know what happened next. I won the duel. I won the wand.” </p>
<p id="mVsPkp">“I won the duel. I won the wand.” That’s it. Yet even in that moment, after his death and in his last real appearance in the core Potter series, could our lovable mentor character be skirting the truth once more, as he did time and again throughout the seven books?</p>
<p id="ITNziq">Think about how the wand transferred from one master to the next in the most famous cases. Antioch loses the wand in his sleep, Grindelwald steals it out of Gregorovitch’s workshop, Draco gains ownership when Dumbledore doesn’t try to defend himself from Malfoy’s disarming spell, and Harry claims it next after physically pulling Draco’s wand from his Slytherin nemesis’s grasp. In more distant times, one wizard even took it after locking his own father, the wand’s preceding possessor, in the cellar. But notice what’s missing from that list of methods: a good, old-fashioned, mano-a-mano battle. Not counting Dumbledore, we know of only one wizard (Egbert the Egregious) who definitively won the Elder Wand in a duel.</p>
<p class="c-end-para" id="qdQwH8">Could that unlikely pattern prove true for the transfer from Grindelwald to Dumbledore as well? It’s a definite possibility, and that Rita Skeeter claim in <em>Hallows</em> is the most compelling clue of all that much more complexity is in store than we can presume to predict just one movie into the <em>Beasts</em> series. We might come closer to understanding after <em>The Crimes of Grindelwald</em>, though—wands might not be beasts in the traditional sense, after all, but they sure are fantastic.</p>
<p id="IJdXkJ"></p>
<p id="IWen3D"></p>
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/11/14/18093008/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-harry-potter-elder-wand-primerZach Kram