My theory is that Newt travel to France through the Great Lake at Hogwarts. As Rowling once said in an interveiw:

"In the original draft of Chamber of Secrets, I had Harry and Ron crash into the lake in Mr Weasley's Ford Anglia, and meet the merpeople there for the first time. At that time I had a vague notion that the lake might lead to other places, and that the merpeople might play a larger role in the later books than they did, so I thought that Harry ought to be introduced to both at this stage. However, the Whomping Willow provided a more satisfying, less distracting crash, and served a later purpose in Prisoner of Azkaban, too. The Great Lake (which is really a Scottish loch, apparently freshwater and landlocked) never did develop as a portal to other seas or rivers, although the appearance of the Durmstrang ship from its depths in Goblet of Fire hints at the fact that if you are travelling by an enchanted craft, you might be able to take a magical shortcut to other waterways."

Isn't that like saying that the guy with the bazooka can't use it right now, so I can't attack him at the moment"? I mean - if Newt's disarming of Grindelwald (and yes, he did both disarm Grindelwald and subdue him with that gold-rope-thing, Tina merely accioed the wand he had used to her hand after he dropped it on the floor), so if there was any time for Dumbledore to move against Grindelwald, it would be when Grindelwald has to reconquer the wand from Newt. I think there is a more political reason to why Dumbledore says this:

Dumbledore was neither recognized by one and all as the greatest wizard of all time at the time, and were nowhere near as influential back then as he was in the HP books. True, he is a tremendously talented wizard whom no one else can really match, but he is not a god or anything. He is just a man, a exceedingly clever one, true, but still a citizen of the magical community of Great Britain and still bound by the laws of its magical government, in this case the Ministry of Magic. If the Ministry, or heck, even the International Confederation of Wizards told Dumbledore to stay out of the war because they felt that relying too much on Dumbledore saving the day would undermine their own role in the realm of wizardkind, then Dumbledore wouldn't be able to move against Grindelwald without becoming a criminal himself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't think, at least, not yet, anyway, Jude Law is a good fit for Dumbledore. Not saying it is entirely his fault or anything, but he neither looks nor sounds the part. As per the trailer, Law sounded more like Dumbledore while doing that forced British accent in the Sherlock Holmes movies than he does in the trailer. Dumbledore simply don't talk with (what do you call them? Not slang, but when you excessively say (word)'d ?). What sounds more like Dumbledore?

"If you'd ever had had the pleasure of teaching him, you'd know Newt's not a good follower of orders".

Or

"If you had ever had the pleasure of teaching him, you would have known Newt is not a very good follower of orders."

I am aware that he is younger and all that, but my Dad for example, have not randomly made ridiculously obvious alterations to his vocabulary in the twenty-four years that has passed since I was born. It just - don't sound Dumbledore. (Also, anyone agreeing Jude Law looks more like a younger version of Richard Harris' Dumbledore than Michael Gambon's?)

That being said, what is it Hermione keeps reminding us throughout the books? Oh, right: "You can't apparate or disapparate at Hogwarts!". Even Pottermore say the school always were bewitched this way. Would it really kill David Yates to pay enough attention to the canon he is meant to base his direction upon to simply have whoever those people are, the Ministry of whomever, to arrive at Hogsmeade and simply walk through the gates up to the castle or maybe even the Floo Network? For the sake of just SOME consistency?

My question is why Professor Dumbledore occupy the DADA classroom. Or - I assume that he do, seen as some of his possessions later found in the Headmaster's office was present in the clip. Unless, of course, those belonged to Professor Merrythought, who would later gift them to Dumbledore, who merely borrowed her classroom because it was empty at the time and thus the first and best place for Dumbledore to speak with those people without students disturbing them. Or, another option is that unless the famed DADA classroom once were used for Transfiguration, it might be Rowling retcons Dumbledore to have taught DADA and at some point switched to Transfiguration. Which makes sense, sort of; True, Dumbledore said in the seventh book that Grindelwald never came near Britain, who was rumored afraid of him, but even so, Dumbledore would have suspected Grindelwald's rise to power ever since he fled Godric's Hallow when Ariana died. I can easily imagine Dumbledore, as secretive as he is, approached Professor Dippet about a teaching post and start out as a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, wanting to use the position to teach the students to defend themselves and subtly prepare them all for the war he knew one day would come. Then, once pushed to put a stop to Grindelwald himself, he switched subject when there was a vacancy in the Transfiguration department to teach his favorite subject, confident Grindelwald's reign of terror was soon at an end. Then again, this collides a bit with Tom Riddle asking Slughorn around 1944 or 1945 if Merrythought meant to retire, so its of course equally possible that Merrythought, who had that big office up at the sixth floor Slughorn uses in the Half-Blood Prince, also used a different classroom.

Regardless, I can scarcely think of a more fitting office and/or classroom for Dumbledore to occupy. Its almost like foreshadowing: The DADA classroom is located at the top of a tower and, given it is under the right lighting, has an air of mystery to it. The staircase leading up to the DADA office can seem reminiscent of the spiral staircase leading up to the Headmaster's office, which also is located at the top of a tower. Hope we might get a glimpse of the DADA/Transfiguration office under Dumbledore and how it looked/was decorated in his time. Looking forward to the movie, that's for sure.

 

Oh, yes, "canon."
We have dismissed that claim.

 

Contractions?

To be fair, Dumbledore‘s unique way of speaking could have come with age, as he sought to distinguish himself and develop the eccentric personality he was known for in canon. (Midnight-blue robes, anyone?)

 

What do you mean "unique way of speaking"? You mean the fact that he was a well-spoken man with a polite disposition?

 

Αs opposed to someone who used a contraction once and is -as a result- clearly a savage?

 

Are you familiar with the strawman fallacy? I never said people who uses (contraction, that's the word, thanks! :-D) is 'savages', I simply pointed out that that's not how Dumbledore talks. There's a clear difference there somewhere.

 

Your assumptions that A) the sentence in the trailer is something old Dumbledore wouldn't say and that B) Dumbledore's speech patterns underwent no change in the century+ that he lived are both equally stupid.

Edit: lol way to hammer my point home.

 

It wasn't an assumption, it was an observation. You see - I've read the books. And I'm not saying it isn't a sentence Dumbledore wouldn't have used, I expressed the opinion that he wouldn't have phrased it like Jude Law did. Also - no, speech pattern in adults is largely consistent throughout their lives lest they live abroad and speaks another language for decades and return to their home country and start speaking their native language again and has their speech influenced by living overseas. Especially in the case of Dumbledore, who worked at the same place/environment all his life. So - yeah, his speech pattern should be the same, even if his vocabulary would be bigger in old age.

 

Maybe I'm just an ignorant philistine, but what in the fuck is this supposed to mean? Is it just about the contractions? Because it looks like this is just about the contractions.

 

It is a combination between the contractions and the whole manner/accent in which he spoke that line, really. Sorry for poor choice of words.

Don't know what I think of the spouting profanities east and west while responding to someone with a differing opinion, though...

 

That's not a difference in phrasing, then. What you wrote earlier made no sense. If you argue that Jude Law's manner of Dumbledore speech was undumbledorean, then I'd point out that it's Dumbledore circa 1927 as opposed to Dumbledore circa 1991 that we meet in the books. If you argue that Dumbledore's vocabulary or manner of speech wouldn't change over 70 years and momentous experiences, then I say you're silly.

 

Wait a moment, we do meet a Dumbledore close to 1927. Why not compare that one?

 

Correct, we see Dumbledore in 1937 in a memory in the pensive. And in that memory, Dumbledore's dialogue does not depict his speech pattern to have been any different from his 1996 counterpart.

Or you could say that you perceive my opinion is silly, that would work just as well...

What does "70 years and momentous experience" have to do with manner of speech? Your accent is more often than not determined by the area in which you grew up, and the tone of voice you usually use is normally a mix between that and genetics. I, for example, speak with the same accent and overall tone of voice as I did when I was twelve (twenty-four now), although my choice of words are different because I know more words. I've become prone to use more big words than when I was twelve, and while my voice obviously are deeper now than back then, I've heard recordings of my voice from recent years and seen video clips of me as a kid, and the resemblance is obviously there, because I am still the same person. And - yeah, I am well aware that we are talking of different actors who, in consequence of being different people will invariably speak differently from each other, and that's all fine. That aside, though, the point was that Jude Law as per what little we saw in the trailer made what appeared to be such a small to non-existent effort to making his tone of voice/accent recognizable as Albus Dumbledore that I have started to doubt if he ever watched any of the eight movies for reference at all.

 

I've read The Secret Riddle again. Dumbledore speaks the same as he does in 1991. Ninclow has the right of it.

 

Thank you kindly, The(NotSo)LAzyReader, much appreciated. :-D

 

I forgot about the Riddle chapter. I concede the point.

 

Poor phrasing. Should‘ve written "habitus."

Regarding the more recent points of discussion, I think it is worthwhile to point out that Law‘s Dumbledore is still removed from the orphanage Dumbledore that had so far been the oldest point of reference. Additionally, in the trailer, Dumbledore appears to be making a power play, talking to adults that pose a potential threat or people that he has known for years and apparently considers to be allies. Quite far removed from a Muggle matron and an 11-year-old. And if we‘re quoting the books, it is also important to remember that even in the 1980s and '90s, Dumbledore is not always the kindly, eccentric grandfather with that infamous twinkle in his eye. Multiple scenes from GoF, the courtroom scene in OotP and Snape’s memories spring to mind. Coincidentally, the former ones are instances where Harry is still present, but not the focus of Dumbledore‘s attention, while Dumbledore is alone with Snape in the latter examples.

 

Yeah, we see Dumbledore in different moods, but he still walk and talks like Dumbledore, he don't randomly lean back with his hands in his pocket and take on an accent that sounds like something you would have expected to hear from some random bloke Dumbledore happen to know and greets on the street. Wouldn't it felt more Dumbledory if Jude Law had adorned something at least a tiny bit more wizardry-looking and sat on top of his desk like he does when confronted by Fudge in the fifth movie?

 

Dumbledore is a pretty chill dude generally.

Wait, hold on. You have an issue with him putting his hands in his pockets and leaning back but think that sideway sitting on his desk is dandy?

Not to mention the fact that you're taking the movie interpretation of OoTP at face value while in the same breath condemning the movie interpretation of Fantastic Beasts? What?

You're being way too nitpicky and using an interpretation of Dumbledore entirely of your own making that contradicts itself, about an issue that doesn't even matter.

Seriously why are you like this

 

The issue with contractions is simply a matter of the different mediums of prose and film.

In writing, you can use an absence of contractions as a way to depict more formal manners of speaking. You can get away with this because the reader isn't literally hearing the words. It's a kind of metaphor, or code, where the reader sees uncontracted words and makes an association "this character is well spoken". This is a learnt association, created through training in formal writing, where you are told not to contract words.

But here's the thing: in actual, spoken English, even the most formal, precise speakers use contractions. This is because the use of contractions is correct English. Even the Queen uses them. The only time you do not contract words in spoken English is if you wish to emphasise them. A failure to use contractions when speaking makes a person sound like either a) a robot or b) someone who learnt English as a second language and has not yet mastered it. This is why advanced English classes will focus a lot on contracting pronunciation rather than enunciating each word separately. In film, if you had Dumbledore speak without contractions, it would create the opposite effect than in the books: it would make his English sound unsophisticated and clumsy.