Just thought I'd put this here; we all thought it, but might as well document it in this thread now that it's more or less confirmed.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fant...-not-be-the-focus-of-future-fantastic-a146992

 

People in the thread seem to agree that Grindelwald is no longer the master of whatever wand he was holding at that scene at the end. Are we certain? The wand was summoned, is that enough to count as a defeat? As a passage of mastery?

Also, I'm quite pretty relatively certain he wouldn't be traipsing around as Graves without Graves' wand.

 

In the scene where Grindelwald was apprehended, he was defeated- no matter how much the defeat was 'unfair', the fact remains that the screenplay makes note that Gellert actively tried to resist Newt's rope spell. He failed- as such, Newt 'defeated' Grindelwald. Following this Tina summoned the wand that, as mentioned in the screenplay, Grindelwald dropped, thus eliminating her as a possible Master of the Elder Wand.

As for your second point: if you had to be using the wand in order for it to change mastery, then Draco would have retained his unknowing mastery over the Elder Wand after his scuffle in Malfoy Manor with Harry. Therefore, we know that -even if Grindelwald still physically has the wand somewhere; still owns it physically- he cannot use it to it's fullest potential.

Due to this, we can conclude that, as of this point in time, Newt is the Master of the Elder Wand. That it, until Gellert catches up with him in the sequel!

 

I guess I should rewatch that scene, as it seemed like Newt threw this creature thing which wrapped itself around GG, rather than cast a spell.

 

Yeah, I thought it was a creature too, but the script definitely makes it seem like it was a spell. I also need to rewatch the scene.

Here is the relevant part of the script, for reference.

 

I have always compared Dumbledore and Grindelwald to Professor x and Magneto or Hashirama and Madara in Naruto. One runs a school for gifted (or ninja village) and the second one wants to reach almost the same goal by more drastic actions.

 

This is the reason why I find his character so interesting, especially as a villain.

 

Worth remembering that it's only the Elder Wand that is so fickle for a simple defeat to lose mastery.

 

Then again, doesn't that add to the mystique around it? For the most powerful wand in history, how ironic is it that, after all the hard work and suffering gaining it requires, for it all to be invalidated by a single disarming charm?

The Elder Wand, throughout the entirety of the 'Harry Potter' lore that we all know, has always brought death, suffering and horrors wherever it goes, and (as we know, at the end of the day) for nothing- even with the Elder Wand, Grindelwald lost to Dumbledore. Even with the Elder Wand, Antioch Peverell was killed in his sleep. In fact, the only time the Elder Wand provided more than a fancy name and was necessary to the outcome of the 'story' was with Harry himself, who didn't really want to use it.

The entire 'it only needs to be defeated once' thing actually goes in line with how futile the Hollows are in the end.

 

I don't know if anyone cares, but I counted 19 aurors vs. Grindelwald in that fight scene, and Grindelwald didn't seem to be getting hit at all before being subdued by Newt. Also, it looks like Newt did in fact use a spell like the script suggests, instead of the creature. It looks like the Swooping Evil simply flies in to his left hand while he fires a spell with his wand.

At the very beginning of the movie, Grindelwald also kills or subdues (a bit unclear) five aurors, apparently before they were even able to react. I'm not sure if they were ambushed, but they seemed to be holding their wands aggressively and were walking in some sort of a formation, so presumably they knew Grindelwald or someone else dangerous was close. Shows Grindelwald's skill.

 

Yeah, I saw the movie again and the Swooping Evil was just a distraction while Newt fired that sticky rope spell from his wand (it's a quick shot, but you see the rope itself generated from his wand just before he yanks it back to bring Graves to his knees). It must be a conjuration of some kind because a few seconds later Newt's wand is already clear of the rope as he casts Revelio to break Grindelwald's disguise.

 

I'm probably missing something, but can I ask why everyone seems to be assuming that Grindelwald even had the Elder Wand at the time of the movie? It might just be that he hasn't gotten around to taking it from Gregorvich yet.

It really did piss me off that he was taken down by Newt but I can understand that as him being slightly preoccupied by two dozen aurors.

Comparing Voldemort to Grindelwald, I think that Grindelwald is the superior character. He actually believes in what he preaches and is actually interesting as a character. I would even go so far as to say that he could beat Voldemort in a duel.

Grindelwald is the kind of guy that manipulates things from behind the scenes while Voldemort likes to go for the face to face confrontation. To use DC, Voldemort is Joker while Grindelwald is Lex Luther.

I like the fact that he didn't go after the Obscuro to bolster his own power, rather he went after it to set it loose and cause chaos. That implies that he already thinks himself strong and that the Obscuro wouldn't make a difference.

Overall, Grindelwald is one of, if not the best character in the franchise.

 

Am I the only one disappointed with the new movie? I just found some parts of it boring. Did I miss anything?

 

I personally found the time spent on the child abuse excessive, but it did serve to build up Graves and thus Grindlewald as truly evil, even if I found the reveal thoroughly disappointing in terms of timing.

 

The question in my mind is when did Grindelwald start his penetration of the US Ministry and how deep of a network has he built? The original HP series seems to portray him as a European Dark Lord with a dominion corresponding to that of Germany under the Third Reich. If he has also managed to establish a power base in the US that means the war with Grindelwald may be more complex and potentially longer.

A few things that may inform this:
1. We don't yet know when Gregorovitch was defeated
2. Grindelwald presumably never lost ground that he took in Europe before Dumbledore defeated him
3. If the defeat of Grindelwald was enough to unravel his dominion when we was at the height of his power (i.e., 1945) he presumably did not have someone strong enough to leave overseeing his territory so could not abandon it for long

 

Rowling has some serious issues with child abuse. It features in pretty much every HP related story she wrote. This movie, Cursed Child, and the tale of the founding of Ilvermony are some recent examples.

 

Gonna have to say, not a big fan of Grindelwald being in this movie. The way I remember it, only Dumbledore was a match for him, not Dumbledore and a cheap shot by Newt Scamander, the author of Fantastic Beasts.

Yeah, taken off guard, everyone can fall, but man, does it ruin a character. Him wailing on Newt with lighting while Newt was cowering on the ground as if he was a discount Sith Lord didn't exactly help his image. Would have imagined him, as Dumbledore's equal, to simply dispose of someone and then proceed, not blast him over and over with ineffective lightning like a saturday morning villain.

Gonna assume Grindelwald was only there for the obscuro child, so, probably only recently slipped into the role of Graves rather than spending years working his way up the food chain in the American ministry. Still, seems like something that he would send an underling to do. Besides, wasn't too psyched about his plan, in the end, it was just destruction that the obscuro could bring to the table, unstable, temporary power at that. Would have assumed he was chasing the Hallows more than fucking around with stuff like that.

Would have liked his Greater Good ideology to make him a bit more compassionate. Someone who would sacrifice the few for the many, but who would not relish in the sacrifices, rather than drop Credence with an unkind kthxbai the second he thought he couldn't use him anymore. Dunno, quite sick of that trope, just once would like to see a non-hypocrite in that position. That Grindelwald does care but sees what he does as as a sadly necessary evil for the Greater Good.

So yeah, not really psyched about Grindelwald being here and already captured like that.

 

Grindelwald confirmed for being a seer.

 

After seeing that, I couldn't help but remember Dumbledore's 'outburst' at Harry during HBP about the stupidity of prophecies. As Grindelwald is now a Seer, does anyone think that Dumbledore's anger was directed not at Harry personally and his inability of being able to see what Albus was trying to say, but at Dumbledore himself- how he, in his youth, was transfixed by Gellert's 'prophecies' and 'visions'.
It might be nothing, but the idea that Grindelwald's status as a Seer impacted Albus personally is something that is probably going to haunt me to the day I did.

Spoiler

It might even make sense structure rise- Grindelwald himself was introduced in a throwaway line, so why couldn't this pivotal character trait be similar as well.

This is probably just speculation, and Dumbledore's brief friendship with Grindelwald was spawned mostly from his attraction and awe, but it's an -I believe- interesting thing to keep in mind.

 

I have a weird question, my impression is that the obscrurial could be transferred to another person. What would happen if it was a squib or a werewolf? It could grant a measure of power or control to them respectively.
I read a story that gellert where he was experimenting with the bones of obscrurials to access their magics.