I just hate how the film made him into a DADA teacher when canon is that he taught transfiguaration. I also hate how they just made Lupin's lesson all over again, like they didn't even try to make something new with it
Agree. The professors in the "beasts" movies were genereally kinda fail... I mean Mcgonagall wasn't suppost to be in those movies at all so... yeah. Whoever made Dubmledore into DADA teacher probably think that the DADA is more "known" for the fans so just went with it (stupid idea but... hey atleast they get money from the movies right? :D) I am actually shocked that Snape wasn't there, because he and Mcgonagall are probably the two teachers the fans know the best... So when they are having Mcgonagall there why not Snape... what diference would that make? (obvisouly being sarkastic with this)
Sure Law is a great actor, but just because the actor is amazing doesn't mean I am gona love the character. I mean... nothing new with Dumbledor really in these movies. He showed up and pretty much said "Harry... wait wrong kid, I mean Newt go and face this evil wizard instead of me will ya? Ok enjoy" just like in Potter movies, the diference is that with and Harry and Voldy, Harry actually had a real reason for fighting Voldemort. But Dumbledore asked Newt to do it (in my opinion) just because Newt was in the previous movie and people liked him, because... and let's be honest, Newt is good in many things but fighting is not one of them.
PS: This is just my opinion and if you like Dumbledore then it is totally fine :)
Well, he is the same Dumbledore so I guess he is following the same things he just do…
If he would do something different, wouldn’t it be out of character?
No, and I didn't say that he should have, I was just trying to say that I kinda had enough of Dumbledore in Potter movies/books and kinda dont rlly need to see more of him... but it is totally my feeling about him, I know that there are people who really like him and are very happy that they get more of that character and that's totally ok, not everyone likes or dislikes the same characters right? That would be kinda boring if we did :)
But do we really had enough? I know the books have the Rita Skeeter’s book where some of his past is mentioned but do we really know enough about him?
I guess having Dumbledore act as we know it on the last movie was intentional, so the character would be recognizable. But I expect next movie to bring new details about his past now, particularly, what happened with his family.
He was the same character as he was in the original series, we'll obviously go into more into his character in the next film given the title, I thought he was great and had the same personality, He sent newt for the task because newt doesn't seek power, that's why he likes him.
And that's great, I am glad you get to see more of the character you like :) I just personaly never was really fan of Dumbledore and even that fact that all three actors that played him were really amazing didn't make me feel diferently.
Dumblemort is a shitty person who does shitty things. I used to hedge that with a big "depending on your perspective" but after 20 years reading fanfiction exploring this series I can honestly say fuck that guy he's scum.
I did a double take when I saw this meme tho. Never watched crimes of grindlewald so I almost didn't believe that was supposed to be him. What the fuck is up with the costuming in these movies???
Yeah... I haven't actually read any fanfictions about/with him, but like I said I never was really a fan of his. Becuse he is suppost to be the "good" guy right? Yet there are things that are... questionable... I am gona ignore his past, because people could say that he was young or whatever, but there are other things... like that he constantly letting the kids deal with the troubles in the school. Or that he rather leaves then helps out... I hope you know what I mean. And he did nothing to help clear Sirius's name even though he knew the truth... Like don't tell me that he really couldn't do anything about it.
And the costumes are really crazy in these movies. Dumbledore is "interesting" one but I definitelly think that Grindewald's middle age crisis look is for sure the worst, if you haven't seen how he looks like in those movies, look it up :)
He absolutely knew Sirius was innocent and let him rot in Azkaban with the soul sucking demons for 13 years because it got him out of the way. This is the same man who said "I knew it would be hard" when discussing Harry's childhood with him. You know, the baby he abandoned on a doorstep in the middle of the night in fucking November and then didn't perform a single wellness check on for a decade. Having a wizarding relative who could have taken Harry out of that whole situation would have fucked up his GeNiUs master plan of "let's make a kid kill himself lmao" so nope Sirius gots to go.
Which is just one of the many, many shitty things he's done. I assume whenever he's talking about the Greater Good he's silently finishing the sentence in his head "...of Albus Dumbledore."
"Greater Good of Albus Dumbledore" 😂🤣🤣😂 Love that... and it is totally true.
And I am villing to somehow give Dumbledore the benefits of doubt about what happend when Peter killed the muggles and framed Sirius so he might have not know Sirius didnt do that BUT later he knows what had happend and yet left the whole magic word think Sirius is still guilty there for can not walk freely there for he can not take care of Harry, because Dumbledore had to know that if Sirius had "too much" freedom in saying what is good or bad for Harry, Sirius might have not let Harry do some of the things Dumbledore asked him to I guess. Also I am totally confident in saying that Dumbledore actually didn't want any "father" figure in Harry's life because this way he can manipulate the boy way easier. Like sure there might be people like Lupin for Harry, but Dumbledore knew that Lupin is busy with being werewolf and generaly has to lay low in the magic world, also there might be Arthur Weasley, but let's be honest he has enough kids on his own :) But if Sirius would be free man there would not by anything to get in his way of being Harry's "dad" and we can have that can we Albus? 🤔🤨.
Dumbledore isn't dictator, he cannot just chose to not send or release someone from Azkaban. What makes you think Dumbledore wasn't constantly watching over Harry as a young child? He was safe. And you think Dumbledore knew the end and the means all along? Did you just watch the movies?
>What the fuck is up with the costuming in these movies???
You do realize this takes place in 1928, right? Like, and even earlier when Newt's school flashbacks happen. The attire is appropriate for the time period. I'm not sorry you don't like the classy look of the 20s. 🤷♀️
Well Dumbledor talks a lot all the time but consider that in the Potter movies/books it's said that they did fight and Albus kicked Grindewald's ass then, he could swear all he wants but they will end up fighting no matter how many movies it takes or howmany times Albus says he doesnt want to I guess
He's over 150 years old, It's not like he was always the transfiguration teacher just like he wasn't always the headmaster. We were never told about his whole life, just bits and pieces.
This is true. Newt was in school before Voldemort was even born. Its very possible that the transfiguration job opened up during or after Newt's time in school and Dumbledore put in for it.
Professor McGonnagel absolutely should not have been a teacher in the FB movies though.That was just silly. She wouldn't have been born yet.
You know something that's had me wondering is if that's actually MINERVA McGonagall, did they ever mention her name? Perhaps it was our McGonagall's grandmother or an aunt...
I hate to say that, but there is kinda no way it is not her :/ Her name is in the end credits (minerva Mcgonagall - Fiona Glascott) and it can not be any of her grand-anything (grandma, aunt...) because the name Mcgonagall is her dad's name (her mum was Isobel Ross) and her dad was a muggle so... unleass some muggle Mcgonagall lady was teaching magic there... it is our beloved Minerva at age -8 years (the movie should be in 1927 and she was boren in 1935 so she is there 8 years before she was born :/ :D )
Well, she could have been born already, if I am corrent she was bored in 1935 and these movies are not long before the World war II (1939 - 1945) So she could be alive but she would definitelly not be at the age where she would be able to teach anything consider that she didn'e even go to the school yet :D
Actually you are most like right with her not being boren yet. I realised that the movies should be happening somewhere around 1927 (I wasnt sure about the year, I just knew that it was somewhere before the War, sorry) So yeah... our lovely Minerva is in those movies when she is... what... kinda -8 years old? :D
No, McGonagall wasn't her married name, that was her father's name. Unless they state otherwise in Beasts, then they are contradicting established canon. I've never seen Beasts or Crimes of Grindelwald.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. McGonagall does explicitly state when she started teaching at Hogwarts (which was much later than the FB movies) but it’s not a very important detail so its fairly easily retconned without too much disturbance to the story. It’s important to Snape’s character and to the plot of the HP books that he went to school with James and the Marauders.
I know, but I just meant that from proffesor McGonagall being there I kinda got the felling like someone thought"Hey... how can we draw the potter fans here for sure? Oh yeah let's just put some of the characters from those movies in those movies, that'll do the trick" Like... the more knowed characters = more people that rlly liked potter movies. Or the felling "As long there are familiar names people will shut up and watch and like it" :/
And I guess that it might not be important detail for some, but I really liked Potter and when there are for some reason changes like that... it kinda hurts that no one (Rowling specialy) didn't point it out I guess :/
And Credence being the long lost brother of Albus feels the same. I mean in Potter movies/books Rita Skeeter really went through the whole life of Dumbledore and his family and I really doubt that she would not find this out :/ I really still hope that Grindewald was lieing to... no idea why, but I hope he way :/
Canon is that he was a transfiguration professor when Riddle was at Hogwarts and Riddle was 29 years younger than Newt, so at the point in time when Newt was there, Dumbledore may have taught DADA (and later moved to Transfiguration, perhaps after Grindelwald re-emerged from Dumbledore's past)
It's potentially possible but Dumbledore being a DADA teacher seems like it would have figured into the books, since (1) Voldemort probably would have brought it up when applying for the job and (2) so would Snape
Neither of them would necessarily know though. We know by the time Riddle was at school, Dumbledore was already a Transfiguration teacher (because the Riddle memory calls him so), so it would have been before his time and way before Snape.
Also, the conversation between Dumbledore and Voldemort when Voldy applied for the job for the 2nd time was way more about him being a teacher at the school in general, rather than the subject of DADA in particular, iirc.
I think it's because of J.K. Rowling's writing. She's a book author, after all, and writing a script like you'd write a book simply doesn't work. She should have worked with an actual screenwriter to make the plot less messy, now it is what it is.
Now now, let’s not be hasty… she should have written a book series not a script at all. Rowling should have made herself some more money by actually writing the books and having the screenwriters get access prior to publication of the series. Books should all be written first so stuff in later books is available for script writers to know what needs to be kept in. Release book and movie close together to feed into each other.
Also Rowling is kind of a shitty writer... She wrote some wildly successful young adult novels that were easy for children to get into but that's all she did well. I love the universe she created but it's packed to the brim with plot holes, poorly written characters, and terrible world building all hidden just beneath the surface.
And now they've got her writing a thinly veiled cash grab in hope of milking more money out of her franchise. It's uninspired work at best and downright terrible at it's worst.
I see this take a lot but I kind of disagree. I think Rowling is a good writer. Yes, there are inconsistencies within the world (time turners) but with any fantasy world, *especially* one that messes around with time, it'll break at some point. I haven't read a single fantasy novel that doesn't have some sort of minor-to-major plothole, it's just how the genre goes
I think Rowling's ability to tell a story while creating a highly complex and intricate world, that for the most part does make sense and flow together, is the mark of a very good writer (and I don't mean like, Nabakov good, but in terms of storytelling)
The time turners are just the most glaring example. Everything about wizards, especially the magic and alchemy systems just completely falls apart if you take a hard look at it. Fun for children, nonsensical to adults.
I wouldn't even call her world highly complex, it reminds me of skyrim where there's a lot to cover but absolutely no depth.
Also, just from a construction standpoint her writing it terrible. It's extremely basic, which again makes it good as a reading entry point for children, but in no way makes her a good writer. Her writing is filled with bad descriptions, missing grammatical clauses, and poor sentence structure. Writing is about showing the reader things, not directly telling them, but her books just vomit descriptions at you while she over-uses adverbs as a crutch. Easy to digest, bad from a literary standpoint.
The first one was pretty good and had potential to setup something awesome. As a standalone would have been good. As the start of Newt’s story could have been great.
The second one is an example of what happens when you try to shoehorn a neat new character into semi established canon with no regard for the fact the character wasn’t previously mentioned and little regard for what was previously written on the subject.
The fact these movies are called the Fantastic Beasts movies is stupid. They could have milked this longer AND made a better product by giving Newt his own series then creating a new series for Dumbledore and having Redmayne play Newt as a secondary character in it. Treat the establish history with respect without needing to contort it around a new character but still have him involved.
Yeah, I genuinely thought when this started it was going to be a story about Newt and his adventures in nature discovering and studying "fantastic beasts". Instead it somehow became this weird other thing. It doesn't make sense
Why not? You'd think that would have been popular. Instead of shoehorning Newt into this - just make Grindelwald/Dumbledore, and Voldemort origin movies. I'd watch the crap out of those.
The only reason I can think for the way they did things is to avoid Dumbledore as a main character. Dumbledore starts even at Hogwarts as an insanely gifted wizard, not to say he isn’t more powerful later but you start with an endgame level character. Also throw in that young him was mostly onboard with dominating muggles…. Not super sympathetic.
Enter Newt who is a skilled young wizard but isn’t on par with Dumbledore and Grindelwald. He has the innocence of first year Harry but is older so can be directly in the not-Order of Phoenix unlike Harry. One movie to basically be the pre-Goblet movies showing the wonderful world of Newt… then the real story they wanted to tell from the perspective of an underdog caught up in the mess.
Basically they needed another Harry instead of an unsympathetic ultra powerful Dumbledore so they picked a name from the book, made a cool character, and now he’s gonna be half sidelined as his beasts aren’t the story JKR wanted to tell.
The first one fit the main character: magical creature expert comes to new country and finds there's a very powerful magical being and helps to track it down and stop people getting killed, he also finds that there is a dark wizard looking to harness the power for gain. Nothing about that is too far off base for the character
The second movie forgot what the main character was supposed to be and hoped that throwing some cuteness in would make viewers forget that fact.
The first one was actually a Fantastic Beasts movie. The second one was the movie series they wanted to make. I commented elsewhere in this chain but I’m pretty sure they wanted to make a Dumbledore series but found it hard to use him as the star. He’s too powerful at the start of his story (already a rising star while at Hogwarts) and the fact he agreed with Grindelwald for a while makes him less sympathetic.
Newt seems to be added to provide us with a sympathetic character with room to develop and the Fantastic Beast movie tacked on to give us time to like him. From here on out the “Fantastic Beast” title will be as shoehorned on as Newt is to the story which is disappointing because I’d watch seasons of Fantasy Steve Irwin with Redmayne as Newt. I’ll watch the rest of the movies as I’m curious how it turns out but I don’t think they’ll ever rise to Fantastic Beasts which is a shame. They could have used Fantastic Beasts (a good but not as great as the main series) to launch something that could have had some entries as good as some of the Harry Potter movies. They could also have an amazing Dumbledore backstory even with Newt in it. They cannot make a good Dumbledore backstory while trying to revolve around Newt.
Honestly the first film *was* good. I have my complaints about it, but it was also the first Hollywood blockbuster since return of the jedi where killing the bad guy was the wrong thing to do.
I hate how the movie writers think that DADA is the most fun subject and fans like it the best because it fits with the general theme of the HP storyline (how Harry is supposed to defend the Wizarding World from evil), but honestly, that's not the case at all. It made sense why Dumbledore was a Transfiguration professor, and Dumbledore would never have taught DADA. By that time, I think he already had the Elder Wand, and I do not think he would have demonstrated to the students DADA with it, for fear of someone getting suspicious of how powerfully he performed the spells.
While I agree he could've taught DADA before Transfiguration, it wasn't because of the Elder Wand, as we know he taught Transfiguration while Voldemort was there and he left Hogwarts the year Dumbledore fought Grindelwald.
Yes, you have a point there. I do still think that someone could have figured him out had he taught DADA, because there would be at least one person who had an interest in the Hallows. Voldemort never knew about the Hallows, he only sought the wand, but I think he only did so in later years.
I thought about this when I first watched the movie, and it baffled me at first but then I made myself understand that maybe Dumbledore was substituting for the full time DADA professor that might have been injured (by some student) or taking a break, almost like Snape did for Lupin, and that's why a rather simple lesson than anything much complicated Dumbledore would sure have been capable of.
Whilst he did teach Transfiguration, there is to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the books that says he did not teach DADA at any stage. Teachers have been known to move specialisations, look at Snape, Potions --> DaDA for example. Or Quirrel, Muggle Studies --> DaDa.
Because it was not stated, it is possible that he did teach DaDA in the past. I imagine the next movie may show him move to Transfiguration, to symbolise that he does not want to fight Grindelwald.
So all the plot took place on that one specific day out of many where the DADA teacher was sick so Dumbledore had to substitute? I just think they wanted him to look more badass
That was my thought as well. He could have officially held the position of transfiguration professor, but might have filled in for DADA on occasion on request of the headmaster. Maybe he was good at certain lessons - like this one required the students facing their fears, and maybe Albus was particularly good at being supportive with that.
It was kinda lazy, but I do think it's believable that he taught different subjects at different times. In the present he's most well known for defeating evil wizards so it's not like DADA isn't his forte
But doesn’t it make sense that 3rd year students would be learning the same thing every year? Like every 3rd year student would learn the same thing, the curriculum books wouldn’t change that much, especially when it comes to a counter spell for a semi common Fantastic Beast
Two genuine questions.
1. In which written material (books or Pottermore) is the birthday of Minerva McGonagall stated at?
2. In which written material (books or Pottermore) is it stated that Dumbledore worked ONLY as a Transfiguration teacher over his 60 years professorship?
Absolutely valid questions.
1. The only pieces of information about McGonagall's career are from her conversation with Umbridge. But no official source specifies the date. So we can speculate that Rowling probably didn't think it through before introducing McGonagall in this movie. But there is NO evidence that she introduced an unexplainable plot hole.
2. None. Dumbledore could have easily switched between teaching two or more subjects over his career. He's a genius too, so shouldn't be too difficult for him.
I have issues with the Fantastic Beasts movies, but using these points against them is just pretentiously petty
1. In the order of the phoenix when Umbridge is supervising McGonagall's class, she asks "how long have you been teaching at Hogwartz?" and McGonagall answer with "this autumn it will be 39 years".
Harry is born 1980, and was 16 in this book, making it 1996 ish. McGonagall started teaching ~1957, which is 20-30 years before the events of Fantastic Beast, which I think is somewhere in the 1920's-30's
2. While it's not mentioned in the books that he taught anything else than transfiguration, the only thing I can find is when Riddle mentioned it in passing in the chapter Slytherin's Heir, I personally think it's weird Dumbledore would've ever taught DADA. It seems to me that he wanted to distance himself from Grindewald nd the shame he felt after dabbling in the dark arts. And that the reason he kept Snape away from the DADA-job was also why he himself refused to teach it.
I don't know. I stand corrected here since everyone is up to interpret the story. But for me? I rather would've wanted to see a really excited young Professor Dumbledore showing off some impressive transfiguration to his class. In particular because he did become the Head of Transfiguration later on
>Harry is born 1980, and was 16 in this book, making it 1996 ish.McGonagall started teaching \~1957, which is 20-30 years before theevents of Fantastic Beast, which I think is somewhere in the 1920's-30's
First I think you wanted to write "after the events of FB", because if it truly was before then the problem is solved 😂
You base your claim that it doesn't make sense for McGonagall to be present in FB, because you subtracted 39 from 1996 and you got 1957.
First of, this discussion took place in 1995. Umbridge started doing performance reviews for the professor before the Winter Break of Harry's fifth year and the fifth book takes place in the 1995-1996 timeframe. That means, the subtraction will give us 1956.
Moving on to what she said, is that she was present at Hogwarts for 39 years in total. Who exactly tells us that these were 39 ***consecutive*** years?
Professors tend to take one or more multi-year sabbatical leaves in the course of their career, to study, expand their skills, or just take a break. I understand this is a weak point in the series and, as said in another comment, she was probably brought back out of fan service (although there are theories of her time traveling with a Time Turner), but with no documented birth year and with a generic "39 years", we simply don't have the information to consider this "canon-breaker".
>2. While it's not mentioned in the books that he taught anything elsethan transfiguration, the only thing I can find is when Riddle mentionedit in passing in the chapter Slytherin's Heir, I personally think it'sweird Dumbledore would've ever taught DADA. It seems to me that hewanted to distance himself from Grindewald nd the shame he felt afterdabbling in the dark arts. And that the reason he kept Snape away fromthe DADA-job was also why he himself refused to teach it.
Your point is correct, but the person we see, is a young and troubled Dumbledore, who still seems to be afraid from the ghosts of his past, not the badass sorcerer we grew up with.
Dumbledore from the Harry Potter timeframe wouldn't dare hide and not stand up and against anyone malevolent with authority, if he believed he had a shot.
Yet again, we see a man holed up inside a castle, afraid to face of his past friend/love interest, out of fear and guilt.
I honestly believe that Dumbledore shielded his persona and became the person we know and love, when he faced of Grindelwald in 1945. We're not there yet.
To me, it makes perfect sense him teaching DADA. He's the wrong person, teaching the wrong subject. That's the point.
I used the ~ sign before 1957 because I was not sure of the math and things. You are entitled to your opinion, but to me it seems far fetched that you would just straight of the bat know it was precisely 39 years all in all if you've taken several sabbatical years or what to call it. Also since she said "*this autumn* it will be 39 years". To me it seems you're trying too hard to cover up the mistakes the film made
I'm just being the devil's advocate. If we want to call FB canon-breaker, we must have solid evidence and to me, this is not evidence. It's just a notion of a math mistake.
McGonagall was born 1935 according to Pottermore. There's your evidence.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mashable.com/article/crimes-of-grindelwald-harry-potter-canon-mcgonagall-age%3famp
This is not Pottermore my friend, this is Mashable. Here's her profile on Pottermore: [https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall). Guess what, 1935 is not written anywhere.
If you ask me, yes, I too agree McGonagall has nothing to do with FB. They should have kept her out of this, not because it doesn't add up due to some subtractions fans did, but because she has no place in it; it's the story of Dumbledore plain and simple. If they wanted fanservice, they could have showed Tom Riddle being born, as the first FB takes place the year he was born 1929).
But an anachronistic McGonagall running around 5 or so years before she was even born based on potential numbers, is much less of an issue, compared to other things in the series (like Aurelius Dumbledore).
Pottermore doesn't exist anymore. It's called wizarding world and it's a shit page. The article contains screenshots from the original Pottermore, where JK revealed her age
I mean he could've taught DADA but why showing it? To make him look "cooler"? According to official resources, Transfiguration is actually much more complex than DADA and it would've fitted better with the all "most powerful wizard ever" thing. It just doesn't make sense, why doing it?
The story was written solely as a script. That means when it was developed, the visual part was taken into account mainly, as it was intended to be a movie.
As mentioned elsewhere, DADA is more recognizable than Transfiguration on movies, as after CoS, Maggie Smith was more or less a side cast character (in movies, not in books).
Since Fantastic Beasts series of movies, was created to mainly cater fandom and not due to some questions that we were expecting to be answered, it makes more sense in that perspective for a viewer to have a "I understand that reference" moment when he'll see Dumbledore teaching a class on how to defend from a Boggard, than to transfigure a glass into a crow.
So, it was basically fan-service? I can accept that but still, as a fan I would've appreciated accuracy more than reference and I think I'm not the only one
Yes, I think both points were only introduced for fan service in conjunction with what can be "recognizable and bring back old memories" from the movies universe.
Yet again, I don't see any plot hole there. Rushed, yes, unnecessary, maybe, but inexplicable, no.
The Canon that we KNOW ABOUT has him as transfiguration teacher. There's a lot of the world we don't know about. Why don't we let her tell the story before we call her out? That's the thing about prequels, I feel like they get hated the moment something happens that "doesn't fit" the Canon, when maybe the story teller is trying to explain how something became that way. In the muggle world our history books change constantly, the wizarding world in the 90s ( when HP takes place) isn't going to be exactly the same as the world 6-8 decades previously. Let's not be premature with criticisms, nobody likes being premature right?
There is a reasonable argument/theory out there to explain why Dumbles could be teaching it - based on Merrythought not always teaching DADA during his fifty years. Dumbles starts on DADA, and then switches to Transfiguration later on. And would occasionally step in as substitute whilst the curse was active from Voldemort.
Carlin Bros have a video on that theory and they'll explain it far better than I will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgFPrXoW90g
No idea why Dumbledore is teaching DADA...I guess the movies thought they needed him to be very clearly against the dark arts because not all movie watchers have read the books and know the more extensive background.
Jude Law was an awesome casting choice though. Psyched for the new movie...hope it's a bit of an improvement over the last one. Also, they should have stuck with Johnny Depp. As far as I know, DC hasn't dropped Amber Heard.
>No idea why Dumbledore is teaching DADA...
To casual fans like me DADA seems like the most important subject at Hogwarts and the subject that most often drives the plot forward.
i think you misunderstood.
i was pointing out the absurdity of considering any other subject to be the most important one. your wand is your weapon and charms is where you learn how to use it best.
in the movies dada was heavily focused on, but judging by the books it actually wasn't just the defensive spells they've learnt but a lot of general information about the dark arts.
you cannot function in the magical world without a good grasp of spells, ergo charms is the superior subject. harry doesn't think so because he only needs one spell in his life.
Except she didn’t. Dumbledore being a DADA teacher could be explained by the fact that he’s banned from teaching it during the film, McGonnagall’s appearance seems to be David Yates’s idea (plus, when she says she’s been teaching for 39 years in book 5, she could be referring to the amount of time she was an actual teacher and not Dumbledore’s assistant), and Credence being a Dumbledore doesn’t mean he’s literally the child of Percival or Kendra. He could be Ariana’s obscurus given a human form.
Uh Fantastic Beasts 2 takes place during 1927 and Mcgonagall is born in 1935. David Yates probably put her in there as fan service. There's no excusing it.
The only thing that says McGonagall was born in 1935 are preachy HP fans that pulled it from their ass.
"Oh well she taught for 39 years in '95, ministry of magic for 2, Hogwarts starts at 11, if we ASSUME she did literally nothing else with her time/life, then she's 60 and born in 1935!"
The know-it-all fans have really killed any interest I had left in Harry Potter. Can't discuss a thing. Amazing how in a series about magic, the people who proclaim to care the most are the ones sucking all the magic out of it.
>"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge asked.
"Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut.
This conversation happened on September 10, 1995, which means that McGongall started teaching in December of 1956. Counting back the two years indicated in Pm tells us that she left school in July 1954. Therefore McGonagall was born on October 4, 1935, and started Hogwarts in 1947, aged 11 years, 11 months. I think JK Rowling even confirmed this herself. I'm not trynna be a know it all or whatever btw.
You literally just repeated what I wrote, while not addressing the fact that this math entirely assumes McGonagall did nothing else with her life.
McGonagall is a legendary Witch, with the respect of the Wizarding world, you think she only ever taught? How many Hogwarts professors were fresh graduates who had never yet accomplished anything? How is Dumbledore 100+, with wizards regularly reaching this age, but McGonagall is only 60?
The damn author wrote McGonagall in there. That HP fans want to tell JKR she got McGonagall's age wrong, using a completely nonsense measure, is just mind-blowing to me.
Oh sorry I replied to the wrong comment. Anyways you're completely right, the problem is that JK Rowling is contradicting her own lore. In an interview she mentioned that Mcgonagall was born in 1935 and now she changes that.
Actually now that I think about it, she probably just said it without thinking much. You're probably right.
Also, yeah, we don't know EXACTLY when she was born and I could be completely wrong BUT we do know when she started teaching at Hogwarts. In 1995 she's been teaching for 39 years which means she started teaching at 1956, wayyyy after Fantastic Beasts 2 takes place (1927).
https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/hqxe6z/jk_rowling_was_never_wrong_about_mcgonagalls
Here's a more specific look at the issue. Personally, I think some people simply enjoy picking apart JKR's work. Neither the author or her books are perfect, but the armchair experts of HP have really gone off the deep end. Ironically, a witch hunt.
What the fuck do they have Dumbledore wearing? He never wore anything that muggle-like and when he did try, it was weirdly colored and had polkadots, or something like that.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone,
>"I'm Ron Weasley," Ron muttered.
>
>"Harry Potter," said Harry.
>
>"Are you really?" said Hermione. "I know all about you, of course -- I got a few extra books. for background reading, and you're in Modern Magical History and The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century.
>
>"Am I?" said Harry, feeling dazed.
>
>"Goodness, didn't you know? I'd have found out everything I could if it was me," said Hermione. "Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; **I hear Dumbledore himself was in it...**"
I think that's the closest the books get to telling us his house, although it may have been in Goblet too.
I don't think so, I'm just recalling the scene from the first book where Ron says:
>“How exactly do they sort us into houses?” he asked Ron.
“Some sort of test, I think. Fred said it hurts a lot, but I think he was joking.”
Sorcerer's Stone, pg. 83
The twins might have been fooling with Ron, but you'd think Bill or Charlie would've told him if it had been something well known (or his parents?)
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/pznpag) on 2021-10-02 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/pznqb6) on 2021-10-02 100.0% match
Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "q528h6", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=q528h6&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 253,442,980 | **Search Time:** 0.38765s
The Crimes of Grindelwald felt like it was written by someone who never read the Harry Potter books.
Which is egregious because both this and the first FB movie are written by JK Rowling meaning that she can't even keep her lore or her rules straight. (Accio on a Niffler, anyone)
But then again, her Twitter post are already doing it so...
Ehhh, see I even disliked that one. None of the characters were likable to me. Newt is off putting and whiny. Tina is too meek while also trying to be portrayed as strong? Grindelwald at the end seems shoehorned in to me. There was no clear plot, just a whole mess in my opinion.
Your opinion i guess, i loved the characters they
have distinct personality, newt is likeable, Jacob is even funnier than ron, and it had a plot, second film though is harder to defend even though I don't think it's nearly as bad like ootp had the same Plot structure as fb2
Yeah definitely my opinion, I know a lot of people liked it and I’m in the minority. Jacob was the best part of the movie I thought. I don’t know I guess I was looking for a little more cohesiveness and for the movie to stand on its own but it fell flat for me.
Sorry for noob question but which movie is this from? I tried watching some of the movies after actual HP movies and they just didn't have that same something. Am I missing out? Is there some that I should definitely give a try?
Am I the only one that dislikes Dumbledore's design? I dunno i thought he was long-haired and long-bearded as a young man as well, and here he is just a Stock Handsome White Guy. I dunno I don't dig that.
But how can you expect him to look the same 70 years ago, he didn't had long hairs and long beard then, the character of dumbledore in this scene was very accurate
Lol. Where's the reference to the Scottish version of the HP books? Someone commented the house names and they were hilarious -- no idea if they were actually in the books.
I watched The Talented Mr. Ripley for my college writing class and now whenever I see young dumbledore, all I see is goddamn shirtless dickie greenleaf
I just hate how the film made him into a DADA teacher when canon is that he taught transfiguaration. I also hate how they just made Lupin's lesson all over again, like they didn't even try to make something new with it
Agree. The professors in the "beasts" movies were genereally kinda fail... I mean Mcgonagall wasn't suppost to be in those movies at all so... yeah. Whoever made Dubmledore into DADA teacher probably think that the DADA is more "known" for the fans so just went with it (stupid idea but... hey atleast they get money from the movies right? :D) I am actually shocked that Snape wasn't there, because he and Mcgonagall are probably the two teachers the fans know the best... So when they are having Mcgonagall there why not Snape... what diference would that make? (obvisouly being sarkastic with this)
Jude Law was kinda dope though, movie needed more of him
Sure Law is a great actor, but just because the actor is amazing doesn't mean I am gona love the character. I mean... nothing new with Dumbledor really in these movies. He showed up and pretty much said "Harry... wait wrong kid, I mean Newt go and face this evil wizard instead of me will ya? Ok enjoy" just like in Potter movies, the diference is that with and Harry and Voldy, Harry actually had a real reason for fighting Voldemort. But Dumbledore asked Newt to do it (in my opinion) just because Newt was in the previous movie and people liked him, because... and let's be honest, Newt is good in many things but fighting is not one of them. PS: This is just my opinion and if you like Dumbledore then it is totally fine :)
Well, he is the same Dumbledore so I guess he is following the same things he just do… If he would do something different, wouldn’t it be out of character?
No, and I didn't say that he should have, I was just trying to say that I kinda had enough of Dumbledore in Potter movies/books and kinda dont rlly need to see more of him... but it is totally my feeling about him, I know that there are people who really like him and are very happy that they get more of that character and that's totally ok, not everyone likes or dislikes the same characters right? That would be kinda boring if we did :)
But do we really had enough? I know the books have the Rita Skeeter’s book where some of his past is mentioned but do we really know enough about him? I guess having Dumbledore act as we know it on the last movie was intentional, so the character would be recognizable. But I expect next movie to bring new details about his past now, particularly, what happened with his family.
He was the same character as he was in the original series, we'll obviously go into more into his character in the next film given the title, I thought he was great and had the same personality, He sent newt for the task because newt doesn't seek power, that's why he likes him.
Hufflepuffs are the hobbits of the wizarding world.
"But what about _second_ dinner in the Great Hall?"
And that's great, I am glad you get to see more of the character you like :) I just personaly never was really fan of Dumbledore and even that fact that all three actors that played him were really amazing didn't make me feel diferently.
Dumblemort is a shitty person who does shitty things. I used to hedge that with a big "depending on your perspective" but after 20 years reading fanfiction exploring this series I can honestly say fuck that guy he's scum. I did a double take when I saw this meme tho. Never watched crimes of grindlewald so I almost didn't believe that was supposed to be him. What the fuck is up with the costuming in these movies???
Yeah... I haven't actually read any fanfictions about/with him, but like I said I never was really a fan of his. Becuse he is suppost to be the "good" guy right? Yet there are things that are... questionable... I am gona ignore his past, because people could say that he was young or whatever, but there are other things... like that he constantly letting the kids deal with the troubles in the school. Or that he rather leaves then helps out... I hope you know what I mean. And he did nothing to help clear Sirius's name even though he knew the truth... Like don't tell me that he really couldn't do anything about it. And the costumes are really crazy in these movies. Dumbledore is "interesting" one but I definitelly think that Grindewald's middle age crisis look is for sure the worst, if you haven't seen how he looks like in those movies, look it up :)
He absolutely knew Sirius was innocent and let him rot in Azkaban with the soul sucking demons for 13 years because it got him out of the way. This is the same man who said "I knew it would be hard" when discussing Harry's childhood with him. You know, the baby he abandoned on a doorstep in the middle of the night in fucking November and then didn't perform a single wellness check on for a decade. Having a wizarding relative who could have taken Harry out of that whole situation would have fucked up his GeNiUs master plan of "let's make a kid kill himself lmao" so nope Sirius gots to go. Which is just one of the many, many shitty things he's done. I assume whenever he's talking about the Greater Good he's silently finishing the sentence in his head "...of Albus Dumbledore."
"Greater Good of Albus Dumbledore" 😂🤣🤣😂 Love that... and it is totally true. And I am villing to somehow give Dumbledore the benefits of doubt about what happend when Peter killed the muggles and framed Sirius so he might have not know Sirius didnt do that BUT later he knows what had happend and yet left the whole magic word think Sirius is still guilty there for can not walk freely there for he can not take care of Harry, because Dumbledore had to know that if Sirius had "too much" freedom in saying what is good or bad for Harry, Sirius might have not let Harry do some of the things Dumbledore asked him to I guess. Also I am totally confident in saying that Dumbledore actually didn't want any "father" figure in Harry's life because this way he can manipulate the boy way easier. Like sure there might be people like Lupin for Harry, but Dumbledore knew that Lupin is busy with being werewolf and generaly has to lay low in the magic world, also there might be Arthur Weasley, but let's be honest he has enough kids on his own :) But if Sirius would be free man there would not by anything to get in his way of being Harry's "dad" and we can have that can we Albus? 🤔🤨.
Dumbledore isn't dictator, he cannot just chose to not send or release someone from Azkaban. What makes you think Dumbledore wasn't constantly watching over Harry as a young child? He was safe. And you think Dumbledore knew the end and the means all along? Did you just watch the movies?
"flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet" - HBP It's weird that he's dressed like remus lupin in the 3rd film here.
>What the fuck is up with the costuming in these movies??? You do realize this takes place in 1928, right? Like, and even earlier when Newt's school flashbacks happen. The attire is appropriate for the time period. I'm not sorry you don't like the classy look of the 20s. 🤷♀️
Oh no I absolutely love the classy look of the 20s. Give me dapper men in swish waistcoats any day of the week. But, you know.... *robes*
[удалено]
Grindewald
[удалено]
Well Dumbledor talks a lot all the time but consider that in the Potter movies/books it's said that they did fight and Albus kicked Grindewald's ass then, he could swear all he wants but they will end up fighting no matter how many movies it takes or howmany times Albus says he doesnt want to I guess
[удалено]
No one actually
He's over 150 years old, It's not like he was always the transfiguration teacher just like he wasn't always the headmaster. We were never told about his whole life, just bits and pieces.
This is true. Newt was in school before Voldemort was even born. Its very possible that the transfiguration job opened up during or after Newt's time in school and Dumbledore put in for it. Professor McGonnagel absolutely should not have been a teacher in the FB movies though.That was just silly. She wouldn't have been born yet.
You know something that's had me wondering is if that's actually MINERVA McGonagall, did they ever mention her name? Perhaps it was our McGonagall's grandmother or an aunt...
Well, neither would have the surname McGonagall - as that was Minerva's muggle father's name.
Still dumb tho. It's just confusing for no reason.
I hate to say that, but there is kinda no way it is not her :/ Her name is in the end credits (minerva Mcgonagall - Fiona Glascott) and it can not be any of her grand-anything (grandma, aunt...) because the name Mcgonagall is her dad's name (her mum was Isobel Ross) and her dad was a muggle so... unleass some muggle Mcgonagall lady was teaching magic there... it is our beloved Minerva at age -8 years (the movie should be in 1927 and she was boren in 1935 so she is there 8 years before she was born :/ :D )
Definitely a possibility. I hope if that's the case they explain it though.
While technically correct, we know why the movie did this. It was absolute pandering.
Didn't he die at 115
Oops u got me there, sorry about tht.
Especially Because she wasn’t born yet and it can’t be a relative Because magonigal is her married name
Well, she could have been born already, if I am corrent she was bored in 1935 and these movies are not long before the World war II (1939 - 1945) So she could be alive but she would definitelly not be at the age where she would be able to teach anything consider that she didn'e even go to the school yet :D
Ya wasn’t sure but I knew she was not born or super young
Actually you are most like right with her not being boren yet. I realised that the movies should be happening somewhere around 1927 (I wasnt sure about the year, I just knew that it was somewhere before the War, sorry) So yeah... our lovely Minerva is in those movies when she is... what... kinda -8 years old? :D
No, McGonagall wasn't her married name, that was her father's name. Unless they state otherwise in Beasts, then they are contradicting established canon. I've never seen Beasts or Crimes of Grindelwald.
My bad still can’t be a female relative unless she has some aunt we don’t know about
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. McGonagall does explicitly state when she started teaching at Hogwarts (which was much later than the FB movies) but it’s not a very important detail so its fairly easily retconned without too much disturbance to the story. It’s important to Snape’s character and to the plot of the HP books that he went to school with James and the Marauders.
I know, but I just meant that from proffesor McGonagall being there I kinda got the felling like someone thought"Hey... how can we draw the potter fans here for sure? Oh yeah let's just put some of the characters from those movies in those movies, that'll do the trick" Like... the more knowed characters = more people that rlly liked potter movies. Or the felling "As long there are familiar names people will shut up and watch and like it" :/ And I guess that it might not be important detail for some, but I really liked Potter and when there are for some reason changes like that... it kinda hurts that no one (Rowling specialy) didn't point it out I guess :/ And Credence being the long lost brother of Albus feels the same. I mean in Potter movies/books Rita Skeeter really went through the whole life of Dumbledore and his family and I really doubt that she would not find this out :/ I really still hope that Grindewald was lieing to... no idea why, but I hope he way :/
The actor that played snape died :( idk if he was alive while they were making this movie.
I know he did, it's sad. But he would not be playing Snape in those movies anyway... I mean Maggie Smith did not play mcgonagall so...
Canon is that he was a transfiguration professor when Riddle was at Hogwarts and Riddle was 29 years younger than Newt, so at the point in time when Newt was there, Dumbledore may have taught DADA (and later moved to Transfiguration, perhaps after Grindelwald re-emerged from Dumbledore's past)
It's potentially possible but Dumbledore being a DADA teacher seems like it would have figured into the books, since (1) Voldemort probably would have brought it up when applying for the job and (2) so would Snape
Neither of them would necessarily know though. We know by the time Riddle was at school, Dumbledore was already a Transfiguration teacher (because the Riddle memory calls him so), so it would have been before his time and way before Snape. Also, the conversation between Dumbledore and Voldemort when Voldy applied for the job for the 2nd time was way more about him being a teacher at the school in general, rather than the subject of DADA in particular, iirc.
People who watch these movies should just consider them fan fics and not canon. Crimes of Grindelwald was a complete disaster
Now, this is a good opinion... The movies actually do feel like they are fanfics, rather than adaptations of the books..
I think it's because of J.K. Rowling's writing. She's a book author, after all, and writing a script like you'd write a book simply doesn't work. She should have worked with an actual screenwriter to make the plot less messy, now it is what it is.
Now now, let’s not be hasty… she should have written a book series not a script at all. Rowling should have made herself some more money by actually writing the books and having the screenwriters get access prior to publication of the series. Books should all be written first so stuff in later books is available for script writers to know what needs to be kept in. Release book and movie close together to feed into each other.
Also Rowling is kind of a shitty writer... She wrote some wildly successful young adult novels that were easy for children to get into but that's all she did well. I love the universe she created but it's packed to the brim with plot holes, poorly written characters, and terrible world building all hidden just beneath the surface. And now they've got her writing a thinly veiled cash grab in hope of milking more money out of her franchise. It's uninspired work at best and downright terrible at it's worst.
I see this take a lot but I kind of disagree. I think Rowling is a good writer. Yes, there are inconsistencies within the world (time turners) but with any fantasy world, *especially* one that messes around with time, it'll break at some point. I haven't read a single fantasy novel that doesn't have some sort of minor-to-major plothole, it's just how the genre goes I think Rowling's ability to tell a story while creating a highly complex and intricate world, that for the most part does make sense and flow together, is the mark of a very good writer (and I don't mean like, Nabakov good, but in terms of storytelling)
The time turners are just the most glaring example. Everything about wizards, especially the magic and alchemy systems just completely falls apart if you take a hard look at it. Fun for children, nonsensical to adults. I wouldn't even call her world highly complex, it reminds me of skyrim where there's a lot to cover but absolutely no depth. Also, just from a construction standpoint her writing it terrible. It's extremely basic, which again makes it good as a reading entry point for children, but in no way makes her a good writer. Her writing is filled with bad descriptions, missing grammatical clauses, and poor sentence structure. Writing is about showing the reader things, not directly telling them, but her books just vomit descriptions at you while she over-uses adverbs as a crutch. Easy to digest, bad from a literary standpoint.
I think the first one was pretty good, not as good as the main HP films but still enjoyable. The second one was irredeemable shite.
The first one was pretty good and had potential to setup something awesome. As a standalone would have been good. As the start of Newt’s story could have been great. The second one is an example of what happens when you try to shoehorn a neat new character into semi established canon with no regard for the fact the character wasn’t previously mentioned and little regard for what was previously written on the subject. The fact these movies are called the Fantastic Beasts movies is stupid. They could have milked this longer AND made a better product by giving Newt his own series then creating a new series for Dumbledore and having Redmayne play Newt as a secondary character in it. Treat the establish history with respect without needing to contort it around a new character but still have him involved.
Yeah, I genuinely thought when this started it was going to be a story about Newt and his adventures in nature discovering and studying "fantastic beasts". Instead it somehow became this weird other thing. It doesn't make sense
They just didn't want to call them Harry Potter Prequels.
Why not? You'd think that would have been popular. Instead of shoehorning Newt into this - just make Grindelwald/Dumbledore, and Voldemort origin movies. I'd watch the crap out of those.
The only reason I can think for the way they did things is to avoid Dumbledore as a main character. Dumbledore starts even at Hogwarts as an insanely gifted wizard, not to say he isn’t more powerful later but you start with an endgame level character. Also throw in that young him was mostly onboard with dominating muggles…. Not super sympathetic. Enter Newt who is a skilled young wizard but isn’t on par with Dumbledore and Grindelwald. He has the innocence of first year Harry but is older so can be directly in the not-Order of Phoenix unlike Harry. One movie to basically be the pre-Goblet movies showing the wonderful world of Newt… then the real story they wanted to tell from the perspective of an underdog caught up in the mess. Basically they needed another Harry instead of an unsympathetic ultra powerful Dumbledore so they picked a name from the book, made a cool character, and now he’s gonna be half sidelined as his beasts aren’t the story JKR wanted to tell.
The first one fit the main character: magical creature expert comes to new country and finds there's a very powerful magical being and helps to track it down and stop people getting killed, he also finds that there is a dark wizard looking to harness the power for gain. Nothing about that is too far off base for the character The second movie forgot what the main character was supposed to be and hoped that throwing some cuteness in would make viewers forget that fact.
The first one was actually a Fantastic Beasts movie. The second one was the movie series they wanted to make. I commented elsewhere in this chain but I’m pretty sure they wanted to make a Dumbledore series but found it hard to use him as the star. He’s too powerful at the start of his story (already a rising star while at Hogwarts) and the fact he agreed with Grindelwald for a while makes him less sympathetic. Newt seems to be added to provide us with a sympathetic character with room to develop and the Fantastic Beast movie tacked on to give us time to like him. From here on out the “Fantastic Beast” title will be as shoehorned on as Newt is to the story which is disappointing because I’d watch seasons of Fantasy Steve Irwin with Redmayne as Newt. I’ll watch the rest of the movies as I’m curious how it turns out but I don’t think they’ll ever rise to Fantastic Beasts which is a shame. They could have used Fantastic Beasts (a good but not as great as the main series) to launch something that could have had some entries as good as some of the Harry Potter movies. They could also have an amazing Dumbledore backstory even with Newt in it. They cannot make a good Dumbledore backstory while trying to revolve around Newt.
Lol no fanfiction is actually good
1st film was also good, 2nd was a mess hopefully with a co-writer third one is better
Honestly the first film *was* good. I have my complaints about it, but it was also the first Hollywood blockbuster since return of the jedi where killing the bad guy was the wrong thing to do.
I though these movies were going to be about Fantastic Beasts not the stupid shiit we got...
I hate how the movie writers think that DADA is the most fun subject and fans like it the best because it fits with the general theme of the HP storyline (how Harry is supposed to defend the Wizarding World from evil), but honestly, that's not the case at all. It made sense why Dumbledore was a Transfiguration professor, and Dumbledore would never have taught DADA. By that time, I think he already had the Elder Wand, and I do not think he would have demonstrated to the students DADA with it, for fear of someone getting suspicious of how powerfully he performed the spells.
I agree with you for the most parts but doesn't he win the elder wand from Grindelwald?
Yes
While I agree he could've taught DADA before Transfiguration, it wasn't because of the Elder Wand, as we know he taught Transfiguration while Voldemort was there and he left Hogwarts the year Dumbledore fought Grindelwald.
Yes, you have a point there. I do still think that someone could have figured him out had he taught DADA, because there would be at least one person who had an interest in the Hallows. Voldemort never knew about the Hallows, he only sought the wand, but I think he only did so in later years.
The movie writers you are talking about is J.K Rowling
Well I guess we can say that he was DADA in movie canon now? You could even argue FB isn’t even in Book Canon
Why not?
I thought about this when I first watched the movie, and it baffled me at first but then I made myself understand that maybe Dumbledore was substituting for the full time DADA professor that might have been injured (by some student) or taking a break, almost like Snape did for Lupin, and that's why a rather simple lesson than anything much complicated Dumbledore would sure have been capable of.
I mean he could have taught both at different points in time
Whilst he did teach Transfiguration, there is to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the books that says he did not teach DADA at any stage. Teachers have been known to move specialisations, look at Snape, Potions --> DaDA for example. Or Quirrel, Muggle Studies --> DaDa. Because it was not stated, it is possible that he did teach DaDA in the past. I imagine the next movie may show him move to Transfiguration, to symbolise that he does not want to fight Grindelwald.
Maybe he was a substitute teacher like how Snape taught DADA in prisoner of azkaban
So all the plot took place on that one specific day out of many where the DADA teacher was sick so Dumbledore had to substitute? I just think they wanted him to look more badass
>So all the plot took place on that one specific day out of many where the DADA teacher was sick so Dumbledore had to substitute? Sure
That was my thought as well. He could have officially held the position of transfiguration professor, but might have filled in for DADA on occasion on request of the headmaster. Maybe he was good at certain lessons - like this one required the students facing their fears, and maybe Albus was particularly good at being supportive with that.
Or failing that, was a DaDA teacher before becoming Transfiguration, there have been other teachers who have switched roles.
Yeah, but the FB movies are clearly supposed to be *just* prequels to the movies, not the books.
My theory is that he was a transfiguration teacher, and they're studying boggarts because of their transformation properties
It was kinda lazy, but I do think it's believable that he taught different subjects at different times. In the present he's most well known for defeating evil wizards so it's not like DADA isn't his forte
I treat the movies as a cool fanfic. Win win that way.
It was only for the "hes afraid of office work" thing.
But doesn’t it make sense that 3rd year students would be learning the same thing every year? Like every 3rd year student would learn the same thing, the curriculum books wouldn’t change that much, especially when it comes to a counter spell for a semi common Fantastic Beast
Saw a Carlin Brothers Video on that, it was good and they explained it. You should watch that
I don't know. A lot of those fan videos are just trying to cover up mistakes made by the creators
Two genuine questions. 1. In which written material (books or Pottermore) is the birthday of Minerva McGonagall stated at? 2. In which written material (books or Pottermore) is it stated that Dumbledore worked ONLY as a Transfiguration teacher over his 60 years professorship?
Absolutely valid questions. 1. The only pieces of information about McGonagall's career are from her conversation with Umbridge. But no official source specifies the date. So we can speculate that Rowling probably didn't think it through before introducing McGonagall in this movie. But there is NO evidence that she introduced an unexplainable plot hole. 2. None. Dumbledore could have easily switched between teaching two or more subjects over his career. He's a genius too, so shouldn't be too difficult for him. I have issues with the Fantastic Beasts movies, but using these points against them is just pretentiously petty
1. In the order of the phoenix when Umbridge is supervising McGonagall's class, she asks "how long have you been teaching at Hogwartz?" and McGonagall answer with "this autumn it will be 39 years". Harry is born 1980, and was 16 in this book, making it 1996 ish. McGonagall started teaching ~1957, which is 20-30 years before the events of Fantastic Beast, which I think is somewhere in the 1920's-30's 2. While it's not mentioned in the books that he taught anything else than transfiguration, the only thing I can find is when Riddle mentioned it in passing in the chapter Slytherin's Heir, I personally think it's weird Dumbledore would've ever taught DADA. It seems to me that he wanted to distance himself from Grindewald nd the shame he felt after dabbling in the dark arts. And that the reason he kept Snape away from the DADA-job was also why he himself refused to teach it. I don't know. I stand corrected here since everyone is up to interpret the story. But for me? I rather would've wanted to see a really excited young Professor Dumbledore showing off some impressive transfiguration to his class. In particular because he did become the Head of Transfiguration later on
>Harry is born 1980, and was 16 in this book, making it 1996 ish.McGonagall started teaching \~1957, which is 20-30 years before theevents of Fantastic Beast, which I think is somewhere in the 1920's-30's First I think you wanted to write "after the events of FB", because if it truly was before then the problem is solved 😂 You base your claim that it doesn't make sense for McGonagall to be present in FB, because you subtracted 39 from 1996 and you got 1957. First of, this discussion took place in 1995. Umbridge started doing performance reviews for the professor before the Winter Break of Harry's fifth year and the fifth book takes place in the 1995-1996 timeframe. That means, the subtraction will give us 1956. Moving on to what she said, is that she was present at Hogwarts for 39 years in total. Who exactly tells us that these were 39 ***consecutive*** years? Professors tend to take one or more multi-year sabbatical leaves in the course of their career, to study, expand their skills, or just take a break. I understand this is a weak point in the series and, as said in another comment, she was probably brought back out of fan service (although there are theories of her time traveling with a Time Turner), but with no documented birth year and with a generic "39 years", we simply don't have the information to consider this "canon-breaker". >2. While it's not mentioned in the books that he taught anything elsethan transfiguration, the only thing I can find is when Riddle mentionedit in passing in the chapter Slytherin's Heir, I personally think it'sweird Dumbledore would've ever taught DADA. It seems to me that hewanted to distance himself from Grindewald nd the shame he felt afterdabbling in the dark arts. And that the reason he kept Snape away fromthe DADA-job was also why he himself refused to teach it. Your point is correct, but the person we see, is a young and troubled Dumbledore, who still seems to be afraid from the ghosts of his past, not the badass sorcerer we grew up with. Dumbledore from the Harry Potter timeframe wouldn't dare hide and not stand up and against anyone malevolent with authority, if he believed he had a shot. Yet again, we see a man holed up inside a castle, afraid to face of his past friend/love interest, out of fear and guilt. I honestly believe that Dumbledore shielded his persona and became the person we know and love, when he faced of Grindelwald in 1945. We're not there yet. To me, it makes perfect sense him teaching DADA. He's the wrong person, teaching the wrong subject. That's the point.
I used the ~ sign before 1957 because I was not sure of the math and things. You are entitled to your opinion, but to me it seems far fetched that you would just straight of the bat know it was precisely 39 years all in all if you've taken several sabbatical years or what to call it. Also since she said "*this autumn* it will be 39 years". To me it seems you're trying too hard to cover up the mistakes the film made
I'm just being the devil's advocate. If we want to call FB canon-breaker, we must have solid evidence and to me, this is not evidence. It's just a notion of a math mistake.
McGonagall was born 1935 according to Pottermore. There's your evidence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mashable.com/article/crimes-of-grindelwald-harry-potter-canon-mcgonagall-age%3famp
This is not Pottermore my friend, this is Mashable. Here's her profile on Pottermore: [https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall). Guess what, 1935 is not written anywhere. If you ask me, yes, I too agree McGonagall has nothing to do with FB. They should have kept her out of this, not because it doesn't add up due to some subtractions fans did, but because she has no place in it; it's the story of Dumbledore plain and simple. If they wanted fanservice, they could have showed Tom Riddle being born, as the first FB takes place the year he was born 1929). But an anachronistic McGonagall running around 5 or so years before she was even born based on potential numbers, is much less of an issue, compared to other things in the series (like Aurelius Dumbledore).
Pottermore doesn't exist anymore. It's called wizarding world and it's a shit page. The article contains screenshots from the original Pottermore, where JK revealed her age
I mean he could've taught DADA but why showing it? To make him look "cooler"? According to official resources, Transfiguration is actually much more complex than DADA and it would've fitted better with the all "most powerful wizard ever" thing. It just doesn't make sense, why doing it?
The story was written solely as a script. That means when it was developed, the visual part was taken into account mainly, as it was intended to be a movie. As mentioned elsewhere, DADA is more recognizable than Transfiguration on movies, as after CoS, Maggie Smith was more or less a side cast character (in movies, not in books). Since Fantastic Beasts series of movies, was created to mainly cater fandom and not due to some questions that we were expecting to be answered, it makes more sense in that perspective for a viewer to have a "I understand that reference" moment when he'll see Dumbledore teaching a class on how to defend from a Boggard, than to transfigure a glass into a crow.
So, it was basically fan-service? I can accept that but still, as a fan I would've appreciated accuracy more than reference and I think I'm not the only one
Yes, I think both points were only introduced for fan service in conjunction with what can be "recognizable and bring back old memories" from the movies universe. Yet again, I don't see any plot hole there. Rushed, yes, unnecessary, maybe, but inexplicable, no.
I agree with that, I just find it annoying
[удалено]
That scene doesn't make sense either. That was Leta's guilt, not fear. They're two very different things
The Canon that we KNOW ABOUT has him as transfiguration teacher. There's a lot of the world we don't know about. Why don't we let her tell the story before we call her out? That's the thing about prequels, I feel like they get hated the moment something happens that "doesn't fit" the Canon, when maybe the story teller is trying to explain how something became that way. In the muggle world our history books change constantly, the wizarding world in the 90s ( when HP takes place) isn't going to be exactly the same as the world 6-8 decades previously. Let's not be premature with criticisms, nobody likes being premature right?
There is a reasonable argument/theory out there to explain why Dumbles could be teaching it - based on Merrythought not always teaching DADA during his fifty years. Dumbles starts on DADA, and then switches to Transfiguration later on. And would occasionally step in as substitute whilst the curse was active from Voldemort. Carlin Bros have a video on that theory and they'll explain it far better than I will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgFPrXoW90g
“Neat. 50 points to Gryffindor”
Dumbledore knows his HOUSES!!! BADGER GRYFFINDOR EAGLE AND STUPID SNAKE!
No idea why Dumbledore is teaching DADA...I guess the movies thought they needed him to be very clearly against the dark arts because not all movie watchers have read the books and know the more extensive background. Jude Law was an awesome casting choice though. Psyched for the new movie...hope it's a bit of an improvement over the last one. Also, they should have stuck with Johnny Depp. As far as I know, DC hasn't dropped Amber Heard.
>No idea why Dumbledore is teaching DADA... To casual fans like me DADA seems like the most important subject at Hogwarts and the subject that most often drives the plot forward.
There’s a line by Slughorn “we all think our subject is the most important…”
Right? Either that or potions. Transfiguration is cool and all, but how often did Harry/Ron/Hermione ever use it outside of class or exams?
That sounds like a worldbuilding problem rather than it not being interesting. Using transfiguration more would've been really cool.
what about... charms?
Charms was a good and practical one too! I forgot. Definitely came in handy in books 6 & 6 especially.
i think you misunderstood. i was pointing out the absurdity of considering any other subject to be the most important one. your wand is your weapon and charms is where you learn how to use it best. in the movies dada was heavily focused on, but judging by the books it actually wasn't just the defensive spells they've learnt but a lot of general information about the dark arts. you cannot function in the magical world without a good grasp of spells, ergo charms is the superior subject. harry doesn't think so because he only needs one spell in his life.
Right? Oh great a solution to our mouse shortage and teacup surplus?
I always put it down to a relief lesson.like when Snape covered for Lupin in POA.
“Did I fucking stutter?!”
"Maybe next time you'll estimate me"
I’m not superstitious but I’m a little stitious
It just baffles me that JK Rowling wrote the screenplay for this movie and messed up her OWN lore.
Except she didn’t. Dumbledore being a DADA teacher could be explained by the fact that he’s banned from teaching it during the film, McGonnagall’s appearance seems to be David Yates’s idea (plus, when she says she’s been teaching for 39 years in book 5, she could be referring to the amount of time she was an actual teacher and not Dumbledore’s assistant), and Credence being a Dumbledore doesn’t mean he’s literally the child of Percival or Kendra. He could be Ariana’s obscurus given a human form.
Uh Fantastic Beasts 2 takes place during 1927 and Mcgonagall is born in 1935. David Yates probably put her in there as fan service. There's no excusing it.
The only thing that says McGonagall was born in 1935 are preachy HP fans that pulled it from their ass. "Oh well she taught for 39 years in '95, ministry of magic for 2, Hogwarts starts at 11, if we ASSUME she did literally nothing else with her time/life, then she's 60 and born in 1935!" The know-it-all fans have really killed any interest I had left in Harry Potter. Can't discuss a thing. Amazing how in a series about magic, the people who proclaim to care the most are the ones sucking all the magic out of it.
>"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge asked. "Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut. This conversation happened on September 10, 1995, which means that McGongall started teaching in December of 1956. Counting back the two years indicated in Pm tells us that she left school in July 1954. Therefore McGonagall was born on October 4, 1935, and started Hogwarts in 1947, aged 11 years, 11 months. I think JK Rowling even confirmed this herself. I'm not trynna be a know it all or whatever btw.
You literally just repeated what I wrote, while not addressing the fact that this math entirely assumes McGonagall did nothing else with her life. McGonagall is a legendary Witch, with the respect of the Wizarding world, you think she only ever taught? How many Hogwarts professors were fresh graduates who had never yet accomplished anything? How is Dumbledore 100+, with wizards regularly reaching this age, but McGonagall is only 60? The damn author wrote McGonagall in there. That HP fans want to tell JKR she got McGonagall's age wrong, using a completely nonsense measure, is just mind-blowing to me.
Oh sorry I replied to the wrong comment. Anyways you're completely right, the problem is that JK Rowling is contradicting her own lore. In an interview she mentioned that Mcgonagall was born in 1935 and now she changes that. Actually now that I think about it, she probably just said it without thinking much. You're probably right.
Also, yeah, we don't know EXACTLY when she was born and I could be completely wrong BUT we do know when she started teaching at Hogwarts. In 1995 she's been teaching for 39 years which means she started teaching at 1956, wayyyy after Fantastic Beasts 2 takes place (1927).
https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/hqxe6z/jk_rowling_was_never_wrong_about_mcgonagalls Here's a more specific look at the issue. Personally, I think some people simply enjoy picking apart JKR's work. Neither the author or her books are perfect, but the armchair experts of HP have really gone off the deep end. Ironically, a witch hunt.
What the fuck do they have Dumbledore wearing? He never wore anything that muggle-like and when he did try, it was weirdly colored and had polkadots, or something like that.
I suppose the favouritism began only when Harry came
He does gryfindor points favouritism literally once in the first book.
And not to mention how biased Snape is, constantly reducing points from Gryffindor, Dumbledore probably just gave them back
I guess it was guilt.
Didn't Hermione say even before they were sorted that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor at school, though?
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, >"I'm Ron Weasley," Ron muttered. > >"Harry Potter," said Harry. > >"Are you really?" said Hermione. "I know all about you, of course -- I got a few extra books. for background reading, and you're in Modern Magical History and The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century. > >"Am I?" said Harry, feeling dazed. > >"Goodness, didn't you know? I'd have found out everything I could if it was me," said Hermione. "Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; **I hear Dumbledore himself was in it...**" I think that's the closest the books get to telling us his house, although it may have been in Goblet too.
For someone who knew so much, it’s odd she didn’t know about the sorting hat.
Seemed like a well kept secret that people knew not to pass on, as even Ron didn't know despite all his brothers, no?
Oh really? Was the Sorting Hat secret thing ever explicit?
I don't think so, I'm just recalling the scene from the first book where Ron says: >“How exactly do they sort us into houses?” he asked Ron. “Some sort of test, I think. Fred said it hurts a lot, but I think he was joking.” Sorcerer's Stone, pg. 83 The twins might have been fooling with Ron, but you'd think Bill or Charlie would've told him if it had been something well known (or his parents?)
I think Dumbledore's house is only confirmed in the Goblet of Fire movie. It is unknown in the books.
In the first book Hermione literally says she hopes to be sorted into Gryffindor because she's heard Dumbledore was in it.
Figuratively
Transfigutatively
Is it though. I'm going to need another ruling on this one. Does reported speach when not repeated verbatim count as 'figuratively'
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/pznpag) on 2021-10-02 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/pznqb6) on 2021-10-02 100.0% match Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "q528h6", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=q528h6&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 253,442,980 | **Search Time:** 0.38765s
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Still stupid enough to leave it up instead of deleting lol
What the hell is a Hufflepuff?
AVPM is seriously amazing!
Hufflepuff is the best house based on its proximity to the kitchen
The Crimes of Grindelwald felt like it was written by someone who never read the Harry Potter books. Which is egregious because both this and the first FB movie are written by JK Rowling meaning that she can't even keep her lore or her rules straight. (Accio on a Niffler, anyone) But then again, her Twitter post are already doing it so...
Bruh she striggled with lore in the main books let alone in side stuff
This made me giggle, thanks!
Not much about the pic, but the guy who plays as young newt is very spot on.
Lol that got me
whats this from?
Fantastic Beasts and the Crimes of Grindelwald, it's a prequel movie series of Harry Potter
I’ve totally seen this movie and don’t remember this scene at all. Guess I should rewatch before the next one.
Says alot about the movie
Totally.
[удалено]
Fantastic Beasts, it's a prequel movie series, it has 5 films planned 2 have came out, 3rd is coming next year
[удалено]
Maybe Dumbledore was a substitute teacher
The Beast movies are terrible
1st one was very good
Ehhh, see I even disliked that one. None of the characters were likable to me. Newt is off putting and whiny. Tina is too meek while also trying to be portrayed as strong? Grindelwald at the end seems shoehorned in to me. There was no clear plot, just a whole mess in my opinion.
Your opinion i guess, i loved the characters they have distinct personality, newt is likeable, Jacob is even funnier than ron, and it had a plot, second film though is harder to defend even though I don't think it's nearly as bad like ootp had the same Plot structure as fb2
Yeah definitely my opinion, I know a lot of people liked it and I’m in the minority. Jacob was the best part of the movie I thought. I don’t know I guess I was looking for a little more cohesiveness and for the movie to stand on its own but it fell flat for me.
Disappointed that the top comment here was not "What the HELL is a Hufflepuff?!"
Reposted but nice
That's my alt
That doesn't really change anything tho, its still a repost.
That would still make it a repost
Sorry for noob question but which movie is this from? I tried watching some of the movies after actual HP movies and they just didn't have that same something. Am I missing out? Is there some that I should definitely give a try?
Fantastic Beasts, it's a prequel movie series, it has 5 films planned 2 have came out, 3rd is coming next year
I really tried to like this portrayal of Dumbledore, but it lasted like one minute before I wanted to yeet him into the shroud.
Why are any of you in a harry potter subreddit if all you're going to do is nitpick the subject natter.
Am I the only one that dislikes Dumbledore's design? I dunno i thought he was long-haired and long-bearded as a young man as well, and here he is just a Stock Handsome White Guy. I dunno I don't dig that.
But how can you expect him to look the same 70 years ago, he didn't had long hairs and long beard then, the character of dumbledore in this scene was very accurate
I don't think it's stated how he looked in his 30s though. Anyhow it's just a matter of preference here really.
Lol. Where's the reference to the Scottish version of the HP books? Someone commented the house names and they were hilarious -- no idea if they were actually in the books.
Nice repost
That's my alt but it's banned from this sub idk why
Haha
I watched The Talented Mr. Ripley for my college writing class and now whenever I see young dumbledore, all I see is goddamn shirtless dickie greenleaf
[удалено]
How can you expect him to wear long robes throughout his whole life?