Grindelwald is the series' main villain. Furthermore, considering Farrel has an American accent (surprising considering J.K's stance on casting nationalities) i wouldn't be shocked if the reveal of the film is that Percival Graves is Grindelwald. The ages match up as well. Any thoughts?
sharemay be, it is possible that Grindelwald is using poly juice potion but I don't think it will be like that.
shareOr it is possible that Seraphina Picquery is just speculating, that Grindelwald is involved.
If you look closely that scene match up to a scene from a previous trailer, where Percival Graves says (something along the lines) that no human is capable of doing something. He is probably referring, to something incredibly dangerous that escaped Newt's suitcase. My guess, the black ooze.... which might be a Lethifold.
You know Colin Farrell is Irish, right? And he is putting on an American accent?
I know J.K didn't want any cast members who weren't British or Irish in the Harry Potter films, but in a movie set in America she will obviously allow American actors and actresses to be cast.
NYC is full of Irish-Americans, especially back in the 1920's.
shareThat's not what I'm saying. The OP was talking about Rowling being particular with the cast's nationalities back in the Potter films, and they were taking issue with Colin Farrell having an American accent. I was pointing out that he was putting on an American accent as an American character, which obviously she would allow given that the film is set in New York.
I know that there were plenty of Irish-Americans in New York during 1920s.
Yeah, I got you. Her 'stance' in the original Potter movies were understandable since the stories took place in Britain and they were all British. That just made sense. Here she purposely placed the story in America so why in the hell would you place the story in America but not have any actual American characters???? Ferrel looks like he's just playing an American, which he's done in most of his films anyway.
shareExactly! Thank you! :)
shareI had the same thought while watching it. The way he acted in the trailer certainly seems to point to an evil wizard, though I don't remember him being anything but the US's version of an Auror in previous Fantastic Beast news. The only minor bone to pick would be that Grindelwald is definitely blonde in the HP series.
shareThe way he acted in the trailer certainly seems to point to an evil wizard, though I don't remember him being anything but the US's version of an Auror in previous Fantastic Beast news.
Realistically, that's true :) But in the former Harry Potter installments, as far as I can remember, anyone who was "tired of hiding" turned out to be evil (except Dumbledore, who ended up being fine with 'hiding'). If they're going for consistency, he'll probably be portrayed negatively. But I hope they'll make him at least a grey character rather than black.
shareThe fact that Graves is an Auror, already makes him a grey character. Aurors are trained to capture Dark Wizards. Which means that despite being an antagonist, Graves is unlikely to resort to Dark Magic. It would not surprise me, if his stance is similar to the teenage Dumbledore. Someone who's family was hurt by muggles, and understands that the Stature of Secrecy has caused more problems than it has prevented.
Also, take into consideration the hypocrisy of Rapapport's Law. It enforces full segregation between wizards and muggles, and caused the wizards to live even more underground than anywhere else. Brainwashing American wizards into believing that all muggles are dangerous, when it is probably just a minority. Yet, Ilvermorny was co-founded by a witch and her muggle husband. Proving that muggles have helped wizarding society, in the past.
The only minor bone to pick would be that Grindelwald is definitely blonde in the HP series.
4. The casting director did not care because it was such a minor detail
5. Colin Farrell does not look good as a blond
That would be interesting. They did mention the character in the recent trailer.
If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.-Loki (Marvel's Avengers)
(surprising considering J.K's stance on casting nationalities)
I don't think he's grindewald but I think he's going to try and expose wizardry and perhaps want to rule muggles. Also I have a feeling he releases the beasts as a way to get muggle attention.
shareAlso I have a feeling he releases the beasts as a way to get muggle attention.
I thought that was graves' motive originally but based on the new trailer and him saying something about not staying in the shadows I think he wants to expose the wizard of world
shareWhich still would not make Graves evil, just disenchanted and misguided. Especially, since Mary Lou might have the USA government backing the Second Salemers. Hopefully, unlike the original Harry Potter series, the lines have been blurred this time around.
At the end of the day Percival Graves is an Auror, and probably just wants to protect the wizards against a potential genocide. He is not incorrect in stating that the Statute of Secrecy, protects the non-magical world more than the magical community. It, along with Rapapport's Law, prevents the wizards from defending themselves. Look at what happened to Arianna Dumbledore, because of the Statute. She was attacked (possibly gang raped) by muggle boys, and the trauma caused her to go insane. While her father was sent to Azkaban, because he did not want her locked up in an asylum.
Seems like his character poster has now given the game away
shareIt sure did.... though, most of the internet has not realized.
shareI haven't read the spoilers, but after the final trailer and this poster, it's pretty obvious graves is the bad guy in this. I'm kinda annoyed at them for spoiling that, to be honest. I hope this isn't meant to be the main plot twist or whatever.
shareTo be fair, I think everyone is annoyed by this. As it means, that J.K. Rowling is just reusing the same twists, from the original Harry Potter series. Her motto must be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and we are the unfortunate suckers.
shareWhat I meant is that I hope this isn't really supposed to be a twist, but something the audiences finds out at the beginning of the movie, and only latter is discovered by the main characters. Or some sort of red herring. I hope so.
shareDo not get your hopes up, as that is not J.K. Rowling's style.
On face value, Percival Graves is an Auror from an influential wizarding family. While, Mary-Lou Barebone is a fanatical who wants to kill witches. Both of which are probably the red herrings. The audience goes into the film thinking, that the Second Salemers are the villains. When it turns out to be an elaborate conspiracy, set into motion by a fugitive Dark Wizard, who may have been hiding in plain sight.
I'm sure Graves will be portrayed much more suspiciously right from the beginning. They even show in the trailer him trying to manipulate Credence.
shareThe audience would go into the movie thinking the Second Salemers are the villains, hadn't the producers shown Graves as the villain in the final trailer.
I have no problem with this setup -- not the most original, but efficient. But if that's the extent of the twist and WB couldn't help but spoil it....man, *beep* them.
The producers had nothing to do with how the final trailer was edited. That is all solely the fault of the WB marketing team. Many of their films were critical and financial failures, and the studio needed a way to generate buzz for FB. All the previous trailers, were incredible vague and mysterious. Yet, they had not captured the general public's attention. While, J.K. Rowling was criticized for her lack of knowledge, regarding American History. The moment Grindelwald was mention, combined with the theory that Colin Farrell was actually playing him, everything changed. There was a huge spike in public interest, and that is exactly was the marketing team wanted.
Colin Farrell was very adamant at Comic Con, that his character was not a villain, whenever a reporter called him one. Heck, Ezra Miller was not able to talk about his character at all. Meaning, the producers really tried to keep things under wraps.
True. I suppose that's just the way marketing works these days (sigh)
But if Graves really is Grindewald, that opens up a lot of questions. So, is he supposed to be the main villain of a trilogy, even though the main hero isn't supposed to defeat him? Not to mention the fact Dumbledore only defeats him 2 decades after the first movie. Makes me wonder where Rowling is taking this trilogy.
Makes me wonder where Rowling is taking this trilogy.
Surely Rowling used obvious red herrings before and variations on the same twist, but here's hope she's up to something more sophisticated this time. The Silkworm was a masterful whodunit, and I thought the buildup for the final reveal was equivalent to Agatha Christie at her best. Of course, Beasts isn't really supposed to be a whodunit, but still.
share