MovieChat Forums > Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) Discussion > What the actual flip?! Can someone pleas...

What the actual flip?! Can someone please explain the big twist????

posted 5 years ago by OratiaGlake (1234)
7 replies | jump to latest

I’ve just got back from seeing this and have to write this before my head explodes...I just cannot understand the ludicrous ending! BTW I went to see the film because I saw the first one, I haven’t read the books and don’t intend to; I like the visual.
So.... Creedance was supposed to be Corvus Ravenclaw. But in the end he wasn’t. He was just some random baby that his sister swapped him with because she couldn’t put up with the crying little shit anymore. However, at the end it turns out he is a relation (Son? Brother? What?) of Dumbledore.
.......WTF?!.......
This news didn’t even shock me...in fact, it made me laugh...I was appalled at this drastic twist because...how the actual flip would that have even happened?!
Ok, so let me try and work this out. There’s some kind of history already about the Ravenclaw house and the death of the brother/son Corvus, and everyone knows about it. However, if I’ve got this right, how could the brother have died in the first place for this to be a thing? His sister swapped her brother for another baby....so there was still a baby....the baby still got to USA and was, for some reason adopted by Samantha Morton’s character. Now, forgive me purists, for I don’t know the ins and outs of it...maybe it does make sense.
And another thing....so this ship going to USA was full of magic babies was it?! And the Ravenclaw girl just happened to swap her magic baby brother with another magic baby of the right sex and age?! Oooooh please!!
Surely it’s even too crazy for Grindelwald to make up...the fact that Creedance is not Corvus, but a Dumbledore!?
Or is everyone dumb.....or am I dumb? Have I got this right?! Help!!
I liked the unidentified homoerotic undertones between Creedance and Colin Farrel’s character in the first one....but in this one, not a sausage between him and Grindelwald for me (no pun intended). Obviously Grindelwald had changed this aspect of himself also as well as his face...but wait...surely he was the perfect homosexual specimen in this film? I’m sure Johnny Depp could have played him gayer though. Were they going for that theme?! Dumbledore and Grindelwald were lovers, that’s why the pact was made and that’s why Grindelwald was so pissed off and wanted them all to live free?!
There was plenty of other things too that got my goat....but on a happier note, it was of course visually impressive, if a little repetitive....oh look, there’s Newt riding on a big dragon thing....

[–] Ziggy (1520) 5 years ago

The only thing I know of that you didn't get right is the family name. The last name isn't Ravenclaw, it's LaStrange (though that's a very petty thing for me to notice).

Well you explained it pretty much the way I understood it. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

For what it's worth, I looked at the book "Fantastic Beasts: the Crimes of Grindelwald," and it's just the screenplay. So if you've seen the movie, that's pretty much it.

[–] OratiaGlake (1234) 5 years ago

Thanks! Ah yes, it was LaStrange....was it their house that was Ravenclaw? I think there was ravens somewhere mentioned lol

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

SPOILER Grindlewald told Credence th hat Albus Dumbledore was his brother. Since we know that Albus's mother only had three kids and we know what became of them all, I assume that leaves only two possibilities.

1] Dumbledore's dad dumped his special needs kid on his wife and sons and went off to have a new family, or

2] Grindlewald was lying.

If this were real life, it''d be the latter.

[–] Ziggy (1520) 5 years ago

Well, this part definitely sucked me in. I saw the movie on opening night and then again yesterday. I was really listening the second time, and Grindelwald definitely said "brother" at some point, but according to Harry Potter Wiki, both of Albus' parents and his sister died in the 1800's and "Aurelius" was born in 1901. Hmmm ...

Then again, a phoenix did come to Aurelius at the end of the movie. Curious ...

I'm guessing we are not meant to be able to figure it all out before the next movie, but this one is interesting.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

"I'm guessing we are not meant to be able to figure it all out before the next movie"

Yep, and I can't say I'm agog with anticipation, as we already know Dumbledore's parents couldn't have produced anyone that young by the usual methods and the baby-switch story was so ludicrous.

One fan theory I heard is that Creed's Obscurial is somehow the same as Arianna Dumbledore's, which is silly and complicated by I suppose it's better than some story about a baby being put in magical suspended animation for 20 years.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16140) 5 years ago

This all sounds like half-assed fan fiction. Shame on Rowling.

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 5 years ago

i agree