They're making 5 of these movies. Would be weird to timeskip in #3. What would you do in #4 & 5? It's established now that Fantastic Beasts is not so much focused on the beasts but it's named so because Newt Scamander is the protagonist, beasts will make for some funny shenanigans, and the overarching plot is about Grindelwald.

At least I hope so. I'm all in for a 5 movie exploration of the Grindelwald conflict.

 

You think she'd miss the chance to butcher another big moment that was working just fine in people's imagination up to now?

Having said that, not showing us the duel I feel would be a bad thing, since most people watch these based on the conception that the duel is indeed at the end of the journey.

 

I'm just waiting on her to shoehorn in a transgender blasian character.

 

I still have high hopes for the Albus/Gellert duel. This is the same producer who did Tom/Albus, and I thought that was pretty good. I just hope that the spells are bigger and the duel is longer for the A/G duel since there will be 5 movies leading up to that duel.

 

I can't wait to watch the sequel. Jude Law looks really good as young Dumbledore, with that twinkle in his eye, and I think Johnny Depp won't be bad, despite the naysayers.

 

One other thing that jumps out at me from the trailer is a location - the white cliffs of Dover (for those who don't know, this is where England is closest to France). I think we're going to get to see how international wizarding travel occurs, whether that be having to apparate from a specific spot, or some other magical phenomenon which allows you to go from England to France under certain special conditions. There's really no other reason to go to Dover at all other than to get to France.

 

Dumbledore is not wearing a nightgown and doesn't have a long ass beard? Fuck off.

 

I may be wrong but I seem to remember the Quidditch world in the movies being held near the white cliffs. I think there was a shot of a camera rising over the cliffs and settling on the stadium.

That would really help validate your theory. I think it's solid.

 

Keep in mind that this Dumbles is what... forty-something? Which means he's still relatively fresh from his Greater Good days.

I think it makes a certain sort of sense that the whimsy and flamboyance developed AFTER the Grindelwald conflict, and that he was more restrained in his youth. Post-war though... he's tired and pushing 70, he's faced his greatest personal demon, and he just doesn't give two fucks anymore about much of anything. So Dumbles gunna Dumble however and in whatever he wants.

 

Bro, you read the sixth book, you know he already the beard by that age.

 

Wool's Orphanage scene is 1938, and the only descriptors we get of him is that he's wearing a nice suit and that his "long hair and beard were auburn".

This can be read as "long hair and long beard were auburn," or as "beard and long hair were auburn," interchangeably. If you take the second interpretation, the only thing wrong with Law's costume (which is for a man a decade younger) is that his hair is not long by any definition.

On that note, how long is long in the Wool's scene? Sorcerers Stone length mane and a beard that he can tuck into his belt? Or shoulder length hair and maybe a half dozen inches of beard?

And maybe that crisp suit he was wearing to the orphanage was what he wore on a day to day basis in the wizarding world.

 

Or possibly much less, considering it could have meant that his hair and beard were long by 1930's standards—in which case Dumbledore's hair already counts as long because (shock! horror!) it's down to his collar.

 

Well, it's long from Harry's perspective, so still probably "long" by 90s kid standards.

 

This is the correct one.

 

Ah. Yes, of course. Well argued.

-_-

 

How can I argue something that has two interpretations, dumbass? My conjecture is that it fits Dumbledore's character to have long hair and beard. Chamber os Secrets sightly supports it, but since that Dumbledore is not canon canon (the scene was still approved by Joanne), it doesn't have much strength. Also, on the matter of the suit, I find it funny the new movies are completely ignoring that wizards have their own fashion, that consiste mostly of robes. So yeah, I see forty-something Dumbledore with long, auburn hair and beard wearing a robe similar to what he wore in Harry's time.

 

You literally can't, fuckwad (oh look, I too can ad hominem like an annoying kindergartener). Which is why I facetiously called you out on your assertion that one is "correct".

/derail

 

You think I used ad hominem? Do you even know what that is?

Do you want to be right that much? Yes, you might be right that Dumbledore was as sexy as Jude Law at forty, but I can be just as right as you, because long in the Wool's scene can be just as long as anything. There's nothing to argue because there's no definite answer (and FYI that scene in my native language specified both the beard and hair as long) so I made a tongue in cheek assessment that the former was the right one, which upset you for some reason.

 

Before we get banhammered, I am done. You can go ahead and have that last precious word.

 

I'm not even upset about the beard and hair that much. The lack of wizarding fashion is the real offender in my opinion.