After the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the most controversial aspect seems to be the role played by the antithesis to Dumbledore himself, the 2nd greatest Dark Wizard of all time: Gellert Grindelwald.

The character of Percival Graves is one that has received a large amount of respect and admiration, and was -to many- the stand out of the film. However, after his 'defeat' at the hands of Newt, and his identity as Grindelwald was revealed, many people seemed to be disappointed. "How could such an interesting character as Graves possibly be the same as the theatrical, Shakespearean antagonist brought to us by Depp?" This question is on the lips of many who saw the movie, albeit in more blatant terms.

I myself was impartial to the performance, and here are my reasons why:
1) He is still Graves
What I mean by this is that, underneath the blatant evilness, Grindelwald is still the person who was about to solo around 30 Aurors with enviable ease, the same person who was able to hide his real identity from the American Ministry of Magic, MACUSA; still the same person who displayed a fascination with Newt's connection with his professor, Albus Dumbledore. It's simply not possible that this character was 100% different from Gellert's own- Graves simply couldn't be manufactured from the ground up without sharing similarities to his real personality. As such, Grindelwald is still the same person who dazzled the audience with his power and performance (quite literally).

2) "Will we die, just a little?"
What does this mean? That is the question that was foremost on my mind when I left the theatre, and I still don't have an answer. However, set that aside for a moment and you will realise that this piece of Shakespearean dialogue hints towards an ingenious mind, a person who is intelligent and -whilst slightly unhinged- more than capable of avoiding the combined minds of every magical intellect at the disposal of the ICW; not unimpressive at all!
Not only that, but the quiet confidence Depp displayed when he was captured, when he was at the mercy of people that wanted him dead and all he did was stare, smile and question their abilities is perfectly in line for what we all wanted for the character of Grindelwald.

3) His displayed power
Grindelwald would have soloed around 30 Aurors with ease if he hadn't had been shot in the back- just imagine how it would be, how it would feel to see Grindelwald and Dumbledore duelling to their fullest extent. Finally, we're getting book accurate fights in these movies (not just straightforward spells but Transfiguration, Charms and other such enjoyable elements).

So, that is my defence of Gellert Grindelwald's character so far, but to be perfectly honest I think we can all agree judging someone after around 1 minute of screen time is a bit harsh. Now, for the predictions of the character:

Predictions:
During the battle between Grindelwald and the Aurors, (and can I just say how fulfilling that is to type and for it to be canon?)whilst the Dark Wizard is distracted kicking some assess, Newt -completely forgotten by the antagonist- unleashes a magic rope that forces Grindelwald to drop his wand. What does this mean? Thanks to the original FB thread, we now know that NEWT HAS CONTROL OF THE ELDER WAND! Due to this, I predict that, in the sequel, after Gellert escapes in spectacular fashion, he will spend the movie hunting down Newt and being hell-bent on reclaiming mastery over the most powerful wand in the world.

This might even be why the movie partly takes place in Britain- because Newt is going to Dumbledore for help! (or possibly it's Dumbledore actively going to Newt to help him) Either way, we know that somehow Grindelwald does regain control over the wand, meaning that at one point in these movies we're going to see Newt at his enemy's mercy. Maybe Dumbledore could swoop in for the rescue? Although that would incite a duel between the former friends to early, so probably not.

Either way, the entire reason I formed this thread is for discussion. So please, continue discussing the most underrated character in the history of the Wizarding World!

 

Just got back from watching it in the past hour.

I was thinking quite a lot through the film that it was weird how Graves kept casting without a wand - summoning the bag in the courtroom, lifting and manuevering Kowalski (I think?) in the MACUSA building, and then the fight against Scamander towards the end. It isn't all wandless, some of it seems to be directed by the empty hand, but I did notice it, and think it strange that even the top Auror could do so much without a wand (I don't remember the other movies incredibly well, but I don't think there's much wandless casting?). Considering it was actually Grindelwald, it's fair enough that he's got extra tricks up his sleeves.

There's also, in the interrogation scene, what looks like some of the Deathly Hallow sign (turned about 60 degrees) in his pocket, although it's partly concealed.

I don't think Grindelwald created Graves from the ground up though - he was one of the top Aurors in MACUSA, and that isn't a position you can slip into too quickly.

 

I can completely understand that point of view, but the thing is, this is Grindelwald we're talking about. I feel that -in a world where Barty Crouch Jr can trick Dumbledore for almost an entire school year- someone as powerful as Gellert would be able to pull off what he did.

Also, as to Graves already existing before Grindelwald impersonated him, I present to you this scene from the original screenplay of Fantastic Beasts:

GNARLAK (the goblin) stares. A sense that there is much that he could say - and that he'd rather die than say it.

GNARLAK
You ask too many questions, Mr Scamander. That can get you killed.

(extract over)
Whilst this doesn't outright confirm it, this makes it seem as though Graves has a history. If he had a background that Grindelwald is likely to choose -that being an upstanding citizen who is a genuinely good person- then what Gnarlak says would make no sense. However, if we presume that Graves popped out of nowhere and is seen to be a hero by many, only for some people who question his origins to mysteriously disappear, then this does make sense.

Due to this, I believe that Grindelwald invented Graves, and quietly had those who questioned his origins killed.

 

The Elder wand is a quirk. He didn't seem to have it in the movie or was Grace's wand disguised? We know Gallery was supposed to be a young man when he stole the wand from Gregorovitch, is this a movie fuck up? I can't imagine Rowling and Yates messing up that badly when he displayed the symbol of the Hollows throughout the film.

 

To be honest, I believe that Graves was a real person, and not someone Grindelwald invented. According to Pottermore, Graves is suppose to be directly descended from one of the founders of the MACUSA. To me, that claim seems to me to hint Graves was real.

Now if Graves was real, like I suspect he was, then Grindelwald was probably using Grave's wand and not the Elder Wand, which some people (including the Audience, therefore ruing the twist) might recognize. Which actually to me makes the scene where he's fighting all those Aurors even cooler, as he'd be fighting them with another person's wand, one what was likely also incompatible to him.

 

I also support the theory that Graves was real. Gellert probably killed him and took his place.

 

Well, looks like I'm in the minority.

That theory is interesting and probably true. We should note though that if Grindelwald killed the real Graves then the latter's wand would obey the former- if you mean that it wouldn't be as good as a wand that selected Gellert true, but I think we can all agree that it wouldn't be actively resisting him. That's more or less what you said, but I thought to make it more obvious.

 

Let's remember that winning a wand's allegiance isn't a feature exclusive to the Elder Wand, it's just exaggerated with it. As I recall, Ollivander confirms that Harry won the allegiance of Draco's wand at the Shell Cottage.

Pottermore stuff (Graves' ties to MACUSA founders) seems to favor Grindelwald impersonating him rather than creating him, but the question still remains how long Grindelwald has been playing that part. As much as I'm disappointed by the twist (I've yet to see the film, but I don't mind going in spoiled), I can't help but think how it elevates Grindelwald - he infiltrated MACUSA so deep that he was in charge of their security. That shit is impressive and cool as hell.

Overall, I'm not despairing over Depp casting so much as wasting what was shaping up to be a great character (high ranking Auror, self-righteous believer in Grindelwald's philosophy) on a lame twist. In result, we actually won't ever meet Percival Graves, unless Grindelwald was doing a Crouch and has the real Graves stowed away somewhere for Polyjuice purposes, but I'm hoping it's not the case. Reusing that plot would be lamer than the twist itself.

Beyond that, I'll say more when I've seen the film.

 

I would like to take a minute to say that Gellert Grindelwald did nothing wrong and this movie serves as proof that he was right all along.

 

The President seemed absolutely convinced that magical exposure would immediately call for war between wizards and muggles. At the end of the movie, she thought they were at war. This turns the Grindelwald issue completely around to me at least. It makes his aims much more sympathetic from a wizard's standpoint since to be exposed means total war with muggles. I would not be surprised at all if we see a lot of wizards flock to his banner over the other 4 movies.

 

How does his trying to incite war with muggles make him more sympathetic?

 

I am personally really pumped about Grindelwald he always seemed to be far more interesting to me than Voldemort, while Voldemort may have a cool design and i like his whole snake theme he really is a one dimensional nutcase who can't even comprehend the concept of love or friendship which is really lame.

He really was irredemable and a psycho as a kid which can happen irl but is kind of boring for the main villain.

Grindelwald on the other hand really seems to believe in his ideology (atleast I hope so) and is not doing everything just for the sake of gaining more power. Besides with him it seems to be far more plausible to gain a huge number of followers since his ideology seems to make more sense than just killing all muggleborns because wizards are kind of superior to muggles and unlike LV he seems to not just want to kill all muggles but seems to want rule over them like some overlord with wizards as their superiors iirc or atleast he seemed to convince Dumbledore of that.

Also one of the most interesting things about him is in DH when he refused to tell LV about the elderwand and dumbledore told harry that Grindelwald supposedly regreted many of his actions after his imprisonment and the most intersting thing is that harry suspects that Grindelwald felt genuine affection for dumbledore and didn't want Voldemort breaking into his tomb even after he spend decades in prison because of dumbledore this already makes him so more human and interesting than Voldemort.

I really hope he has a interesting backstory that really makes us get more behind his reasons for wanting to expose wizards and ruling over muggle without getting overly mushy because he still is a dark lord and sociopath.

He also could take down 30 aurors presumably with a wand which hasn't choosen him and without being at the height of his power he still has 19 years to his duell with dumbledore to develop into a even stronger wizard. The only thing that worries me is Depps portrayal but I'll wait till the second movie till i judge him.

 

I wonder if Grindlewald killed Graves or has him under the Imperious curse for when he has to do other
things?

 

You know, I've realised something that no one here has really talked about and mostly overlooked, and that is that Grindelwald had an actual vision or something of that nature that led him to Credence.

To quote the screenplay:

This seems to indicate that Grindelwald uses or has used some method of Division which is how he found Credence. I'm not going to straight jump out and say he's a seer, but clearly he's using some form of future telling in order to have visions.

 

Grindelwald's Pottermore page:
https://www.pottermore.com/explore-the-story/gellert-grindelwald

 

I apologise- I'll correct myself:
All hail Lord-God-King-Captain Gellert Grindelwald, God of the Wizarding World, Master of Magic, Executor of the muggle-scum, Hero of the battle of Helms Deep, Killer of the Balrog, Captain of the flying Carpet Leviathan, Creator of the Death Star, most powerful Wizard of all time and Wielder of the Elder Wand!
Speaking of, the actual Elder Wand: https://www.pottermore.com/image/the-unbeatable-wand
Also, how does everyone think Rowling's going to deal with Grindelwald being more-or-less redeemed in the Books, yet still a piece of -almighty- dragon dung in the movies?

 

I thought GG lied about his 'vision' to make magic seem more alluring and his motives (as he presented them to Credence) something to be shared (just like Credence wished to share the gift of magical ability), and merely made educated guesses. Could be wrong, of course.

 

You know, looking at that page, the pendant that ends up with Xenophilius Lovegood is the same one (well, it's possible there is more than one) that Grindelwald gives to Credence, saying that touching it and saying his name will summon him. If that's Grindelwald's personal pendant, I wonder what it can do...

 

Perhaps GG had several and used a Protean Charm, just one more complex than the one Hermione used, allowing him to become aware of Credence's presence when his grew warm?

How cool wouldn't it be with some kind of obscure Dark Art? Blood Magic, a drop of blood on his pendant and then an Protean Charm, and he could thus sense it?