When I read the books, my impression was that Albus and Gellert were just incredibly close friends.

They understood each other in a way that other people couldn't. Both highly intelligent and with prodigal magical skill. Add in personality quirks and the world can feel very lonely.

Not saying it's impossible they were gay. Rather that some friendships can be very, very strong without being sexual and it didn't even occur to me that they could've been in a relationship, or that one of them had romantic feelings towards the other.

Then again, I only heard about Rowling saying they were gay some time last year, and whatever the case is, I'm not very invested in this although I can see why that would appeal to some.

And for the record, heels are awesome.

 

Rowling said it's one-sided, so there's that...

 

There's much more to Dumbledore than his sexual orientation, though... I never saw Dumbledore being homosexual as any significantly more of a big deal than Pottermore's revelation that McGonagall was heterosexual.

 

The video that Scott linked, while having an annoying manner of speaking, made a really interesting point about this and why it matters that I'd never realised.

Heteropeople don't deal with the closet. If someone's straight, it's not something that's hidden, and when it's revealed it's certainly not a surprise. Minerva's specific romantic history and the tragedy was interesting for her as a character, but ultimately we don't need to see her being straight to assume she's straight.

With queer characters and queer readers, (who in a normal human fashion would like characters they can identify with) where the author says they're gay but the work doesn't show it, the character is essentially being put in the closet. The closet isn't something that exists for straight people so it never really occurred to me. I can totally understand why if you've had to 'come out' as a challenging part of your development never having any of your heroes do the same could be quite distressing.

 

Was Dumbledore "out", though? From the way Skeeter talks in DH, it sounds like it's a surprising revelation to most people.

 

If we're gonna play this game you're gonna need to throw up your sources.

 

He wore star patterned robes, and was an intellectual old man in a British boarding school... (you made the joke better, literally on the last page)

Joking aside, I get the sense that for Dumbledore it's probably not quite as simple as 'gay' in Dumbledore's own mind, or at least not for many years. Particularly as we'd have to make a lot of assumptions about wizarding culture and their perceptions of that (Rita Skeeter aside) because it's not necessarily analogous to our own fifties culture.

J.K. said in interview, I believe, [citation needed] that Dumbledore was a lonely man who had no equal in his later years, no confidant, and love for him would likely begin with the mind. Grindlewald is the only person I expect who in his youth excited him intellectually, and really wowed him and helped him to realise he was incredible too, most likely. Someone with whom he could share his insights and deeper ideas and have them understood and deepened in a way he didn't find with his school friends or family. I can't imagine that raw chemistry later, with flamel or other more age-appropriate intelligentsia (not often that word feels appropriate). Dumbledore is really meant to be on a special level, one of very few Renaissance men.

If Dumbledore was never infatuated with anyone else, it might be difficult for him to reconcile.

I find it interesting to imagine what Dumbledore knew about his sexuality, and it's difficult to know without whatever this film chooses to show us.

Ultimately, that's the point. If Dumbledore wasn't out, then it should be shown that he's explicitly in the closet and puzzling it out. Because the audience knows he's gay. If the relationship with Grindlewald was openly romantic in character, than that should be shown as a Dumbledore who knows he is gay. It would be the leaving Dumbledore as implicitly gay or in the closet without showing his view on it that would make it a problem for the audience.

Cus it's not really a problem for the in-universe plot and world either way.

 

If you look above your attempt at shifting the burden of proof over on me there for a moment, I believe you will see that Sorrow saved me the trouble. According to the quote from Rowling, Grindelwald admired Dumbledore as an equal, but he was not romantically interested in Dumbledore.

 

Oh look! You made an assertion and gave no source. Don't try to bitch out of it because another user actually went to the trouble.

So now we have a Grindelwald that isn't romantically interested in Dumbledore, but you better believe he was 'taking' what he had to in order to get him onside.

 

I rather disagree. I would much rather this movie (or any movie) not be Dumbledore 'puzzling out his sexuality' like this is a stupid 2018 teen flick. How about we focus on the magical war, ideology, and exploring different magical countries and beasts? Do we want this to be the next Star Wars?

Imo, leave that out, let those who know have that as background knowledge, let those who don't (ie: didn't catch the hints in the books and don't follow Rowling's retarded interviews) not be confused or put off by seeming 'asspull' and instead focus on the actual plot and world-building.

This is a stupid issue.

 

If the reason Dumbledore isn't fighting Grindlewald is because of their history I think we should learn their history in this film. I'm not saying lets have brokewand mountain.

 

IMO, it would be a monumental blunder on the part of the filmmakers to mention the issue of Dumbledore not being able to fight Grindelwald in both trailers so far, but then not to follow through with a satisfying explanation. Whether that is Dumbledore's fear about meeting his former crush/lover/whatever in-between, or whether it is about the Ariana issue, or whether it is some third, as of yet unclear reason.

However, if they go with anything but the first one, we might be in for protests from a certain portion of the fandom and the reactionary pop culture outlets, no matter how much sense it would make for the overall story not to go down that route for now. This is a five-part franchise we are talking about, after all.

Representation is all well and good, but quite frankly, if it resorts to pandering and good storytelling is sacrificed on the altar of pacifying the masses, then I don't want it. Story-wise, it is my belief that Dumbledore would fear exposure too much to tell even Newt, who he has apparently known for decades, about his former association with the enemy, never mind my suspicion that he might be closely watched by the Aurors. And who else would he tell? None of the other heroes have any sort of connection with him that comes even close to what Newt has, and I can't see anyone else who he might be willing to talk to.

In any case, I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

 

I did no such thing. I only pointed out that someone posted the quote I'd need to provide as a source prior to the our discussion and the subsequent necessity of me using it as a source. What did you expect me to do, post it again?

Also - you're just trolling me now, right?

 

So we've got a new final trailer, one with a very interesting name drop:

Spoiler: Name Drop

As you can see, the the Maledictus character is in fact playing, as was theorized by more than a few fans, Nagini, Voldemort's final Horcrux. Curious if this kind of confirms we'll see a young Tom Riddle show up, if only to see how he got his hands on her.

 

Also, new footage of the Erised scene; looks like the young Grindelwald and Dumbledore from DH are returning to play the same younger versions.

 

Here's what interests me most, from a worldbuilding perspective:

The movie takes place, what, in the 1930s?

So that seems to put the last mixed Muggle-magical war in the early 1800s, well after the International Statute of Secrecy. So... magical Napoleonic Wars confirmed?

 

Interesting trailer. I am looking forward to this movie. Probably a Thursday night viewing for me. The only thing that seems a little out of place is the muggle and Newt's friends. Not sure of what role they will play when going after Grindelwald. Also was that confirmation that the snake was Nagini? I don't really see the point since it had no affect upon Voldemort in the actual books at all, so it seems weird to put it in now. Overall, I am really hyped for this movie!

 

I still don't get why you would send introverted, socially crippled magical Steve Irwin after the most dangerous dark wizard in the world. I know he's gonna have his brother and his ex with him (and a goddamn muggle too if they find a sparkplug or something) but I still can't put the pieces together.

I know he used a critter to oneshot Grindelwald from behind in the first movie (and it was stupid) and he has to be pretty clever to track and capture all the worlds most terrible animals in his briefcase but surely that can't translate to world's seconds best dark wizard catcher who makes aurors look like 3rd year students and the only choice to end the threat of magical Hitler 1.0.

I would have preferred if the only constants in this series were Dumbledore and Grindelwald and the rest was a rotating cast with some making repeat appearances instead of it being Newt Scamander and how to save the world because everyone else is busy.