The following people have been known to perform spells intentionally without use of a wand:

• Alastor Moody
• Albus Dumbledore
• Andros the Invincible
• Carlotta Pinkstone
• Delphini
• Fenrir Greyback
• Filius Flitwick
• Harry Potter
• Hermione Granger
• Merlin
• Minerva McGonagall
• Quirinus Quirrell
• Remus Lupin
• Severus Snape
• Tom
• Tom Marvolo Riddle
• Uagadou students
• Gellert Grindelwald
• Queenie Goldstein
• Percival Graves

 

I stand corrected, cursed child hardly cannon tho imo worse then a number of fanfics of read

 

Don't forget about that one dude during Prisoner of Azkaban at the Leaky Cauldron who was casually stirring his drink without actually touching the spoon. Movie canon is a little more casual with wandless magic than the books.

 

The film now has an official title: The Crimes of Grindlewald. Bit of a synopsis, cast photo and logo https://www.pottermore.com/news/fantastic-beasts-film-title-revealed-the-crimes-of-grindelwald

 

Worst name NA. All three hallows are in the title though, so that's neat I suppose.

 

The Crimes of Grindelwald? Don't tell me how to feel, Rowling. I will judge if they are crime or not.

 

About 90% of the twitter replies are concerning Johnny Depp still being in the role given the domestic abuse allegations against him, so in that respect the title is perhaps a bit of an own goal.

Personally, I'm focused more on Dumbledore's disappointingly ordinary clothes. Where are the crazy robes? The plum velvet suit?

 

For me, 'The Crimes of Grindelwald' seems more like a chapter title rather than an entire movie. That said, it also looks like the movie will be entirely dedicated to the Grindelwald-Dumbledore conflict, not split in half between two separate focuses, which can't be anything but good. It's likely that the 'crimes' alluded to are the death of Arianna, the manipulation of Albus, and the numerous plots that Gellert has been a part of/instigated in the last few decades.
Some thoughts on the picture:
1) Both Dumbledore and Grindelwald are standing in the same posture (their feet, for instance, are knotted together identically).
2) I might be mistaken, but Leta Lestrange and Newt's brother look like they're 'together', which could make for an interesting -albeit distracting- dynamic.

 

Indeed.

Maybe he only really bloomed and found himself after he stopped kickin' it with that bad seed Gellert.

Mads Mikkelsen in Hannibal has some mad colourful yet stylish suits. Even that would have been more exciting.

edit: Upon closer inspection, Gellert and Newt are a lot more dapper than Dumbledore. What the fudge.

And that title is weak. I'm gonna go in with low expectations, like I did with the first installment, and hopefully I'll walk out having been wowed by some special effects here and there, and an OK story. I don't have it in me to be hopeful anymore.

 

So if films are released every 2 years, we have until November 2024 before we can rewrite the HP prequels into a fanfic series.

I'll be almost 32 years old in November 2024. Fuuuuuyck mee.

 

I liked the poster and name. I hope we will finally get to see how a person and his followers conquer most of Europe. Though with 4 movies remaining I don't think this movie will show Grindelwald at his highest point because he was at the peak when Dumbledore dueled him in '45. My understanding is that the first movie had Grindelwald and his movement still in the beginning stages but becoming well known. Though we also know that Albus didn't leave Hogwarts for years while Grindelwald rampaged, so I am really interested in where they take this movie.

Newt's brother, the war hero (though I am really curious why wizards were praised for being involved in what I can only assume was WWI), seems to be dating/engaged with Leta which will cause a lot of problems. Also, why the muggle and Queenie are in this movie set in France/England I don't know. That might be a stretch to fit them in. Credence's story arc should be interesting. He found himself another cursed person to hang around with. I definitely see him hanging around for all 5 movies. Newt himself though... what role will he play as these movies shift more towards the conflict between Albus and Grindelwald? There were a lot of theories about Albus sending Newt to America, and maybe those are true which allows Newt to stay in the plot? We shall see.

Johnny Depp looks a lot better in these pictures. If he gives a great performance, which he is definitely capable of, he could easily catapult this movie along with Jude Law into greatness. Rowling has already tweeted out that she enjoyed his work from what she has seen of the movie. I think it will turn out great. The cast has a lot of talent in it. Hopefully they can deliver the adult HP world story that they are promising.

 

I think Dumbledore is going to be real distracting because of how.. NOT Dumbledore he looks like. One, regardless of whatever excuse the film makers can spew our way, there are no excuse with which they can justify grossly misrepresenting a character like that. In the books, and before anyone points it out, yes, I am aware of the concept of creative freedom, but in the books, Dumbledore looks much like himself already when he picks up Tom Riddle in 1937. The Muggle attire aside, he has the same long hair and beard, but he looks obviously less aged and it is auburn (not dark, the fudge?! Rowling writes the screenplay, and Yates can't even get that right? Hair dye, David, it's a real thing!). Why the hell would they make Dumbledore look like the most bland and uninteresting character out of the lot? It's DUMBLEDORE! D:

I also frown upon the fact that in the case of 99% of magical human life, wizarding attire is non-existent. And when the screenplay describe Grindelwald as blue-eyed, and the books describe Grindelwald as blue-eyed, I have a little difficult understanding why the hell Grindelwald can't just be depicted as such? Different-colored eyes DO - NOT - LOOK - COOL. It makes him look dumb, and every time I see it, I get flashbacks to the horrible piece of poo that was Alice in Wonderland with him as the Mad Hatter.

 

Depp looks stupid as fuck but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. There has to be a reason why the usually excellent Harry Potter casting department cast someone who, let's face it, is a bit washed up these days.

 

I'll just throw in my 2 cents regarding costumes. Yes, it's an original story not adapted from anything, but it is adapting the Potterverse to the screen. I like the costumes. I like that they don't totally stand out from muggle fashion. Flowing magenta robes might be good in writing, but I think I would just find that silly on screen.

And consider another thing. You're talking about clothes. Are we assuming wizards have unchanging, static fashion? Why can't "robe" mean "cool looking coat"?

 

It's wartime, zany fabrics are out. Even the muggles were just going with bland khakis. That said, dunno how I feel about cords. It's an odd fabric choice, maybe even Dumbledorian. Colorwise, the Brits have always liked their grey and navy formalwear in blackish tones. Grey that looks like grey and navy that looks like blue is very much a more American thing.

Gellert gets a pass because he's a villain, anyone dressed so insouciantly is obviously so.

Newt's just buttoned up as usual. "Proper" dress - a buff vest may catch the eye, but it's really the only correct off-color vest to wear. His signature coat's always been a quirky color, it upstages Dumbledore's in that department.

I hear the girls have gone rabbits over Dumbledore on Twitter.

 

Dumbledore is literally wearing a plain, fitted suit. Completely inconspicuous. One would think there'd be at least one thing that makes his outfit pop. At this point, I'd be happy with a pocket square with exploding bananas or something. Where's the whimsy and the ridiculousness?

Maybe Jude Law will let the quirkiness flow through his acting. We haven't seen footage yet, so who knows.

 

I can't find any pictures of a suit. Just that overcoat, clearly a shirt + tie + suede brogues. Modern cocktail dress, I'd say. Smart yet informal, if intently monotone. Film directors like to use corduroy as an "intellectual" fabric. Down-to-earth, even out-of-touch.

Thing is, only villains and nerds get to really break stylistic boundaries on film. Hence the Mads Mikkelsen thing - it's meant to be eye-catching, a little unsettling, menacing. And you don't want to go the super-saturated-in-color-tone route, seeing as you want the heroes to be taken somewhat seriously, unless you're making the next Austin Powers/Zoolander.

My hope is that it's the lining of his coat that's gone bonkers. Now that would be totally appropriate for a lawful good protagonist.

Hmm. Actually they might've popped some color with the shirt. Maybe a light pink? Unless they were being deliberate with the monoblue intensity.

 

I'll be 52. GET OFF MY LAWN.

Johnny Depp being in this... I hope he's got more in him still than what I'm dreading will happen, which is Captain Jack Grindelwald. All they would have had to do is dye Colin Farrell's hair and he'd have been perfect, the quiet menace he brought to the Graves character was awesome.