View Single Post
  #29  
Old November 20th, 2018, 6:33 am
HedwigOwl's Avatar
HedwigOwl  Female.gif HedwigOwl is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Join Date: 07th September 2004
Location: Surfing a Probability Wave
Posts: 6,970
Re: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead View Post
Spoiler: show

Okay, that makes sense. I interpreted that scene as the rep just seeing how strongly he was protected, rather than a comment his decrepit appearance. From the script:
Crimes of Grindelwald Screenplay, Scene 3As they reach the door, ABERNATHY turns and acknowledges them.

ABERNATHY
President Picquery, Mr. Spielman, sir. Prisoner is secured and ready to travel.

SPIELMAN and PICQUERY peer into the cell at GRINDELWALD.

SPIELMAN
You’ve thrown everything at him, I see.

PICQUERY
It was necessary. He’s extremely powerful. We’ve had to change his guard three times—he’s very . . . persuasive. So we removed his tongue.

In the script, at least (there are differences from the final film dialogue), Spielman makes no mention of Grindelwald's appearance, though his comment could certainly be in response to it. And while that may be the case, I don't think we ever got confirmation for why Grindelwald is so pale and has heterochromia (something that was true in FB1 before being tortured). So I guess the jury could still be out that it could be the effect of having a Horcrux.

I still have to condense all my spoilery thoughts, so will follow up with those soon.

For now, a teaser: was the murder of the Parisian Muggle baby necessary? Sure, it showed that Grindelwald was a big baddy and drew parallels between Voldemort trying to kill Harry and Grindelwald (or his lackey) successfully doing so here. But was it gratuitous infanticide?
Spoiler: show
I thought in the movie the comment was more like his looking "worse for wear" but will know once I see the film again. And sorry to say it again, but Grindelwald didn't make any horcruxes or Voldemort couldn't have killed him in DH. So that can't be a reason for his appearance.

Regarding the toddler, weren't the parents related somehow to Credence's heritage or information about it? Grindelwald was eliminating any evidence that would lead to information regarding Credence so he can manipulate him, so the toddler had to go as well.


__________________
http://www.cosforums.com/images/img/401694897da473df47.png[/img]
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff...

....I miss David Tennant....
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links