The Official ''Fantastic Beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald” Thread

[Marvolo]

J.K. Rowling says she left one major clue about Nagini's backstory in 'Harry Potter,' long before 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'

there were always hints that she had been human," Rowling said. "In her name — because the Naga are, in mythology, a race of snake beings. So the name was an allusion to the fact that she may herself once have been human."

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a Naga or Nāga is "a member of a class of mythical semidivine beings, half human and half cobra" in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. "Nagini" is the feminine form of the Sanskrit word, sometimes used to refer to a female Naga.

So Rowling really didnt pull her human part out of her ass for Fantastic Beasts.

 

[THORin]

So Rowling really didnt pull her human part out of her ass for Fantastic Beasts.

I never thought she had: for some reason, there is this misconception that writers don’t have reams of material written up about even the most inconsequential characters, places, and objects in their universe. We do, and 99% of it would probably never come to the attention of readers. I can tell you, for instance, that I’ve written entire timelines for minor towns in my invented world, backstories for characters that don’t even have names, etc. The fact that Rowling does the same does not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The problem with Rowling is she is clearly pulling stuff from nowhere. So at this point, it is all suspect. That is a problem of her own making. This stuff hasn't become a meme for no reason. Also whether it was an idea from the past or not, it was never setup and then they turned her into the new character's hot friend. It is so fanfiction-y, Lucas is jealous.

 

[Sithborg]

I'm sorry, but naming your snake after a snake monster is some bull**** "evidence" of what you planned. And it is pretty clear the "Gandalf is gay" stuff is just something she did for attention, as she is clearly uncomfortable with the subject.

 

[Schlosser85]

I never thought she had: for some reason, there is this misconception that writers don’t have reams of material written up about even the most inconsequential characters, places, and objects in their universe. We do, and 99% of it would probably ever come to the attention of readers. I can tell you, for instance, that I’ve written entire timelines for minor towns in my invented world, backstories for characters that don’t even have names, etc. The fact that Rowling does the same does not surprise me in the slightest.

Yup. I have backstories for minor side characters that don’t show up on the page.

 

[THORin]

The problem with Rowling is she is clearly pulling stuff from nowhere. So at this point, it is all suspect. That is a problem of her own making. This stuff hasn't become a meme for no reason. Also whether it was an idea from the past or not, it was never setup and then they turned her into the new character's hot friend. It is so fanfiction-y, Lucas is jealous.

Setup? This is stuff that is left off the page because it is inconsequential to the story you are telling at that time: it’s only when you have the opportunity - and Rowling is fortunate enough to get this opportunity, unlike most authors - to go back and base entire stories off that background material, that the said background material becomes important. Methinks a conversation about Nagini’s origin story was completely unnecessary in the HP books. Also, for Rowling, names basically are “setup” - it’s no coincidence that an evil character in her books is named Lucius Malfoy, which has obvious connotations, or that a character who can transform into a dog is named Sirius, or a werewolf named Remus Lupin, both of which are quite easy to understand the meaning of, so why now does the name Nagini - derived from a mythological SNAKE-HUMAN HYBRID, seem so suspicious?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Setup? This is stuff that is left off the page because it is inconsequential to the story you are telling at that time: it’s only when you have the opportunity - and Rowling is fortunate enough to get this opportunity, unlike most authors - to go back and base entire stories off that background material, that the said background material becomes important. Methinks a conversation about Nagini’s origin story was completely unnecessary in the HP books. Also, for Rowling, names basically are “setup” - it’s no coincidence that an evil character in her books is named Lucius Malfoy, which has obvious connotations, or that a character who can transform into a dog is named Sirius, or a werewolf named Remus Lupin, both of which are quite easy to understand the meaning of, so why now does the name Nagini - derived from a mythological SNAKE-HUMAN HYBRID, seem so suspicious?

We are talking about a horcrux. Considering the info/backstory provided for the others, it does seems suspect. Especially as she had a teenager now "murder" this poor girl who was trapped in snake form. Also I am going to assume Voldemort realizes this snake isn't a normal snake, which makes how he talks to the snake even more bizarre. Especially when you consider parseltongue.

 

[Sithborg]

Also, for Rowling, names basically are “setup” - it’s no coincidence that an evil character in her books is named Lucius Malfoy, which has obvious connotations, or that a character who can transform into a dog is named Sirius, or a werewolf named Remus Lupin, both of which are quite easy to understand the meaning of, so why now does the name Nagini - derived from a mythological SNAKE-HUMAN HYBRID, seem so suspicious?

That's not setup. That is giving traits by name. So, no, naming a snake after a snake monster is totally inline with everything else she named. Expecting anything beyond that is reading way, way too much into it.

 

[THORin]

Especially as she had a teenager now "murder" this poor girl who was trapped in snake form.

If I had to take a wild guess, assuming that Rowling had this story planned all along, I would guess that this would be the exact reason she would leave it out of the original story: because in the original story, Neville killing Nagini is triumphant, heroic, and crowd-pleasing. The more solemn stuff about how it was actually a woman before, might want to be left for a darker, more mature sequel - or, rather, prequel.

Also, I will take the opportunity to simply point out a theory I have, which is that someone, possibly Newt, as he has successfully extracted an Obscurus from a human, could extract the Maledictus from Nagini: that maledictus goes on to become the Nagini we all know and hate, while Human Nagini has her own story, whatever that might be. Just a theory, but I thought I’d share. The Maledictus would, of course, keep the name Nagini, but it’s just the living blood-curse, not the woman herself. I’m probably going to be proven wrong, but I do like that theory.

 

[Snow Queen]

I'm sorry, but naming your snake after a snake monster is some bull**** "evidence" of what you planned. And it is pretty clear the "Gandalf is gay" stuff is just something she did for attention, as she is clearly uncomfortable with the subject.

She started doing this with stories that aren't even hers now?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

She started doing this with stories that aren't even hers now?

Actually this is down to her time turner. She was able to go back and base Dumbledore completely off Sir Ian's Gandalf.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's not setup. That is giving traits by name. So, no, naming a snake after a snake monster is totally inline with everything else she named. Expecting anything beyond that is reading way, way too much into it.

I can get behind this being true. The thing is, she has lost all benefit of the doubt. I know there are story bibles and such. But the issue here is JK's track record.

If I had to take a wild guess, assuming that Rowling had this story planned all along, I would guess that this would be the exact reason she would leave it out of the original story: because in the original story, Neville killing Nagini is triumphant, heroic, and crowd-pleasing. The more solemn stuff about how it was actually a woman before, might want to be left for a darker, more mature sequel - or, rather, prequel.

Also, I will take the opportunity to simply point out a theory I have, which is that someone, possibly Newt, as he has successfully extracted an Obscurus from a human, could extract the Maledictus from Nagini: that maledictus goes on to become the Nagini we all know and hate, while Human Nagini has her own story, whatever that might be. Just a theory, but I thought I’d share. The Maledictus would, of course, keep the name Nagini, but it’s just the living blood-curse, not the woman herself. I’m probably going to be proven wrong, but I do like that theory.

Why would you assume that?

 

[THORin]

Why would you assume that?

Because...it’s what I believe to be true. I phrased it oddly, I know.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because...it’s what I believe to be true. I phrased it oddly, I know.

But it's Rowling. Who can't even keep her own timeline straight and is clearly just picking random things to put into the FB films to try and tie it back to HP.

 

[Sithborg]

She started doing this with stories that aren't even hers now?

Again, for the name thing, these were names for a kids book. If you are going into some deep philosophical meaning, than you are putting more effort than Rowling did when the books were first made.

 

[THORin]

But it's Rowling. Who can't even keep her own timeline straight and is clearly just picking random things to put into the FB films to try and tie it back to HP.

But it’s my opinion.
As for the timeline: I assume you’re referring to McGonagall - I don’t have an answer for that yet, as the series is not over. If, in the next three films, this is not explained, or Rowling does not clarify it, I will be frustrated and may even agree with you. I will point out that some fans have noticed McGonagall is wearing a gold chain around her neck in FB2, which could be nothing, or it could be the key to the entire situation.

 

[Sithborg]

OMG.

And here I thought naming everything that ends up on screen in Star Wars was bad...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But it’s my opinion.
As for the timeline: I assume you’re referring to McGonagall - I don’t have an answer for that yet, as the series is not over. If, in the next three films, this is not explained, or Rowling does not clarify it, I will be frustrated and may even agree with you. I will point out that some fans have noticed McGonagall is wearing a gold chain around her neck in FB2, which could be nothing, or it could be the key to the entire situation.

I am talking about multiple things in these films, including Barry Allen's birth.

Throwing in a time turner with McGonagall does not change anything, as she is clearly out in the open and yet her history as a teacher is known and does not include this period. Considering her look, you can't really retcon this, as she is clearly younger then the McGonagall we see in the HP books/films.

 

[THORin]

Again, for the name thing, these were names for a kids book. If you are going into some deep philosophical meaning, than you are putting more effort than Rowling did when the books were first made.

Deep philosophical meaning?
Sirius Black: Sirius is the mythological dog of Orion, Black is a color, the name equals black dog.
Remus Lupin: Remus is a mythological character raised by a wolf, and Lupin is derives from a word for wolf as well.
Nagini: derives from a word for a mythological snake-human hybrid.

There is no deep philosophical meaning, this is something Rowling does when naming characters.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

OMG.

And here I thought naming everything that ends up on screen in Star Wars was bad...

Wait, what?

 

[THORin]

I am talking about multiple things in these films, including Barry Allen's birth.

Throwing in a time turner with McGonagall does not change anything, as she is clearly out in the open and yet her history as a teacher is known and does not include this period. Considering her look, you can't really retcon this, as she is clearly younger then the McGonagall we see in the HP books/films.

I immediately regretted not including a statement to the effect that I do not personally agree with this theory, at least not yet.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I immediately regretted not including a statement to the effect that I do not personally agree with this theory, at least not yet.

But the theory doesn't make sense, even if they use it. She's clearly full time staff and there is no record of this. It could only be a retcon. Which is her right. But that is what it would be.

 

[THORin]

But the theory doesn't make sense, even if they use it. She's clearly full time staff and there is no record of this. It could only be a retcon. Which is her right. But that is what it would be.

Yeah, okay, does it look likely it’s a retcon? I’m probably 95% certain it’s a retcon, and a foolish one made for fan-service purposes. But if Rowling has some genius solution to the whole dilemma, I’m willing to hear her out, at least.

I’m also not going to jump ship because of McGonagall - I like McGonagall!
(Though, admittedly, I’d like her more if this were the right time period for her to be alive.)

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, okay, does it look likely it’s a retcon? I’m probably 95% certain it’s a retcon, and a foolish one made for fan-service purposes. But if Rowling has some genius solution to the whole dilemma, I’m willing to hear her out, at least.

I’m also not going to jump ship because of McGonagall - I like McGonagall!

We are talking about the woman who didn't even know when the final chapter of her original book series took place, so... yeah.

All this stuff would be just fun stuff to laugh at, if she didn't have that Lucas gene. Where she seems determined to make everyone believe this was all planned from the start and nothing really changed.

As to jumping off. Jumping off more has to do with the rather poor quality of this series so far. The first film had charm enough, even if I probably wouldn't have been invested if it was HP related. But the second film is just really bad storytelling, that reeks of a situation where they had an idea, but midway through the first film, they decided it wouldn't be related to the original series enough. So they changed it, but this story has no meat to it. This is going to be a long road to get to a duel we already know happened and shouldn't be the climax of a series that is about Newt.

 

[THORin]

All this stuff would be just fun stuff to laugh at, if she didn't have that Lucas gene. Where she seems determined to make everyone believe this was all planned from the start and nothing really changed.

I still believe that things like Nagini, Dumbledore’s homosexuality, and Aurelius Dumbledore are not retcons (and thus do not fall into this category) because there’s nothing out there to contradict them: the Aurelius one is the closest we come to that, and since Rowling describes Film 3 with the words “answers are given”, I’m going to assume it doesn’t turn out to be as much of a retcon as everyone thinks it is. Things like McGonagall seem to be retcons. I am not going to go through an entire list of everything, categorizing things right now at 1:00 in the morning, but that’s what I’m gonna say for right now. Good night!