The Crimes of Grindelwald - SPOILER DISCUSSION

If you still haven't seen the second installment in the "Fantastic Beasts" franchise, this is your final warning: The next lines are going to be filled with spoilers about the film so I would suggest closing the tab immediately and come back after watching it.

This is not going to be a review (which you can find here), but rather a spoiler-filled discussion about the events that took place in the movie and I invite every single one of you Potterheads to share your thoughts about the theories I'm about to develop and take part in the conversation by sharing your own theories and speculations.

Without further ado, let's dive back into the Wizarding World created by J.K. Rowling over 20 years ago in an article where I'll be discussing each subplot I found to be worth talking about in its own paragraph.

• Queenie's turn: 

One of the biggest questions I had before the release of "The Crimes of Grindelwald" was how Jacob was going to get incorporated back in the story, knowing that his memory was erased at the end of the first film. It turned out that the potion used on him only wiped out the bad experiences he went through, which were minimal since he loved every second spent with Newt, Tina, and Queenie. This was revealed in the very beginning of the movie when he and Queenie surprise Newt with a visit in London. It is also revealed in that scene that Queenie is insanely (and I mean it literally) in love with him, to the point where she made him drink a love potion to replicate those feelings in the other way. This whole scenario reminded me of the origin story of one of the most feared characters in the Harry Potter franchise. A character that was born in the late 1920s (the movie takes place in 1927) to a muggle father and a witch mother, who is a known to have used legilimency excessively (a feature he might've inherited from Queenie?), and whose lack of love is the result of him being conceived under the charm of a love potion. That same character also has a connection in that franchise, since his pet snake, Nagini, is revealed to be a maledictus that will play a pivotal part in later installment (to eventually form a connection with him?). I'm sure that by now you're asking yourself the same question I am: Are Queenie and Jacob the parents of Lord Voldemort? All the evidence is there. Well, almost. The only problem with that theory is the fact that the identities of Voldemort's parents don't match. In the Harry Potter franchise, it is said that the names of Tom Riddle's father and mother are respectively Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope Gaunt. But with everything going on with mistaken identities, I have a feeling that this could be turned around pretty easily. So what do you think? Could Jacob and Queenie really be Voldemort's parents? Is Queenie's evil turn due to the fact that she has an evil entity growing inside her?

• McGonagall's cameo:

One of the most heartwarming moments in the movie was the return to Hogwarts, where a group of Aurors visits Albus Dumbledore to talk to him about Grindelwald. They interrupted a Defense Against the Dark Arts class much to the dismay of a professor referred to as McGonagall by Dumbledore. This served as a nice treat for fans of the franchise familiar with the character, even though I don't think that's the McGonagall we all know and love. Minerva was born in 1935 and attended Hogwarts in 1947, making it impossible for her to be a professor when the scene took place in 1927. It's possible, however, that the McGonagall featured here is Minerva's mother, Isobel, but that doesn't make a lot of sense since she hid the fact that she was a witch from her muggle husband Robert, which also eliminates the possibility of her being an aunt of the later to be Transfiguration teacher. I'm not sure what to make of that cameo and hope we'll get an answer for that question in later installments.   

• Leta's Death:

In a desperate attempt to stop Grindelwald, Leta Lestrange unsuccessfully attacks the wizard from behind, prompting him to turn around and kill her. Leta left the franchise in a rather unsatisfying way, having only appeared in one movie and not really doing anything in it. Which leads me to believe that she'll come back from the dead in a future installment. How, do you ask? Well, I have a theory that could work and that would be interesting to tackle. In the Harry Potter franchise, Dumbledore leaves Harry the Resurrection Stone which obviously means that he manages to get it somehow (from Nicolas Flamel maybe?). If used on Leta, it would parallel the story told in "The Tales of the Three Brothers" where a loved one is brought back to life using the Stone. So will Theseus find and use the Stone to bring back his fiancee? Only time will tell. 

• Dumbledore and Grindelwald's pact:     

"I cannot move against Grindelwald". Those words, uttered by the greatest wizard of all time and only threat to Grindelwald, raised a lot of eyebrows when featured in the trailer. Why can't Albus take on Grindelwald? Is it because of their past relationship? The answer to the latter question is yes... and no. No, Albus isn't afraid of facing Grindelwald because the two were "more than brothers", but it's because of an unbreakable vow they made when they were younger, where they swore not to battle anymore. But when did that pact take place exactly? Is it before Dumbledore's sister, Ariana, died? It can't be since she lost her life when struck with a spell during a three-way duel between Gellert, Albus, and his brother, Aberforth, meaning that the vow would've been broken at the time. This means that the two wizards saw each other again at least one more time after Ariana's death, and, profoundly touched by the way their last encounter ended, probably decided never to duel again. A decision I'm certain will not last long.

• World War II tease:  

While delivering his speech at the cemetery, Grindelwald shows his followers what the future holds for muggles. And you guessed it, it's another war. I don't have anything to say about this except for the fact that I can't wait to see how it'll affect the Wizarding World and the ongoing war they're having among themselves.

• Credence's true identity:

The very last scene in the movie sees Grindelwald make a revelation that left the whole theater in shock: he reveals to Credence that he's nonother than Albus Dumbledore's brother, Aurelius. I personally believe that the dark wizard's lying to the young boy to make him join his side. The reason? Well, Aurelius was never mentioned before in any Harry Potter movie while Ariana and Aberforth, Albus' other siblings, are heavily talked about. Another reason why I don't believe Gellert's revelation is the fact that we see his followers playing around with the Lestrange family tree, and killing the Lestrange servant for unknown reasons (maybe she knows the truth about Credence?). Finally, the timeline doesn't make a lot of sense since Percival Dumbledore, supposed father of Aurelius, died in Azkaban around 1890, making Credence at least 37 years old, which is obviously not the case since according to his adoption certificate, he was born in 1904. Kendra Dumbledore, Albus' mother, also died at an early age in 1899, which also eliminates the possibility of her being his real mother unless of course his certificate turns out to be inaccurate. For me, the only explanation possible for now is that Grindelwald, who isn't exactly known for telling truth a whole lot, lied to Credence to give him what he wanted most: an identity.

I have watched "The Crimes of Grindelwald" twice already and loved it even more the second time. I believe that it's a film that Potterheads will enjoy much more than regular moviegoers only because of the conversation it'll sparkle after the credits start rolling. I had an absolute blast discussing these theories with fellow fans and all of you reading it right now and can't wait to hear your opinion about them.