fantasticbeasts_kinkmeme (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fantasticbeasts_kinkmeme) wrote2016-11-23 07:38 am
fantasticbeasts_kinkmeme) wrote2016-11-23 07:38 am
OFF-TOPIC POST
Please don't post prompts here. This is for off-topic discussion only.
I'd like to hope they'd be more open but I'm also really cynical so I don't know. Like, every time I see people get really excited about the potential for more open representation in big franchises I just try not to get my hopes up because I've been let down SO many times before.
Also, it's been forever since I've read HP or even thought about it, but was it a definite romantic relationship between them, or unrequited? I can't remember. (Or just sort of left ambiguous?)
Also, it's been forever since I've read HP or even thought about it, but was it a definite romantic relationship between them, or unrequited? I can't remember. (Or just sort of left ambiguous?)
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-23 03:40 pm (UTC)(link)The screenplay explicitly states that he's an adult, which in 1920s New York means he's over 21, and he's played by a 24-year-old.
If you want to headcanon him as underage I have no problem with that. But unless someone explicitly asks for younger!Credence, there's no reason to assume he's under 18 by default in all prompts. All canon evidence supports the view that he's an adult in his early 20s.
If you want to headcanon him as underage I have no problem with that. But unless someone explicitly asks for younger!Credence, there's no reason to assume he's under 18 by default in all prompts. All canon evidence supports the view that he's an adult in his early 20s.
(Contract!Anon) I think a lot of people are panicking unnecessarily 'cause there aren't any books to adapt from, and they're not accustomed/comfortable with the concept of idea-script-movie without there being a pre-published source to act as a preview of what to expect. They're not seeing the creative advantage that this lack of a pre-published source means NOTHING in this universe is foretold, and the fact there is this change (polyjuice to transfiguration) in Graves' canon means JKR's considering Graves' position in the wider movie series.
Basically, polyjuice just puts Graves in a box. It 100% guarantees his survival, but it still means he has to be held prisoner in a location that's close to/and always accessible for Grindelwald. However, transfiguration means Graves could literally be anywhere. Grindelwald could've transfigured Graves from a photograph, therefore he doesn't need to keep Graves alive 'cause he was never within range to kill or capture him in the first place.
That frees up JKR to do a lot more with the Graves character. She can essentially bring him back as a Grindelwald follower OR a poor innocent soul who didn't know Grindelwald stole his face. He can show up in any location, capacity or allegiance now with ANY explanation. And she couldn't do that if Graves was being farmed for polyjuice and stuck in a box.
This is what I'm getting at. JKR's just turned Graves into a free square on the bingo card of the entire series and all she needs is a decent idea to utilise him AND Colin Farrell. Even Sparrowald, the transfiguration reasoning means that they can replace Depp at will if he continues to be a PR and box office liability. But, like, everything that involves specific actors and their roles and retention is a contract/production bureaucracy thing.
I don't do speculation often but I just feel like I'm the only person around these parts who's THRILLED with the transfiguration news 'cause it's, like, way to install an 'in case of emergencies, press to summon Colin Farrell' button.
Basically, polyjuice just puts Graves in a box. It 100% guarantees his survival, but it still means he has to be held prisoner in a location that's close to/and always accessible for Grindelwald. However, transfiguration means Graves could literally be anywhere. Grindelwald could've transfigured Graves from a photograph, therefore he doesn't need to keep Graves alive 'cause he was never within range to kill or capture him in the first place.
That frees up JKR to do a lot more with the Graves character. She can essentially bring him back as a Grindelwald follower OR a poor innocent soul who didn't know Grindelwald stole his face. He can show up in any location, capacity or allegiance now with ANY explanation. And she couldn't do that if Graves was being farmed for polyjuice and stuck in a box.
This is what I'm getting at. JKR's just turned Graves into a free square on the bingo card of the entire series and all she needs is a decent idea to utilise him AND Colin Farrell. Even Sparrowald, the transfiguration reasoning means that they can replace Depp at will if he continues to be a PR and box office liability. But, like, everything that involves specific actors and their roles and retention is a contract/production bureaucracy thing.
I don't do speculation often but I just feel like I'm the only person around these parts who's THRILLED with the transfiguration news 'cause it's, like, way to install an 'in case of emergencies, press to summon Colin Farrell' button.
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-24 02:23 pm (UTC)(link)The screenplay does not equate the movie. They don't actually adapt that into the movie, where he is only "not a child". Since this is Hollywood, I don't know how much it counts for that Ezra Miller was 23 during filming (but it certainly is indicative to me that they meant to adapt Rowling's description).
The problem I think began this is that there is some uncertainty around his age in the movie (both the screenplay) and the fact that the dynamic of Grindelgraves and Credence reads a lot to people as grooming. Since most people's conceptions of grooming is restricted to a binary system of adult/child you get this reaction. But there's a thing like adult grooming. I personally thought Rowling gave us a very clear example of adult grooming and I do see where the reaction comes from. It probably was a bad adaptive choice not to make it explicit considering the relationship dynamics of the character.
The interesting question here you revealed is how do you decide the canonicity of Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them. Does the screenplay with an explicitly adult Credence take precedence over the focalized adaption that has an unclear age for Credence? The screenplay, I believe, was released after the movie and is subsidiary honestly.
Maybe it beckons a more reflective attitude to Credence age? Perhaps a disclaimer for which age Credence is placed at if it isn't explicit in the story? It would be interesting to hear from the OP if they actually consider this a problem.
The problem I think began this is that there is some uncertainty around his age in the movie (both the screenplay) and the fact that the dynamic of Grindelgraves and Credence reads a lot to people as grooming. Since most people's conceptions of grooming is restricted to a binary system of adult/child you get this reaction. But there's a thing like adult grooming. I personally thought Rowling gave us a very clear example of adult grooming and I do see where the reaction comes from. It probably was a bad adaptive choice not to make it explicit considering the relationship dynamics of the character.
The interesting question here you revealed is how do you decide the canonicity of Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them. Does the screenplay with an explicitly adult Credence take precedence over the focalized adaption that has an unclear age for Credence? The screenplay, I believe, was released after the movie and is subsidiary honestly.
Maybe it beckons a more reflective attitude to Credence age? Perhaps a disclaimer for which age Credence is placed at if it isn't explicit in the story? It would be interesting to hear from the OP if they actually consider this a problem.
One thing is to borrow someone's face, the other is pretending to be them. Sure Grindelwald could observe Graves' routine beforehand and then interrogate him after capture, but even if Grindelwald choose Graves because he keeps himself aloof from everybody, it's still a lot of info. Like to be successful he has to know things like how to react if one of the aurors get injured, what to write in paperwork, what is this form for, all the office inside jokes etc.
I think Grindelwald would have kept Graves alive for this info. In my imagination he visited Graves regularly to ask him question like What did Picquery mean by this remark? What happened on the mission to Baltimore in '23 on of the aurors mentioned? etc.
Unless he decided to just wing it and people at MACUSA are just that unobservant.
I think Grindelwald would have kept Graves alive for this info. In my imagination he visited Graves regularly to ask him question like What did Picquery mean by this remark? What happened on the mission to Baltimore in '23 on of the aurors mentioned? etc.
Unless he decided to just wing it and people at MACUSA are just that unobservant.
JKR said it was unrequited, yeah, and that Grindelwald knew about Dumbledore's feelings and used them to manipulate him, iirc. But I would still think it's an important plot point, regardless of being reciprocated or not.
hey mods, i know this is unlilely since the new round has just started but have you guys considered freezing the prompts for a week or so to give people a chance to fill the prompts? right now we have dozens of new prompts every day, and it's really hard for people to actually take some time and fill them, given that everything is so frantic. in my experience this makes a KM burn itself out in a few months, because nothing gets filled and people lose interest.
It could be linked to that very popular Newt/Graves fic, one of the first, "The Cigarette Case" - where the Niffler steals GrindelGraves's silver cigarette case, in which he kept Graves imprisoned.
Re: contract stuff, from pretty much every interview I have ever watched it sounds like CF would jump at the chance of going back if he was asked, and as far as I know for potential franchises is common practice to have everyone sign contracts for multiple films, just in case.
However, JK and Yates seemed thrilled with Depp last I heard. But yeah I agree that transfiguration doesn't necessarily mean something bad. Original!Graves may be dead, but Farrell's performance as Grindelwald was super interesting and I'd love to see that again.
However, JK and Yates seemed thrilled with Depp last I heard. But yeah I agree that transfiguration doesn't necessarily mean something bad. Original!Graves may be dead, but Farrell's performance as Grindelwald was super interesting and I'd love to see that again.
I think it will be erceive the exact same treatment as when Dumbledore evoked the past in Deathly Hallow - there will be emotional hype and Dumbledore suffering the pangs of betrayal from an ex-super-close-fascinating friend, but no more.
I came to say the exact same thing - so you have my vote.
Is it canon that Newt's family/mother raised Hippogriffs? I seem to have found it in at least two fics.
(If fanon, it's lovely fanon!)
(If fanon, it's lovely fanon!)
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 11:08 am (UTC)(link)I don't get why there would be uncertainty to begin with? Credence is stated to be early 20s in the script and that's also the age of his actor. He hardly looks like a teenager. How is that uncertain at all? Because the film doesn't explicitly say his age? They don't state Newt or Queenie's age either, but fandom takes for true the age we're given in the supplementary materials. Why is Credence different?
I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen far too much #discourse about how shipling Credence with anyone is dirtybadwrong and I'm tired of it. We have a couple different sources saying he's over 21. Unless the fic author or prompter deliberatelt want to change his age, he's not a minor.
I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen far too much #discourse about how shipling Credence with anyone is dirtybadwrong and I'm tired of it. We have a couple different sources saying he's over 21. Unless the fic author or prompter deliberatelt want to change his age, he's not a minor.
I think Grindelwald would have kept Graves alive for this info.
I absolutely agree with this. Unless Grindelwald spent years on creating an alias in America he had to take over someone else’s life to get into the position that Graves is in, because surely nobody would appoint an unknown wizard who simply knocks on MACUSA’s door one day as Director of Magical Security.
If he was impersonating another person he needs as much info as he can get, so it’s sensible to keep that person alive and close by to have access to any information you might need whenever you need it.
I absolutely agree with this. Unless Grindelwald spent years on creating an alias in America he had to take over someone else’s life to get into the position that Graves is in, because surely nobody would appoint an unknown wizard who simply knocks on MACUSA’s door one day as Director of Magical Security.
If he was impersonating another person he needs as much info as he can get, so it’s sensible to keep that person alive and close by to have access to any information you might need whenever you need it.
Yes, it was mentioned in his bio for the Comic Relief Fantastic Beasts book, I believe.
Hello anon, thank you for your concern. To be honest, that was the original plan for when we hit 4,000 comments on round 1. However, a) I stupidly forgot to announce it in advance, and didn't want to spring it on people and b) I also figured that to freeze it during the holidays would be frustrating for most who only have time to enjoy the meme in its entirety during their breaks. The current plan is to freeze during the first week of January. I hope this is alright with everyone.
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 12:22 pm (UTC)(link)He doesn't look anything like a teenager, in my opinion.
ayrt Oh, goody!:) Thanks, nonny.
Since I recently realized that the Graves/Newt dynamic I'm seeing in fic is really, really close to Roy/Ed from FMA. Anyone else reminded of ships from other fandoms?
Re: If he was 18, he was considered minor by Common Laws of USA in 1920s
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 03:29 pm (UTC)(link)OP!
Thank you so much! This was very uplifting for me to hear. It does sound like Credence most definitively is an adult at least in my context and also probably in his own! Thank you so much for the links
Thank you so much! This was very uplifting for me to hear. It does sound like Credence most definitively is an adult at least in my context and also probably in his own! Thank you so much for the links
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)OP here
Srry for late reply, thank you so much. The screenplay isn't accessible to me so it was revealing to hear :-)
Srry for late reply, thank you so much. The screenplay isn't accessible to me so it was revealing to hear :-)
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 03:54 pm (UTC)(link)OP here. Let me explain. Firstly: That is the nature of the uncertainty. If you are certain there is no room or understanding for uncertainty. I'm happy for you that you didn't feel it but you don't need to be antagonistic.
American movies and tv series have a history of casting with very weird age gaps so I never feel comfortable taking the actors age as a definitive indication of the character's age. As to why Credence is different. The narrative treats very clearly both Queenie and Newt as adults, it doesn't treat Credence likewise. I don't know what I can do to make you see that if you don't. I don't think it's wrong to ship him with Grindelgraves, but if he had been a minor it should have been tagged as such (and now I'm happy I get to enjoy those fics in my own good consciousness because I do feel I can take it in good faith that it's true he is an adult from the earlier replies). But I do think there is something wrong with not recognizing that the narrative treats Credence very differently from Newt. Credence in the movie is stuck in an parental abuse situation, he is subservient, immature and exploited. Nobody in the movies recognize him as an adult, which considered sources given by earlier replies more speaks to maturity and abuse patterns than his actual age.
I'm very happy that you have access to the screenplay but I don't and it isn't yet accessible supplementary materials. I consulted with the wiki and they only said he was older than 10 and it still does only say that. If you feel you have sufficient support then go update it. I'm very sad if we have come to the point that you don't get to ask questions and that those with money can monopolize fandom to that extent and be so antagonistic when a simple question is asked
American movies and tv series have a history of casting with very weird age gaps so I never feel comfortable taking the actors age as a definitive indication of the character's age. As to why Credence is different. The narrative treats very clearly both Queenie and Newt as adults, it doesn't treat Credence likewise. I don't know what I can do to make you see that if you don't. I don't think it's wrong to ship him with Grindelgraves, but if he had been a minor it should have been tagged as such (and now I'm happy I get to enjoy those fics in my own good consciousness because I do feel I can take it in good faith that it's true he is an adult from the earlier replies). But I do think there is something wrong with not recognizing that the narrative treats Credence very differently from Newt. Credence in the movie is stuck in an parental abuse situation, he is subservient, immature and exploited. Nobody in the movies recognize him as an adult, which considered sources given by earlier replies more speaks to maturity and abuse patterns than his actual age.
I'm very happy that you have access to the screenplay but I don't and it isn't yet accessible supplementary materials. I consulted with the wiki and they only said he was older than 10 and it still does only say that. If you feel you have sufficient support then go update it. I'm very sad if we have come to the point that you don't get to ask questions and that those with money can monopolize fandom to that extent and be so antagonistic when a simple question is asked
Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 04:02 pm (UTC)(link)OP here.
I did feel it was a problem before, because it made me uncomfortable. There was this one fic that became rather dark and Credence ended up being only 16 years old without tagging (of course I do realize that in some countries 16 is the age of consent, so I do not want to make a call out) but the lack of cognition about abuse and grooming in those situation is upsetting to me of personal reasons. I would appreciated that it said underage, and better tagging would make me enjoy the ship more because I've had to approach those fics with apprehension,
I don't know about canonicity. It's a bit beyond me. But I'd like for these things to be available knowledge also for those who haven't bought or read the screenplay. I don't have access to it and as it didn't get it from my parents to christmas I won't be able to afford it for some time(I have suggested it to my library for purchase). Like I went to the wiki and it only says he is older than 10 so that wasn't much help to me. But if the screenplay says he's an adult and there are several posters attesting to it I'm willing to take it in good faith. It does reduce the apprehension in enjoying the ship. Especially Newt/Credence.
I did feel it was a problem before, because it made me uncomfortable. There was this one fic that became rather dark and Credence ended up being only 16 years old without tagging (of course I do realize that in some countries 16 is the age of consent, so I do not want to make a call out) but the lack of cognition about abuse and grooming in those situation is upsetting to me of personal reasons. I would appreciated that it said underage, and better tagging would make me enjoy the ship more because I've had to approach those fics with apprehension,
I don't know about canonicity. It's a bit beyond me. But I'd like for these things to be available knowledge also for those who haven't bought or read the screenplay. I don't have access to it and as it didn't get it from my parents to christmas I won't be able to afford it for some time(I have suggested it to my library for purchase). Like I went to the wiki and it only says he is older than 10 so that wasn't much help to me. But if the screenplay says he's an adult and there are several posters attesting to it I'm willing to take it in good faith. It does reduce the apprehension in enjoying the ship. Especially Newt/Credence.
Re: Pairings reminding you of the dynamic of other ships?
(Anonymous) 2016-12-25 04:16 pm (UTC)(link)I'm kind of surprised by this, but I was only into Roy/Ed in 2003 anime fandom, aha, which ime was a little more antagonistic than I usually see (or write) Graves/Newt. I'm not sure I can think of a popular analogue for it, honestly - maybe it's a little like Sterek? As someone not actually in TW fandom it's hard to say :P
Also I think a few Hannibal people are into Graves/Credence, but personally as a H/W shipper it's not really my thing.
Also I think a few Hannibal people are into Graves/Credence, but personally as a H/W shipper it's not really my thing.
I bought Graves wand and the funko Pop, I wish Credence also had one to add to my collection.
Page 5 of 14