fantasticbeasts_kinkmeme | OFF-TOPIC POST

Credence is an adult. Tina said that during the scene Newt revealing the identity of the obscurius. In the original screenplay by J.K Rowling, Credence was described as an adult in his 20s

Tina actually only says he is not a Child in reference to Credence surviving past of The age of 10. Not being a child dose not preclude him from being a teenager or a youth and therefore still possibly "underage". If Rowling only said so in the screenplay then it is sad that they did not adapt it into the movie and the "underage" TAG should probably apply. (Why, because Ezra Miller has another take on it: Credence is 18) In his own time and culture Credence would not have been an adult before his 21st birthday as a man

Verdict: underage.
Why: some throwaway line in a script that was not adapted into or included in the movie should not mean underage coding should escape proper tagging

Did you, by any chance, read the Original screenplay yet? Because in the screenplay J.K Rowling mentioned Credence as an "adult" in the first description during Scene 7 (when Mary Lou spoke in front of the bank), even Modesty's age was mentioned as eight years old.

For your information, Chastity was also adult in the movie according to the screenplay, but seem like you only focus on Credence (understandable because he gained more attention anyway). There are reasons 24 year old Ezra was chosen for the role. And I don't remember any interview Ezra Miller mentioned Credence was 18, so please enlighten me.

In case Credence was actually mentioned as 18 by Ezra, he was not considered underage in America according to Age of Consent Laws (surprise, surprise). You are messing up Age of sexual consent, Age of Majority, drinking age. Drinking age in USA is 21 NOWADAY, but Age of Majority is not, check on google for details please. Unless you use the term underage for underage drinking then okay, I am sorry for this wall of text about sex and adult and whatnot.

One trivia fact for you, in New York state during 1920, the age of consent was actually eighteen (ah ha). If Credence was eighteen and had sex then it was absolutely normal and not underage.

On the other hand, 21 was considered age of majority in US until 1970s, so technically 18 year old Credence was not an adult recognised by 1920s US laws (well at least you are right in something finally, but I am not sure if you were even aware of that fact). This age of majority affects mostly the right to vote in election. In other word, he was still of age to have sex, so still not underage.

In conclusion, I still believe that Credence Barebone was officially in his adulthood (not by laws to vote mind you, but still be able to have sex). The fact that he appeared to be so-much-younger in the movie doesn't make him adolescent (or underage for that matter)

References: https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAgeofMajority.htm section 2.20

Edited 2016-12-22 05:06 (UTC)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 don't understand relying on official word* of a character's age to embrace a ship. Also, would his being 17 vs 18 vs 21 really make that much difference? Base your decision on whether or not you're 'allowed' to enjoy it on your own instincts, and be mindful of how your question, innocent though it may have been, can seem like condemnation to a contingent of fans already being shamed by some who don't like a particular pairing.

*The screenplay is as good as we're likely to get here

Believe it or not, there are some parts of the world where reading/writing explicit fiction involving fictional underage characters isn't always legal. So some people would rather avoid stories about underage characters for that reason.

If we're talking about abuse and grooming though, age itself isn't deterministic of a person's vulnerability to either. Whatever his age, in the film Credence was subjected to abuse and grooming. So yeah, I'm also struggling to understand why Credence being a technical adult would somehow make that abuse and grooming... less wrong?

AYRT

What on earth do you mean by "They don't actually adapt that into the movie"? They adapted it by casting an adult man to play an adult character. There is literally nothing in the movie that contradicts the screenplay's statement that Credence is an adult.

Here's the relevant bit of the screenplay, which explicitly describes Credence as an adult when he's first introduced: http://imgur.com/a/DUnuh

OP here
Srry for late reply, thank you so much. The screenplay isn't accessible to me so it was revealing to hear :-)

OFF-TOPIC POST

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

If he was 18, he was considered minor by Common Laws of USA in 1920s

Re: If he was 18, he was considered minor by Common Laws of USA in 1920s

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"

Re: Is Credence a minor? If so, then should it be tagged "underage"