9 huge plot holes in The Crimes of Grindelwald that literally make no sense

23 November 2018, 22:58 | Updated: 24 November 2018, 12:59

Since WHEN did Dumbledore teach Defence Against the Dark Arts?

While it's nice to be back in the wizarding world, it's safe to say that Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald hasn't quite garnered the same reaction as Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. Reviews for the film have been decidedly mixed. Some people are absolutely living for the next instalment of the franchise and are lapping up all the new information that JK Rowling has blessed us with, others aren't as enthusiastic about it, saying that the overwhelming number of contradictory scenes and apparent plot holes ruin the movie.

Crimes of Grindelwald has more holes than a pair of Weasley robes, yes, but before we dive in, it's important to remember that this is the second of (potentially) five films. Many of those 'plot holes' will of course be explained at some point within the next few instalments of the franchise and - knowing JK - will definitely have been considered within the wider context of the entire Harry Potter universe. Rhe kids do have a point, though: it’s incredibly frustrating to see the well established canon flipped on its head for the sake of a few plot twists.

With all that in mind, here's a bunch of plot holes and unanswered questions in the Potter-verse that don’t quite add up in Crimes of Grindelwald:

1) Dumbledore's blood oath with Grindelwald.

In Crimes of Grindelwald, it's established that Dumbledore (played by a bearded, suited and suave AF Jude Law) and Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) once made a blood oath that meant they could never fight each other. In the film, it's hinted that the oath could be easily broken but the problem here is when the oath was actually made.

As we know, the big three-way duel between Grindelwald and the Dumbledore brothers led to Ariana's death in 1899. So when was the blood oath made? If it was before Ariana's death, then Grindelwald and Dumbledore surely would have died the second they started fighting. If it was after, are we just meant to assume that they made the oath in the immediate aftermath of the death of his sister? Ok then!

2) Minerva McGonagall's cameo appearance.

In the film, we take a trip back to Hogwarts where Minerva McGonagall briefly appears as a twenty-something teacher but there's just one problem... her appearance literally doesn't make any sense within the film's timeline.

The film is set in 1927. As per Pottermore (note: the information has now reportedly been deleted from the site), McGonagall was born on October 4th 1935. That means she would be minus 8 years old in 1927 aka, not even born yet. While some have tried to explain the plot hole away by saying it was a 'different McGonagall', that doesn't appear to be the case. In the screenplay and the credits, she's listed as Minerva McGonagall. Also worth noting that Minerva's mother was called Isobel Ross and her father, of the McGonagall name, was a muggle so it's unlikely that another McGonagall witch would have also been a teacher at Hogwarts.

3) Dumbledore teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts?!

Everybody knows that Dumbledore was Hogwarts' Transfiguration teacher before becoming Headmaster. In Crimes of Grindelwald, however, he's shown to be the Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher from when Newt was at Hogwarts, all the way through to 1927.

But here's the gag: In the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince book, Dumbledore tells us about a young Tom Riddle who asked the then-Hogwarts Headmaster Armando Dippet if he could remain as a teacher. Dippet says no because Galatea Merrythought had been teaching Defence Against The Dark Arts for "nearly fifty years". [H/T Cosmopolitan] Tom Riddle was born in 1926, one year before Fantastic Beasts, and started at Hogwarts in 1938. So how, if Merrythought had held the position for "nearly fifty years", was Dumbledore teaching DADA prior to 1927?

Obviously, Dumbledore could have totally moved from DADA to Transfiguration before he became Headmaster but for that never to be disclosed throughout the entire movie series considering DADA is a preeeetty important plot point throughout is a little wild, huh?

4) The complicated Lestrange bloodline?

Not a plot hole, more of a plot point that desperately needs a little more explaining... Upon the apparent death of Leta Lestrange (and her young brother Corvus years before), it's implied that the legendary Lestrange bloodline is done. It's over. There's no more.

But we all know that the Lestrange family lives on through Rabastan and Rodolphus, Bellatrix's eventual husband. Did they forget? How do they play into all of this? Please help!

5) Newt literally cannot 'Accio' an animal.

'Accio' is a very well known charm within the Potter-verse. Everyone knows what it's for and how it works... but it appears as though the rules of that charm went out of the window in Fantastic Beasts 2.

In the first film, Newt is able to summon the Niffler via Accio but it's assumed that was just because it got caught in the charm alongside the stuff he was actually Accio-ing. But in FB2, Newt literally says the words 'Accio Niffler', and as we all know, you can't summon living things with the charm. The fact was even confirmed by Rowling who wrote on her website: "'Accio' only works on inanimate objects." So what's the truth?

6) So, is it totally cool to apparate on school grounds now?

It's long been established that there's an age old rule that prevents people from apparating into Hogwarts. On Pottermore, Rowling writes that the grounds have always been protected by the charm. We know that the charm has often been lifted and certain people are an exception to the rule: Dumbledore, for example, has apparated in and out before, the charm can be lifted in certain parts of the school for practise and in the Battle of Hogwarts, wizards were able to apparate, suggesting the charm was either disabled or destroyed.

In Crimes of Grindelwald, there's ministry members and other non-teachers apparating onto the grounds all over the damn shop. Dumbledore is not yet headmaster, so it's not exactly his decision. Was the charm relaxed? What is going on?

7) Jacob was literally obliviated so… how did he gain his memories back?

At the end of the first movie, an entire town was wiped of their memories so they wouldn't remember any of the events that transpired. In doing so, they had to obliviate our beloved Jacob Kowalski, the No-Maj. In Crimes of Grindelwald, Jacob tells Newt that the charm "only erases bad memories," and seeing as his memories were all good, he still remembers most of what happened.

That's not how the charm works... is it?! If it only erases bad memories, why didn't Professor Lockhart remember all his successes as an author and all the attention he got as a wizarding world heart-throb? Was it a different charm? Also, very risky and irresponsible from MACUSA if true! Can't have a load of No-Majs running around remembering everything that happened, can we?!

8) Not complaining but what happened to Dumbledore’s robes?

Ok, listen... First of all, it's stated many times that Dumbledore was FAMOUS for his flamboyant robes. But in Crimes of Grindewald, he's suave as shit, running around in a suit?! In 1927, he's all suited and booted and then literally less than 20 years later, he's in full velvet robes?

Did they just wanna break canon to make Jude Law look hot? Because I think we can all let this one slide if that's the case. But we're not sure how they're going to explain his dramatic change in appearance 16 years later without the entire fandom pointing out how Dumbledore was meant to look in 1943.

9) And of course, that big reveal with Credence at the end of the film...

Surprise bitch, Credence is a Dumbledore. Aurelius Dumbledore, the brother of Albus who, despite a detailed canon history of their lineage, we have never heard of before. But guess what? It doesn't make sense!

Albus’ parents were Percival and Kendra Dumbledore. They also had two other children; Aberforth and Ariana. Percival died in Azkaban around 1890, and Kendra died in 1899, after an accident involving a teenage Ariana. Credence, who is allegedly Aurelius Dumbledore, is believed to have been born between 1901-1908, making him between the ages of 18-26.

But none of that adds up because Kendra died years before. If Credence is Dumbledore's full blood brother - or paternal half-brother - the youngest he could possibly be is 36. If Credence is Dumbledore's maternal half-brother, the youngest he could be is 28.

So what's the truth? Is Grindelwald lying? Have we missed something? What is happeninggggggg?

Fantastic Beasts 3 better be called Fantastic Beasts: The Explanation of the Plot Holes or I will be seeing you ALL in Wizarding Court.