‘Fantastic Beasts 2’ Reportedly Has Another Huge Continuity Error That Makes Zero Sense

I was going to start this article with something along the lines of “JK Rowling is back on her bullshit!” but it then occurred to me that JK Rowling has never really gotten off her bullshit. JK Rowling and her bullshit are inseparable. She is eternally affixed atop her bullshit and never the two shall part.

Ever since completing the initial Harry Potter novels over a decade ago, Rowling has repeatedly, almost haphazardly, thrown out new pieces of canon at an obscene rate. Whilst most of it has been fine, many of the new additions to the universe have been accused of merely being attempts to lazily insert diversity into her painfully white, heterosexual narrative. Also, a lot of it just doesn’t make any fucking sense.

jk rowling: harry potter’s *spins wheel* broom was *spins wheel* biromantic asexual

— film bot (@seraphfem) January 3, 2018

At this point in the inexhaustible life of the Harry Potter franchise, we’ve come to expect every new iteration of Rowling’s magical wizarding universe to bring with it numerous continuity errors and illogical retro-active plot decisions. The latest entry, Fantastic Beasts sequel The Crimes Of Grindelwald, has already had one huge continuity flaw exposed (it’s spoilery so read about it here) and now we’ve got another doozy that’s set to tear the fandom apart.

The plot-twist in question we’re about to discuss is a fairly large spoiler that occurs right at the end of the movie, which opens locally this week, so if you’re averse to that kind of thing continue no longer.

~ONCE MORE FOR THOSE AT THE BACK, SPOILERS FOR FANTASTIC BEASTS 2 AHEAD~

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald once again follows protagonist Newt Scamander and his coterie of magical beasties, this time charged by Albus Dumbledore to help take down his ex-boyfie and dark wizard Grindelwald.

Also back in the sequel is Ezra Miller’s character Creedence Barebone who it was revealed at the end of the last flick is an Obscurial, a witch or wizard sharing a symbiotic relationship with a dark magic… thing, or whatever. But it’s the film-ending plot-twist of Crimes of Grindelwald that has a sector of Potterheads seriously pissed off, with the final reveal that Creedence is, in fact, Dumbledore’s brother.

A Junkee staffer who’s seen the flick describes it as thus: “They set it up by having Dumbledore talk about how a phoenix will always come to the assistance of a member of his family, then Grindelwald makes the reveal at the end (ie. explicitly calls him his brother) while Ezra’s playing with a baby phoenix.”

This sucks farts for numerous reasons, with one reddit thread on the subject detailing just how impossible it is that Creedence is a Dumbledore at all, given established, canonical timelines:

JK Rowling’s revisionist approach to her own body of work is, of course, her prerogative, but huge glaring “mistakes” like this and the aforementioned one, simply reek of a desperation to milk shock value out of fans committed to her sprawling universe.

Instead of rewarding diehard followers with easter eggs and references to established lore and plot, this kind of thoughtless inserting of twists is a disservice to fans who increasingly feel like their beloved childhood novels are merely a set of trademarks to be manipulated and reimagined with reckless abandon so Rowling can buy another mansion.

I know this all sounds a little bit hyperbolic, considering I’m talking about a book about magic teenagers, but after the way Rowling treated, and continues to treat Dumbledore’s sexuality, the utter fuckery that was the Cursed Child plot and the numerous controversies surrounding Fantastic Beasts (*cough* Johnny Depp allegedly beats women *cough*) it’s getting harder and harder to be a Harry Potter fan.

We’ll see if JK decides to queef out an explanation for this new continuity error, so until then let’s simply remember the all-time, actual worst piece of revisionist canon bestowed upon us:

JK “Wizards used to shit their own pants” Rowling. A true literary genius.