Harry Potter Fans With No Life

Thanks, I think, to The Carlin Brothers on You Tube.

Aug 12, 2021
16:39 minutes (2:28 to 3:37 is a commercial and you can skip it)


OK, first, I don't like these guys and their "histrionics", and can find quite a few holes and questionable leaps of logic. But it is something to think about and play with.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy4AH5rZo3c

.

Aren't you glad you don't have to live with someone so ADHD?

I have a problem with several of the points he hangs this theory on, for example him saying Dumbledore is a phoenix. He uses the HBP funeral quote trying to prove it, that thee was a bright flash around DD's body and flames grew higher and higher, then DD flew away as a phoenix, but that conveniently forgets that Voldie later breaks into the white tomb to take the Elder Wand from DD's hands. How can he be both an interred body and a free phoenix? I could see linking DD's spirit to/as a phoenix, but that won't help this Carlin brother's logic-argument.

And - "Return, Great Avenger, with wings, from the water" could mean more like Aurelius is coming home with a bird (wings) in his pocket, than that he is actually a phoenix.

One thought it did inspire: Could Fawkes be the spirit of any particular relative of Dumbledore? Since Guy Fawkes was a male I have assumed Fawkes was also, but could Fawkes be Arianna - whom DD magically grasped whatever he could of her as she was dying, magically created her into a phoenix or bound her to one (Maybe Fawkes even agreed to it if he was already with DD, or maybe a conjured one since he's such a powerful wizard), and then Fawkes/Arianna would also be bound to DD in the process. That sort of magic would probably be dark and have a huge cost. (Or it could be his mom, his dad, similar scenario. A little on the order of the portraits' magic?)

The bright flash during the funeral being whoever it is finally set completely free. We hear Fawkes flying off when Harry is the headmaster's office after the events on the tower, but don't actually know what happened to Fawkes. He might have been hanging around somewhat nearby until set completely free at the funeral ceremony. The connection might not even be in space and time, so Fawkes doesn't need to be physically present.

'Just something to toy with.

.

hmmm ... I really think he is grasping at very thin straws. I think he uses more imagination rather than logic. Even in the magical world there are laws of physics.

I believe dead is dead. Even in the magical world. As mentioned in the story of the three brothers, one cannot bring the dead back to life. The resurrection stone only brings back a 'form' - nothing tangible or living/breathing. And we already know of the dangers of putting a piece of your soul into a creature.

I don't think Fawkes is anything but a creature in the magical world. As all animals in the HP stories, they have a strange bond to their owners.

I still think Credence is being used by Grindelwald. Grindlewald wants & needs tools to conquer the wizarding world. He wants to be the sole power and controller. To do that, he will need to defeat Dumbledore; and in my opinion he will do it by any means. Note: funny how it is that Dumbledore has had his hand in defeating two very evil masterminds that want to control the wizarding world. He truly is a masterful wizard ... one not to be crossed. I certainly do not think Grindelwald is a seer. Intelligent, yes - seer, no. If he was, he would not need Queenie.

I still think that JKR wrote this story to tell of how it lead to the epic battle between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. I am fairly certain that the D&G battle/story plays parallel with the world war. I am really not sure how her creative mind brought Newt into the tale though. If I think of the story's ending and think backwards, then maybe it is Dumbledore's pet phoenix that helps him win the battle. Maybe because of this magical creature she started to weave Newt in because of his affiliation with magical creatures. Maybe the magical creatures help Dumbledore overtake Grindelwald. Grindlelwald knows Dumbledore. Really knows him. And vice versa.

I honestly don't think that either of Dumbledore's parents had another child. They are going to have to prove me wrong I guess.

Maybe I have lost some of the magic inside me. I loved thinking of theories of the why's and how's in the HP books ... I concluded there was a prophecy before I read it in the books. It was exciting! I just not feeling the excitement of they why's and how's in this series. I am however, very interested in how she brings magic to life in this story. The characters are extremely interesting. The story is entertaining. But for some reason, I am not feeling any 'theories". I am rather seeing the story a bit in black and white I suppose.

_________________

Every time Grindlewald picks up the Phoenix chick, tosses it into the air and it bursts into flame to become a huge fiery phoenix, it annoys me that the process is working backwards. That makes me distrust all sorts of things. There's no way someone didn't catch it if it was a mistake, so it has to be a lie.
And poor old Credence is so damaged that he could do illogical things, but - it still seems like he should be wary of Grindelwald who'd just done horribly mean things to him. Maybe its Stockholm Syndrome?

I don't like the Carlin Brothers. When both of them are together its like trying to follow one specific ping pong ball in a box of them. But once in a while they start me thinking (generally about how they missed the point)... about something diametrically opposed to what they were going off on.


JKR makes the same point several times that dead is dead. So I'm inclined to agree with you that they didn't have another kid and Grindelwald is manipulating everything. Also, agree about WWII and the Grindy/DD struggle mirroring each other.

.

Agreed ... You are so correct about the phoenix process was backwards in the movie (excellent catch Figgy ... I know something was off but could not put it into words).

the one thing that is very distressful to me is that WB abuses the laws of magic set down by JKR. Well, and anything else in the magical world. Take the addition of McGonagall. She was barely a child according to the time lines, yet there she was in the movie mentioned as a teacher. WB might have thought that it would be a comforting and familiar name, so used it. But if they haven't learned by now that all us Potter Heads are a dedicated bunch wanting magic and truth combined (and do not often tolerate faux pas like that)

JKR tells good magical stories; WB exploits and 'interprets' it - and not always in a good way. So it would be difficult to say what angle they are going for with Grindy and the phoenix. WB might (once again) be taking liberties.

_________________

It always irked me that JKR's works were always best-selling-in-the-world books, so the movie people had to change stuff (generally not for the better). I love book-Ron, movie-Ron is more like a throwaway character. And robes... They made things special, but the movie guys have to put The Trio in Muggles-slopping-around-the-house clothes. Plus SO much more. Grrrr. Its like WB kept drawing mustaches on the Mona Lisa.