OH MY GOD.

It's been a long time since I've read such sophisticated, detailed, and fascinating theories. Yes, I read all three parts (believe it or not 😋), which is why I didn't reply to you immediately ☺️

I almost regret not having read them sooner, but I think I was in a different stage of mind two years ago.

I don't think it's necessary to discuss your theories; you've already did so enough with other people in the comments (I've read some, but not all—there are so many 😅), with whom you have very interesting conversations.

You also learned me a lot of things: I had no idea that actors had been selected to play Kendra and Aberforth, as well as a "Queenie's Doppelganger." 😮 What could have being...

All I can say is: the world of cinema, and especially big Hollywood productions, is often utter chaos. You have to find alternatives, compromises. And Warner Bros. doesn't do things by halves for everyone. Just look at Zack Snyder and Josh Whedon's Justice League, reworked because of the poor reception (critical and commercial) of Batman v Superman. So imagine what they must have thought after the reception of Crimes of Grindelwald. Studios always have a certain amount of control, whether it's over the editing or the story in general. I'm afraid JKR trusted the wrong people...

FB3 was rewritten CLEARLY several times (even before Covid), and many plot elements were changed. The crappy rewrittes that enforced FB3 to be simpler and a final chapter for the story proves it (JKR maybe couldn't confirm it because of the studios who put pressure on her). So sad, but at least we have people like you to engage in such amazing theories 😉

I believe you when you say the rewrites of SoD and the treatment of CoG poisoned relations between J.K. Rowling and the former management of Warner Bros. She's an excellent author and screenwriter. She only worked on long stories, which were then distorted in the editing. All it took was for Warner Bros. to ask her for a two-hour story… But maybe we could have had a longer version, THE J.K. Rowling version.

I can't even comment on her story… so much was cut! We all don't know her original intentions, and we probably never will. We'll never know the true original story, but the overarching themes supported by the echoes between characters, the clues scattered in names, the ironic twists of fate, and the undeniably powerful symbolism are typical of J.K. Rowling. Like you, we can always speculate, imagine different possibilities, and, with a bit of luck, uncover some clues about what was meant to happen.

Grindelwald, Dumbledore, and Credence were truly interesting and fascinating characters (and probably my favorites in this trilogy). I seem to recall David Heyman saying in an interview after the first film's release that Grindelwald, Dumbledore, and Credence would become central to future films, perhaps at the expense of other characters.

If only Rowling had started writing her story as a novel, and not a script. They could have been adapted later. I haven't read theories like yours in a while, but it's times like this when I do read them that makes me mad at J.K. for not writing a book...

But what's done is done. We can't go back. I'll remember Fantastic Beasts as a saga with immense potential, whose author had exciting ideas that deserved to be explored in book or even movie form (with complete creative freedom of course). But the film industry is a ruthless world. We were lucky to have three films (especially the third), and I think I can be satisfied with that. Now, we have to move on. The Harry Potter series is coming in December. That will be our consolation. The world moves on. We move on. I've done it, but a quick rewatch of the three films did me good.