Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

Second movie of the franchise. Comes out on November 16th.

First look at Jude Law as Dumbledore.

by Anonymousreply 8306/01/2018

Group photo.

by Anonymousreply 111/16/2017

They've got to be regretting the choice of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald.

by Anonymousreply 211/16/2017

Oh, for sure. Still, doesn't he look healthier here? Less bloated, mainly.

by Anonymousreply 311/16/2017

Johnny Depp is trending globally on Twitter right now because people are mad that Warner Bros would keep an abuser in one of their movies. I don't understand what these outraged people thought would happen after he had already starred in the first movie. That the studio would recast an A-lister like Depp and effectively end his career overnight?

Still, I'd bet their marketing team must be in a full-blown panic mode right now.

by Anonymousreply 411/16/2017

The first of this series was so awful that maybe this will kill his career.

by Anonymousreply 511/16/2017

I kinda hate that they botched this homosexual love story by casting Depp. Should've gone to Skarsgård from the start.

Such a missed opportunity.

by Anonymousreply 611/16/2017

It is called Fantastic Beats for what? It isn't really about that.

by Anonymousreply 711/16/2017

Well, I think it is still about Newt Scamander and maybe patly about his now published book.

by Anonymousreply 811/17/2017

Yates defends Depp's casting.

[quote]Honestly, there’s an issue at the moment where there’s a lot of people being accused of things, they’re being accused by multiple victims, and it’s compelling and frightening. With Johnny, it seems to me there was one person who took a pop at him and claimed something. I can only tell you about the man I see every day: He’s full of decency and kindness, and that’s all I see. Whatever accusation was out there doesn’t tally with the kind of human being I’ve been working with.

by Anonymousreply 911/28/2017

Fantashtic Beash: The Crimesh of Gwendolyn

by Anonymousreply 1011/28/2017

Hi, Lizsha!

by Anonymousreply 1111/28/2017

The first movie was terrible. No need to keep watching this series

by Anonymousreply 1211/28/2017

It is funny how the big "reveal" that it wasn't Colin Farrell but actually Johnny Depp made everyone groan. Everywhere I've seen discussion of the movie people would have rather had Colin than him.

Curious to see how they handle Dumbledore, JK Rowling better redeem her error and give the audience something clear that establishes he is gay.

by Anonymousreply 1311/28/2017

I loved the first movie. Niffler was the star of the show. It was a sweet, funny kids movie. No need for a homoerotic subtext.

by Anonymousreply 1411/28/2017

[quote]No need for a homoerotic subtext.

Err. There is absolutely a need. Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald, and tried to blind himself to what he was. That is a crucial component of the characters relationship and Dumbledore's sense of guilt and responsibility.

by Anonymousreply 1511/28/2017

I didn’t like the Potter series and I didn’t make it through FB. ☹️

by Anonymousreply 1611/28/2017

R15 it’s a children’s movie. There is absolutely no need for it. You read into it whatever you want but not everything is about you.

by Anonymousreply 1711/28/2017

Are you a troll? The existence of gay people is threatening to children? Am I actually reading this on a gay board?

I'm not "reading into it". In case you didn't pick that up from reading the series, the author spelled it out.

[quote]Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him.

by Anonymousreply 1811/28/2017

No the existence of gay people is not threatening to children AND I DID NOT SAY THAT cunt r18. What I said is children don’t need a homoerotic subtext. This is a movie for children, it’s not about you and your need to view every fucking thing through the lens of your own ego.

by Anonymousreply 1911/28/2017

I'd rather a thousand Depps than one Katherine Waterston. That wan bitch ruins everything she's in.

by Anonymousreply 2011/28/2017

R19 First of all, it's not a "movie for children" but a movie that is also suitable for children. In fact, many critics have been pointing out just how much darker it was in its tone compared to the HP movies.

Secondly, what about the heteroerotic subtext of the first movie? Didn't all that flirting between the four main characters bother those poor children?

by Anonymousreply 2111/28/2017

r19 must be kidding. Yikes are on you on the wrong forum with your sad homophobia and not even knowing the story You are wrong, just admit it.

by Anonymousreply 2211/28/2017

I think they should move the action back to Britain, I really didn't like the NY setting.

And, yes, the gay issue should be addressed in some way.

by Anonymousreply 2311/28/2017

First pic! Both looking very dapper.

by Anonymousreply 2412/06/2017

I love Jude Law - I think he is sexy as hell

by Anonymousreply 2512/06/2017

[quote]“I can’t tell you everything I would like to say because this is obviously a five-part story so there’s lots to unpack in that relationship,” she said. “You will see Dumbledore as a younger man and quite a troubled man — he wasn’t always the sage…We’ll see him at that formative period of his life.” She went on to hint that Dumbledore will be openly gay in the series. “As far as his sexuality is concerned,” she said, pausing for a moment. “Watch this space.”

by Anonymousreply 2612/06/2017

J. K. Rowling finally responds to the casting controversy on her blog:

[quote]When Johnny Depp was cast as Grindelwald, I thought he’d be wonderful in the role. However, around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie, stories had appeared in the press that deeply concerned me and everyone most closely involved in the franchise.

[quote]Harry Potter fans had legitimate questions and concerns about our choice to continue with Johnny Depp in the role. As David Yates, long-time Potter director, has already said, we naturally considered the possibility of recasting. I understand why some have been confused and angry about why that didn’t happen.

[quote]The huge, mutually supportive community that has grown up around Harry Potter is one of the greatest joys of my life. For me personally, the inability to speak openly to fans about this issue has been difficult, frustrating and at times painful. However, the agreements that have been put in place to protect the privacy of two people, both of whom have expressed a desire to get on with their lives, must be respected. Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.

[quote]I’ve loved writing the first two screenplays and I can’t wait for fans to see ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’. I accept that there will be those who are not satisfied with our choice of actor in the title role. However, conscience isn’t governable by committee. Within the fictional world and outside it, we all have to do what we believe to be the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 2712/07/2017

Daniel Radcliffe breaks silence on Johnny Depp Fantastic Beasts casting controversy: ‘It’s a very hard thing for me…

Daniel Radcliffe wades into the Fantastic Beasts controversy over Johnny Depp's casting: 'I can see why people are frustrated'

by Anonymousreply 2801/12/2018

[quote]I can see why people are frustrated with the response that they were given from that," Radcliffe said. "I'm not saying anything that anybody hasn't already said — and this is a weird analogy to draw — [but] in the NFL, there are lots of players arrested for smoking weed and there is other people's behavior that goes way beyond that and it's tolerated because they're very famous players.

[quote]suppose the thing I was struck by was, we did have a guy who was reprimanded for weed on the [original Potter] film, essentially, so obviously what Johnny has been accused of is much greater than that

- Daniel Radcliffe

by Anonymousreply 2901/12/2018

"No the existence of gay people is not threatening to children AND I DID NOT SAY THAT cunt [R18]. What I said is children don’t need a homoerotic subtext. This is a movie for children, it’s not about you and your need to view every fucking thing through the lens of your own ego."

You must be a paragon of mental health, I'm sure.

by Anonymousreply 3001/13/2018

I thought Grindlewald was supposed to be hot at that time period, not a 60-year old dry drunk. Why on earth would he and young Dumbledore be attracted to each other?

by Anonymousreply 3101/13/2018

He was the wrong actor for the role in the first part, and that they kept him on - and that Rowling has defended him so vociferously - says something, I'm just not sure what.

by Anonymousreply 3201/13/2018

It's January and they already do the whole PR teasing for a movie that's released in November? No wonder PR budgets are so astronomical these days.

by Anonymousreply 3301/13/2018

It's not a standalone movie like Red Sparrow, it's part of a franchise in a sea of franchises. So you need to feed these morsels to the fans constantly if you don't want them to move on.

by Anonymousreply 3401/13/2018

r34, it's rather tragic that some humans have longer lasting relationships with movie and TV franchise than ones with other human beings. It shows you what the (PR) media can do to you.

by Anonymousreply 3501/13/2018

Sorry, movie and TV franchises

by Anonymousreply 3601/13/2018

Tragic or not, these movies make their fans happy and plenty of people employed. I guess that counts for something as well.

by Anonymousreply 3701/13/2018

r37, cocaine and meth make people happy and plenty of people employed as well. Doesn't make it less dangerous for your physical and mental health.

by Anonymousreply 3801/13/2018

"cocaine and meth make people happy and plenty of people employed as well."

by Anonymousreply 3901/15/2018

R38 That comparison is ridiculous on its face and you know it. No, the meth and cocaine "trade" does not legitimately employ as many people (with benefits, unions, pensions...) as the entertainment industry, nor do motion pictures have the same psychological and physiological effects on people as Schedule I controlled substances.

Perhaps you'll stop being a bitch about it if you think of Hollywood productions as a global export that softens the American trade deficit with the world and is one of the factors that makes you enjoy the living standard that you currently do. But probably not as you're just interested in being contrarian.

by Anonymousreply 4001/15/2018

[quote]No the existence of gay people is not threatening to children AND I DID NOT SAY THAT cunt [R18]. What I said is children don’t need a homoerotic subtext. This is a movie for children, it’s not about you and your need to view every fucking thing through the lens of your own ego.

R19, you sound like a homophobic Russian who believes Putin's anti-gay propaganda. I collaborate on an international design forum where some of the members are from Russia and other Eastern European nations. It's scary and sad to notice that otherwise design-oriented and fun people turn into complete strangers whenever gay issues come up: The hate is real. Some of them truly believe gay people are monsters (thankfully not all, though). Obviously this might have nothing to do with you but I was just reminded of their bigotry when I read your posts. And obviously Putin is not responsible for all the homophobia in Eastern Europe. It was there before and that cunt is using it as a propaganda tool.

[quote]controversy over Johnny Depp's casting

I have a feeling people might feel stronger about Depp if the accuser was someone else than the gold digger extraordinaire Amber Heard. She doesn't come off as too trustworthy although tbh it's very well possible he really was violent towards her. I dislike Depp and generally avoid seeing any of his now-hammy performances but in this case I don't care he was not fired.

by Anonymousreply 4101/15/2018

Director says there will be no explicit reference to Dumbledore being gay in the film.

by Anonymousreply 4201/31/2018

Wonderful. I'm sure many on DL will be pleased.

by Anonymousreply 4301/31/2018

People are not happy

[quote]If you're not going to make Young Dumbledore's sexuality explicitly clear in Fantastic Beasts then why even bother with this film at all tbh?

by Anonymousreply 4401/31/2018

I agree with R23, I disliked the first movie, the New York background did not work for me at all. I don't particularly care about the Depp controversy as I think the franchise has worse problems than that, including the lead actor.

by Anonymousreply 4501/31/2018

I wish someone at the top would be honest just for once and say to the fans: "We're not mentioning Dumbledore's gay because of China. So there. Would you rather have a de-gayed Dumbledore or no Dumbledore at all?"

We're never getting a gay story in a mainstream movie as long as China is banning gay "propaganda". I know that's exactly the reason for that decision and I would like this to finally be out in the open.

by Anonymousreply 4601/31/2018

Hmmm... will they absolutely not mention he is gay ? Even with a confrontation with Grindelwald who was his lover ?

Because, not being explicit could mean they won't show sex. Like we know Mr. Weasley and Mrs. Weasley are married, but thankfully we don't see them having sex.

Also, according to the quote at R26, Dumbledore should have an arc over the 5 films and been openly shown as gay. Not in film 2, but later.

Anyways, Jude Law looks quite charismatic here. Too bad, they could keep Colin Farrell to act with him.

by Anonymousreply 4701/31/2018

But the Dumbledore/Grindlewald story makes no sense if you take out the romance! And there's absolutely nothing question of any physical contact between them it her than in a fight, no kisses or sex scenes or anything that might frighten the horses, just the fact that Dumbledore's feelings regarding Grindlewald are colored by his once having been madly in love. Friendship doesn't have the same effect, it doesn't leave you with the kind if broken heart that affects your relationship for the rest of your life, so thus is one relationship that shouldn't be left to subtext.

The Grindlewald/Creed relationship did make for excellent subtext, but Rowling needs to take it further for the next movie.

by Anonymousreply 4801/31/2018

Urgh ! *be* and *could NOT keep*

by Anonymousreply 4902/01/2018

Great opinion piece by one of the ScreenRant editors. (Just don't read the comments.)

However, I still maintain this is about China and she doesn't address that angle at all.

by Anonymousreply 5002/01/2018

Grace offers her take on this debacle. I agree with most of her points but I'll never support her (often-expressed) view that homosexuality necessarily involves a discussion of sex so it's not suitable for children. That's such a heteronormative view and some straight people seem to be unable to grasp just how offensive it is to suggest that.

by Anonymousreply 5102/01/2018

[quote]but I'll never support her (often-expressed) view that homosexuality necessarily involves a discussion of sex so it's not suitable for children.

Yikes! As if I needed another reason to dislike Grace. Someone being gay is no more about sex and unfriendly to kids than being straight is. Not understanding that is homophobia 101.

by Anonymousreply 5202/01/2018

R52 I have to correct myself. She actually said sexuality, not sex, but that doesn't make it any better. Why don't straight pairings involve a discussion of sexuality as well? It's because kids aren't yet conditioned and simply accept those relationships as they are. So yes, saying gay relationships need to involve a discussion of sexuality because they're something "extra" is inherently bigoted.

by Anonymousreply 5302/01/2018

I agree with the poster saying it is a studio decision because they are worried about it hurting the box office in homophobic countries like China.

That is why you see more gay characters on TV (for domestic audiences) than in movies (which have to play around the globe).

by Anonymousreply 5402/01/2018

JK Rowling responds

[quote]Being sent abuse about an interview that didn't involve me, about a screenplay I wrote but which none of the angry people have read, which is part of a five-movie series that's only one instalment in, is obviously tons of fun, but you know what's even *more* fun?

by Anonymousreply 5502/01/2018

R55 That's kinda inconsiderate. I see her point but she should also be aware that this is a huge deal to many people and of course their first response would be emotional. I don't condone abuse of any kind, though.

by Anonymousreply 5602/01/2018

Am I the only one here who wants to pound Ezra Miller's hole?

by Anonymousreply 5702/01/2018

I agree r56. She should have shown a little more consideration to why the fanbase is upset about it.

by Anonymousreply 5802/01/2018

Fuck R19.

For the record, I thought the first "Bests" movie was pretty terrible. Boring even. And WAY too long.

by Anonymousreply 5902/01/2018

Should've gone to Skarsgård from the start. Such a missed opportunity.

Definitely a good idea - a Grindelwald anyone (man or woman!) would lust over, though he's younger than Jude Law (or looks it anyway), so the relationship would have a different dynamic. Even if you ignore the Amber Beard drama, Johnny Depp is just a washed up shell of himself and I used to love him in 21 Jump Street, Gilbert Grape, etc. He was a bad choice, but I guess we'll find out in November...

by Anonymousreply 6002/01/2018

Forbes speaks the truth. They don't want Dumbledore to be gay because of the potential box office lost

[quote]“Russia almost banned Walt Disney’s Beauty and the Beast last year over a blink-and-you-miss-it same-sex waltz between Josh Gad’s LeFou and a random male extra. China let it through, but they have been known to heavily censor gay-friendly cinema (Cloud Atlas was cut by around 40 minutes back in early 2013)…While Crimes of Grindelwald with an overtly gay Dumbledore could become an event among respective demographics to compensate for any lost domestic viewership, that is A) no guarantee and B) unlikely to compensate for lost foreign sales should the film get banned in various markets.”

by Anonymousreply 6102/02/2018

Too bad we make films for other countries instead of just telling stories we want to tell.

by Anonymousreply 6202/02/2018

Big studio execs will always choose bigger returns over stories we want to tell, which is only natural in capitalism.

Of course, that necessarily means the idea of homosexuality or rather a favourable view of homosexuality is something that's doomed to fail when exposed to the global market. There's simply no getting around the combined (and increasing!) Chinese, Indian, African, Muslim, and Russian markets. And if that's not depressive enough for you, none of us here will probably live long enough to see that change.

by Anonymousreply 6302/02/2018

Well, R63, that is a bit depressing. So, tentpole movies, aiming to conquer the planet, have to reflect the other part of the world's values ? Couldn't Hollywood export our values instead ? Yeah, rhetoric question.

by Anonymousreply 6402/02/2018

Just NO! Depp has too many tattoos.

by Anonymousreply 6502/02/2018

Teaser trailer just dropped!

by Anonymousreply 6603/13/2018

^^ Is it just me or is Jude Law simply spell-binding (pun intended) in that scene when he's first revealed? Such presence! And great subtle accent work as well.

This one looks to be way more exciting than the first instalment.

by Anonymousreply 6703/13/2018

Ezra looking butch as fuck in that trailer. Who knew he had it in him?

by Anonymousreply 6803/13/2018

[bold]Unfortunately, Dumbledore does not fuck in the first [italic]Crimes of Grindelwald trailer[/italic][/bold]

The AV Club goes straight to the point.

[quote]We knew it was coming, but we held out hope. However, the first trailer for [italic]The Crimes of Grindelwald,[/italic] the second film in the five-part [italic]Fantastic Beasts[/italic] series, confirms that Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) does not fuck in this movie. There’s plenty of other eye candy for Potterheads, though: We catch glimpses of Hogwarts in the ‘20s, the Deluminator, a thestral-drawn carriage, and Dumbledore in his study, presumably fresh off teaching a Transfiguration lesson.

by Anonymousreply 6903/13/2018

Well, I’ll go on the record as being excited for this film. Harry Potter is an enjoyable and relaxing escape for me. Am I disappointed about both the casting and sexuality of Dumbledore? Yeah, but damn I can’t be so ideologically pure about everything.

Also Grindelwald never returned Dumbledore’s feelings and Dumbledore never dated anyone else, so this portrayal isn’t wholly inaccurate.

by Anonymousreply 7003/13/2018

R67, I agree. What a presence ! Very charismatic. Too bad we won't get to see him act with Colin Farrell.

About love subplots, maybe the author can have her own story unfold over the five films as she intends to ?

People are acting like they are on a fanfic site and asking for comissions.

I think the movie looks gorgeous and well acted. Let's hope it delivers.

by Anonymousreply 7103/13/2018

It looks good, it'll be worth seeing for Jude Law alone. That glimpse of Depp with the long hair gave me some hope he won't be as distractingly bad as I first thought. He and Law could have an interesting chemistry, they're both charismatic men in their own ways.

by Anonymousreply 7203/13/2018

I agree, R72. Who would have thought ?

by Anonymousreply 7303/13/2018

Was that Zoe Kravitz ,what is she doing in there?

by Anonymousreply 7403/13/2018

She is Leta Lestrange. Newt had a picture of her in the first film. He went to school with her and was in love with her. Probably still is.

She seems to be a taker and manipulator.

SPOILERS for film 2:

She is now fianced to Newt'older brother.

by Anonymousreply 7503/13/2018

I didn't particularly enjoy the first one, but the trailer for this second one looks pretty good.

I hope that it's not another disappointment.

by Anonymousreply 7603/13/2018

Oh, I forgot to add:

I would rather have had Rufus Sewell, Paul Bettany, or Nikolaj Coster-Waldau play Grindewald.

Depp today lacks the magnetism that would draw an entire movement behind him, let alone rapturous love from Dumbledore.

by Anonymousreply 7703/13/2018

Excited for Jude being back in an A-list blockbuster. He has his Victorian John Watson look here. Hot. I can even look past weird looking redmayne.

R77 Bettany is an interesting idea. Give him an A-list chance too.

Anyone is more swoon worthy (to viewers) than Depp.

by Anonymousreply 7803/13/2018

Perhaps Grindelwald [italic]should[/italic] be repulsive and not swoon-worthy? Isn't he supposed to be the Hitler of the wizarding world? Even so, I still maintain Alexander Skarsgård should have gotten this role. Now that is one fanfic community I wouldn't mind joining.

by Anonymousreply 7903/13/2018

Yeah, Paul Bettany would have been a terrific Grindlewald!

The trailer does look good, makes me want to see this mess even though I didn't actually like "Fantastic Beasts". Hopefully the series will get better as it goes along.

by Anonymousreply 8003/13/2018

[bold]Ian McKellen Is Tired of Hollywood’s Obsession with Straight White Dudes[/bold]

[quote]...the conversation drifted toward the Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore—who is gay in J.K. Rowling’s books, but will not be explicitly gay in the upcoming prequel movie, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

[quote]McKellen, who almost played the part of Dumbledore himself after original actor Richard Harris died in 2002, was unsurprised to hear this news.

[quote]“That’s a pity,” he said. “Well, nobody looks to Hollywood for social commentary, do they? They only recently discovered that there were black people in the world.”

[quote]But he wasn’t done: “Hollywood has mistreated women in every possible way throughout its history. Gay men don’t exist. 'Gods and Monsters', I think, was the beginning of Hollywood admitting that there were gay people knocking around, even though half of Hollywood is gay.”

by Anonymousreply 8105/28/2018

I will never understand why movie studios don't edit different versions for different regions of the world? If it's about gay scenes they can be taken out and, usually, the rest of the movie still makes some sense (unless the characters being gay and in a relationship is vital to the plot - which, apparently in this movie's case it's not).

by Anonymousreply 8205/28/2018

r82 Horrible idea. That would send a clear message to the audiences that the studio agrees that homosexuality is a western thing exclusively. Also, where do we draw the line? I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese would prefer if their movies featured fewer people of colour. Should we cut them out as well? It's a slippery slope and you can end up with two completely different movies.

by Anonymousreply 8306/01/2018
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!