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 4101/15/2018

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
Loading
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!