Jude Law Confirms Dumbledore’s Sexuality Will Not Be Addressed In New ‘Fantastic Beasts’ Film

Cue another (legitimate!) Ian McKellen meltdown. It's so interesting to me that those gay people I follow on social media and on podcasts responded negatively to his remarks, but straight people are saying that we should wait for at least one more movie and then skewer Rowling if nothing happens. I guess we're just a bit more trigger happy. Or just tired of constant queerbaiting. And you never know, if we complain loudly enough, maybe it will affect the scripts going forward. A closed mouth doesn't get fed and all that.

Sir Ian was right

[quote]Your sexuality doesn’t necessarily define you, Jude Law said of the decision to not portray Dumbledore as explicitly gay.

that argument only comes up only when its about gay people

Enough with the queer baiting

What is "explicitly gay"?

r5 It means an act or a verbalization that will make even the dumbest straight jock or the oldest redneck in the movie theatre understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dumbledore is gay. You know, like we do with straight people in movies, TV shows, music... all the time.

There may or may not be the incorporation of and the expansion on a gay character, but you can bet there will certainly be some kind of incorporation of a "trans" character.

He says explicitly gay like he's talking about porn

Just replace "gay" with "straight" in the phrase "explicitly gay" and see how bonkers that sounds.

R9 exactly lol

She is always retroactively rewriting that shit to make it more woke. She never spells anything out in books or movies because that might cost her money, but it doesn’t cost a thing to tweet that the sorting hat was trans.

^^^THIS

She's a smug cunt.

Sexuality aside - I remember nothing about the first movie. It was not horrible, but pretty forgettable. I am not sure this was something that needed to be made into a multi-movie franchise.

Dumbledore was gay, ok. It should be shown, ok. However, I don't agree at all it should be with Grindelwald.

They had an intense relationship as teenagers who wanted to reinvent the world with nazi values, epuration of the race,etc. Then sociopath Grindy was the cause of Dumledore 's sister tragic death and didn't care about that or his friend's grief. And the young man realised the error of his ways. Sincerly tried to atone, became an advocate for tolerance towards Muggles.

Then, why should the love of his life still be toxic Grindlewald when he is 40 ? That doesn't sound in character to me.

Show he is gay, definitely, but not in a love story with the equivalent of Hitler unless it is a flashback of his teenage years.

I don't think he's still the love of his life at 40 but rather his deepest desire, as the mirror shows. That could be explained in different ways, i.e. he desires to see him punished, or he still longs for him. And the latter option doesn't necessarily mean love.

People are getting tired of queebaiting. I like Rowling but she didn't risk anything with Dumbledore. Knowing he is gay (as she said) makes sense in the scenes but there's absolutely nothing explicit (and by explicit i don't mean sex). The problem is that it's very easy to say that your character is gay without risking anything, but studios are fucking cowards (like the las Jurassic World movie, that simple sentence wasn't risky at all but the studios freaked out of people reacting bad to a lesbian character).

And they are dealing with all this really bad, a mere reference to their relationship will be more than enough. But that's what happen when you want your cake and eat it. People are getting more and more tired of queerbaiting (and we have the example of Rise, a show with gay characters and storylines but with a very bad reacting from the gay community because the director decided to change a real life character sexuality because he was more comfortable with the main character being straight)

R7, I'm not sure JKR's on board with the whole trans thing. She retweeted or liked (can't remember which) a TERFy post a while ago. Her management tried to backtrack, but I didn't really buy it. She posts a lot of feminist/anti-racist/pro-gay stuff, but I'm not sure I've ever seen her post anything pro-trans.

Call me naive, but I still believe he could be explicitly shown as gay in other movies.

"Explicitly" in the context of a family movie. Like all the het relationships that are shown. Newt and Tina don't have sex and are painfully repressed, but you know there is something there. His feelings for Letha Lestrange are adressed explicitly but you don't see anything physical, etc. If we want to be fair, we would have to accept the equivalent of these almost platonic representations when it comes to gays, because it is that kind of film.

I like her because of her epic Twitter takedowns of Piers Morgan and I honestly believe she'll try to correct not mentioning the gay thing in the books with these movies. Of course, there's always going to be China breathing down her and the studio's neck, so don't expect too much.

I heard JK's writing a final book in the series in which Harry transitions.

[quote]If we want to be fair, we would have to accept the equivalent of these almost platonic representations when it comes to gays, because it is that kind of film.

That would be more than enough for me. I don't think anyone's really asking for a sex scene between Dumbledore and future Hitler.

In fact you don't even need a realtionship (platonic or not) at all. He can just simply talk about his past relationship and that'll be more than enough

Aw, you’re cute, R19. Morgan is low-hanging fruit.

She’s vile.

Boo! Dumbledore obviously ADORED the magical flesh flute. We want a younger, hotter Dumbledore and some PG love scenes dammit!

So true, R3.

JK Rowling is woke like Meryl Streep is.

Is a fucking childrens story, what on earth does the characters sexuality have to come up in the first place. Fuck, these stories are for slightly stupid children and emotionally stunted adults with a fear of intimacy, just let the children and emotionally stunted adults enjoy it

r27 Gtfo with that heteronormative bullshit, seriously. Sexuality is inherent in every single HP book because without it, HP would never have been born in the first place. We had straight sexuality rubbed in our faces with the Weasleys and their enormous family, and with the teenagers flirting with each other constantly. Why don't you even notice that shit when straight people engage in it, but a mere mention of a past gay relationship is somehow not suitable for kids? If you're gay yourself and think your sexuality is a pathology that needs a family warning, then you're beyond pathetic.

And Fantastic Beasts is [italic]not[/italic] a children's story; it's a story that is also suitable for children. But only barely, if you ask me, because it was a dark movie and it seems like the franchise is only getting darker.

Every single Harry Potter book has straight sexuality in your face everywhere r27, but if it is gay sexuality "THIS IS A CHILDREN'S STORY"

Get the fuck out of here with that right-wing hypocrisy bullshit.

Jude looks incredibly fuckable in OP's snap.

Should’ve kept JCB as Grindelwald. We could’ve had a young Dumbeldore lusting after his hot twink wand.

R3 You are so right. We have been hearing this for years. Will we ever see a love interest for "token gay character" ? Oh but he's not defined by his sexuality, there is so much more to him. So no.

Interesting that in "fantastic Beasts" they have no problem with the sexuality of the 4 leads.

[quote]Every single Harry Potter book has straight sexuality in your face everywhere

that's true especially film and book 6 known as Harry Potter and his horny straight friends that one was Harry and his pals all running around trying to fuck each other.

I thought book 5 was pretty heavy handed with the romance as well - I think every member of the adult resistance was paired up or had some unrequited love. Sadly, while there were a number of things I enjoyed in the world that Rowling created, the romantic entanglements was not one of them. Rowling was pretty weak at her romance writing, which was unfortunate because it became a more prevalent with each book.

It's funny that 'sexuality doesn't define a person' is coming out of Jude Law's mouth who has a career based on his non existent heterosexuality and his bearding/dating life LOL

Jude is a pussyhound. He wouldn't be bleeding thousand$$s to 2 child supports each month.

Annd when was his last hit before Crimes of Grindewald?

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Poster #21

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Poster #20

[quote] And Fantastic Beasts is not a children's story; it's a story that is also suitable for children. But only barely, if you ask me, because it was a dark movie

Off-topic, but it's a kids and Young Adult (YA) franchise. It is not exactly a film for more mature adults like e.g. Silence of the Lambs or even complex adult sci-fi films like Arrival. Though it's true that middle-aged adults these days are more infantile and lap up movies generally geared for YAs. Same with Twilight.