Jump to content

vivala91

Free Account
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Likes

About vivala91

  • Rank
    Straight-to-DVD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Completely agree. Regarding Queenie and Jacob I am 90% sure Queenie
  2. Goldstein and even Kowalski sound like Jewish names and it would fit better considering the WWII backdrop for them to be Jewish characters. Andrew Goldstein in canon is Jewish, for example. Also Claudia Kim, Zoe Kravitz, William Nadylam and Jessica Williams are all Asian or Black and are playing major characters in this movie and franchise in general. Mate if you insist on hating everything in this movie before even giving it a chance, I don't think this franchise is for you. lol Sorry.
  3. To be fair she was asked if Dumbledore fell in love in 2007 and she simply answered it. She didn't tweet out Dumbledore is gay now thank me. But yeah I get where you're coming from. By making Dumbledore gay instead of a less complicated character she has to either endure the accusation of covering it up by people who don't understand his character or storyline or she has to ignore canon and his character and shoehorn it in before it fits the storyline in the series. (i.e People are annoyed Albus/Gellert dont meet in the movie. She established that in HP canon. They don't meet until later) It is for this reason that I disagree that she did it for 'progressive brownie points'. If she wanted that, she would have chosen a less complex character to be gay and that would have made it easier to just address in one scene and make people happy. I think she just thought Dumbledore's sexuality went with her creative vision and story at the time. I don't think she thought this character is the best character to make gay. She realised that it makes sense that Albus' relationship with Gellert (considering he was a dark wizard in the early 1900s it would make more sense if he were a guy) and what happened to his family would have produced the remarkably complex character he became.
  4. What's stupid is criticising a movie before even seeing it. How about everyone on this forum see the movie first and then criticise it if you think it should have been addressed in a more explicit way? That is the point of this whole discussion. Jude Law and Rowling have openly said the relationship will openly be shown and be a major plot point in the series but due to canon and Dumbledore's character it will be developed organically as the series goes on. Jude Law finished filming in Sept when filming wrapped in December, it could just be that Dumbledore is hardly in this movie and they wanted to do this romantic relationship justice over time. We don't know until we see the movie.
  5. This is Dumbledore. Not Newt or Harry. Dumbledore fell in love with a boy who turned into a dark wizard hell bent on taking over the world and promoting his violent ideology. If you fell in love with Hitler or Bin Laden during your teenage years and was briefly swept up in their violent extremism, would you admit it to anyone post-911 or during WWII? I sure as hell won't. Grindelwald doesn't want Dumbledore coming after him so it is in his best interests to keep their past secret to not make Dumbledore's life unstable and to ensure he stays at Hogwarts. Rowling never said their relationship was physical either so please let us know how you want his sexuality to be explicitly shown 20 years before he is emotionally ready to face the man he loved? Do you want him to act camp and become a stereotype? How do you think his sexuality can be explicitly shown without it being shoehorned in? Jacob's clearly depicted relationships make sense within the story and his open/inviting character. Forgive me if I am more interested in this story remaining within the limits of canon and Dumbledore's private character being depicted accurately.
  6. Ezra Miller talking about the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship, Credence/Grindelwald relationship, what it was like working with Claudia Kim and Credence's inability to trust others. Really interesting. :)
  7. Oh yeah it is interesting but it seems like that line was not the Producer's as the sentence wasn't in quotation marks? Having said that I seriously doubt they ever intended Dumbledore to stay in the closet. That controversy was a misinterpretation of the director's words IMO. Rowling has pushed back on that narrative pretty strongly and has openly said to 'watch this space' regarding his sexuality previously. On a potentially related note, what do you guys think about this theory re: Dragons, Phoenixes and Feng Shui?
  8. WB has a dilemma. If they show too much of Grindelwald they might get further backlash online and in the US Entertainment media; if they hide him then they increase concerns surrounding the quality of his performance. A movie that can't market its Villain aggressively for fear of controversy will find it hard to break through. Nov/Dec seem pretty packed with movies too so FB2 might not have the legs FB1 had. However, I doubt Asia cares though. Not sure about Europe and South America but i doubt they really care either so FB2 might make up for any domestic box office loses internationally. WB will just market aggressively overseas and hope for the best. Since FB1 didn't do too well domestically anyway they don't really have much to lose to be honest. I doubt they'll worry about recasting Depp. WB didn't fire anyone in the DC universe until Justice League flopped. I doubt FB2 will flop with the interest it has overseas.
  9. The British Media can be savage and they have been quite negative towards Depp. Depp sued the Sun a few weeks ago for calling him a wife beater and asking why Rowling had him in the franchise. Although the Sun isn't highly regarded much; many people read them. The UK's most popular news sources; the Mirror, Guardian and Telegraph (even the Daily Mail to an extent) have all run negative articles criticising his casting. Many others have been more neutral but they still have reported all of Depp's escapades which won't help him. The media can be quite persuasive and their power shouldn't be underestimated. Plus FB1 only got 68M in the UK; HP averaged around 85-100M so FB has some obstacles. I still think the power of Potter (Hogwarts, Dumbledore etc) will prevail. Especially if he does a good job, most will likely ignore Depp's personal life and show up.
  10. I agree. The Depp hate is only really an issue in the English-speaking world (US, UK, Australia). The greater buzz for this movie than FB1 in Europe/Asia might make up for any potential decrease in the US/UK. However, even in the US/UK I think the connections to HP in this next movie; Hogwarts, Dumbledore etc could make up for anyone who might be turned off by Depp's presence.
  11. FB has enough obstacles as it is without this controversy overshadowing this series but he is here to stay. The Issue is he is so despised (for both personal and professional reasons); will people keep an open mind? Because contrary to many people's beliefs there's a chance Depp has done a good job. I think Depp's issue is that Directors have stopped directing him as every actor should be because its *Johnny Depp*. They let him run wild with his performances. Yates has had experience directing many famous and respected actors and has done a good job directing them without giving them too much freedom. Lets see if Yates can do the same for Depp. Rowling is also a big part of this franchise and she knows her characters well. She's also famous enough to not let his fame or the fact he is *Johnny Depp* get in the way of depicting her character the way she wants him to be. They defended his casting so fiercely AFTER they saw his performance. The film makers not only kept him but actively seem to want him there. Hope people keep an open mind.
  12. When it comes to the General Audience I definitely agree. The issue this movie will have is that he is incredibly unpopular in the hardcore Harry Potter 'Fandom' (as the kids say). This type of franchise's advantage is that it has an hardcore fan-base to come out and re-watch the movie over and over again boosting the box office. If the fan-base is unhappy and divided it could mean box office suffers. Having said that I think many of these angry 'Potterheads' are young and impressionable; they wont be able to resist seeing Hogwarts on the big screen again and the many connections to HP so they will likely turn up despite Depp. It might be hard for Depp to be accepted as Grindelwald though. I do think many Harry Potter fans haven't read the books since they were kids (or at least the Grindelwald/Dumbledore parts) and have made up their own version of Grindelwald in their minds since then. To me Graves and 'book' Grindelwald were two completely different people (except when 'Graves' broke character and laughed/smiled at inappropriate moments during the movie), so it baffles me why so many people seem to have thought Farrell's Graves was a 'good Grindelwald' when, in my mind, he was never really Grindelwald at all. However, I am personally intrigued by Depp's Grindelwald. I need to see more of him before I judge but he is looking better in this film so I am willing to give him a chance. Not sure many other HP fans are. That could hurt the film and its potential box office returns.
  13. Yeah. I doubt many people won't see the movie just because of his personal life. They won't see this movie if word of mouth is that he's crap. This is why I think, if his personal life was impacting his professional life and his performance in the movie was crap; WB and the film makers would have used his personal life to give him the boot last year because it just wasn't worth it. This is why I'm willing to wait and see when it comes to his performance and not judge it yet.
  14. It is no longer acceptable to 'protect' people with that sort of reputation though and you can tell there's been a change post metoo movement. Brolin's episode happened far enough in the past for it not to be an issue and he doesnt have mutiple issues to go with it. Hollywood only cares about how it looks and Depp's multiple issues look far worse. People in the industry wouldn't want to be stained by association without good reason. WB isnt stupid. He is a PR liability. They would have anticipated this. If Depp did a bad job they would have used his personal issues to get rid of him because he is enough of a liability for it not to be worth it if he pulls off a bad performance. I think they were satisfied with his performance and was willing to endure a hit initially. The backlash will only be an issue if he does a bad job because if he does a good job they can write his 'comeback kid story'. Domestically it might not work but internationally it will. As others have said Asia and Europe still like him. Even if they know about his troubles the response is more pity than anger. I have also seen pics and videos of him touring with his band. He looks fine mentally, maybe the media is exaggerating this so lets not get ahead of ourselves about Depp's health. He has always had issues after all. Also I seriously doubt they'll replace him now. The whole production will be engulfed in scandal with months to go before release and its easier to replace an actor in a small-mid budget movie than a movie of this size. They know its too late even if they regret it but they will only regret it if his performance is badly received as it will overshadow the movie. He was on set from August to December & his character is in the title. I doubt he plays a small role. Even if he's not on screen that much his performance has to be good for the 'Crimes of Grindelwald' to have an impact. I'm going to guess he has more than 10min screentime. They will probably pay him to stay quiet during the publicity tour though and hope no more bad news comes out. But again Hollywood and WB wouldn't want to be stained by association without good reason. That's not to say you'll like his performance but WB prob thinks the international audience will. Will they be right? *shrug* we'll have to wait and see
  15. Perhaps but Colin played Grindelwald pretending to be Graves not Grindelwald and despite my respect for his abilities he isnt the actor I would have chosen to play a mischief making/loki type villain. I wouldn't have chosen either actor for the role but since we seem to be stuck with Depp and no one seems to like it, it might help to play devil's advocate and give people another perspective.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.