Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Fantastic Beasts Series

Demented Daisy

By Demented Daisy
in Movies

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 490
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Sakura12
Sakura12

I would've been on board with seeing Dumbledore and Grindlewald if Colin Ferrell was still in the role, with Depp not so much. I'm not interested in seeing Depp's over the top one note characters bein

GaT
GaT

Nobody is.

HunterHunted
HunterHunted

Because it's a completely valid criticism. JKR has already shown her ass describing Native American magic and Ilvermorny. And as a WoC, I'm a little irritated that very reasonable concerns are being c

nikma

nikma

I agree. Harris played him as too weak. And he wasn't eccentric at all. Gambon was too agresive in GoF, but director wanted to show how Dumbledore is loosing control. So even if Harris was alive he would be agresive in that movie as well.

But I think they were both great actors and they did what directors wanted them to do. If Gambon was in first two movies he would also play Dumbledore as slow and weak. And I'm sure Harris would have been great in later movies.

  • Love 1
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

So already people on Twitter/Tumblr are already taking offense at Nagini being played by a WOC who will eventually be permanently transformed and enslaved by Voldemort. 

You know its bad enough that all the Star Wars fans ruined that fandom, now we got the SJWs attacking this too?! We don't know what happens to Nagini between FB and HP so rather than overreact and jump on JKR for every little thing, can we at least wait until we get the whole story?!

  • Love 2
SnoGirl

SnoGirl

Okay. The Nagini piece is cool(and according to Rowling, always has been part of the story), but bummed that eventually she gets horacruxed and is Voldemort’s pet. I’m not a fan that this movie series has a lot of white characters and not a lot of characters of color, decides to have servitude happen to one of its few characters of color. It’s not a great look (but either is Grindlewald’s two-toned eye color Johnny Depp). I hate all the Neville giphs on Twitter right now of him beheading  Nagini. I wish the casting director would hire more actors of color for these films. We’re going around the world-be better at this.

I am excited for Newt and Tina-her tying up Newt’s brother (for assumedly jerk behavior) was fantastic. Jacob and Queenie were blink and you miss them, I’m slightly concerned about why Queenie is bawling in the trailer. 

Also, loving not seeing a lot of Fantastic Beasts. I’m hoping for some fun reveals. Is Credence creating the Lion animal Obscural? Anyone have Fantastic Beasts to check If the beasts we’re seeing are in there?

  • Love 6
nikma

nikma

I really liked Johnny Depp here. I expect him to be great.

Also I like that actors who played Dumbledore and Grindelwald in DH1 are back. Does that mean we should expect Hero Fiennes in future movies if Tom Riddle appears? He is 21 now. And Tom won't be older than 19 in this series. And he still looks good, like someone who could play young Voldemort.

  • Love 2
scarynikki12

scarynikki12

53 minutes ago, SnoGirl said:

Okay. The Nagini piece is cool(and according to Rowling, always has been part of the story)

She said she's been sitting on it for twenty years, further proving to me that her driving reason for agreeing to let WB make these movies (and to write them herself) is to keep giving us all the info she came up with way back when she first started writing the books. 

I'm looking forward to Nagini being fleshed out.  She was always had a tragic element, even when we all thought she was just a snake, because we learned that Voldemort made her a Horcrux soon after he got that meager body.  From the moment we met her a piece of his soul was possessing her and we saw from Harry's experience how harmful that could be.  If Voldemort hadn't Avada Kedavra'd that piece in Harry, it would have continued to harm him.  Now we have the opportunity to get to know her and I wouldn't be surprised if we come away seeing her death as Neville putting her out of her misery while he was saving the day.  They could absolutely write her as a bad person in her human form but I don't expect it. 

So glad they're using the younger Albus and Grindelwald actors from the Potter movies.  At least young Grindy doesn't look like a lost Targaryen.  Now if we could just dump Depp it'd be perfect.

  • Love 4
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

38 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

So already people on Twitter/Tumblr are already taking offense at Nagini being played by a WOC who will eventually be permanently transformed and enslaved by Voldemort. 

You know its bad enough that all the Star Wars fans ruined that fandom, now we got the SJWs attacking this too?! We don't know what happens to Nagini between FB and HP so rather than overreact and jump on JKR for every little thing, can we at least wait until we get the whole story?!

Because it's a completely valid criticism. JKR has already shown her ass describing Native American magic and Ilvermorny. And as a WoC, I'm a little irritated that very reasonable concerns are being characterized and diminished as "SJW overreaction." Rowling has heaped a bunch of really shitty suspect details on to this character with no seeming awareness of how bad the optics are. This blood curse only impacts women and can be passed down from mother to daughter, Nagini is being kept and mistreated in a freak show, will eventually lose her ability to transform into a human, will be kept as a pet and exploited by Voldemort, and is a WoC. Considering there is a long tradition of comparing people of color to animals, keeping people of color as slaves, and even displaying people of color as side show curiosities, plus this also has this being a blood curse that is only passed down to women, this is fairly being called out as sketch as hell. Furthermore, if this is going to be treated with all of the sophistication that she's previously treated LGBT issues and race, then she's going to fuck this up epically.

Do I think they'll treat Nagini sympathetically? Yeah, I guess. But I don't trust the treatment of the character to be all that deft. The first movie had a Black female president of MACUSA, but didn't have the sense to include a secret colored entrance to the building. People sometimes don't realize that there were all manner of racial restrictions and restrictive covenants in New York and New Jersey. There were sundown towns in both of those states. Even having a secret entrance that is used by both Black and white magical individuals in 1926 would have attracted attention especially since the building was the Woolworth's building, which was the tallest building in the world.

  • Love 14
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

Nagini being a person who eventually became a full time snake is just...weird. Even beyond the the obvious questionable racial and gender stuff, its just a really pointless addition. I get that this one will be more tied into the main part of the Potter story, with young, weirdly sexy Dumbledore around, but I dont see any point to it. What does it add to the universe? To prove Voldemort is a bad guy? Well yeah, that cat was out of the bag several murders ago. To explore more magic stuff? Then why not make a totally new character? To tie it into the main story? They already did that with Dumbledore. I guess its better than that thing going around for awhile that the snake that Harry released from the zoo in the first book was actually Nagini. That was all kinds of stupid, so at least thats not cannon. 

Honestly, I dont get why the further HP universe doesn't just become a more diverse place, with a bit more cultural context. Its clear that Rowling wants to retroactively make it seem like she was being inclusive the whole time, with the whole "Dumbledore was totes gay the whole time" stuff, despite never seeing an indicator of that anywhere in the books, or being all "Hermione could be black, I never said!" stuff after they cast a black actress in her role during Cursed Child's stage run. For the record, I have zero issue with that, but trying to act like she wrote her as ethically ambiguous is just silly. You wrote the books you wrote, Jo, just admit it and move on. With all this other HP stuff coming out, they could easily include more racial and sexual minorities (or whoever they want) in prominent roles, but...they really haven't. Using Native American stuff in the US magic school was a mess, Cursed Child had a massive case of the Not Gays in the last chapter or two, and the only major POC parts I can think of in the new movies are a minor character, and a snake woman who will eventually become an enslaved snake and get her head hacked off. Not the inclusive, progressive stance I think most of us wanted. 

  • Love 10
Zuleikha

Zuleikha

So already people on Twitter/Tumblr are already taking offense at Nagini being played by a WOC who will eventually be permanently transformed and enslaved by Voldemort.

Nagini never read to me as enslaved by Voldemort. She seemed to be the only living creature he felt any affection for. I agree with all the critiques--and think it's particularly not great for the only significant Asian character in the series to be a snake specifically--but Claudia Kim also sounds very excited about her role. Sometimes these choices end up reading really differently than it seems like they will in outline form.

 The first movie had a Black female president of MACUSA, but didn't have the sense to include a secret colored entrance to the building.

That's pretty similar to how I feel about this series being set in Wizarding World analogy to WWII, having two Jewish characters, and apparently* no exploration of anti-Semitism/NY Jewish culture.  

Honestly, I dont get why the further HP universe doesn't just become a more diverse place, with a bit more cultural context.

In fairness to Rowling, she did establish HP universe as diverse through the tertiary characters. Given how she's handled her attempts at inclusiveness, personally, I think that was probably the best. She doesn't do well writing what she doesn't know.

* (I say apparently because I didn't watch the first one based on other people's report of how the movie didn't handle the Jewish characters Jewishness. I'm still monitoring the series in hopes this changes as it goes forward)

  • Love 3
cambridgeguy

cambridgeguy

11 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

We don't know what happens to Nagini between FB and HP so rather than overreact and jump on JKR for every little thing, can we at least wait until we get the whole story?!

Of course not, leaping to conclusions is standard operating procedure these days.  To be honest Nagini will probably end up being a bit player in all of this.  During the HP series most of the characters who weren't the main trio and the faculty member of interest received scant amounts of screentime.  In this movie we've already got the Big 4, Grindelwald, Leta, Dumbledore, Credence, and Newt's brother.  They'll suck up most of the attention anyway.

  • Love 3
stealinghome

stealinghome

1 hour ago, cambridgeguy said:

Of course not, leaping to conclusions is standard operating procedure these days.  To be honest Nagini will probably end up being a bit player in all of this.  During the HP series most of the characters who weren't the main trio and the faculty member of interest received scant amounts of screentime.  In this movie we've already got the Big 4, Grindelwald, Leta, Dumbledore, Credence, and Newt's brother.  They'll suck up most of the attention anyway.

I don't disagree, but I would also suggest that when a creator has a really poor track record around inclusiveness, then people tend to be less willing to give that creator the benefit of the doubt and/or take a "wait and see" approach.

  • Love 6
Wynterwolf

Wynterwolf

9 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

but I would also suggest that when a creator has a really poor track record around inclusiveness, then people tend to be less willing to give that creator the benefit of the doubt and/or take a "wait and see" approach.

Anyone who isn't a cis het abled white male is always expected to 'wait and see'.  But especially with a creator with a poor track record, I can understand and empathize with anyone who is just... tired of it.  

These movies are high quality and gorgeous, with inventive and intricate storytelling.  With as much money and effort that is used to create them, we deserve for them to be thoughtfully and sincerely inclusive too.  We deserve for TPTB to consider these things beforehand.  

  • Love 9
KatWay

KatWay

Nagini being an enslaved Asian snake lady probably wouldn't read as bad if there was more than one (two, if you count Cho Chang I guess) character of East Asian descent in these films. And of course JKR's track record with diversity isn't great, like when she pretended Hermione was written as racially ambiguous all along (as if) and yet when she wrote the main characters for FB she somehow again came up with four white ones. Five if you count Credence.

  • Love 8
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

(edited)
2 hours ago, nikma said:

Can we talk about actual story of this movie please? 

Which would be what exactly? We have two trailers and some limited interviews. We don't know nearly enough to accurately discuss the story. We do, however, know about some of the cultural missteps in the writing. People have long wanted JKR to basically do what Star Wars used to do with the Expanded Universe, which is let anyone write anything, but selectively letting things become canon if they liked it. JKR is neither culturally knowledgeable or sensitive enough tackle these issues well. It would probably behoove her to bring in more aware creators.

Saying that an intellectual property is problematic or fails in specific ways doesn't mean it's not worthwhile or without any merit. It just means that it isn't perfect. Nothing is. I consider Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Wire to be nearly flawless, but they both have real problems and weaknesses. As does the Harry Potter universe.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Love 7
nikma

nikma

20 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

People have long wanted JKR to basically do what Star Wars used to do with the Expanded Universe,

This is pure entitlement. This is her story. She doesn't need to let anyone else write in her universe.

 

23 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

Which would be what exactly?

Which would be what people in every fandom do when trailer is realised.

  • Love 2
nikma

nikma

30 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

JKR is neither culturally knowledgeable or sensitive enough tackle these issues well. It would probably behoove her to bring in more aware creators.

If a writer doesn't care about these things, it is her right to do so. We as audience can support her work and we can boycott it. But she can write whatever she wants. 

  • Love 4
KatWay

KatWay

57 minutes ago, nikma said:

If a writer doesn't care about these things, it is her right to do so. We as audience can support her work and we can boycott it. But she can write whatever she wants. 

and we can call her out on her hypocrisy when she wants points for being woke without actually doing anything in that regard. She can certainly not care, that's her right, but if she claims to care, then it's fair to call her out when her actions don't match her words.

  • Love 8
nikma

nikma

20 minutes ago, KatWay said:

and we can call her out on her hypocrisy when she wants points for being woke without actually doing anything in that regard. She can certainly not care, that's her right, but if she claims to care, then it's fair to call her out when her actions don't match her words.

I agree, but I don't think the whole discussion about this movie should be about Rowling's personality.

  • Love 3
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

(edited)
1 hour ago, nikma said:

I agree, but I don't think the whole discussion about this movie should be about Rowling's personality.

Almost nothing in this discussion has been about JKR's personality.

If I claim to care about the environment and living green and you check my recycling and there's nothing in there, but my trash can is filled with recyclables, I drive a behemoth vintage gas guzzler that gets 9 miles/gallon, I keep my air conditioning at 69°, and every light turned on, you can rightly call me a hypocrite because that's about my behaviors and actions not matching my intention or rhetoric. And that's the issue with Rowling. She wants to be inclusive, mindful, and woke, but literally never pulls it off or screws it up because of her profound ignorance.

People provide criticism because they realize that she's a mostly well meaning person who is way off the mark. They continue to recommend that she meet or work with these minority communities as she's developing the very rich world of Harry Potter that continues to captivate millions of people. I think people realize that sometimes you don't know what you don't know, so these critiques are people telling her that she doesn't understand some of these elements all that well and maybe she should seek out assistance.

I would never provide a similar critique to David Duke because he's a notorious bigot and former Grand Wizard of the Klan. He doesn't care about people of color. There are many accounts showing that he's a charming decently affable man; he's just a racist, antisemite, misogynist, and all around bigot. The former is personality; the latter is ideology.

That's not JKR. She just doesn't know enough about it to write it well. That's not a personality issue, that's ignorance.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Love 8
Wynterwolf

Wynterwolf

TeenVogue has a good write up of the issue:

Quote

 

YA writer Ellen Oh commented on the casting in a thread, tweeting, "I feel like this is the problem when white people want to diversify and don't actually ask POC how to do so. They don't make the connection between making Nagini an Asian woman who later on is the pet of a white man. So I'm going to say it right now. That sh*t is racist."

"Does this mean I now hate Harry Potter? No. I still love it," Ellen wrote. "But let's make it clear. Harry Potter is problematic AF. So let's discuss it now so that our future generation of writers who create the next blockbuster books and movies can do better."

 

  • Love 6
nikma

nikma

(edited)
1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

Almost nothing in this discussion has been about JKR's personality.

Yes, it was. Everything was about characters of color. 

 

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

That's not JKR. She just doesn't know enough about it to write it well. That's not a personality issue, that's ignorance.

Ignorance is a personality issue.

Don't get me wrong these things should be discussed, but whole conversation about this movie for months seems to be about these other things that have nothing to do with the story. I remember outrage when David Yates said that Dumbldore won't be explicitly gay in this movie and then we've got that scene with Mirror of Erised and I'm sure by fifth movie everything will be really clear. And even with Nagini, there are 3 more movies after this one. I'm sure she won't be the only Asisan character in this story.

36 minutes ago, Wynterwolf said:

 

Edited by nikma
blueray

blueray

14 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

n fairness to Rowling, she did establish HP universe as diverse through the tertiary characters. Given how she's handled her attempts at inclusiveness, personally, I think that was probably the best. She doesn't do well writing what she doesn't know.

* (I say apparently because I didn't watch the first one based on other people's report of how the movie didn't handle the Jewish characters Jewishness. I'm still monitoring the series in hopes this changes as it goes forward)

I'm not sure what their religion has to do with what was going on in the story as for the cultural background it may be slightly different as they are in the wizarding world. I think it's okay to leave that stuff out. It's not like they were shown eating pork or something not kosher.

 

I don't get why everyone cares what race this character is. We don't know her story, it will be revealed in the movie. 

  • Love 4
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-on-screen-representation-matters_us_58aeae96e4b01406012fe49d

http://time.com/5179369/eva-longoria-representation-in-hollywood/

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/zmwq3x/why-diversity-on-screen-is-important-black-panther

https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminsetiawan/2018/08/21/janelle-monae-on-why-representation-matters-strength-in-helping-others-creative-cocktails/#54259bf16eee

  • Love 3
Zuleikha

Zuleikha

I'm not sure what their religion has to do with what was going on in the story as for the cultural background it may be slightly different as they are in the wizarding world. I think it's okay to leave that stuff out. It's not like they were shown eating pork or something not kosher.

It matters because the reality of the world is that it matters. Most non-Jewish creators get this wrong and write their Jewish characters like they're generic WASPs. For me, being misrepresented and misportrayed is worse than not being included at all because it contributes to an erasure of my identity and my lived reality. And especially in a 1920s NYC setting, during a story that's going to span WW II.

  • Love 6
VCRTracking

VCRTracking

(edited)
10 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

 

It matters because the reality of the world is that it matters. Most non-Jewish creators get this wrong and write their Jewish characters like they're generic WASPs. For me, being misrepresented and misportrayed is worse than not being included at all because it contributes to an erasure of my identity and my lived reality. And especially in a 1920s NYC setting, during a story that's going to span WW II.

The danger for writing any ethnic group is characters always ending up thoughtless stereotypes like Judd Hirsch in Independence Day. She can avoid that just by research(which we know she always does), talking to Jewish Americans, getting consultants who know the culture to help her so when you see the characters portrayed as Jewish it's realistic and not offensive.

Edited by VCRTracking
  • Love 6
blueray

blueray

5 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

 

It matters because the reality of the world is that it matters. Most non-Jewish creators get this wrong and write their Jewish characters like they're generic WASPs. For me, being misrepresented and misportrayed is worse than not being included at all because it contributes to an erasure of my identity and my lived reality. And especially in a 1920s NYC setting, during a story that's going to span WW II.

I'm actually also Jewish, probably should have started with that. To be honest, I didn't even know the character's were until after seeing the movie. When I found out, I was just happy to have our group exist in the Wizarding World. There really isn't any offensive in there. I think if this was a drama or something it would be way more important to portray all groups correctly. But this is  a fantasy movie that should be seen just as that entertainment with a created world that is already loved. As for the time period, I do hope in the next one they address this as this will deeply impact their lives. Especially as world war 2 happens.

  • Love 3
Wynterwolf

Wynterwolf

(edited)

Oy.  I had seen her response on twitter and at this point, I gotta say... it almost feels like willful ignorance on her part.  

Here's another good write up.  

Quote

However, an author having the freedom to write what they want doesn’t take away the freedom of the readers to point out issues as well as the consequences that might follow. Let’s see what happens.

Part of the reason this series interests me in particular is that Newt is widely seen in certain circles as autistic, though that will obviously never be said onscreen.  But it's another area that has extremely poor representation onscreen, so we tend to latch onto anything that is even remotely accurate and positive, even when it isn't specifically called out (and often times with autistic characters, the portrayal is far more accurate when it isn't specifically identified and called out, because if a character is canon autistic, people expect to see stereotypes, not realistic people who are autistic).  But if the onscreen representation were more prevalent and accurate, it could help to educate people and help autistics feel less alone (particularly when suicide rates for autistic adults are significantly higher than the general population, largely because of how we're 'othered').  So yeah, representation matters.  

Edited by Wynterwolf
  • Love 6
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

(edited)
5 hours ago, blueray said:

I'm actually also Jewish, probably should have started with that. To be honest, I didn't even know the character's were until after seeing the movie. When I found out, I was just happy to have our group exist in the Wizarding World. There really isn't any offensive in there. I think if this was a drama or something it would be way more important to portray all groups correctly. But this is a fantasy movie that should be seen just as that entertainment with a created world that is already loved. As for the time period, I do hope in the next one they address this as this will deeply impact their lives. Especially as world war 2 happens.

But the reality is that people pay attention to and incorporate ideas from everything. They don't stop and say "well, this is a comedy so I'm not going absorb the ideas that Mexicans are criminals and Black people are lazy" or "this is just a commercial; I'm going to ignore the premise that moms do 99% of the parenting and household work." This literally doesn't happen. Even the most self-aware of us isn't operating at that level. It ALL matters. I grew up with Darkie toothpaste in the 80s in a foreign country. It ALL matters.

This is why it behooves JKR, who wants to be a good ally, to work with minority groups. She can do a number of things: 1. completely ignore race, culture, and gender and be thought of like J. R. R. Tolkien at best and Orson Scott Card at worst; 2. continue as she has been doing, while getting significant issues wrong or making them offensive and hoping that history judges her kindly; or 3. actually reaching out to minority groups for input and feedback. However, most people are incapable sorting through problematic or harmful representations of minority groups just because they are in YouTube videos, cartoons, comedies, action films, fantasy series, or dramas.

Finally, a cornerstone of the X-Men films is that Magneto is Jewish and a survivor of a concentration camp. Those films have made over a billion dollars. They are also fantasy films. It matters because it matters. The X-Men films have always been allegories for various civil rights issues. And frankly the Harry Potter universe has always had the allegorical references to the bigotry of Nazi Germany and the bigotry of Margaret Thatcher. So it's a little bit problematic to treat this intellectual property as wholly divorced from a wider more culturally sensitive context.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Love 9
Zuleikha

Zuleikha

To be honest, I didn't even know the characters were until after seeing the movie.

That pretty much sums up all the problems right there. I don't think that would be a responsible portrayal for a contemporary movie, but it's at least a little debatable. But 1920s? No. If you can walk out of a movie set in 1920s NYC and not know that the Jewish female lead and her sister are in fact Jewish, the movie did something very, very wrong.

When I found out, I was just happy to have our group exist in the Wizarding World.

We were already established in canon through one of the HP minor characters. 

Even the most self-aware of us isn't operating at that level. It ALL matters.

EXACTLY!

  • Love 6
Lugal

Lugal

5 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

This is why it behooves JKR, who wants to be a good ally, to work with minority groups. She can do a number of things: 1. completely ignore race, culture, and gender and be thought of like J. R. R. Tolkien at best and Orson Scott Card at worst; 2. continue as she has been doing, while getting significant issues wrong or making them offensive and hoping that history judges her kindly; or 3. actually reaching out to minority groups for input and feedback. However, most people are incapable sorting through problematic or harmful representations of minority groups just because they are in YouTube videos, cartoons, comedies, action films, fantasy series, or dramas.

I remember someone once said that JK Rowling doesn't really do anything outside the British Isles well (with the possible exception of France).  It's just inept and lazy worldbuilding.  And it's not like she hasn't been called out on this before, with her treatment of Indians in the History of Magic in North America, where she got Native cultures completely wrong and relied on old stereotypes (like there being no Wizarding school in North America prior to Ilvermorny, despite some Native settlements still being inhabited that date to the 1100s), not to mention the cultural appropriation with the skinwalker issue.  The fact that she continues to do so does not look good.

5 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Finally, a cornerstone of the X-Men films is that Magneto is Jewish and a survivor of a concentration camp. Those films have made over a billion dollars. They are also fantasy films. It matters because it matters. The X-Men films have always been allegories for various civil rights issues. And frankly the Harry Potter universe has always had the allegorical references to the bigotry of Nazi Germany and the bigotry of Margaret Thatcher. So it's a little bit problematic to treat this intellectual property as wholly divorced from a wider more culturally sensitive context.

And that background completely shapes Magneto as a character.  It is one of the primary motivations for him doing what he does.  And while I don't think anyone is asking for a complete dissertation of segregation and racial issues in the Wizarding World, a little thought like what would it be like for different characters would go a long way, like how African American Wizards worked with the Underground Railroad in the 1800s or where Ilvermorny fit in during the Native-English wars in the mid-1600s.  Not saying she has to write whole detailed stories about these events, but just to consider them when she does write her stories.

  • Love 7
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

Folks here know I'm not a fan of Johnny Depp's casting as Grindelwald. I think he's become a lazy hack. I ran across this jokey list  on BuzzFeed Spain. It got me thinking about who I'd cast if we couldn't have Colin Farrell back. My choices would be:

  1. Colin Farrell
  2. Cillian Murphy
  3. Alexander Skarsgard
  4. Fassbender or McAvoy (though I think they both might be too busy)
  5. Paul Bettany (probably too busy)
  6. Lee Pace
  7. Colin Farrell
  8. Toby Stephens
  9. Jonathan Rhys Meyers if he weren't such an alcoholic mess
  10. Ryan Kwanten
  11. Johnny Lee Miller
  12. Martin Wallström (though he's a bit too young)
  13. Jack Huston (though I think his coloring is too dark)
  14. Maybe Hugh Dancy or Matthew Goode, and
  15. Colin Farrell (I'm never going to let this dream die)
  • Love 6

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...