Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Demented Daisy

The Fantastic Beasts Series

Recommended Posts

I wish JKR would write this into a book series. She must have so much material.  These movies have the feel of being adapted from really large books.  I feel like I'm missing something when I'm watching.  

I did like the brother relationship though.  Seems to be a sibling theme to these movies. 

The creatures were amazing,  this movie looked fantastic.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

So apparently the movie kind of flopped in the US as its greatly under performing.  It's looking at making X-Men: Apocalypse or Justice League money which is not good (especially as JL killed it franchise and X-Men killed any interest in its next movie).  It did well enough internationally so I figure we're getting movie 3 (although maybe not 4 & 5 if 3 does as poorly) but I have to imagine that there's going to be a pretty big shakeup for the next movie.  I'm wondering if they'll just pair it down to a trilogy or just ignore this movie and focus back on Newt as a crypto-zoologist.  

 

Really though, leave it to Warner Brothers to ruin another franchise.  Between DC movies and The Hobbit trilogy they have a pretty crappy track record.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I blame JK Rowling for her diminishing writing skills.  I blame Warner Brothers for deciding to make five movies out of this series.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

this should have been at best a trilogy from the start, this entire film felt like it was just setting up plot points for the rest of the series. Everyone was just rushing from one point to another, fought and rushed off again. The stakes felt kind of contrived at points. Why didn't we see Tina react to Queenie switching sides? (which also felt a bit wtf, sure Grindelwald gave the huge speech about all of them being the same but he literally runs around killing muggles whenever he pleases, is Queenie dumb?) Where did that Bunty girl go? the whole plot with the switched Lestrange baby just felt extremely unneeded and just there to stall the big Credence reveal. And the last bit where Grindelwald apparently randomly decides to blow up Paris too - I thought he just told all these followers that he wasn't the violent one, yet two minutes later he's all about destroying the city? It felt shoehorned in just so they could have "must save the world/place/city" type of climax, no stakes whatsoever cause we all knew they'd defeat it.

also sorry but Tina remains such a bland non-entity. I want to like her cause the actress does well and gives the character a likeable aura but also she just has nothing to do and seemingly no personality aside from liking Newt's salamander compliment. Leta was way more interesting but of course she died. The brother looks so much younger than Newt I have a hard time buying him as the older one. There was no point to Nicolas Flamel or McGonagall, felt like Hobbit-esque unnecessary easter eggs. I feel like there's a good story in there somewhere but the execution is kind of all over the place.

Edited by KatWay
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, KatWay said:

The brother looks so much younger than Newt I have a hard time buying him as the older one.

Per Wikia, Callum Turner is 28 which makes him 8 years younger than Eddie Redmayne. I mean, Newt has pretty visible crow's feet while Theseus looks like he's only a few years out of Hogwarts. I don't get why this had to be an older sibling. I buy them as siblings, but not in the birth order they were assigned.

Anyway, this Youtuber just ripped into the story:

I started to cringe when we got to the Titanic twist. Also, I guess this means Creedence is only 15? He has such great facial stubble for 15!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

this should have been at best a trilogy from the start, this entire film felt like it was just setting up plot points for the rest of the series.

Yeah, I almost feel like the first FB movie is an unrelated prequel to the movie series started by COG. (Which really ought to be a trilogy.) If I’m the WB right now, I’m roughing out a plan for how to wrap this series up in 4 movies if the next one tanks.

the flip side is that I do think there IS a really good storyline in there that is fighting to get out, and a knock-your-socks-off good third movie could reinvigorate the entire series. I do think the WB would be well-served to put an experienced screenwriter in with JKR to rein in her tendency toward sprawl, and to replace David Yates (though I’m still not sure I see that happening). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I figure if they stop making movies Rowling can continue the story in books(which she's better at as opposed to screenplays) and if they're successful they can adapt them back into movies.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Matt K said:

So apparently the movie kind of flopped in the US as its greatly under performing.  It's looking at making X-Men: Apocalypse or Justice League money which is not good (especially as JL killed it franchise and X-Men killed any interest in its next movie).  It did well enough internationally so I figure we're getting movie 3 (although maybe not 4 & 5 if 3 does as poorly) but I have to imagine that there's going to be a pretty big shakeup for the next movie.  I'm wondering if they'll just pair it down to a trilogy or just ignore this movie and focus back on Newt as a crypto-zoologist.  

 

Really though, leave it to Warner Brothers to ruin another franchise.  Between DC movies and The Hobbit trilogy they have a pretty crappy track record.

When they do the post-mortem on the movie I think the conclusion they'll draw is that the movie was too much of a setup for the next one and wasn't executed well, which is the main reason for it not doing well.  Objections to Depp, representation issues, etc. are going to be seen as minor factors at most.  Therefore, like usual, that will probably all end up being a bunch of hot air and wasted virtual ink which changes nothing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, this is a case where the foreign box office is enabling the mediocrity of Warner Brothers and Rowling.  If the film was underperforming overseas like it is in the U.S., Warner MIGHT start rethinking things.  But the total worldwide box office will be big enough for them to continue business as usual.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On November 27, 2018 at 4:07 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I started to cringe when we got to the Titanic twist. Also, I guess this means Creedence is only 15? He has such great facial stubble for 15!

The ship wasn't the Titanic. Hate to sound like Hermione, but if you read the script, then you would have known that that flashback was in 1901. The Titanic wasn't for another decade. Also that means Credence is in his 20s.

Interestingly, the lady that went drowned with the swapped lady is named "Credence's aunt." Aunt is also a British term for nanny/caretaker, so whether or not she was related to the Dumbledore's remains to be seen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So I guess either Corvus survived, Pappy Lestrange had a brother, or he had another son.

And how Credence is related to Albus is a question.  I guess Aberforth's son makes the most sense.

Ah, we're all more concerned with geneology than the story of Grindelwald.  I think that says something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've been thinking about this. My problem isn't that this is a bridge movie, it's that it is a poorly done bridge movie. I know Rowling can do better because Half Blood Prince was a bridge story. I wouldn't call it my favorite book of the series, but it was also not the narrative mess that Crimes of Grindlewald was. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:52 PM, VCRTracking said:

I figure if they stop making movies Rowling can continue the story in books(which she's better at as opposed to screenplays) and if they're successful they can adapt them back into movies.

I'd prefer to have a book version of these films anyway, considering how much they've cut of what she's wanted or forced her to change.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2018 at 9:04 PM, Clare said:

I wish JKR would write this into a book series. She must have so much material.  These movies have the feel of being adapted from really large books.  I feel like I'm missing something when I'm watching. 

On 11/19/2018 at 11:01 PM, stealinghome said:

I've been thinking about the movie since I saw it Friday night, and I think this is how I would rewrite it, if we're assuming HUGE parts of the story (Leta's death, Credence as magically resurrected/a Dumbledore) have to stay.

Cuts: I would cut Nicolas Flamel entirely (Dumbledore just sends Newt to an empty safehouse), Nagini almost entirely (mostly the carnival sequence--though let's work the huge cat beast in somehow, it was adorable!--we can just pick up with Credence questioning the woman whose name is on his birth certificate if we want to keep Nagini), and Kama and his sworn revenge entirely (though I think you can keep the red herring of Credence-as-a-Lestrange if Credence must be the new McGuffin everyone is chasing--you don't actually need Kama for that). Also don't show Grindy and his followers so much--I know, I know, killing the child was to show that they are The Evil, but I think Grindy might have been more effective as a kind of ghost hovering around Paris after his escape, just about entirely unseen, until his rousing speech. Just have him pop up to creepily speak to Credence and maybe Queenie and that's it. I would also minimize Theseus' cranky boss at the Ministry of Magic. He's just not interesting. Yes, we know the Ministry always sucks because staffed by bureaucrats. Moving on!

Leave unchanged: all Dumbledore's stuff; young Leta and young Newt.

 

So much word to both of these posts.  Here are all my random thoughts:

I saw CoG on Thanksgiving weekend but wound up missing the first 20 minutes of the film (I should have just left my coworkers behind, grr).  Anyway, my friend gifted me the CoG screenplay to make up for it, and it was a really engrossing script!  I was behind at work trying to finish up!  JKR shines as a novelist, no doubt, but a writer for the screen she is not.  I wonder if she would mind collaborating with Steve Kloves on movie 3 to whittle down all the fluff. 

ITA that Nicolas Flamel's scenes in the film were kind of pointless, but I found him even more pointless reading the screenplay.  My coworker argued that them focusing on the Philosopher's Stone means that it's gonna show up in movie 3 or 4, but I just thought it was a nod to HP1.  Same with all the familiar surnames.

Poor Nagini was pointless, although I liked the Maledictus backstory.  I initially thought the Nagini representation criticism was slightly OTT, but now I have to agree with everyone else.  Claudia Kim deserved a lot better than to just follow Ezra Miller around like a service pet.

I think that it's plausible for Credence/Aurelius to be Ariana Dumbledore's son.  The (implied) assault plus a birth plus giving the baby away to be adopted can be what made her go mad, ESPECIALLY if the adoption wasn't her choice or done without her knowledge.  And as far as timelines not matching up, JKR can just retcon.  Hell, she had Professor McGonagall at Hogwarts circa 1927, when I clearly remember JKR describing McGonagall as a "sprightly 70 year old" during Harry's time.  If she were 70 when HRH began attending Hogwarts, then she would have been born around the events of CoG.  If she was 70 by Halloween 1981, then she would have been an older teen in CoG.  And according to JKR's backstory on McGonagall, she moved to London and worked for the Ministry after graduating from Hogwarts and remained there for several years before applying for a position at her alma mater.

Why did Leta have to die?!  I loved everything about Leta's backstory: the guilt over Corvus Jr., Kama and his desire to avenge Kama Sr., the Lestrange family tree with men as branches and women as flowers, just great writing.  I agree with others upthread who said that Zoë Kravitz is usually a bit meh, but did great in this role.  I sat up in my seat ready to drag her when she appeared onscreen, ha!  I just knew that her accent would be off, her acting mediocre, but I really enjoyed her.  Although I think Leta was talking to both Newt and Theseus with the "I love you," I believe she was still IN love with Newt.  He was still on her mind.  It begs the question of why they didn't make it? 

RE: Corvus Jr.'s drowning--doesn't magic have a certain level of protectiveness for the witch/wizard in distress?

I wish Johnny Depp would have used an Austrian or a more pronounced English accent in his portrayal of Grindelwald.  I personally think all the "staring intently" and "we were closer than brothers" between him Dumbledore and was lame.  Just say DD loved him, damn.  It didn't have to be a Brokeback Mountain kind of deal to portray romantic love between two men on film.

In the script, DD is described as "dandyesque" which I guess is a precursor to his more eccentric style in his later years.  But in the movie, I felt that Jude Law made DD seem rather normal and conservatively dressed.

Am I the only one that thinks Jacob might be a Squib?  I just feel that he is just TOO privy to a lot of magic, and seems to be keenly aware of all the magic that is going on around him.  There doesn't seem to be anything that he doesn't see/perceive, when it's been stated that Muggles are notoriously oblivious to magic and some areas they simply cannot access, i.e. the Hogwarts grounds.  In Flamel's house, Flamel is watching the activity in his crystal ball, and Jacob is commenting and reacts to seeing Credence and Queenie.  And I refuse to believe that he would have been able to access that underground amphitheater if he were just any ordinary Muggle!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the movie for a second time last night with friends who hadn't seen it, and I do think the movie is better on rewatch--I was able to appreciate how many moving parts the script had, how much pipe it laid for later events early on, and how relatively deftly all the parts came together at/by the end (though it strengthened my conviction that it also had way too many parts that weren't necessary). Some of the side or minor conversations make much more sense in context when you know what's coming. I was also able to appreciate the performances, especially Kravitz and Redmayne and Law's, more. I also got some laughs at Alison Sudol's Queenie even knowing what lines were coming--props to Sudol, she just sells the humor inherent in the Queenie character. "She's working on a...CASE" while lifting her bag was comedy gold, as was "I can't tell if you're joking or just...French." Heh.

However, how crazily sidelined Tina and underserved Queenie were also really came out on rewatch. Tina, who is supposed to be a badass Auror, gets easily tricked by Kama and pretty much runs around after Newt after that; we don't ever see her reaction to Queenie joining Grindelwald. And Queenie still comes off as impossibly naive for someone who was around for the events of the first FB movie. I really, really hope the next movie does much better by the female characters.

Production really shot themselves in the foot by casting Colin Farrell in the last movie, because his presence and charisma are just so much more in line with what I imagine for Grindelwald than what Johnny Depp brings. I just don't buy Depp's Grindelwald as the type of charismatic force-of-nature Grindy is supposed to be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/16/2019 at 11:33 PM, VCRTracking said:

I always thought so regardless of JKR's past comments on the issue (like I do about many ships in this universe, lol), but it took her long enough to say. Still, have the movies even portrayed Dumbledore and Grindelwald as a former couple or only hinted at it? Of course, these Fantastic Beasts movies are still part of keeping the universe relevant and driving traffic to the theme parks, there are not going to be any intense sexual relationships of any sort being portrayed onscreen unless WB develops a real change in strategy to juice the box office after Crimes of Grindelwald.

Anyway, if this universe is really as gay-friendly as JKR likes to claim now (as opposed to the books where this was never mentioned—Harry was not the most observant about his schoolmates but would have noticed two guys dancing together at the Yule Ball or something along those lines), it could easily have been confirmed with a kiss, definitive dialogue, etc. 

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/17/2019 at 4:30 PM, Dejana said:

Still, have the movies even portrayed Dumbledore and Grindelwald as a former couple or only hinted at it? 

This.

There's nothing in the books about Dumbledore being gay. We have an expose written by a reporter out to get him, that waxes at length about his friendship with Grindelwald and the scandal of his family... and not once does this expose even hint at Dumbledore being romantically or sexually involved with Grindelwald. This in the same book that Rowling takes pains to reveal that Snape was in love with Lily. In the same series that hints that Aberford Dumbledore was into bestiary. Yet somehow Skeeter missed the scoop of the century.  

I actually came here from a discussion on another forum that's, in a nutshell, Word of God vs The Author is Dead. And my opinion was more on the latter: Author interviews can provide interesting tidbits but everything that is important to the Author is in the story. And if the Author needs "apocrypha" to tell me plot or themes, she's either failed to tell her story properly or maybe, just maybe, she succeeded - in telling the story she really wanted to write and not just the story that she'd like people to think she's writing.

When I first heard the "Dumbledore is gay" statement, I remember how skeptical I was because I felt that if it was important to Rowling that she'd have written it into the books and not revealed it in an interview. And that in fact she didn't really want a gay character in her book. She just wanted the credit of claiming that she had one.

IMO, everything about her attitude towards Dumbledore/Grindelwald in these movies was predictable as far back as 2007. 

Edited by ursula
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/27/2019 at 9:43 PM, ursula said:

This.

There's nothing in the books about Dumbledore being gay. We have an expose written by a reporter out to get him, that waxes at length about his friendship with Grindelwald and the scandal of his family... and not once does this expose even hint at Dumbledore being romantically or sexually involved with Grindelwald. This in the same book that Rowling takes pains to reveal that Snape was in love with Lily. In the same series that hints that Aberford Dumbledore was into bestiary. Yet somehow Skeeter missed the scoop of the century.  

I actually came here from a discussion on another forum that's, in a nutshell, Word of God vs The Author is Dead. And my opinion was more on the latter: Author interviews can provide interesting tidbits but everything that is important to the Author is in the story. And if the Author needs "apocrypha" to tell me plot or themes, she's either failed to tell her story properly or maybe, just maybe, she succeeded - in telling the story she really wanted to write and not just the story that she'd like people to think she's writing.

When I first heard the "Dumbledore is gay" statement, I remember how skeptical I was because I felt that if it was important to Rowling that she'd have written it into the books and not revealed it in an interview. And that in fact she didn't really want a gay character in her book. She just wanted the credit of claiming that she had one.

IMO, everything about her attitude towards Dumbledore/Grindelwald in these movies was predictable as far back as 2007. 

The first time I read Deathly Hallows, I did think there were broad hints both about Dumbledore beng gay (the wording of the Doge obituary implies a certain intimacy, plus Rita Skeeter outright calls Albus' interest in Harry "unnatural" and all but suggests it was Harry's real reason for pushing him from the tower), and that he shared more than just a friendship with Grindelwald. Still, those were just impressions that could have easily been wrong.

In 2007 I was slightly more forgiving with how Rowling handled the idea of gay characters. Yes, by then other YA fantasy authors had started having LBGTQ characters but none of those stories had the reach of something like Potter. With a confirmed gay character in a children's series, maybe the books/movies get banned in certain countries and not just like how it is in America, where are some school libraries banned the books, but they're pretty easily available, but actually outlawed, with kids going to jail to be caught with them. Of course, the series being potentially banned in places would hurt her bottom line, too, which everyone advising her is probably in her ear about, because they get a cut of whatever she makes. So, my view circa 2007 was that in some ways she was more constrained about how she could depict LGBTQ topics compared to some writer who didn't have a publishing/movie/budding theme park empire on the line.

I also think large swaths of the HP fandom were just not ready for a canonical gay character in 2007 (or even the idea of straight characters having sex outside of marriage). For all the dirty fanfiction this series has inspired, a lot of its fans were very resistant to the idea of romance in the series on any level, even wishing the heterosexual pairings had been minimized. Personally, I would have loved it if she'd gone there in DH itself and the pearl clutchers had just had to deal with it, but we can't have everything.

I think if the Fantastic Beasts series were books first, a definitive confirmation of a D/G relationship would probably be able to make it in the text without being as big of a controversy as it would have 12 years ago, at least in the Western world. Hollywood movies are probably the least progressive of all when it comes to mainstream entertainment, so the studio adapting a (hypothetical) FB book would still probably push to cut the references if they could.

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The first time I read Deathly Hallows, I did think there were broad hints both about Dumbledore beng gay (the wording of the Doge obituary implies a certain intimacy, plus Rita Skeeter outright calls Albus' interest in Harry "unnatural" and all but suggests it was Harry's real reason for pushing him from the tower), and that he shared more than just a friendship with Grindelwald. Still, those were just impressions that could have easily been wrong. 

Agreed. The first time I read Deathly Hallows, I definitely thought Rowling had intentionally written some pretty heavy Dumbledore/Grindelwald subtext in--but also thought she had intentionally left it vague enough to be missed by many (perhaps most) readers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dejana said:

The first time I read Deathly Hallows, I did think there were broad hints both about Dumbledore beng gay (the wording of the Doge obituary implies a certain intimacy, plus Rita Skeeter outright calls Albus' interest in Harry "unnatural" and all but suggests it was Harry's real reason for pushing him from the tower), and that he shared more than just a friendship with Grindelwald. Still, those were just impressions that could have easily been wrong.

That's not Rita implying Dumbledore is gay, it's her implying that he's a paedophile. There's nothing remarkable about Rowling being comfortable depicting perversions like paedophilia and bestiliaty. I don't think she was  trying to claim that one thing implied the other because that's seriously problematic. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ursula said:

That's not Rita implying Dumbledore is gay, it's her implying that he's a paedophile. There's nothing remarkable about Rowling being comfortable depicting perversions like paedophilia and bestiliaty. I don't think she was  trying to claim that one thing implied the other because that's seriously problematic. 

It's not like the series is a stranger to problematic sexual politics that can't be dismissed by framing them as solely the POV of a horrible person like Rita Skeeter (such as Umbridge and the centaurs). The wizarding world is very old fashioned (as much as JKR tries to claim that's not what she wrote) and a place where attitudes that one thing implies the other would probably flourish.  The chapter goes from Doge discussing his "mutual attraction" with Dumbledrore to the Skeeter article hinting at pedophilia, which of course is not the same thing as being gay, but I thought the juxtaposition of these two things in the story was probably not accidental on Rowling's part.

Edited by Dejana

Share this post


Link to post

36 minutes ago, Dejana said:

The chapter goes from Doge discussing his "mutual attraction" with Dumbledrore to the Skeeter article hinting at pedophilia, which of course is not the same thing as being gay, but I thought the juxtaposition of these two things in the story was probably not accidental on Rowling's part.

Well I hope not because that's worse than her obfuscating Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the books. 

Share this post


Link to post

That was my thought as well.  While I actually ended up not minding Depp's take on the role, Colin Farrell was one of the best parts of the first film, and I would be down with him being Grindelwald again.  It's not like they couldn't find some random excuse to make it work.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

On 4/29/2019 at 3:41 PM, GaT said:

I still haven't seen the 2nd one, I don't suppose they're getting rid of Johnny Depp for the 3rd?

Well not the way you thought it would but apparently yes lol. Sorry Just couldn't not reply to this old post.

I am curious who they are going to get to replace him and when they will start filming (again?)

Edited by blueray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Colin Farrell coming back would be great...but Christoph Waltz is Austrian like Grindelwald is supposed to be. Just saying...

Also voting for Christoph Waltz.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, thuganomics85 said:

Per Deadline, it looks like Mads Mikkelsen is actually the current main contender for the role.  That would definitely work for me!  Just need to find a way to get Hugh Dancy in there as well!

Upgrade!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

honestly I'm not mad at this. Allegations aside, Johnny Depp never really worked for me as Grindelwald. I remember being actively disappointed that he replaced Colin Farrell at the end of the first film. If they can't get Colin back, Mads has slightly menacing psycho with homoerotic undertones down pat, so he'd be great lol. Christoph Waltz would be interesting but I think he might be too old to be believable as Jude Law's contemporary.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Looks like it's official:  Mads Mikkelsen is the new Grindelwald!

I wonder if they'll change how Grindelwald looks? Johnny Depp created his look, & it's a typical JD "weird" look.

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, GaT said:

I wonder if they'll change how Grindelwald looks? Johnny Depp created his look, & it's a typical JD "weird" look.

I'm pretty sure they'll still have him be blond. And people like Tonks change their appearances all the time in the wizarding world, so whatever changes they make will work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2020 at 2:49 AM, GaT said:

I wonder if they'll change how Grindelwald looks? Johnny Depp created his look, & it's a typical JD "weird" look.

I wonder about that too. I don't mind the blond hair and different colored eyes, but don't want an exact replica of Depp's look. This might be easier to pull off if there's a significant time jump, since styles naturally change over time. However, there were some massive changes to the costuming/styling within the original series (e.g., Prof. Flitwick) and it was never mentioned in-story, so I wouldn't mind if they went that route. It would be totally fine if none of the characters ever commented on how different Grindelwald looked moving forward.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2020 at 2:49 AM, GaT said:

I wonder if they'll change how Grindelwald looks? Johnny Depp created his look, & it's a typical JD "weird" look.

I don't see why not. Dumbledore's look was changed when Michael Gambon took over for Richard Harris. I mean, sure, it wasn't a huge change but it was noticeable.

Besides, Mads has that kind of face that you really don't need to do anything. He just changes his expression and he goes from enticing to menacing. That's why his Hannibal was so great. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/27/2018 at 1:30 PM, benteen said:

I blame JK Rowling for her diminishing writing skills.  I blame Warner Brothers for deciding to make five movies out of this series.

I don't think it's diminishing writing skills. Writing a screenplay and writing a novel are two different skill sets. Not everyone can both. Some painters are fantastic at landscapes, but could not be able to paint a wonderful portrait. It's two different types of art. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size