http://cdn1us.denofgeek.com/sites/de...rowsky-tau.jpg
http://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/fi...61918_copy.jpg
Alejandro Jodorowsky's son in a Harry Potter (ok, HP universe) movie.
[]
Mind=blown.
And Jessica Williams will appear too!!:rolleyes:
Printable View
http://cdn1us.denofgeek.com/sites/de...rowsky-tau.jpg
http://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/fi...61918_copy.jpg
Alejandro Jodorowsky's son in a Harry Potter (ok, HP universe) movie.
[]
Mind=blown.
And Jessica Williams will appear too!!:rolleyes:
Awesome for Brontis.
But I'd be interested in this if his father directed it. The first one was a frustrating slog.
Looks good to me.
Definitely much more interesting than any of the kids' movies. I liked the first one as well.
And in youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bYBOVWLNIs
Typically, as a final trailer, it shows an absolute torrent of footage. But there are a lot of lovely visuals in there. Hoping it's fun.
Weirdly excited by the quick shot of the mirror of Erised showing the young Grindle and Dumble and what the movie might do with their relationship and how it led to the men becoming who they are....tho let's be honest it's probably gonna be lightly suggestive rather than explicit about it all.
Poor Credence. Looking a bit incel-ish there. Needs a samurai sword and a poster of Ben Shapiro on the wall behind him and the picture is complete.
One of the things I liked best about the first movie was the simmering subtext (and sometimes just text) of abuse running through the film where Credence, his "mother" and Percival were concerned. Tied with the idea of repression causing internal and external damage vis-a-vis the obscurial, it served a nice little purpose in filling in the film's canvas. Hope they can continue to do some interesting things with that.
this movie still isn't out yet? I feel like I've seen trailers for it for a year
That's such bullshit.
The UK has gone waaaay too far to the left with social justice issues.
Amber Heard should be blacklisted, not Depp.
Um, no. The replies under AV Club article of when he loses the cases sums it up best (all from the same person that is replying to different threads, so some stuff overlap):
Quote:
Look, I hate the Sun as viscerally as you. But that doesn’t mean Depp should win a libel suit because the Sun published a matter of public record. This is a case where both plaintiff and defendant are completely vile, but in the matter that went before the court, it is clear that Depp had no business bringing this suit, and any other result would have been terrible for survivors of abuse since it would mean that newspapers would stop reporting intimate partner abuse even when it had demonstrably occurred, and arguably it would mean that even convicted abusers could sue their victims for speaking in public about their experiences.
Quote:
Because the court wasn’t asked to judge Heard. It was asked to assess whether the Sun committed a libel in calling Depp a wife-beater. And I hasten to add that it was Depp who insisted on taking this to court, knowing full well that he had in fact assaulted Heard and that it was a matter of public record.
Quote:
This is not a win for Heard except very indirectly. This decision says absolutely nothing about Heard’s behaviour. She was neither plaintiff nor defendant.It was Depp’s stupid decision to sue a newspaper for libel for printing a matter of public record. Yes the Sun is vile. Yes Heard has her own abusive baggage. But this case was 100% about Depp and his quixotic fixation on pursuing an unwinnable case in the jurisdiction most favourable to libel plaintiffs in the world.
When was him assaulting Heard on public record? If that's the case then apologies, but I've literally never seen or read that all.
Everything I've read about the bullshit between him and Heard is that he was/is an alcoholic and a huge dick, but she is the one guilty of physical abuse.
Yes, I understand. I am asking when and where was this irrefutable public proof that Depp is a wife beater?
Every bit of evidence i have seen and heard (statements from bodyguards of both Heard and Depp, audio recordings and transcripts of their fights, eyewitness testimonies from friends on both sides) have been - as I stated above - that Depp is a major asshole and a serious alcoholic, but the beatings were actually from Heard.
Don't get what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying.
Crappy franchise anyway. Recast everyone.
Except for Depp, I thought the casting was great. Definitely not the issue.
I haven't seen the second one, but I thought Redmayne was a wholly un-engaging lead. The character's just not dynamic or interesting enough to carry a big flashy movie and Redmayne himself is a middling talent. Also, replacing Ferrell with Depp was a huge mistake. Why couldn't Ferrell keep playing the character once he was revealed to be Grindelwald? Never made sense to me, plus Ferrell was one of the few bright spots in the movie. So let's use him as a diversion to bring in Depp? Dumb.
I like Redmayne and Newt exactly because they are so atypical as a male lead. Newt is softer, more thoughtful, more emotionally in tune, more observant, but still capable and talented at what he does and brave besides.
That being said, the second movie had many issues. Every single moment of that weird dead baby subplot absolutely crushed the momentum and was not at all interesting enough to me vis-a-vis the Potter universe. I kept thinking, "Who the fuck are all these people and why should I care about this?" Harsh, but there it is. Rest of the movie worked well enough.
Depp gets to keep his full salary for the film, so about 90% of my sympathy for him in this situation has gone down the toilet.