Jump to content

JK Rowling announces Five 'Fantastic Beasts' films


AlpenglowMemories

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

I wonder what the odds of Orlando Bloom showing up for absolutely no reason are?

Well, Voldi was 20 when Dumbledore imprisoned Grindelwald, so Bloom may appear as Riddle in his youth :D 

Although he would be too old at the time... But we suppose all those dark arts had done something to Tom's complexion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm OK with this...in the sense that it's not really a problem.

But I've always felt that some universes are weirdly less extensible than others, and it's not like there's an easy formula to it.I dunno, maybe it's basically just a circular thing for me: some universes did it better so I consider their expanded universes more interesting. Nothing I skimmed about the additions to the HP world grab me.

To me the HP extended universe has never seemed that interesting,and this is coming from a guy that would devour everything I found about HP, down to fanfiction. Maybe it's cause the story is so tied up in Harry, or maybe it's cause I had problems with the worldbuilding when we saw outside the main narrative.

But...we'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Risto said:

Well, Voldi was 20 when Dumbledore imprisoned Grindelwald, so Bloom may appear as Riddle in his youth :D 

If Riddle is ever to make a cameo, Frank Dillane should reprise his role. I hate FTWD but I love Dillane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
16 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I like Law in "The Young Pope"... And when he has a good material, he can be great. Not sure what to think about this one, though. I thought they would choose someone a bit older. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Risto said:

I like Law in "The Young Pope"... And when he has a good material, he can be great. Not sure what to think about this one, though. I thought they would choose someone a bit older. 

Older? I would have thought the opposite since this is supposed to be set in the 20s/30s. Dumbledore would be pretty young then I assume

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Older? I would have thought the opposite since this is supposed to be set in the 20s/30s. Dumbledore would be pretty young then I assume

Well, Grindelwald and he are supposed to be the same age, right? So, if Depp is playing Grindelwald, I was expecting someone older to play Dumbledore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Risto said:

Well, Grindelwald and he are supposed to be the same age, right? So, if Depp is playing Grindelwald, I was expecting someone older to play Dumbledore.

Oh right. I tried to forget Depp was playing Grimdenwald. Makes sense from that perspective. Though really they both ought to be younger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Oh right. I tried to forget Depp was playing Grimdenwald. Makes sense from that perspective. Though really they both ought to be younger

Why younger? Dumbledore is born in 1881, that would make him in his forties (not sure when FB2 will take place, but the first one is in 1926, which makes Dumbledore 45). Jude Law is in his forties.

If anything, he's younger than the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Oh right. I tried to forget Depp was playing Grimdenwald. Makes sense from that perspective. Though really they both ought to be younger

Well, it comes down to the story being believable of Jude Law being a teacher to Eddie Redmayne. The difference between them is what 7,8 years. Less than 10, I presume. 

I hope that they will regret terribly having exchanged Farell with Depp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2016 at 4:04 AM, Mark Antony said:

Should all lead up to Dumbledore vs Grindewald which could be cool if handled well. 

I always thought that a Dumbledore prequel would be terrific.... just reading his backstory on wikipedia is intriguing .... the move to Godric's Hollow, his early anti-muggle bigotry, his sister's death, his love for Grindewald, Nicholas Flammel.... a ten episode netflix series would be gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2017 at 4:48 PM, Martini Sigil said:

I always thought that a Dumbledore prequel would be terrific.... just reading his backstory on wikipedia is intriguing .... the move to Godric's Hollow, his early anti-muggle bigotry, his sister's death, his love for Grindewald, Nicholas Flammel.... a ten episode netflix series would be gold.

That would be amazing! 

Sadly, I think we're rather in for a slew of underdeveloped films. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...still wish they'd kept Colin Farrell on somehow. Sigh. 

But I imagine Law could be rather good as the young(er) Dumbledore. He can do nice, and can do flamboyant, but there's always something quite cold in his eyes, and that's important too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Fantastic Beasts film title revealed: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Quote

According to Warner Bros., in the new film Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) has escaped custody and will be seen gathering followers to his nefarious cause. This next film will also see Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) enlisted by Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) to try and stop him.

first group photo of the central characters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've pretty much already convinced myself that Depp will be Batty Wizard Depp enough that I'll loathe the role. I can't remember if I've enjoyed him in anything in so long. 

I still really enjoyed the four leads in the original though, and I bet this will be a fun movie. I hope they manage (...-erie??) to keep some of the whimsical feel to the first one. I suppose the title alone rather requires some new, fun critters causing mild to serious trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/04/2017 at 7:39 AM, dog-days said:

...still wish they'd kept Colin Farrell on somehow. Sigh. 

But I imagine Law could be rather good as the young(er) Dumbledore. He can do nice, and can do flamboyant, but there's always something quite cold in his eyes, and that's important too. 

They could have just said he preferred his Farrel disguise. He'd certainly stand out less in the real world. It's just unfortunate everyone got sick of Depp's repetitive performances and heard about his private life after they cast him. Although some last minute recasting could have at least meant we weren't stuck with Depp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2017 at 8:38 AM, red snow said:

They could have just said he preferred his Farrel disguise. He'd certainly stand out less in the real world. It's just unfortunate everyone got sick of Depp's repetitive performances and heard about his private life after they cast him. Although some last minute recasting could have at least meant we weren't stuck with Depp.

They could still have recast him even after the first film came out - I think many people would have been quite to pretend that whatever actor they cast had played the role all along, it would hardly be unprecedented in Hollywood history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...