Johnny Depp

Is he gonna make it?

probably

He's turning into Mickey Rourke.

oh shit he is

JUST

looks like Sam Hyde

thats still better than turning into Brendan Fraser

...

He's bloated and slow from drinking, amongst other things.

I was terrified to watch one of his latest interviews.

BRAH LOOK AT THIS DUDE

Why was he cast as Grindelwald? I can't fap to the idea of this bloated fuck raping Eddie Redayne's character.

Kill yourself faggot

Why did they make grindelwald ugly?

Wanting to spill your seed deep in cute newt's tight virginal insides is absolutely not gay, user.

im hoping he and brad recover from these divorces and just go ham making kino after kino. Hope they all dont end up like brandon fraiser.

>he doesn't want to fuck men

get a load of this faggot

>Eddie Redmayne
Is there a bigger example of an actor whose sole purpose is obviously "suppprting character" but is being touted as "leading man"

He was the leading man, you tard.

I can. just imagine it as orcporn, user. the uglier that depp looks, the more eddie will cry. and it will be glorious.

I don't think you understood my post. He's been recently cast as a leading man but is actuality of suppprting actor quality.

>but is being touted as "leading man"

You mean leading lady?

>recently
>literally singlehandedly carried 3 films 3 years in a row

kill yourself

You make a fair point, user.

Imagine how terrified Newt would be, being an autist who dislikes physical contact and prefers animals to people. I bet he'll quite literally piss himself. And then he'll pass out from the shock and Grindelwald will finish inside his limp, pliant body. Just imagine.

do you think little reddie will go full method and marry depp first so he'll know what its like to be battered and sexually abused?

Except he was good in Theory of Everything. It's also refreshing to have an autistic main character in a franchise.

Theory of Everything is essentially a hallmark channel movie that made 100 mil solely due to his spectacular performance. Pick your targets better.

>Three years
Yes? That's recent isn't it?
He's a weak leading man, and hardly carried those films. Very surprised he snagged that oscar. Also, there's no need to be rude user.

>hardly carried those films
>took up majority of the screentime in all of them, was the sole main character
>nominated for back to back oscars, only lost the second time because leo became a meme

really?

You're a pleb.

lone ranger was kino

Grindelwald would probably be absolutely brutal to Newt out of jealousy that Dumbledore liked him so much. I imagine he'd go in dry and spit in Newt's mouth and call him all kinds of degrading names.

You can take up all the screen time you want, but that doesn't make you a strong or engaging actor.

>but that doesn't make you a strong or engaging actor

Many do find him engaging though. Hence why he keeps getting leading roles.

No, it's middlebrow shit - the disabled guy biopic is the ultmate cliched Oscar bait template - that made the money that it was designed to.

Most glaringly obvious Oscar bait end up not winning shit, so that argument is flawed.

He didn't carry them because he didn't lift them, we're just looking at him or the insides of our eyelids.

Johnny Depp or Mickey Rourke?

No, they usually end up winning, because there are no serious dramas being made by Hollywood anymore except the tiny number made only so they can be sent for Oscars. It's like a weird cargo cult version of classical Hollywood, repeating behaviors from sixty years ago as though they still had some organic cultural meaning, when they don't.

>this whole post

hes gonna make it back big, his eyes gonna get all puffy and his skin gonna get all tight like a big sossage, and he's gonna get lizardy pallor and then he's gonna spew creosote like farley

>No, they usually end up winning

No, they don't.

How shit will the new pirates be?
That's probably his make or break now

>The sequence of the wand is an idea that I had with Depp in the morning before shooting it, but I've been in a way horrible to Eddie because I didn't tell him what was going on because I wanted his reaction as a man, not as an actor.

>I wanted him to react as he felt humiliated if it goes on and he shouts 'no no'. And I think that he hated me and also Depp because we didn't tell him that there was that detail of the wand used as a sex toy. And I still feel very guilty for that.

>I feel guilty but I do not regret. You know to make movies is sometimes to obtain something that we have to be completely free. I didn't want Eddie to act his humiliation, his rage. I wanted him to feel, not to act the rage and the humiliation.

Fantastic Beasts Part 2 will be kino.

Yes they fucking do, read some basic data, all those films go home with something now there's so few of them.

>I didn't want Eddie to act his humiliation, his rage

I get this is pasta, but I feel like Redmayne would just lie back and take it. He gives off mad submissive vibes.

it's a reference to that movie where Marlong Brando rapes a chick with butter, nig

He's beginning to look like the fat, unsanitary bitches who went to see Fantastic Beasts. Fantastic Hambeasts, they were.

He marred her with his length.

In all seriousness, she could barely act, that woman. She was a whore who knew how not to look into the camera. Then she gets remorse and builds her part in film history with pointless after-the-fact whinging. She wasn't traumatized, she was a cokehead.

Exactly which is what confuses me about him. He's perfectly functional in a supporting role. He may owe the success to acting in movies essentially almost "too big to fail"; where the story and setting can help him. But Fantastic Beasts was glaring example of what kind of actor he truly is. Colin Firth was more engaging than him.

>Grindelwald plots to get revenge on Newt
>decides to kidnap Newt and keep him as a sex slave since he's a degenerate faggot and Newt is a delicious twink
>uses him as collateral to get Dumbledore to fight him
>Dumbledore somehow saves Newt
>Newt's so mindbroken by all the hard dickings and gang rapes that he can't be of any use and this is why Yates implied he won't be the main character for the whole series

MOTY

>Farell
wrong brit

>But Fantastic Beasts was glaring example of what kind of actor he truly is

He was playing an autistic and awkward introvert, there's only so much that can be done there. I found it impressive that he was somehow endearing despite being so, well, autistic.

he was also a zillion times more engaging than harry

Depp is worth 400 million $. I think he'll be fine.

I'm not so sure about the people posting in this thread.

Yeah much like an endearing sidekick to the American sidekick. You could actually argue that Newt wasn't even the main character of the movie, since they only made him pivitol character wise in the final sequence. He's not a bad actor by any means, though I did make it sound that way. He's just a weak lead. When I watched Theory and Danish Girl, I got the sense he's simply out of his scope.

Depp started looking horrible after he got his wisdom teeth removed

Yep nothing to do with the years of drug and alcohol abuse, the divorce and the fact he's piled on a lot of weight, It's the wisdom teeth that did it

>why make the main character subversive when we can just have the same old kind of cliche protagonists?

Seriously?

more like wizard teeth amirite?

Huh? I didn't imply that all main characters should be the same. You can have a protagnist who is non-typical and subversive like Dainel Plainview TWBB and yet, while he could fade in the backdrop of setting/story, he's acted strongly enough to be engaging. Maybe Redmayne hasn't found his perfect leading role yet, for now he's, touted around, like a few other new actors are these days, as being capable of heading his movies even though he plays the same side character quality in all of them.

You keep mentioning this side character quality yet you can't seem to elaborate on exactly what it is. Is this an opposite 'je ne sais quoi' thing or what? Because I find Redmayne plenty engaging. He makes his characters as raw as possible, by bringing out both the good and bad humanity in them. If you notice, all his characters are very flawed. Hawking was a genius/cheater, Lili was an obsessive trans person who didn't know when to quit. Newt is a misanthropic autist. He even turned Marius into a character i dont want to murder, for fuck's sake.

>while he could fade in the backdrop of setting/story, he's acted strongly enough to be engaging

Well I found Newt plenty engaging, particularly since he's one of the few examples of a non-exaggerated, relateable, and generally positive portrayal of someone on the autism spectrum. Sounds like this is just a matter of opinions.

By "side character" I mean since his high profile start in Les Mis, that he's never quite shaken off his "there-but-not-really there" quality. Suddenly, he's pushed from supporting to leading and it shows since he's reserved in recent his roles, maybe even unsure. He has some skill, but he can't seem to really own his role, making him dull as a lead but excell in a suppprting function. I could concede that he hasn't been tested yet, and may have the potentinal. Daniel Radcliff is the same, now thinking on it.

I guess it must be a difference of opinion. I had thought a lot of people felt the same way about him.

I think you're the only person who feels this way about him. He plays reserved characters. It's called subtlety.

your statement about Colin Farrell has me thinking you just like "bad-ass" characters, user. You find characters interesting when you want to be like them. But Eddie doesn't choose those roles. He plays characters that are often morally gray. They're not flashy, but they're definitely layered and far more realistic.

Haha, why would you take just one example I listed and surmise, on a whole, what sort of characters I personally like? It shows you're a quote bit upset I don't like your favorite actor.

Again, his acting is the problem. Not the types of characters, not how they are written. A good actor makes them engaging, but he doesn't, for now, fot the bill. I didn't think this idea would be so dofficult to get across.

Oh wow this is best observation

>Sister and her friend groan when he appeared in Fantastic Beasts
>I know exactly why but press the issue anyway
>Of course she think he beat his wife

Why do we have such a guilty until proven innocent mentality?

4u

Look at IMDB - he has at least 4 huge movies coming out in 2017 and 3 in 2018 as of right now. Sure they're all mainstream shit, but he's making a ton of money. My hope is that he Brandos a bit and gets back into more serious roles.

The Trump curse is gonna hit him hard. Or did the divorce fuck him up already?

>Brandos a bit
but there's no coming back from Brando tier ;_;