Albus Dumbledore went gay and killed his sister for this thing?

Albus Dumbledore went gay and killed his sister for this thing?

The REVELIO spell came out of nowhere too.

he looks like David Lynch

eh I guess

This movie fucking sucked.

Redmayne was shit.

Depp ruined Farrell's character in 5 seconds.

Premise was weak

>Albus Dumbledore went gay and killed his sister for this thing?
No he went gay and killed his sister for this twink on the left. I don't know what happened in between to turn him into Johnny Depp, apparently being an evil wizard ages you like shit.

Of course it does, it's the same deal with the sith.

Revelio was in the books. I think it was used by Sirius Black and Lupin to turn Wormtail back into a human.

Why are all the evil dudes gay?

you wouldn't?

Was getting caught part of his plan?

Goddamn, Voldemort was such a hot twink back in the day.

I thought the eyes were a Bowie reference, but this is good too

Is the guy on the left actually glancing at Voldemorts crotch?

from my point of view, the gays are evil

Was anyone else not surprised about this 'twist'?

The moment Farrell showed up and all you see is the back of his head with the same haircut; immediately I thought "That's grindelwald".

Movie was okay. Had fun with it.
It came out of no where cause we don't know how Redmayne is related to Grindwald yet. Sequels will explain things.

>yfw Voldemort decided to kill all mudbloods because they kept pillaging his mouth and boipussy

Agreed

Yes, of course

>It came out of no where cause we don't know how Redmayne is related to Grindwald yet

This absolute madman is actually going to have Grindelwald rape Newt, isn't he?

I wish JKR wrote a book about Tom Riddle. It'd sell like hot pancakes.

>This movie fucking sucked.
>Agreed
It felt like I was watching the Harry Potter version of The Phantom Menace.

He was friends/schooltime sweethearts with a Lestrange.

They had a falling out, probably over support for Grindlewald. Newt tries to win her back from Grindlewald.

I'd prefer one about the Marauders, or hell even about Albus and Scorpius that isn't retarded plotwise.

>10 minutes into purging mudbloods and he gives you this look

>my fucking face when I found out who this smug bastard's rl father is

It could be tight as fuck. A series of books following his discovery of the dark arts, and his growing power and all that. In one of the books it says that he could charm all the teachers apart from Dumbledore who always saw right through him.

Having this kid seek out new and more dangerous dark powers while having to avoid being caught by teachers/dumbledore could be kind of entertaining.

>needs moar quips, references and fanservice XD

stop being retarded. the movie was fine though the last third kept it from being great because yates.

I liked how it existed as a standalone and had no existing characters present. I wish more franchises would have the balls to do that.

this sounds terrible. voldemort was a really flat villain. grindelwald will be great as long as depp puts less mortdecai into his performance.

How does it feel to know you have shit taste?

the tom riddle in movie 2 was hotter than this sperg.

Well Harry's story was basically

"we're trying to uncover this years mystery...but we can't tell the teachers!"

And that sold like hotcakes.

having Riddles story be

"I'm learning secrets of magic that have been deemed dark or banned, and also collecting support from my schoolmates/protodeath eaters....but the teachers can't know!"

It'd be like Harry's story, but a dark cracked mirror version.

I'm not saying it could be stretched to a 7 novel series, but a book on Voldemorts rise to power could be interesting.

The lore behind the magic in Harry Potter is one of its appeals, but we don't get to see very much of the dark magic stuff. Not even the stuff that is legal, but frowned upon like in Knockturn Alley. I reckon it could be cool to explore that through the medium of Riddles rise to power.

>ywn have his pretty lips wrapped around your dick

why live

>Depp ruined Farrell's character in 5 seconds
Yep. Literally everyone who saw the movie feels that way.
It just means you're not a pedophile.

It's an "everyone's gay for Voldemort" episode

We can only hope

Grindelwald is on the right though. or did he go gay for himself?

How the fuck did you deduce THAT as his reasons for disliking it?

There was nothing good or worth defending in this movie

>being this butthurt about Dr Strange losing to a literal who in potterverse

kek

Jesus Christ Potter, he was responsible for the deaths of nearly everyone you ever loved. "but OMG his eyes were beautiful".

Dombledore IS the twink on the left.

I'm convinced Rolling meant for Harry to be gay but for whatever reason decided to pair him with that repulsive ginger goblin at the last second.

You've done nothing but make up the opinions of people who don't like this movie

I don't like quips or references or marvel shit

I also don't like fantastic beasts because it was a horrible waste of time

For like most of the movie I was thinking about how the name was about Fantastic Beasts and finding them and yet there was only some fantastic beasts and not really any of the finding because it was finding them in the city and not in their natural environment.

I was looking for an adventure movie in the magical world of Potter but instead we got this introduction into what's obviously going to be a shit ton of new movies involving Grindelwald

So i was waiting to use the pay phone in froggy london town. And the guy who was on the phone turns around and tips his wand like 'this'.

And who do you think that guy was? Collin Farrell.

And i was like, REVEALIOOOOO

>Dumbledore wearing clothes similar to Newt's
>Dumbledore was also a ginger

what do they mean by this?

>REEEEEE IM NOT WHAT YOU THINK I AM REEEEE

k-kek, you're killing me user

>he's looking at the back of his hand and not the CG creature

it was a puppet, you can see it in the behind the scenes vid.

Was Redmayne specifically told to act autistic or is it his go to move for characters he cant understand?

>REVELIO
I literally walked out of the theater

Why couldn't Voldemort have looked like this for the entire series? It would have been perfect, he bought himself youth and beauty but sold his soul. Instead we get an ugly, unintimidating joke of a villain.

>go to move for characters he cant understand

It's his move to each and every character he plays.

JKR told Redmayne that newt acts like a 4channer and we all know how meticulous Redmayne is with research. I think you really helped him out with his role, user.

I believe it's because he looked too much like his muggle father for whom he had nothing but hate.

i dont remember anyone wondering if hawking was autistic while watching ToE.

...

Screencap this, I'm calling it right now:

>Grindelwald holds the elder wand
>Newt defeats Grindelwald with the swooping evil
>the elder wand, by canon law, should now answer to Newt
>this is how they defeat Grindelwald in the 5th movie, the elder wand won't obey him
>but Dumbledore never fought and defeated Newt so the elder wand can't answer to him
>which makes no sense since in HP Dumbledore is the master of the elder wand
>therefore, we must conclude that Newt is Dumbledore

Bravo Rowling.

Beasts is the perfect example of the modern Hollywood movie. It casts the hit Hollywood star of the minute and it's loosely connected to a wildly successful franchise. This movie was made for the sole purpose of making money. There is no other reason. Rowling, Yates, the actors, everyone... all in it for the money.

It's easy to imagine the pre-production meetings... You know, that cute tree in Guardians of the Galaxy was really popular among audiences, let's have one of those. And people really liked that dive bar with lots of goofy creatures and fun music in Star Wars, let's have one of those too. It's frustrating when I hear people call this film imaginative. There's a reason all the fantastic beasts look so cute. Because toys.

Yet again we see Eddie Redmayne overact, taking the role of "autistic British wizard" to a level not needed. There was no chemistry between any of the actors, which made for awkward moments throughout the whole 2+ hours runtime. The relationship between Colin Ferrell and Ezra Miller especially seems unintentionally predatory.

There are two completely separate plots that are sloppily connected. One of the plots is pushed so hard and is used only to create a franchise of this thing. If they focused on only the fantastic beasts instead of the bizarre possessed horror aspect with a cheap twist, the film might not have been half bad.

In the end, yet again, almost a whole city gets destroyed in the climax. By now it is beyond tiring and by my count that is how FOUR big budget movies have ended in 2016. And by what, a fucking dark cloud. The whole film, each and every scene, is predictable, features terrible CGI, obvious blue screen, lifeless sound stages, and is riddled with plot holes

>Redmayne goes on Sup Forums
>reads every single post about anons wanting to rape him, claiming he whores himself out for Oscars, commenting on his dick sucking lips and freckly asshole

I wonder how he reacted.

>If they focused on only the fantastic beasts instead of the bizarre possessed horror aspect with a cheap twist, the film might not have been half bad.
This.

I wanted to see fantastic beasts and where to find them. I don't think I saw either. Maybe just a little bit of a fantastic beast with the bird in the end.

He wasn't autistic, just to intelligent too walk.

There's that haircut again

The point is, Newt just uses it on Graves without so much as ever expressing a hint of suspicion that Graves is Grindelwald.

man you fucking wish that Sup Forums autism meant you were a skittish but charming goofball.

The only act of true autism on Newt's part was being too dumb to kiss the girl.

dumb complaints like these are why we keep getting marvel movies.

Are you serious? you wouldn't be suspicious that a top auror sentences you to death all of a sudden? that he's curious about the evil wisp in your case? that he starts being able to fend off 20 aurors out of nowhere?

you wouldnt think thats fishy?

>charming
i think redmayne did a great job in making him not charming. he wasnt le quirky, he was legitimately putting off everyone he met because of his sperging. theres a reason graves sentenced him to death within a minute of talking to him.

Let me list the symptoms of autism that Newt exhibits:
>doesn't make eye contact
>the way he speaks is just slightly "off"
>obsessed with one thing and one thing only (animals)
>doesn't like humans and finds interacting with them stressful
>has no filter, says and does impolite or offensive things without meaning to
>has a full-on meltdown at MACUSA (when he screams "don't hurt muh animals" like 3 times over)

Autism is a mental condition with a wide variety of manifestations, not just being awkward around girls.

>These stories seem to be popular because they're fairy tales about joining the managerial elite: The heroes are born special, go to a secret school, are largely white with some sprinkling of vibrancy for bragging purposes, represent an elite that seems to run the world but doesn't have to have contact with regular people. After seeing this movie, I think there's another layer of narcissism at work. The main story here, like in the Harry Potter movies and books, has to do with wizards threatening regular people. But just like in the Harry Potter stories, none of the heroes really cares about the people they're supposedly protecting. Regular people are a cudgel for one group of characters to use against another group. The bad guys want to outright rule the normies or wipe them out or whatever, the good guys want to (I guess) control things from behind the scenes and let the normies have an illusion of control over their own lives. Even the good guys are condescending and dishonest toward people they basically see as fungible--once again, ideal managerial material. Not to mention that the normie world is seen as so unsophisticated that a bunch of fags can destroy a city then walk around and fix everything with wands while making everybody forget it all happened

>This movie brought all that into focus because it takes place in the past but nothing has changed--the wizards are still the same, the normies are still the same, the argument about how the powerful people treat the weak ones is the same. What's even more strikingly obvious here, because the characters are much more a part of the everyday world than in Harry Potter, is that the only thing that matters about normies is how they feel about wizards. If they're indifferent or vaguely supportive, they're great. If they're nice but find out too much about how the world really works, they're just as much of a threat as normies who are outright antagonistic. Meanwhile, the magickal guys are shown as more egalitarian than the normie world (look at all those black and yellow wizards) without facing any of the real-world questions that come with egalitarianism. The Google Doodle worldview.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much buggery was going on at Hogwart's per house?

>Teenagers sharing sleeping quarters
10

>4channer

Prison sexuality with added puberty. No wonder Eton and Harrow are famous for it.

See
Fucking tea parties, man

I wasn't talking about actual autism, I was refuting that user's idea that Newt acts "like a 4channer".

4 hours and the pasta hasn't been posted. Disappointing.

>Slytherin: 10
Buggery was seen as the ultimate show of dominance, and a rite of passage used to "make a man" out of soft students. Gang rapes of first years were common in the bathrooms, but never in the common room or dormitories, since that was seen as an injury to the pride of the house.

>Gryffindor: 3
While most Gryffindors chose to pursue women, there were those that saw the act of pleasuring one another as the ultimate show of camaraderie and deep brotherly love. Couples would spend long evenings by the lake, making each other orgasm again and again.

>Ravenclaw: 4
Most Ravenclaws were too busy with the pursuit of knowledge to be concerned with such things. However, some would seek knowledge of the carnal kind. Encounters would usually happen only once in a secluded area of Hogwarts, the participants having satisfied their curiosity.

>Hufflepuff: 8
Hufflepuff was a sexually liberated house, with casual encounters being more common than long-term romantic involvement. About once a year, an orgy would spontaneously start in the common room, in which buggery would take place due to a sheer disregard for gender.

I spent 5 years at my area's equivalent of Eton. Can confirm that it's all true. Even the teachers were fucking.

>There's a shitton of potions and spells which can change your appearance
>It isn't obligatory for everyone to have a Revelio check before entering the premise

How can wizards be smart enough to make all kinds of amazing spells, but too stupid to have common sense

Of course the teachers are fucking. Teaching at a boarding school is a living hell. It's that or a drug habit. Or both.

78 replies and no sight of the copypasta

>watch this movie without having read the book because my friend was crazy hyped for it
>have no idea what half the shit happening even is

it was the 20s

The school I'm talking about was in the news because of a case where seniors molested a first year and then took a shit on his face. Again, all the stories are true.

a-are you serious? the premise was as basic as they come

You do realise that the book is literally just a description of magical creatures, with Harry and Ron's doodles in it? There's no story to it whatsoever.

Also my 10 year old sister understood the movie just fine.

>but too stupid to have common sense

Because they are too arrogant to think practically.

where's dullest franchise?

I fucking kekd loudly

Why do I love this shitty movie?

in our hearts, some things go beyond posts

Daily reminder that Rowling is a hack and went and SJW'ed the series just for attention and relevancy. This is self evident when watching the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Rowling making an erotic gay novel about the wizarding world and romance with some pure eeeeevil mixed in there under a pseudonym would be one of the boldest moves ever done by an author.

This movie has the most outrageous IMDB score. It used to mean something. 8.5 my ass.

>5 hours late
>no Atlas Shrugged
What a trainwreck

Excellent

>Slughorn ravaged all those boipuccies in canon

Minus Tom since he was turned off by the creepy questions on horcruxes.

I was never attracted to Tom before, but now I want to destroy his virginal boipucci. Thanks user.

That entire segment taking fatso on a tour of his briefcase menagerie was the fucking worst. Pure filler that didn't even try to add anything to the plot.

>didn't even try to add anything to the plot.
But that's where we saw most of the fantastic beasts.

JK rowling doesn't have the chops to pull off writing a psychopathic racist as a main character.