FANTASTIC BEASTS 3 IS ROTTEN

The first movie was barely about the animals in the first place and Newt had already written the book. It was always a Grindelwald movie

>Over on the dark side, Mikkelsen provides the Voldemort-level evil personality the “Beasts” movies have been lacking. While Depp’s take – essentially playing Grindelwald as a wild-haired freaky cult leader – was fine, Mikkelsen’s feels more dangerous, as he wields a public charm as crowd-pleasing, manipulative man of the people while hiding his inherent ruthless cruelty. (The allusions to real-life political figures are not subtle, nor is using 1930s Germany as a locale for a genocidal would-be leader’s shenanigans.)
uhh based?

I don't know how anyone could take Depp's Grindelwald seriously in the 2nd movie.

the 'secret' is that dumby packs fudge

To be fair, Dumbledore is the kind of faggot I can tolerate. You don't know he's a faggot because he's not constantly yelling it out to the world

he said it calmly

He was already gay in the original movies.

Name one scene cock muncher.

He was shit in this role and looked cringe. Madds will be much better.

There was a second movie?

>t.notorious terf JK Rowling

how often do rt critics actually agree with audience rating though

don't fucking care, that's how they keep pushing the line. If you're lgbt you're a mentally ill subhuman.

seems like lots of people complaining Mads was too evil and Hitler-like

isn't that the point of the character

Attached: hryn.jpg (125x93, 2.53K)

>Dumbledore is the kind of faggot I can tolerate. You don't know he's a faggot because he's not constantly yelling it out to the world
That's because dumbledore was straight until rowling turned him into a faggot for virtue points.

>the third film in a franchise of nothing but bad films is bad
WOAH CONSIDER MY EXPECTATIONS SUBVERTED

Looks like someone has never watched the Thor trilogy

>keemstar is in pottter

It was supposed to be the point of Voldemort but Rowling can only really write one kind of villain. What really pisses them off is Dumbledore sucking cock and eating cum and getting fucked in the ass and rimming wizard Hitler wasn’t part of the shipper’s flight plan, dude was supposed to be evil but not too evil

The first one was alright then they dropped any pretense of this being about anything but Dumbledore and grindelwald. I wish we got a series about wizard Steve Irwin exploring the world and having adventures instead of newt becoming second banana in his own franchise

So he's just playing Hannibal again? based

The first movie literally started with a shot of Grindelwald killing people, when was it ever hidden that it was going to be about them?

It was the post credit scene from Rowling about how trannies will never be real women that did it.

Homophobic chuds
Gay rights are human r-ACK!

Attached: 1638314121989.png (742x719, 490.51K)

Madds is a hack, Farrell is the better Grindewald

You didnt know? Its problematic to make the gay character wizard Hitler

Mads = instant Kino
Simple as

Attached: 1648937582532.jpg (700x444, 90.08K)

>dumbledore was straight
Never was he ever stated to have an attraction to women or anyone at all for that matter. He was more like an asexual

Imagine unironically typing this. Tumblr was a mistake.

>Imagine unironically typing this. Tumblr was a mistake.

Attached: 1619957501630.gif (498x468, 93.79K)

There is nothing Tumblr about asexuality. It's literally just not being attracted to anyone

Well yeah. I enjoyed the first one enough, but the second was an absolute dumpster fire. Who could possibly give a shit about the Grindelwald nonsense after that mess?

According to the reviews they actually focus on the beasts more this time

>RT score shows share of reviewers who likes a movie
>41% didn’t like it

Hmmm…

The fact that you think there's a need to state that a man is attracted to women is peak tumblr

Crimes of Grindelwald was the lowest grossing in the entire franchise
Sure 650 millions is still a fuckton of money, but if it keeps dropping they won't make part 4 and 5
Or maybe they'll release it straight to streaming

This
I was super upset they threw him away for cringey depp
Shoulda been Farrel through and through

That was never going to be the plan because Farrell and Depp were playing two totally different characters

How many actors has Grindelwald had?
5 fucking different actors for the same guy, come on this is ridiculous

Yes? Most male characters in the series are openly straight as they all have relationships with women. Even the incel Snape had a crush on a girl. Meanwhile we never heard anything about Dumbledore and any woman at all. Even Voldemort who is another incel at least has Nagini.

This is actually a huge problem with this series that the first film avoided
Newt is the wrong protagonist for this series
He was perfect for FB1, it was about him, it was his story, and he happened to be in the right place in the right time to interact with Credence and Grindelwald

Only two

Attached: 1629614637002.jpg (660x574, 30.86K)

>cock muncher
Nice projection. Dumbledore being gay is old news, retard.

a character doesn't require their sexuality explained. When it is blatant it is only done for retards like you to shout and cheer

5 actors but technically 4 since Farell doesn't count because he was playing a disguised character. 2 of them are young and old versions of Grindelwald

When an expose on Dumbledore's entire life is published and not once in his 100+ year old life is a woman mentioned, that is conspicuous

It's because they didn't remove JK Rowlings name from the credits.
Critics don't even watch the movies they review anymore.

I never said it has to be explained faggot. And I'm not gay. But when you add in the fact that not only Dumbledore never showed attraction to women in a series where most male characters had well established relationships with women, but he also wears very flamboyant clothes and has a suspicious relationship with another boy when he was young it all adds up. And Rowling even explicitly told the writer for the 6th movie to remove a line from the movie where Dumbledore talks about his crush on a girl because it didn't fit with his character

I thought the black girl was cute until I found out she was a williams

Homosexuality is a mental illness and "sexual orientation" aren't real. GTFO retarded amerimutts

Attached: 1622228077503.png (1048x1612, 564.56K)

>until I found out she was a williams
And why is that bad?

Imagine consuming any Harry Potter media outside of the flawless, complete, 7 book series. That's all you need, fuck the movies

>Yes? Most male characters in the series are openly straight as they all have relationships with women. Even the incel Snape had a crush on a girl. Meanwhile we never heard anything about Dumbledore and any woman at all. Even Voldemort who is another incel at least has Nagini.

Attached: 1615463342565.png (353x256, 139.88K)

>GRIMBLEBOP AND LE PERSNICKETY PERFUNGUS WIZARDING WORLD
I don't watch this fucking garbage because I'm not a manchild nor a woman. I will go to my grave despising trannies though.

>I'm not a manchild nor a woman.
That's not possible, you're on Yea Forums

Young Grindelwald, Old Grindelwald, American Grindelwald, Depp Grindelwald, Mads Gindelwald
It's still weird, and incredibly inconsistent
Remember this scene?
It's in 1937/1938
So this is what Dumbledore looks like in the the late 30s, and yet these movies will end in 1945, this third one is set in the 30s
And I don't get why they didn't just use Michael Gambon for Dumbledore instead of Jude Law

Attached: DLSDXLtW0AELCY2.jpg (720x480, 67.69K)

Gambon is 81 years old now. Dumbledore is supposed to be about 40-45 years in these movies. That would not make any sense at all. They probably will make Jude have a long beard and wear robes with the next film. This one is supposed to be set in 1932 so the next one would probably be set in 1937 or so.