message 1:
by
Tamaraa1903
(new)
Nov 23, 2017 05:41AM

reply
|
flag






message 12:
by
Amy (won't be online for a while. sorry to all the groups i'm in!)
(new)


Completely agree.




The first movie was amazing and at the end I was shock to see Depp as such a main character and after all the criticism you are still letting him stay? Come on J.K! You don't need this kind of bad rep. Take him off!!!!

Yesss. I'm so sad that a series of books that helped me growing up and developing as a person is supporting this kind of behaviour! And yes, I know authors don't cast movie actors, but c'mon guys, it's J. K. Rowling we're talking about, if even Cassie Clare helped casting for the shitty Shadowhunters show, I'm guessing J.K. would have some kind of voice in these franchise... very disapointed =/// #magicinrecess



First one blew me away. I went in cautious as I don't like the Harry Potter movies from 3 onwards, and I was reeaaaally impressed. I loved it. Watch it however you can!



message 35:
by
Amy (won't be online for a while. sorry to all the groups i'm in!)
(new)

Colin Farrell does not play Grindelwald; he plays Percival Graves, who was impersonated by Grindelwald.
I hope Percival Graves is alive though because I definitely want to see more Colin Farrell.


Sorry I disagree. In the statement they made they said that no one false statements... to me that means an admission of guilt to not prolong things to the courts. I've seen the video and he does have a history of spurts of rage.
Also this innocent until proven guilty thing never seems to extend to the victims. They are automatically assumed liars. I believe her. It is your freedom to like Depp as it is mine to dislike him. It has nothing to do with the fandom. Just because he is in a Harry Potter movie doesn't mean he needs everyone's automatic support.
I will see the movie but wait until I can do so for free.


I mean, I'm gonna speak hypothetically here because I don't want to get into the argument of whether or not he's guilty, but yes, I'd much rather wait a year (or two, or three! as many as it takes!) for a movie to re-shoot than see an abusive person suffer no consequences for their actions and continue on with their life as though it didn't happen. At the end of the day, it's going to make no significant difference to me whether a movie is released now or a year from now. But it will have an impact on the abuser if people stop giving him or her jobs (at least until they've taken responsibility, done their time and/or gone through rehab, and shown remorse for their actions). I know that at this point most studios wouldn't take the financial hit, which is unfortunate, that money matters more than people, but purely in terms of whether or not I, as an audience member, would rather wait? It's a resounding yes.