Posted on 11/24/2016 4:21:15 PM PST by brucedickinson
Fans hoping to get a glimpse of a young Albus Dumbledore will need to wait for the second movie, part of a five-part prequel series planned by Warner Bros. But although the older Dumbledore never revealed his sexual orientation in the books or films — it was the author herself who coaxed him out of the closet during a 2007 interview at Carnegie Hall — the younger incarnation of the character might be less private. “Well, I’m very comfortable with the question,” Rowling said to reporters when asked about a gay Dumbledore. “I would like to say because this is obviously a five-part story, there’s lots to unpack in that relationship.”
“You will see Dumbledore as a younger man and quite a troubled man,” Rowling added. “We’ll see him at that formative period of his life. As far as his sexuality is concerned,” she said taking a beat, “watch this space.”
(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...
“Gays and transgender people are less than 1% of the Earth’s population. “
No! No! Gays gotta be at least 25% of the population! /s
The Independence Day gay plot twist was an unnecessary distraction to the main story. It was overemphasized almost to a ludicrous degree. A more brief, more subtle display of interaction would have sufficed.
Not surprising that Johnny Depp would be part of this new movie. Depp has “straddled” both genders for years.
I recall seeing him in a black and white film called Glen or Glenda?. A bio about a crossdressing film director of the 1950’s.
I watch car shows(no gays!) cooking shows, and home shows. There’s one about people searching for international homes. At least half are homos!
“She is a liberal Christian.”
She is a liberal. Christians do not promote homosexuality. I give her a pass on the witchcraft because she made it look boring...and what Christian would send all their kids to boarding school?
Harry Potter, where the Ministry of Magic raises your kids in a school where the kids are frequently murdered!
Adding homosexuality ruined the Harry Potter story.
After Hermione ‘magically’ changed race to promote an agenda, nothing is a surprise. Potter’s wand is truly special, and since Ron is into black girls, Harry helped him out
Color me doubtful.
JK Rowling is no fool. She knows how money is made, and who gives it to her. This same line of crap was broadcast about the current movie, and there isn’t a hint of homosexuality in “Fantastic Beasts”. There is a bit of heterosexuality sexuality between the main stars.
Why would anyone sabotage their entire franchise for the temporary approval of a fringe minority with zero loyalty? Meanwhile whole generations are reading her books now, plus her movies and Universal’s parks are also adding nicely to her fortunes.
“Harry Potter” is a “Lord of the Rings” rip-off for boys in non-traditional families.
I believe the former children that devoured the original books might be the only ones seeing this movie.
I have decided to dispose of all my Harry Potter books. I once would have recommended them for kids, but no more.
“there isn’t a hint of homosexuality in “Fantastic Beasts””
Not sure about that, the creepy exploitative relationship between Credence and the older man (his name escapes me I wasn’t paying that much attention) clearly indicates an abusive relationship between a vulnerable adolescent youth and a grooming older man.
It struck me as very much a homosexual angle, although hardly favourable to gay people.
“Did anyone else see that queerness coming from beyond a mile away?”
It seems our gentle author did.
Have to agree. I'd be the first to pick up on messages or tones about that, and it's not there. After the fact, I suppose, you could say Colin Farrell's grown man character was a little too familiar with Ezra Miller's character but that could be written off as someone wanting access to the other's powers.
Rowling is a multi multi millionaire so if it's true she is sucking up to the gay movie promoters I don't understand why. She has enough money and has enough of a following to blow them off.
This movie had a very statist message and in the end celebrated the idea that one person would give up their individuality to serve the collective. The plotline was poorly developed, poorly structured and plodded along tediously. The leads were unattractive, uncharismatic and looked like they didn’t want to be there. Everyone should be advised not to see this misfire. The “beasts” actually had nothing to do with the plot of the movie. The only scenes worth seeing are the 4 or 5 scenes where the storyline stops cold in order to drop in a random chase scene with a “beast.”
Yes I want to be a wizard, but tell me again why I must hold your wand?
Years ago a priest gave a lecture and told us that Harry Potter was evil and not to let our kids read it. Some people laughed but he was right. J.K. Rowling wrote what seemed like a kids book but it’s actually propaganda. Making a beloved father figure like Dumbledore gay was a master stroke.
Harry Potter was marketed for children. What this J.K. Rowling is doing is child abuse and will thankfully kill any more of her stories being made into movies.
I always knew Johnny Depp was a freak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.