Jared Harris is a fantastic actor.

 

I didn't know I needed Jared Harris as Dumbledore, but turns out I do. Please let this happen. He was terrific as Lane Pryce in Mad Men and he's done a good mix of high brow work along with solid action movies, and has a versatility that I think is necessary to play a character like Dumbledore.

 

It would be a bit more accurate to say that she was adamant the cast be the same nationality as the characters.

Fleur's actress? French.
Viktor's actor? Bulgarian.
McGonagall's actress? Well... her mother was Scottish.
Luna's actress? Planet Lovegood.
Crabbe's actor? Fuckin' chav.
Goyle's actor? MMA fighter???

I seem to have lost the thread of this post.

...

Neat.

 

How old would Dumbledore be? Someone said he'd be in his 50's? Realistically would he still even be a redhead? Similarly I don't think there'd be as much tension between Dumbledore and Gellert, no? Friendship would be disconnected after so long without even mentioning opposite sides. Hopefully the actors would be able to capitalize on all that.

 

Going by his revised date of birth, he'd be about 40. That's not that old, especially considering a wizard's longevity.

 

According to HP Wiki Dumbledore was born in 1881, and the movie take place in 1941 so he'd be 60. While I know people don't necessarily like that site for information I find the dates are usually pretty good. As for having auburn hair at 60 it all depends on the person. My aunt had grey hair at around age 35, but I've met people at age 60 with Salt and Pepper hair so it all depends on the genes.

 

Wait doesn't the movie take place in the 1920s?

 

Yea 1926 so Dumbledore would be 45 to 46 years old.

 

I think Dumbledore would still be a redhead. IIRC, he was explicitly described as having auburn hair during the Riddle flashback in COS. And wizards age slower than muggles: Hagrid's in his seventies, and McGonagall presumably around the same age or older, and they both are clearly described with black hair.

Also, I think casting Jared Harris would be a great idea. If there's anyone worthy of playing a younger Dumbledore, it's the original Dumbledore's son! And that guy was awesome as Pryce and Moriarty.

 

His Moriarty wasn't bad, but I would like the second Sherlock film more if the rumours about Brad Pitt playing him turned out to be true.

Quite awesome confirmation from Rowling:

1926+19= 1945.

Yates is expected to direct all 5 film which is good and bad. Good because he's pretty good and consistent. Bad because we won't get anything different in style from these film, but at least localizations will change. Additionally, while I liked his Dumbledore vs. Voldemort, I expect a lot more from Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald and I'm unsure if he will deliver.

 

McGonagall is almost 66 when school starts in PS/SS and she still has black hair.

 

Going to have to second that nomination. It has the possibility of being bad if he misses the mark, but if he nails it this will be amazing to see. I wonder how he would be portrayed at that age. Is he going to be even more of an idealist? Less?

I'm much less sold on Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. I mean, he might not mess it up, but it doesn't seem like something that would be up his alley.

 

Jared harris would be a good addition I could definitely see him as a young Albus Dumbledore. Though im not really keen on the Johnny Depp casting as Grindelwald, hopefully he will be able to pull the character off.

 

So the earliest critic reviews of the film are in, and they are all positive. In fact(though this is almost certainly likely to change as more reviews come), it actually currently sits with 9 reviews as a 100% Rotten Tomato rating. Especially it light of the fact how many films this year have been destroyed critic wise, this good score, even if it ends up only being temporary, is certainly a great sign.

So from one perspective we can at least expect a good film. Whether or not it ultimately works for us book fans is going to be another story.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fant...find-them-what-are-the-critics-saying-a146741

 

I bet none of those critics have the average DLPr's canon knowledge. There's bound to be stuff in there that we'll have to agonize over to make it fit with canon. The critics loved CC too. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'll wait and see.

 

Oh god, is this what Marvel and DC fans feel like whenever a new superhero movie comes out?

 

So there's apparently a bit of a twist at the end and I think I've got it figured out. Will spoiler tag it because I'm moderately confident that I've hit on something here.

Spoiler

1. We know Johnny Depp has a short cameo as Grindelwald in this film.

2. Colin Farrell's dialogue in the final trailer is essentially espousing Grindelwald's philosophy. Initially I thought this meant he was a Grindelwald follower. However...

3. This review in Nerdist states that there's a twist at the end that is lame:

4. This review in the Telegraph states that Colin Farrell's character has been squandered by something at the end of the film:

So, taken together, there's a twist ending that ruins Colin Farrell's character, a character who spends the film promoting Grindelwald's philosophy, and Grindelwald himself has a short appearance.

Conclusion: Colin Farrell's character is Grindelwald in disguise and drops the disguise at the end.

 

Neat.

Spoiler

So does that mean Grindelwald pulled a Crouch Jr and replaced the real Graves or did he properly create an entire new identity from scratch to use and lay the groundwork in America for his revolution? Does he have more identitites like that all over the world doing similar things? That'd explain what he's been up to ever since he parted ways with Dumbledore.

 

Yes. It is infuriating.

 

Percival Graves was the best part of the trailer for me. Pretty sure Taure's got it right, which really sucks.