They'd just point at it and cry "MUH OPPRESSIONS!"
Harry Potter Tumblr-verse Drama - Dumbledore is gay, quit oppressing him.
- Thread starter Graffiti canvas
- Start date
- Status
honestly the real crime is that Fantastic Beasts is getting five fucking movies.
dumb motherfuckers need to read an actual book, Rowling's writing goes to shit the second she tried to make the books 'grown up'.
"But they grow up with the reader, don't you understand, Rowling is a geeeeeeenius! Writer of our generation!"
dumb motherfuckers need to read an actual book, Rowling's writing goes to shit the second she tried to make the books 'grown up'.
Maybe these people should go out of their way to find modern literary works by black or lgbt authors they can identify with instead of latching on to young adult drivel they only know about because it got pimped into a series of corporate fantasy films and they became familiar with because all their middle school friends talked about it. I sure as shit don't foresee them ever getting worked up over how close they feel to the works of Langston Hughes or Alice Walker. Nope, gotta put all your eggs in the rich white British lady basket.
They are acting like the only thing is the story that matters is how much buttsex Dumbledore is getting. Fetishization much?
This movie is aimed at children first and foremost. Not spergs obsessed with Dumbledore being gay who probably just want to masturbate to Jude Law and Johnny Depp going at it like gay rabbits.
100% gay fetishization going on here. I thought Tumblr hated that with a passion? There's a whole m/m community constantly REEEEing about it.
JK Rowling should have never outed Dumbledore. It was a huge mistake. She only did it to score virtue signalling diversity points which have been thrown back at her face because she isn't doing enough to make the relationship front and center at all times.
This movie is aimed at children first and foremost. Not spergs obsessed with Dumbledore being gay who probably just want to masturbate to Jude Law and Johnny Depp going at it like gay rabbits.
100% gay fetishization going on here. I thought Tumblr hated that with a passion? There's a whole m/m community constantly REEEEing about it.
JK Rowling should have never outed Dumbledore. It was a huge mistake. She only did it to score virtue signalling diversity points which have been thrown back at her face because she isn't doing enough to make the relationship front and center at all times.
You're forgetting the SocJus Golden Rule: It's Okay When We Do It.
Yeah she latched onto the SJW ideology before the series was even finished. It went from a kid wizard fighting off monsters and jerkass teachers to REEEEE NAZIS ARE BAD RACISM IS BAD REEEEE.
Seriously book 7 was all about reminding the readers that Nazism is bad. The actual plot is wrapped up in the span of one fucking night, with a shitload of contrived coincidences that make it look like Rowling was busy writing a SJW piece and suddenly remembered that she was actually writing an Harry Potter book.
I demand the next Star Wars have a planet populated exclusively with a species of homos that gets destroyed by the evil New Order.
J.J Rowlings: "I never wrote that the 5 planets blown up in TFA weren't exclusively populated by homos! Teeeheee ;D ;D ;D"
Jesus Christ are fags still trying to claim they're marginalized?
No, this is fat fujoshi cunts with purple hair angry that they aren't getting the fap material they want.
Brokewand Mountain?
This sounds pretty gay.
Troutsmacked
kiwifarms.net
Considering how she went full SJW about a year ago, the bitter old man in me says she had this coming. I wonder how she feels being on the other end of having every "ism" in the book hurled at her over nothing.
This should be yet another lesson to media creators everywhere as to why you don't try to appease the crybulling regressive crowd. If they had made Dumbledore a total flamer they would have called it homophobic stereotyping.
This should be yet another lesson to media creators everywhere as to why you don't try to appease the crybulling regressive crowd. If they had made Dumbledore a total flamer they would have called it homophobic stereotyping.
H
HY 140
Guest
kiwifarms.net
i think this is why i prefer fantastic beasts tbh
>People bitching about how a complex relationship isn't fully shown in movie 2 out of 5
Wow, it's almost like the writers are probably trying to slowly build up characterization and inter-personal relationships so they come off as realistic instead of forced. Maybe people should wait to bring out the pitch forks until the fifth movie.
Also, I was never really a Harry Potter fan so I could be wrong, but I thought romance was pretty subdued in the series. Sure, romantic relationships did get attention (Ron x Hermione being the most prominent example), but compared to the main plot they seem unimportant. If anything, the series puts way more focus on platonic love.
Wow, it's almost like the writers are probably trying to slowly build up characterization and inter-personal relationships so they come off as realistic instead of forced. Maybe people should wait to bring out the pitch forks until the fifth movie.
Also, I was never really a Harry Potter fan so I could be wrong, but I thought romance was pretty subdued in the series. Sure, romantic relationships did get attention (Ron x Hermione being the most prominent example), but compared to the main plot they seem unimportant. If anything, the series puts way more focus on platonic love.
Something I find hilarious is that despite Rowling's SJW trumpet blowing, she's very selective about which characters the SJW treatment in her books. A lot of People forget that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had the series first black Qudditch captains in the form of Angeline Johnson. Angeline was already established as an awesome character who had a wonderful sense of humor and was liked by everybody, so one would think we would be in for an awesome time. However due to Rowling's hatred of female Qudditch captains, Rowling turned her from a fun loving character into a nut case who was either blowing her stack or crying her eyes out when things didn't go her way. To make things even more fun Rowling also gave her a ghetto makeover (I wish I was making that up) and seemed to remove instances of Angeline acting like a normal human being.
I am not an SJW but I was furious when I saw what Rowling did to Angeline. It was one of the things that made me give up on the series as well as it gave me an example to show people when they praise Rowlings SJWness
I grew up reading the books, and I don't even remember who the hell Grindelwald is supposed to be. I think what I hate most about the Harry Potter fans is just how goddamn obsessed they are over a children's fantasy story. There was a time when I was obsessed too, but that time ended in middle school when I started reading stuff like Stephen King and Game of Thrones.
This whole controversy is extremely stupid. If you went solely on the books and movies, you would never know that Dumbledore is gay and you'd never know who Grindelwald is because he's not important in the slightest. But because we have a whole generation of people who never grew past Harry Potter, it's important for some reason.
This whole controversy is extremely stupid. If you went solely on the books and movies, you would never know that Dumbledore is gay and you'd never know who Grindelwald is because he's not important in the slightest. But because we have a whole generation of people who never grew past Harry Potter, it's important for some reason.
J.K. Rowling, Stop Queerbaiting: We’re Ready for Gay Dumbledore in ‘Fantastic Beasts’ — Opinion
"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" has a foolproof chance to make history with the first gay lead of a studio movie, so why is Warner Bros. balking?
When “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling announced in 2007 that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay,” initial reactions were mixed. While some lauded the writer for what they deemed an earnest attempt at inclusion, many were unimpressed by the posthumous outing of a character whose chapter had long been closed. (The final book in the series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” was published three months before Rowling’s revelation).
Being cockeyed optimists (it’s from “South Pacific,” get your minds out of the gutter), “Harry Potter” fans hoped the forthcoming movies might actually show Dumbledore, you know, being gay, even though it is never explicitly stated in the books. However, three more movies came out after Rowling’s admission, with nary a mention of Dumbledore’s supposed romance with Grindelwald, a friend from his youth who betrays him. To be fair, there was a lot of story to pack into just eight hours of movie, and priority went to wrapping up the whole Harry/Voldemort thing.
With a highly successful “Harry Potter” prequel franchise in full swing, Rowling has a chance to set the record… gay. The first prequel, 2016’s “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” was a critical and box-office hit, prompting renewed interest in the magical series. Dumbledore does not appear in the first film, but its forthcoming sequel, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” will follow young Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald — the very one Rowling asserts was romantic.
As the movie’s screenwriter, (she did not write any of the “Harry Potter” movies), surely Rowling would jump at the chance to finally canonize gay Dumbledore. Rowling stoked the flames herself, saying in a 2016 interview: “This is obviously a five-part story, so there’s lots to unpack in that relationship… As far as his sexuality is concerned, watch this space.”
Well, you can expelliarmus those fantasies right out of your tiny queer hearts, because gay Dumbledore is still nothing more than an apparition — and not the kind you can see.
“Fantastic Beasts” director David Yates recently told Entertainment Weeklyhow his movie will handle Dumbledore’s gayness: “Not explicitly.” As the news travelled, disappointment turned into outrage, with many voicing their concerns to Rowling on Twitter. “Being sent abuse about an interview that didn’t involve me,” she responded. “[A]bout a screenplay I wrote but which none of the angry people have read, which is part of a five-movie series that’s only one instalment (sic) in.”
The confirmation from Yates is all the more disappointing considering studios have been quietly testing the gay waters, with small moments in tentpoles like “Beauty and the Beast” and “Power Rangers.” There was a flurry of excitement last year when out gay director Bill Condon said his live-action “Beauty and the Beast” would boast an “exclusively gay moment,” which turned out to be an overhyped split-second dance between two men. (Despite the moment’s brevity, Disney received pushback in Malaysia and Russia).
Like “Beauty and the Beast,” “Fantastic Beasts” has a built-in audience, one so loyal that it’s hard to imagine a gay storyline would negatively affect its bottom line. “Beauty and the Beast” was the second highest-grossing movie of 2017, second only to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” Warner Bros. has a foolproof path toward making history with the first studio tentpole with an out gay character. Why is it balking at the chance?
Perhaps, like Yates and Rowling, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the goodwill of a few offhanded comments. Later in his interview, Yates said: “I think all the fans are aware of that.” (Meaning Dumbledore being gay). Sure, send us right back into the closet with our silly little fantasies, like the last two millennia of gay stories. We’ve been there, done that, and we’re not going back. LGBT audiences are experts at finding queer subtext in just about any movie, from “Rebel Without a Cause” to “Thelma and Louise.” It’s one of our favorite pastimes, and that’s what it remains: A pastime.
As in, it’s long past time for “gay” characters to come out of the celluloid closet and be fully, beautifully, brilliantly queer.
If not, that’s cool. There’s no rule that says you have to have a gay character in your movie (though you might pick up a few Oscars). In 2017 alone, we had gay love stories in “Call Me by Your Name,” “God’s Own Country,” and “Battle of the Sexes,” out gay characters in “The Shape of Water” and “Lady Bird,” not to mention next-level queer films like “A Fantastic Woman” and “(BPM) Beats Per Minute.” (Don’t expect Rowling or Yates to have seen those). We’ve seen real representation. Rowling does not get to flippantly reveal her inner musings to score inclusivity points — not without actually putting it on the page. We’re good, mate. So stop blue-balling us with your queerbaiting and leave us alone.
http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/jk-rowling-dumbledore-gay-fantastic-beasts-lgbt-1201924000/
"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" has a foolproof chance to make history with the first gay lead of a studio movie, so why is Warner Bros. balking?
When “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling announced in 2007 that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay,” initial reactions were mixed. While some lauded the writer for what they deemed an earnest attempt at inclusion, many were unimpressed by the posthumous outing of a character whose chapter had long been closed. (The final book in the series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” was published three months before Rowling’s revelation).
Being cockeyed optimists (it’s from “South Pacific,” get your minds out of the gutter), “Harry Potter” fans hoped the forthcoming movies might actually show Dumbledore, you know, being gay, even though it is never explicitly stated in the books. However, three more movies came out after Rowling’s admission, with nary a mention of Dumbledore’s supposed romance with Grindelwald, a friend from his youth who betrays him. To be fair, there was a lot of story to pack into just eight hours of movie, and priority went to wrapping up the whole Harry/Voldemort thing.
With a highly successful “Harry Potter” prequel franchise in full swing, Rowling has a chance to set the record… gay. The first prequel, 2016’s “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” was a critical and box-office hit, prompting renewed interest in the magical series. Dumbledore does not appear in the first film, but its forthcoming sequel, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” will follow young Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald — the very one Rowling asserts was romantic.
As the movie’s screenwriter, (she did not write any of the “Harry Potter” movies), surely Rowling would jump at the chance to finally canonize gay Dumbledore. Rowling stoked the flames herself, saying in a 2016 interview: “This is obviously a five-part story, so there’s lots to unpack in that relationship… As far as his sexuality is concerned, watch this space.”
Well, you can expelliarmus those fantasies right out of your tiny queer hearts, because gay Dumbledore is still nothing more than an apparition — and not the kind you can see.
“Fantastic Beasts” director David Yates recently told Entertainment Weeklyhow his movie will handle Dumbledore’s gayness: “Not explicitly.” As the news travelled, disappointment turned into outrage, with many voicing their concerns to Rowling on Twitter. “Being sent abuse about an interview that didn’t involve me,” she responded. “[A]bout a screenplay I wrote but which none of the angry people have read, which is part of a five-movie series that’s only one instalment (sic) in.”
The confirmation from Yates is all the more disappointing considering studios have been quietly testing the gay waters, with small moments in tentpoles like “Beauty and the Beast” and “Power Rangers.” There was a flurry of excitement last year when out gay director Bill Condon said his live-action “Beauty and the Beast” would boast an “exclusively gay moment,” which turned out to be an overhyped split-second dance between two men. (Despite the moment’s brevity, Disney received pushback in Malaysia and Russia).
Like “Beauty and the Beast,” “Fantastic Beasts” has a built-in audience, one so loyal that it’s hard to imagine a gay storyline would negatively affect its bottom line. “Beauty and the Beast” was the second highest-grossing movie of 2017, second only to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” Warner Bros. has a foolproof path toward making history with the first studio tentpole with an out gay character. Why is it balking at the chance?
Perhaps, like Yates and Rowling, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the goodwill of a few offhanded comments. Later in his interview, Yates said: “I think all the fans are aware of that.” (Meaning Dumbledore being gay). Sure, send us right back into the closet with our silly little fantasies, like the last two millennia of gay stories. We’ve been there, done that, and we’re not going back. LGBT audiences are experts at finding queer subtext in just about any movie, from “Rebel Without a Cause” to “Thelma and Louise.” It’s one of our favorite pastimes, and that’s what it remains: A pastime.
As in, it’s long past time for “gay” characters to come out of the celluloid closet and be fully, beautifully, brilliantly queer.
If not, that’s cool. There’s no rule that says you have to have a gay character in your movie (though you might pick up a few Oscars). In 2017 alone, we had gay love stories in “Call Me by Your Name,” “God’s Own Country,” and “Battle of the Sexes,” out gay characters in “The Shape of Water” and “Lady Bird,” not to mention next-level queer films like “A Fantastic Woman” and “(BPM) Beats Per Minute.” (Don’t expect Rowling or Yates to have seen those). We’ve seen real representation. Rowling does not get to flippantly reveal her inner musings to score inclusivity points — not without actually putting it on the page. We’re good, mate. So stop blue-balling us with your queerbaiting and leave us alone.
http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/jk-rowling-dumbledore-gay-fantastic-beasts-lgbt-1201924000/
So they're taking back the term "queerbait" too?
- Status
Similar threads
A general STFU J.K. Rowling MegaThread <3
