It has emerged that some people are still obsessed with sexuality, rather than enjoying a good story about magic.
Despite more than a decade passing since the revelation that a fictional wizard took a bludger from his own team, social justice warriors are up in arms that The Crimes of Grindelwald will focus on grown men fighting with magic wands rather than homosexuality.
I am a major Potter Head. I have the tattoos to prove it; (although they are a work in progress that I plan to finish- I’m Slytherin and proud!) Now a positively ancient 23 years old, I started reading these books when I was 12- the same year that Dumbledore was outed, in fact. The Potter series were the first books I ever read cover to cover, start to finish, and just like many other Potter fans I was lost when I thought the series was over. What fictional world could compare to that of Harry Potter?
As it transpired it was naive to imagine that a cash-cow would remain unmilked for long. The Potterverse keeps expanding, with stage shows and fantastic beasts and so on. So far, so money. But wait, what hue and cry? There’s a new movie called The Crimes of Grindelwald and it won’t be two hours of Johnny Depp kissing Jude Law on the mouth?
To those who say: "wait for it, it's a long saga": No. 10 movies (8HP, 2 Fantastic Beasts) and they failed to include any clear signs of Dumbledore being gay. His love with Grindelwald is literally THE point of the whole drama & they decide to exclude it. Screw them.— Dana. 🌈🌍 (@Dana_Lurchliebe) February 1, 2018
Here we go again. There is no appeasing the SJW’s even when they are getting fan service movies made explicitly for them.
It would suck if there was just no lgbtq rep in the books and that was the end of it. But her saying Hogwarts Gandalf was absolutely gay, then dodging it deliberately, that is a different level of stink.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) February 1, 2018
In an interview, Director David Yates stated Dumbledore’s sexuality would not be handled explicitly.
“But I think all the fans are aware of that. He had a very intense relationship with Grindelwald when they were young men. They fell in love with each other’s ideas, and ideology and each other.”
Oh David. That was a mistake. Of course this has many Potter fans outraged- many claiming the film is about ‘Dumbledore and his boyfriend who turned evil’ and therefore should be gayer.
In the book, Albus and Grindelwald became best friends as teenagers. Together they made plans to locate and secure all three Deathly Hallows and lead a wizard revolution to bring about the end of the international statute of secrecy- which, as of course you know, was the magic law that hides wizards from us muggles and our world. Alas, their friendship came to a tragic end after the two were involved in a three-way wand-fight with Albus’s Brother, Aberforth, that resulted in the death of their younger sister, Arianna. After the duel, Gellert left Britain. This is what we know from the Harry Potter novels, at least.
Rowling never mentioned them being in a relationship at all. You don’t have to be gay to be gay. It's fine to be a normal person that doesn't define your entire identity around what arouses you sexually. Even if the homosexual relationship was explicit, you can never be gay enough for some people.
So, Dumbledore's still only Hays-code gay and the abuser Johnny Depp is still Grindelwald. That's a hard pass from this Harry Potter fan on Fantastic Beasts 2 or whatever it's called.— molly tanzer (@molly_the_tanz) February 1, 2018
In her novels, Rowling never mentioned Dumbledore’s sexuality. Never.
Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay after a fan asked her if he “had ever loved anyone” at a Q&A in Carnegie Hall, 3 months after the final book had been published. She then continued to answer the fan’s question and said he had love Gellert Grindelwald, his childhood friend.
After the announcement, many fans were shocked, claiming they couldn’t see him that way. How did Rowling respond?
For once, flawlessly. Rowling was put on the spot in a Q&A session about Dumbledore’s sexuality. Whether it was her intention to still be talking about the wandcraft of gay warlocks over a decade later, only she can say. It takes all sorts. Once the wizard was out of the closet, there was no going back- but his sexuality is fundamentally unimportant to any story he appears in. As mentioned before, his sexuality was never explicit in the novels. Does that mean he’s not gay? No. No it does not. Perhaps Mundungus Fletcher had a penchant for buggery, maybe Mr. Weasley is hung like a mouse’s ear. None of this matters to the tale in the slightest.
In Kevin Smith’s 1995 movie Mallrats the central character, Brodie, is obsessed with superhero genitalia.
“It's impossible. Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle his sperm? I guarantee he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back.”
In the 22 years since that movie was released, society has come around to be as fixated with what fictional characters do with their sex organs. It is behavior worthy of the Catholic church, as the permanent Social Justice present is similarly devoid of comedy. Or nuance, for that matter.
Hogwarts isn’t home, that Wizarding World world isn’t home if you’re going to erase the expression of HOMOSEXUALITY. DUMBLEDORE IS GAY AND WAS IN LOVE WITH GRINDELWALD. HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY @FANTASTICBEASTS!— Francis Dominic (@frncissdominc) January 31, 2018
There are plenty of Movies and stories where the romance is a subtext. After all, people pay money to watch things blow up with a side order of smooching. The original Star Wars trilogy, The original Ghostbusters, even Pixar’s Anastasia complies with this basic storytelling format. All these movies have romance but love is not the main focus of the story, in some of them it is barely even shown at all. A New Hope has a love triangle played out with a kiss on the cheek, a jealous glance and Han Solo being a jerk. It is perfect. If The Crimes of Grindelwald uses this storytelling technique, deploying something subtle showing what they had- if anything other than friendship- I would be completely fine with that. The storyline would work with a nod to a gay history, and just as easily without- because the story isn't about Wizard Gay Pride 1922, it's about two of the toughest wizards of all time going tête-à-tête. Even with this blatantly obvious fact spelled out, you can guarantee though that Yates, Rowling, and the stars Jude Law and Johnny Depp are walking into a social justice sh*tstorm.
and on top of that now Dumbledore won't be "explicitly gay" and Rowling is mocking queer people who just wanted a bit of representation. yikes.— Riley J. Dennis (@RileyJayDennis) February 1, 2018
it's like they want us to despise Fantastic Beasts 🚮 pic.twitter.com/cUO99SSTyN
Need we be reminded that this is still a movie for kids? While a lot of people my age and older will gladly enjoy it without the company of our little ones, a lot of young kids will still watch it. Perhaps I am a relic of the past, but is it not the case that parents decide when and how to educate their children about love and sex and the different forms it takes- not Hollywood?
Although this whole affair is the fault of Rowling for chumming the waters with the gay wizards revelation in the first place, she has at least handled the resulting mess in the correct manner. It doesn’t matter about Dumbledore’s sexuality in the context of a movie about fighting with magic. Fantasy stories fare very poorly with the addition of moralizing messages of leftist politics. As we saw with the Last Jedi, pandering to Social Justice instead of making a good movie never works. Ever.
I’m as much as a Potter fan as any- all I want is a solid movie that tells the story with the minimum of pandering fan-service. They have already changed so much. All I want is to see this part of wizarding history accurately portrayed. This is the story leading up to one of the greatest fights in the Potterverse.
It’s simply not a love story. Please, for the sake of movies, stop shoe-horning socio-political agendas into them- and that goes to both movie makers and goers alike. If nothing else let this be a lesson in speaking carefully. Rowling had an off-the-cuff remark that she thought would gain her a few wokeness points in 2007, and here we are today- still picking up the pieces, and still watching the identity politics chimera run amok.
Can't we just hope the movie doesn't suck?
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://republicstandard.com/new-harry-potter-movie-for-kids-isnt-gay-enough/