The Witches (Out Now)
 

Omg it’s out in 3 weeks, I thought they’d dropped the trailer a ****ing year in advance at first

...the trailer looks amazing...:love:..exterminate the brats and the rats ...

oh wow!

Oh, I didn't know they actually already filmed it, I remember hearing about it a while ago but that's it, I had no clue it was filmed and ready to be released, it's a surprise that it's going straight to streaming though, there was a lot of hype around it so I thought they would have delayed it until next year.

It looks decent, Octavia shines like always and I think Anne Hathaway is pulling off a decent performance (although Anjelica Houston's shoes are tough to fill).

looks pretty good, but of course it does, it's a good book.

Not sure how it's a "reimagining" when the story looks exactly the same :laugh:

surely this must be delayed too until 2022

No it’s launching on streaming services

eh it turned out to be fine. Not really as good as the old film, and they're both not as good as the book, but it's just fine haha

Looks rubbish

Is it on Netflix?

No it’s on Amazon and it’s £14.99 to rent :skull:

Oh I have Amazon, I forgot we got a years free subscription when we changed our broadband provider, I keep forgetting we have it though because it's fair ****e compared to Netflix :laugh:

If you're a bit naughty, there are other ways to watch it ;)

14.99 is fine as it’s a movie that was going to the cinema so I wouldn’t mind that price tbh.

Oh get a ******* grip.

lol simmer down.

Not everything has to be seen through the lens of whether or not it's "representation", why not watch the original and cry about how it makes fun of people with long fingers, or women with no hair?

I can't watch Anne Hathaway. She's far too aware of herself. Very limited actress.

Ahw I liked her in Devil Wears Prada.

I wish she'd do some Shakespeare, her namesake used to do him :hehe:

She's fine when she's basically herself. But she's so out of her depth in character roles it makes me cringe tbh.

The whole limb difference controversy is stupid, The Grand High Witch isn't someone with a disability who is monstrous because of it, she's literally just meant to be a monster.

Why not give it a chance before slating it

If they have a problem with that then are they going to mention alopecia next ? :notimpressed: :rolleyes: . It's a fictional story of witches. What exactly do people want them to look like ?? .

Victor Crowley is deformed but I don’t see people being mad about that

Worst movie ever, looks cringey and ****

How can you say it’s the worst movie ever then say it looks cringe. So you haven’t seen it yet I’m guessing.

Im not understanding the limb outrage either.

Cloven fingers and toes are all over folklore for ancient creatures/monsters and the character is meant to be the high witch.

her fingers do look exactly like that guys from last leg. they could have been a bit more outlandish with the them so they didnt look so human.

I've not seen the Film tbf, but it does sound like people are getting worked up over nothing to me.

Villains can come in all forms, and to me I'd rather a disabled character that's a villain than a disabled character that's just a token to "represent" the community but the writer has no idea what to do with the character, that's what I'd call bad representation imo.

The film was OK, not as good as the first by a mile but it was watchable. Really can't believe it was in anyway controversial though

Yeah I wouldn't call it good, it's fine :laugh: The old one was actually scary (for kids), this was just a silly cartoon.

If they made the Grand High Witch look like an actual monster like the old film, instead of a SnapChat effect, people might not be moaning so much.

and speaking of disability representation, I went to IMDB and it turns out they hired an actual mouse-boy to play Bruno! https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0693241/

Ann Hathaway has even apologised :rolleyes: , which I don't think was necessary .

It's a fictional tale about monsters I don't understand why people are moaning now , is there going to be an uproar about alopecia next ? as the witches are bald . They seem to pick and choose what to be offended by . Definitely an overreaction.

Plus the original Witches never got any stick . So I'm guessing it's because people just like to complain for the sake of it now :notimpressed:.

To be fair the original Witches didn't depict them as missing fingers.

But they had no toes, so there's that :joker:

People seem to have thinner skins now than in the 1990s and 2000s, no-one cared about this crap back then.

I think it's more that they didn't have a platform to share it on, to be honest.

Meh, I get people not wanting negative connotations of certain things but a lot of the complaints on this seem to be a bit backwards; suggesting that the characters are considered witches because they happen to have physical differences.

That said, if they wanted to play it safer they should just have stuck with the description as its written. I doubt people would be complaining (as much) if they were originally described in the book as having three fingers.

Or, having seen the pictures, they could have gone with making the hands even MORE like a bird's talons, to make them very clearly non-human.

No. You're grasping at straws to get offended on behalf of other people because you feel like you're obligated to. Laughable.

The witch doesn't have "limb differences", she has three finger claws like a bird of prey (the children being the mice she is preying on). She doesn't have missing fingers, those are her hands.

You're focussing on the fact that Anne Hathaway is a human and is using prosthetics to hide her human hands to invent something that is not there.