[Smithy]

Youtube video

[Smithy]

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

[Ammi]

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

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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

surely this must be delayed too until 2022

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

surely this must be delayed too until 2022

No it’s launching on streaming services

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

No it’s launching on streaming services

Is it on Netflix?

[Kate!]

oh wow!

[Tom4784]

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).

[Oliver_W]

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

[Oliver_W]

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

[DouglasS]

Looks rubbish

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

Looks rubbish

Why not give it a chance before slating it

[Smithy]

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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

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

[Barry.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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

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

[Oliver_W]

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

[Marsh.]

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

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Ahw I liked her in Devil Wears Prada.

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

[Tom4784]

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.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

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.

Ann Hathaway has even apologised , 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 .

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Ann Hathaway has even apologised , 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 .

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

But they had no toes, so there's that

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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.