Tom Holland’s Romeo and Juliet preview mysteriously canceled at the last minute

Or maybe she plays Romeo throughout the entire play. Note how they put her face next to ROMEO.

The key art makes him look very feminine and her look very masculine.

This would have been greeted with Producers-type disbelief if they really attempted to do this.

Apparently the outside bit - because of course there just has to be an outside bit now - is on the roof.

Rumour on Theatreboard is that Tom Holland is very unhappy and a creative team member was fired, and that both cast and crew are unhappy. And the set was still being loaded in yesterday afternoon.

What’s an outside bit R3?

The bit that's on the outside, presumably.

Maybe he felt his Juliet dresses weren’t sexy enough

r4 The actor goes outside the theatre and is projected onto a screen inside. Like the recent Sunset Boulevard, the Joe sings it while walking backstage and then outside and into the theatre

Holland is too old.

Thanks, R7. Marry me.

Fank you, R5.

I was wondering what pointless gimmicks they'd found beyond "Hey its Spider-Man that young actor everyone was really excited about nearly a decade ago!" to justify the 9999 version of Romeo and Juliet. Apparently quite a few.

I loved Fast Car.

r10 There's also been talk of drones.

Excuse me I will have you know I am SEVEN YEARS YOUNGER than Norma Shearer when she played Juliet.

Staging R&J after Zeffirelli is like composing a symphony after Beethoven.

[quote]What’s an outside bit [R3]?

Slang for a penis.

Going by the clothing its Romeo and Juliet set in the present day... Again.

It is speculated that the actress looking in the mirror led to the cancellation.

Early word from those attending previews is the rest of the cast outshines Holland, and he seems nervous.

Hardly surprising, given his lack of stage experience. And no, Billy Elliot does not count.

Why don't they rename it Rome-ex and Juliex?

I guess that athlete Nestor was busy.

Mickey Jo reviews the show.

R10 LMAO

Actually R11 LMAO

Sounds horrible. Watch Mickey Jo and save a lot of money. Or, just save a lot of money and avoid this show.

[quote]A very tedious production! Some good actors were killed off by the direction and that boring use of cameras. A lot of the play was cut to allow for the idiosyncratic conception. Emperor’s new clothes spring to mind except these were second hand charity shop clobber. Oh yes, the audio was terrible and the voice projection non-existent where we were sitting. Doesn’t Lloyd move around the theatre when he’s directing to ensure the production is audible for everyone. That’s a basic amateur error one does not expect when you pay a FORTUNE for the tickets! And finally! Where was the passion? It was non-existent. If you are a Holland fan just watch the DVD of Spider-Man again if I were you.

This was an easy flop to spot a mile away. What’s that saying? Go woke, go broke.

Broadway theater dilettantes will love it and hail it as " innovative," 'modern," and "a revolutionary moment in theater."

They spent all their time sucking their own dicks for casting a black girl, who also happens to be very unattractive, that they forgot to put together the actual production.

They put together a production. It was just badly conceived and directed.

Variety

[quote] boring use of cameras

What was there to do in this production other than dramatically zoom in on actors faces?

[quote]Lloyd’s iconic video work plays into the celebrity of his leading man, as Holland walks towards the stage from behind the scenes, trailed by a cameraman who captures only his hooded head and shoulders, surrounded in a cloud of cigarette smoke. The suspense is palpable and fans of the Hollywood actor are unlikely to be disappointed by Holland’s assured performance, which graduates from laddish confidence to rippling rage.

[quote]His talent is easily met by rising star Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, whose confident Juliet appears more woman than girl. She rewrites their courtship in the balcony scene (though no balcony is present here, as Lloyd’s stripped-back staging places Romeo and Juliet side by side), instructing Romeo to “swear not by the moon,” as though surprised he would suggest something so ridiculous. Amewudah-Rivers breathes new life into Shakespeare’s words, reframing the power dynamics at play in her relationship with Romeo. The scene fizzes with chemistry as the pair lock eyes, their bodies only ever inches from a full embrace.

[quote]Theatre is necessarily a pretty localised art form, so it's remarkable to see a single production attain the status of a global event. Yet that, undoubtedly, is what a new take on Romeo and Juliet in London's West End has become, thanks to one of its leads – a certain Spider-Man, Tom Holland. You can feel the effect of Holland's very special aura of Gen Z mega-celebrity in the particular hubbub in the audience before the play starts, and you can certainly feel it afterwards, in the unprecedented scenes outside the Duke of York's Theatre, where hundreds of fans teem behind railings, waiting for a glimpse of Holland as he travels from stage door to his car, waving like royalty.

[quote]If only the show itself was able to match this energy. Unfortunately, though, it's a depressingly lifeless affair, which somehow manages to be both overstated and underpowered. This, it should be emphasised, is in no way the fault of the actors – neither Holland, who is fine, nor Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, playing Juliet, who is better than fine, nor the supporting cast. The problem lies firmly with the gimmicky, oppressively dour staging, which consistently works against all of them.

Jamie Lloyd has smashed it several times previously but it's always the same style. I wonder if part of this is weariness and wondering if he can manage anything else.

My agent assured me that I would be on the BBC - actually, he said on several BBCs. Is that different channels or something?

R30 is autistic

If it is too much for him, I'm available.

This whole production is trash. One of the best things I saw during the Covid era was a reading of Romeo and Juliet featuring Josh O’Connor and Jesse Buckley in the title roles, with Tamsin Grieg in a wonderfully wicked interpretation of Lady Capulet. That was only a few years ago (on Masterpiece Theater)…there should’ve been an effort to bring THAT version to the West End.

Person 1: You want to go see the new "Romeo and Juliet?"

Person 2: That old overdone Shakespeare shit?

Person 1: But, this one has no set, no lighting effects, the actors speak in whispers and don't relate to each other, and... other than Romeo and Paris, everybody's a " person of color"! It's genius, and contemporary.

Person 2: Sign me up. I don't care how much it costs.

[quote] One of the best things I saw during the Covid era was a reading of Romeo and Juliet featuring Josh O’Connor and Jesse Buckley in the title roles...

They actually did that as a filmed performance and it is available for rental at National Theatre at Home.

Here's a clip of the balcony scene with Josh and Jesse.

R33 She truly evokes 16th century Verona Italy.

Now Tom will have to double up the fake relationship

When it moves to Broadway, will Zendaya play Juliet? Will Tom even come or will Romeo be Ben Platt?

I wish they’d stop pretending that Shakespeare’s play have to have ‘cultural relevance’ by setting them in contemporary or some dystopian future time or no time at all. They are period pieces. Yes, Shakespeare was a genius but doing pared down versions of the play with actors in contemporary clothes just makes the plays the,selves seem more stylized and less involving.

Young love is nothing like “Romeo and Juliet,” but Zefferelli at least suggested the impetuous passion and lust at the heart of the story by casting two beautiful and very young actors in his movie version from 1968.

The best Shakespeare I’ve seen in a theater were the two Mark Rylance productions “Richard III” and “Twelfe Night” that he brought to Broadway. And I seriously question whether an all-male, all white cast would even be allowed to do Shakespeare in a NY theater now. But it was Rylance’s attempt to go back to the roots and essence of the plays as they were done in their time, not ours. And it worked, they were great theatrical experiences.

Did the producers confuse R&J with Othello?

The Josh O’Connor and Jesse Buckley production was supposed to have had a run at the National Theatre in the summer of 2020, but was scuppered because of the pandemic. The very lovely filmed version was a conciliatory production, staged around Covid restrictions but using some of the ideas that would have been used in the cancelled run.

I happen to think that Buckley is one of the finest actresses of her generation - it’s unfortunate we never got to see her in a proper run.

[quote] I happen to think that Buckley is one of the finest actresses of her generation - it’s unfortunate we never got to see her in a proper run.

Not on the stage, but a big opportunity is coming with the film version of the popular novel, "Hamnet," in which Jessie Buckley plays Shakespeare's wife opposite Paul Mescal as Shakespeare. You couldn't ask for anything buzzier.

R38 Accept nothing less than the best!

Josh is magnificent in that clip..... boyish, naive, earnest... wow

Is this a trans love story? Because Juliet looks like she's packing a dick.

Juliet sho is ugly!

Shug Avery

No one wants to see an ugly Juliet.

She's beautiful!!!

She looks like a power forward in the WNBA.

R51 And very likely bigger than his, as well.

Tom at R31 looks like an apprentice monk, grimacing and pulling his chin in to "get away" from the face aggressively coming towards him.

These two actors have reduced their characters of ineffable beauty to the charmless ordinary.

A plague on both their houses!

This play looks God awful.

And yet, it will sell out on Broadway. And DLers will be in attendance.

He is talentless

R60 His looks are all he's got and they aren't going to last. Hopefully he's been smart with his money.

R60, at least he can dance.

r27 How exactly is this production "woke" you dumb fuck? Go on, I dare you to say it.

Rave review. Makes you wonder if these critics all saw the same show.

[quote]Hopefully he's been smart with his money.

That's why he's with Zendaya, who has 10x the money he has.

Why would it make you wonder that? Critics can't have different opinions?

[quote]When it moves to Broadway, will Zendaya play Juliet?

No, Billy Porter will.

Seems cruel to make all the fan girls who snatched up tickets sit through artsy fartsy auteur theater.

i miss twunk-y Tom, hate this monk-y Tom.

Does Juliet flash her tits like I was forced to?

[quote]Early word from those attending previews is the rest of the cast outshines Holland, and he seems nervous.

Hardly surprising, given his lack of stage experience. And no, Billy Elliot does not count.

That was Jamie Bell in BILLY ELLIOT (2000).

Tom Holland was like 4 years old then.

They should have added the bed scene and have Tom flash his naked ass to the audience.

R71

I'd pay to see Tom in Romeo & Julio with Oscar Isaac.

Homoeo and Jul'itettishianaynay Boom Boom.

No.

This would have worked better as a 1970s disco musical.

Has anyone actually done a regular performance of Romeo and Juliet set in 14th century Italy since the Baz Luhrmann movie came out?

r71 You're a fucking moron

R77, Stratford, 3 yrs ago.

With Zendaya at show.

r80 That is some aggressive twink death going on in that picture.

Can he BE any plainer?!

There is not one attractive feature on his face. Zero. Zendaya is making herself look foolish (beards should know better).

LOL R11

You’re a real cunt but I did laugh

Tom doesn't sign autographs after the show.

Tom has things to... I have guys t- I'M FUCKING HIM UP THE ARSE LATER OK?!

R85 I've heard such good things - do me too!

r81 Hilarious people criticise the attractiveness of the actress playing Juliet and yet skip criticising his looks. Hmm wonder why that could possibly be.

Also, does he shave/wax his arms or does he just not grow body hair?

They're still trying to make Miss Holland str8?

Juliet looks a like- She looks a like a Man!

r87, Because he is still reasonably attractive while she is not attractive at all.

r90 Have you not seen the pictures at r80?

[quote]Has anyone actually done a regular performance of Romeo and Juliet set in 14th century Italy since the Baz Luhrmann movie came out?

Has anyone seen the '90s rom-com THE OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION with Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd about the woman who falls in love with her gay best friend?

Anyway, one of Rudd's gay pals dates an elderly man played by Nigel Hawthorne and they all go see what today would be called a 'woke' production of ROMEO & JULIET, complete with modern-dress and black Juliet/white Romeo, that Hawthorne outright despises and begins lambasting and gets punched by the director.

The funny thing is that the film does not paint Hawthorne's character as being in the wrong. He's actually a sympathetic character.

How exactly does modern dress or casting a black person equal woke, r92?

R87, See r81 and my post at r82.

Accepting THESE leads for THESE roles requires a yet-to-be-invented hydraulic lift for any suspension of disbelief.

Tom Holland would've been better suited to play Richard III

Someone posted a 1 minute clip of Tom's performance on Youtube.

...and then they fucked

r96 That should be fun if it ever rains during a performance

Aww, he's still adorable!

Didn't understand a word said at r96.

And "Tom Holland" doesn't find out anything about Juliet.

Romeo does.

R96 - This definitely is a new interpretation. I don't remember on-stage sodomy in the original text.

R93 it would be considered 'woke' today, because it was a non-traditional, modernized production of a classic play, including choreography.

Plus, black/white partners are a hallmark of 'woke' casting.

In the movie, these radical artists, including the violent director who couldn't take criticism, were being lampooned.

Nowadays, they are the people currently running the U.S. entertainment industry.

There was another white/black Romeo & Juliet from 2014 staring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad. It was filmed then broadcast in movie theaters at that time. So White/Black 10 years ago.

The balcony scene starts at 34:45

I blame all of this mess on whoever decided to change the title stylization from a plus to an ampersand.

r103 No, modern dress does not mean woke. So really what you're saying is that just casting a black actor is woke to you. You're beyond pathetic.

R102 Let me tell you - embarrassment is finding out that you fucked a stunt double by mistake.

R106: I'm not R103, but don't be obtuse. It's obviously not about casting a black actor. It's about colorblind casting that is woke. If they're going to be interracial in 15th century Italy, then that's more likely what dooms them than warring families. Do we want to see a mixed cast production of Raisin in the Sun? How about an all-woman production of Boys in the Band? I remember the big fuss made about the brave political statement being made when James Earl Jones and Jane Alexander starred in Long Night's Journey into Day. Really? An interracial couple in 1900 America and their biggest concern is morphine and artistic integrity?

The plays were written the way they were written in the time they were written for a reason, and that reason is not for some supercilious schmuck auteur to fuck around with it just to appear progressive and hip among a sea of similar art-school types.

r108 So you're one of those who can suspend disbelief when one member of the cast plays another role later on, you can suspend disbelief for the rooms with only three walls and no ceilings, you can suspend disbelief over the lighting and sound tech being visible, you can suspend disbelief over sitting amongst hundreds of other people, in fact you can suspend disbelief over everything...except the skin colour of the actor. Yeah, there's a word for that.

Oh, and by the way, if it was a modern dress production it wouldn't have been set in 15th century Italy, would it?

The genius of Shakespeare and the reason it's still performed is that it can be reinvented in ways other plays cannot. Everyone except the narrow-minded such as yourself can understand that.

R108 The story should always be the driving point to casting. If someone is being cast in a significant role entirely or even primary because they are X (where X isn't their acting ability), then that choice deserves to be questioned. We need to stop "reimagining" old stories and start writing new ones, if the old ones are so out of touch. On top of that, the notion that people need to 'see themselves' in order to enjoy some media entertainment is insulting and stupid. The whole point is to escape from one's circumstances into the story. People are spending their energy on the wrong things.

[quote] If someone is being cast in a significant role entirely or even primary because they are X (where X isn't their acting ability)

Ah yes, because a black person couldn't possibly be cast based on their ability, it must be purely because of their skin colour.

Jesus christ, can some of you hear yourselves?

FF R111

R112 Yes, some people don't see the "if" in any statement so much as the interpretation they love to get worked up about.

Conversely, have whatever diverse casting you want, but you don't get to mention it or comment on it in any marketing or interviews. If diversity is all that you have to talk about, then your work is about messaging and exploiting messaging to make money. Style over substance.

r113 "Black people are not allowed to talk about being black"

Keep digging that hole.

I don't care if his acting is second-rate because I think he's very attractive, especially when his shirt is off and he displays what can only be described as a gymnasts' physique.

He needs to give up on this desire he has to be seen as some kind of thespian and just accept his limitations.

R92 I literally grew up on modern Shakespeare.

Baz Luhrmann‘s Romeo and Juliet in 1996, Ethan Hawke as a modern Hamlet in 2000, and the super teeny bopper Othello with Julia Stiles, Josh Harnett, and Mekhi Phifer in 2001.

So it doesn’t seem “woke” to me.

Because it isn't. But micro-brained right-wingers now just declare anything they don't like to be "woke".

R113 That’s a stupid logic.

Diversity can bring a new interpretation to a character that we’ve never seen before.

A black Juliet is going to be different from a white Juliet.

R118 Yeah and I don’t think she’s the first black Juliet either.

Well, r119, that casting certainly could add another dimension to the enmity between the families.

Kenneth Branagh invented woke Shakespeare when he cast Denzel and Keanu as brothers

R115 = Helen Keller.

If this pasty-faced peasant is "very attractive" to you, what, pray, is this exceptional visage?

[R109] So you're one of those who can suspend disbelief when one member of the cast plays another role later on, you can suspend disbelief for the rooms with only three walls and no ceilings, you can suspend disbelief over the lighting and sound tech being visible, you can suspend disbelief over sitting amongst hundreds of other people, in fact you can suspend disbelief over everything...except the skin colour of the actor. Yeah, there's a word for that.

Well hello, strawman. Of course people can suspend disbelief to see a play, TV show or movie. But the logic of the entertainment has to be true to it's own universe. If I'm watching The Importance of Being Earnest, I don't want to see Lady Bracknell online using Facebook. It's also a poor conceit to say it's "modern day" when the characters are still speaking in Elizabethan English. It's one or the other, not a mishmash.

In any case, you sound like a person with extensive issues and who perversely finds comfort in the idea of being surrounded by cross-burning racists. You are so enlightened and noble and, ultimately, full of shit.

R109 - Oh and another thing: The way to combat racism is not through shaming others who, in your warped perception, are bigoted, but rather to explain respectfully why you think their views are wrong and prejudiced. Not doing so makes you seem hysterical and unserious.

We also don't correct historical racism by pretending it never happened. THAT is a huge insult to the millions of blacks who suffered atrociously in centuries past. If you want to address a lack of black presence in classic literature, then write a new play about that. I wouldn't accept a mixed race R&J because it would not have happened in that time period, just as Hedda Gabler would not ever have been an out and proud lesbian in some other painfully misguided "reinvention"

From the reviews, it doesn't seem as if the interracial casting was the problem with this show, although it will be the first thing blamed. The direction of the show and it's basic concept seems to be the sticking point.

R123 IKR? He was distressingly pretty and not quite 17 when he started that film.

[R113] "Black people are not allowed to talk about being black"

We just wish they'd talk about something else, like, at least once a year.

R128 If your casting being diverse is all you have to talk about, you don't have much to talk about.

r124 The problem for you and your ilk is that most people can see black people as people. Whereas you can only see them as black people.

Also, your confusion over the mix of modern dress and Shakespearean verse just exposes you for the idiot that you are.

r125 "Be respectful to racists". Fuck right off. I'm sure you're self-loathing enough to beg existence from the homophobes, but fuck that for the rest of us.

R129, pot - kettle.

[quote] This was an easy flop to spot a mile away. What’s that saying? Go woke, go broke.

I thought it was limited run production that is completely sold out

We all know that if black people get a plum job it's because of wokeness and DEI but if a white person gets on, it's because of merit!

R133 That’s what I don’t understand. The idea that whites are always hired based on merit and skill.

I remember when Omarosa called out Bethany Frankel on her talk show.

Not only was she right but Bethany’s show got cancelled.

Producing "shocking" adaptations as a cash grab is lazy and just plain slimy, just like in the opera world. The arts deserve to fail if they can't keep creating NEW interesting things that people want to see. The same goes for the MCU in the film world and every remake that crashes and burns. Every capitalist on Earth is convinced they're the smartest for figuring out how to scam a few pennies, and then the rest of them jump off the same cliff like lemmings and you get this kind of stuff.

R130 (Etc.} - Full-fledged moron and lunatic.

[quote] he problem for you and your ilk is that most people can see black people as people. Whereas you can only see them as black people.

Oh OK. So does this mean we should stay saying "people of color" and "African-American"?

[quote] Also, your confusion over the mix of modern dress and Shakespearean verse just exposes you for the idiot that you are.

I truly have no words for your abject stupidity.

[quote] "Be respectful to racists". Fuck right off. I'm sure you're self-loathing enough to beg existence from the homophobes, but fuck that for the rest of us.

The problem, dear nutjob, is that EVERYONE is a racist except you and guilt-ridden white friends who are all for BLM "so long as they don't march down my block." No one said make friends with the KKK, but you have to realize that you are quite off your nutter. Seek help. Lots of help. Like a stay in hospital kind of help.

SMDH. You are a joke.

[quote] I thought it was limited run production that is completely sold out

I'll take your word for it, but as someone who worked in theater ticket sales in NYC -- that sounds like a load. Nothing is ever really sold out, but pretending it is jacks up demand and prices. I'd also be curious to know how much was sold to schools and groups at steep discounts. "It's a HIT!" says every producer.

My problem with her based on the photo posted above is not with her color but the fact that she seems like a butch lesbian, and an unattractive one at that. So they were trying to tick-off more than one diversity box here. You can imagine the over-thinking:

“We have this cute boy-next-door white boy with a sexy body and a movie and social media following and his girlfriend is even more famous, all of which is potentially great for the box office. Also, he wants to stretch himself doing Shakespeare which has wonderful publicity value too. But he IS total whitebread so we better tick all our diversity boxes with the rest of the cast and especially Juliet. She’s a very talented girl who should be better known, she’s black and butch and not at all conventionally feminine or attractive so we can justify booking the white movie star.”

It’s all just so strenuous and exhausting.

There is no one on earth who would believe these two as a romantic couple and it has nothing to do with her color, everything to do with her lack of looks and conventional femininity. After all, we all know who his real life girlfriend (of color) is. Who would ever believe him hankering for this woman even if she is a talented actress? Couldn’t they at least have made up, dressed and groomed her more ‘glamorously’?

And yes, I’m lookist and shallow. Along with the majority of humanity and the whole potential audience for this play.

If it doesn't matter how someone looks, why are there costumes? Why are there sets? Why is there makeup? Why is there lighting design? Why any artifice at all?

If gender-blind and race-blind and looks-blind casting enhances productions, why not age-blind casting? Why not Ian McKellen as Romeo? We should choose the best actor for the part, correct? Certainly McKellen is a better actor than Tom Holland. For that matter, why not cast white actors in The Lion King, Raisin in the Sun, and other traditionally black roles? Why not go back to yellowface casting in material such as The King and I? -- assuming, of course, that the actors involved are the most talented and most qualified, whether black, white, or Asian. There's no reason why King Mongkut shouldn't have an afro, if that's the hairstyle the best actor/singer happens to have.

R129, say what?

And as a biracial man who doesn't confuse equity with God-gimme crap, gurl, please.

See? I don't always call cunts cunts.

[quote] I’ll take your word for it .

You don5 have to. The NY Times said so 5 day ago. “The London production, starring Tom Holland, sold out in hours.”

Always hilarious when the racists have a breakdown once they realise that what they thought were their clever arguments fall apart upon contact with reality

r137 It probably did sell out pretty fast. Duke of York's theatre only seats 640 and the tickets were £25.

Someone is seriously going to pretend that a show starring Spider Man isn't going to sell out?

[quote]This definitely is a new interpretation. I don't remember on-stage sodomy in the original text.

That's part of the "woke."

R135 People always say they want new and interesting but there’s never any proof of it when something new and interesting comes out and does poorly.

R146 It's almost like the majority is not so impressed with such things.

We should get back to the important things about this topic, mainly the idea of having Tom Holland pleasured by one or more men on screen until all parties are sweaty and exhausted.

The audience for this crap show have to suspend their disbelief by watching a hot guy fall in lust with a butt ugly girl.

R149 Perhaps he kills himself when she wants to have sex with him.

What hot guy?

R151, The pudding-faced peasant at r80.

R152 you keep using the word “peasant” in describing the type of bland boy next door most white people find user friendly and quite appealing. It’s an odd choice of word, and it’s been used more than once on this thread.

Are you one of those Russians undermining the internet to cause dissention and hate? It’s a class hatred word and not one Americans use.

Yeah, of course, Putin's paying Russian trolls to post about Tom Holland. Get a fucking grip.

Well, the Russian trolls need to take a break from all the conservative post-bombing on political threads here, so why shouldn’t they moonlight on other threads?

You're absolutely correct r138. It's all such ridiculous casting.

[quote] It’s a class hatred word and not one Americans use.

Lucky for anyone who wants to say he looks like he belongs at the bottom of the feudal pyramid that Tom Holland is English then.

r156 Except r138 referred to Holland as "cute" so they're clearly not absolutely correct

R153, Mea culpa, sincerely. I thought not of class but of a paucity of attractiveness. As a liberal Democrat, I am in favor of all things social safety net.

this juliet broad looks like a fat retard. who'd fall in love with her?

^ a blind person. Of all of the beautiful black actresses in this world, they pick this dud.

I’d rather look at Tom Holland’s mud flaps!

I WW threads like this that psychotic Yasss Kweens grey out

Tom Holland stuck in heinous London ‘Romeo and Juliet’: ‘2.5 hours of my life I will never get back’

More people would pay to watch Tom Holland stick his finger in a dyke than endure him doing Shakespeare, which must be like sitting through a Suzuki violin recital for a large group of four-year-old children, each with a solo.

The majority of the audience for this shitshow are Tom Holland's young female fans.

R165, Depends on the dyke.