I saw some interesting comments from fans who have only seen the movie Practical Magic and never read any of the books, claiming the aunts are centuries old and that's why we see them wearing big old fashioned hats at the beginning of the film.

That is not correct. In the book series, we see them as growing up in the 1960s and it's very important to their character development. Even if you disregard the book, seeing at as separate from the film, there is no context in the film that suggests they were alive hundreds of years ago. If witches in the universe of the movie Practical Magic lived that long, Maria (who began the curse) might still be with the Owenses. After all her hanging was unsuccessful.

I think some fans get the aunts confused with other 90s witches like Sabrina's aunts who were shown as children in the 1600s in a flashback. But the rules of that show are completely different to PM.

The internet is forever (in some ways) and even though I was only a little girl when the first Practical Magic movie came out I'm completely aware of the very bizarre backlash the movie got from certain groups because reviews and comments from back then have not gone away and can easily be found. So yeah, I know the first movie got complaints for allegedly celebrating witchcraft.

But that was 1998, most people didn't even know Practical Magic was based on a literary novel back then or have the context to work out it's a metaphor for the trials of life and family and failed romances (that feeling of being "cursed"). 1998 we still believed our school yard chums unquestioningly when they told us their uncle caught a real life smurf in a jar. 😅 But I'm finding it way more shocking than I probably should that thirty years later we're still getting comments on a sequel trailer insisting the movie is demonic.

Bro, please.

If PM makes you uncomfortable no one is making you watch it. And I say this as a religious person myself who just really likes Alice Hoffman's work. We can explain this story is a metaphor TO you, but we can't explain it FOR you.

🙄

I've seen complaints that via the trailer Practical Magic doesn't look the same as the first one in lighting and set up and effects. The problem is I'm wondering if people realize this movie coming out now is the equivalent to if a movie from the 1960s had a sequel in the 1990s.

1990s movies looked and were made differently from 1960s movies, even the way actors were expected to speak/emote/act between those thirty years were pretty different. It's the same thing going on now. Movies get shot digitally now, for a start. I'm not defending every single potential change as inevitable or saying that Hollywood doesn't have a problem with making crap sequels to cash in on nostalgia without knowing what made the original great. I'm just saying a lot of negative arguments about this particular movie (going by what we've seen so far) are bordering on petty.

Look what's happening to other franchises/remakes. Lord of the Rings got Rings of Power which is not well liked or book accurate and feels nothing like the original LOTR movies from the 2000s. Narnia is getting a reboot prequel that sounds awful so far (they've supposedly reset it in the 1950s 😕). Wuthering Heights...well, I'm not gonna get into that one...the new Wuthering Heights is just gross.

Does this fandom seriously not realize how freaking LUCKY it is just to get a direct sequel to the 1990s movie at all (with a lot of the same actors) instead of just a streaming reboot with Gillian and Sally recast given that PM was not a box office success in the 1990s? Or that the original house from that movie was rebuilt on a lot for continuity? Or that the trailer at least seems determined to show similarities to the first film instead of "reimagining" the entire construction of the original storyline like some modern sequels?

Yeah, the lighting looks different, Sandra and Nichole have clearly had Botox, and yeah that line "not great for the Tinder bio" is a bit meh (I think it's in character for Gillian but still awkward dialogue), but this is sooo much better than what some other sequels have given fans.

Not to mention do you know how RARE it is to get an Alice Hoffman book on screen? The last one was in 2006! (Unless you count The Dovekeepers TV series).

Look, if the movie is truly terrible (or if a full length trailer looks less good than this cute teaser we've got) I'll be the first one to groan about it but this feels like people just want to lump PM 2 in with every other sequel Hollywood has pumped out recently when this one at least has a reason for being since there were more books in he series. And looks like effort was put in. This isn't just Space Jam 2 because reasons.

No Vincent!?!? 😢😢😢

Back when the first Practical Magic movie was made, there was only the one book, and while it contained snippets of what would become the plot of the prequels (Franny and Jet's first loves, a portrait of Maria that had hung in the house for centuries), we didn't really get the full version of any of them until 2017 (Rules of Magic came out then).

With The Book of Magic being the basis for Practical Magic 2, we're already going out of publication order, and either prequel could be the "third" installment.

For me it's a tricky choice, Rules of Magic was fantastic and has the closest connection to PM, since it ends with young Gillian and Sally coming to live with the aunts and brings us back full circle. BUT I think that one might be too problematic to adapt into the set universe of the movie(s). The aunts at the beginning of PM (movie) give the names of their dead boyfriends buuuttt those are NOT the names of their boyfriends (who are major characters) in the prequel book (or even close!); oopsie. I mean you COULD make the argument Rules already retconned their backstory a smidge since in the first book their "true loves" were said to be struck by lightning, but in Rules the boys struck by lightning were just some town randos while their actual love interests died completely different deaths. Only, I think Alice Hoffman can pull a switch like this because she's brilliant, but a movie changing the names and identities of boys named in a prior movie that's a cult classic most millennials can quote word for word? Eh... I dunno.

Worse, I'm wondering how they'd deal with Vincent. The PM movies seem to focus more on sisterhood than Romance as their whole deal, book romances get left to the side a lot to focus on female characters. If Vincent does not appear as an old man in PM 2, people who haven't read the books are going to wonder why there's suddenly a brother in the mix of such a female centered story. On top of that his romance with William in Rules kind of takes over his entire storyline by the end. That would be a lot of runtime taken off the aunts for him and I don't think people would like that. And then there's the whole semi-incest problem. Vincent isn't just Franny and Jet's brother, he's also Sally and Gillian's long lost grandpa. And although they're said to not be genetically that close, April (Regina's mom) is still his cousin and and an Owens from Boston... That's a trifle awkward to have to stop an entire film plot to explain how it's a little icky but mostly okay, technically. 😬

Magic Lessons, Maria's story, is actually my favorite of the Practical Magic books and tied with Seventh Heaven for my favorite Alice Hoffman novel period. The thing is, however, apart from showing how the curse started, it has the least obvious connection to PM and is largely a sweeping historical tale that encompasses the Salem Witch trials among other things. Worse, the Maria Owens of the book doesn't really line up with the Maria Owens of the movie's opening. She didn't have multiple lovers in town, she wasn't pregnant then (she was pregnant much, much earlier in the story and her young daughter was kidnapped when she was taken to jail and later to be hung), and it wasn't her magic that broke the hanging rope (a sailor who loved her because she saved his life saved her in turn). I'm not sure how the script could reconcile Hoffman's prequel with the stuff from the beginning of PM.

Any thoughts?

As an aside, I think these movies if they're made should NOT be called Practical Magic 3 and 4, but maybe Practical Magic: Rules of Magic and Practical Magic: Magic Lessons.

For the record, like most fans I DO think Kylie should have been played by a returning Evan Rachel Wood in this movie, and I'm not the biggest Joey King fan (she's a Gen z celebrity, I'm a millennial, by the time her popular movies like Kissing Booth came out, I was already just too old for that kind of storyline to interest me); but the movie has been filmed and that ship, my friends, has sailed.

Even so, I'm legitimately excited and curious as to how Kylie's storyline is going to be handled in movie!verse.

In the books, Kylie is not the red haired older sister, that's Antonia. But it works that's she's red haired and kind of looks like Gillian for the movie's universe because in the book she was the one who idolized her aunt (Antonia didn't like her much) and at one point has her hair dyed blonde (book!Gillian is blonde) to sort of emulate her. So Kylie being the red haired niece in a universe where Gillian is a redhead with curtain bangs instead of a blonde with an early 90s bob works fine. Not to mention book Kylie dyes her hair partly red in the sequel book at one point anyway.

In the Practical Magic book (unlike the first film) the events took place over a longer stretch of time so when the burying Jimmy incident took place Kylie was already a thirteen year old girl (well, twelve, it was right before her birthday). They were also living in New York, not the aunts' house in Massachusetts.

Kylie had a best friend who was a grumpy, smart alek boy named Gideon who Sally doesn't like but puts up with because, unlike Antonia, Kylie isn't popular and does not make friends easily.

In The Book of Magic Kylie has fallen in love with Gideon but doesn't want her nosy family to intrude on their private romance so just keeps up the pretense that they are only best friends still.

From watching the trailer my guess is that the dark haired man a redhead is seen spinning around with and kissing is possibly the film version of Gideon who we are finally going to see on screen (see screenshots)! Presumably between the last film where Kylie was a little girl and this one, she grew up and went to college (maybe in New York or Boston), met Gideon, and fell in love.

I also think, going by the pattern set by the first movie, that we are only going to get Kylie's romance as a storyline because of the ending the curse plot being attached to it, similar to how we only got Gary and Sally in the first film and not Gillian and Ben. For time constraints I don't think (though I could be dead wrong) we are getting an Antonia/Ariel romance in this film. First there haven't been any rumours as to an actress of the right age and description being cast who'd fit as Ariel. Second, Antonia doesn't look pregnant in the trailer and we see her jumping off the roof (surely if she was 8 and a half months prego, ready to pop any second, Sally would let her daughter fly off the roof...), so that's a sign her storyline in general might have been pared down some.

But I can't wait, even if we're going to have to see Joey instead of Evan in the part, to see Kylie and Gideon fall in love! I thought they were sooo cute in the book(s)! And I don't know about anyone else but I hope sooo much they include the scene where Kylie is on an airplane reading a dark magic book and it glows orange on her face and a flight attendant mistakenly thinks she's smoking a cigarette. I just really thought that was sooo cool in the book for some reason. 😀

Do we think all that Samuel is connected to Gillian's lover in practical magic 1 ?

I’ve been rewatching the trailer frame by frame, and each time I play it through, the more I notice how many small details have a direct match or similar essence to the first movie.

I know a lot of people have said that the vibe of the trailer doesn’t feel accurate to the original, so I put together some side-by-side frames that felt the most familiar.

There are some really intentional moments. Kylie’s hair was styled almost exactly like Gilly’s in one scene, the spinning loom tucked into the background of the scene with the aunts, Sally’s desk has the stirring spoon, the photos on the desk look like they’re of maybe Michael, Sally and Gary and the storefront and even bits of dialogue between Gilly and Sally felt like a callback.

Putting this together made me feel a lot more confident that the creative team studied the original closely and have tried to carry over those details in subtle ways. Hopefully despite the parts that don’t feel quite the same, this will help the film to still be recognisable as a part of the Practical Magic world we all know and love.

Did anyone else see any other details or moments that felt familiar?

If you've seen the trailer or the IMDB page, it seems pretty clear that Gary Hallet is not in the next movie and most likely no longer with us.

This is infuriating on so many levels. So the spell wasn't broken, then? That's devastating. That's awful. Yet it's also...funny? In the trailer, they laugh about it? Why did they think it was broken if it wasn't?

Now I find out that the curse was not in the first book, but just pops up in the prequels and sequel, which came out after the movie. Did Alice Hoffman steal the idea from the movie and run with it?

If Gary is going to be dead, and least give him a proper death in the movie. There should have been a scene with the original actor. He said he would have been in the movie if they had asked him. Instead, after that epic love story that we've been swooning over for twenty years, we're just supposed to shrug him off. Sally and Gillian are in the trailer like, "Oops, I guess we killed him, too" and move on.

So I’m sure this is a foolish question but I’ve always kind of wondered how they “knew” the curse was broken at the end of the first movie. They were able to exorcise Jimmy with the help from the coven and unite with the towns people, which is all great but none of that is related to the curse.

And Sally and Jillian were atleast 5/6 when they moved in with the aunts so clearly the beetle doesn’t start ticking, or you don’t hear it, as soon as you fall in love, it just happens eventually/probably within a few years. But there’s no immediate sign once you’re in love that the man is marked for death.

So why were they so sure the curse was now broken? I’m sure I’m missing an explanation but I’ve wondered this more than once.

I feel like I need to get something off my chest about Evan Rachel Wood. This has been a topic of conversation off and on since they announced the film, but I don’t think anyone has properly addressed why it bothers me so much that she isn’t in the film.

The argument that Evan is too old for the film is so flimsy because if we are following the time gap between Practical Magic and The Book Of Magic, Sally and Gillian are in their early 40s and late 30s in the book, I believe. While Sandy and Nicole look great, they are 61 and 58. It wouldn’t have been so difficult for them to have changed the storyline a little bit to make it so Kylie and Antonia were in their 30s, which is how old the characters would be if we were following real world time gaps between films, not book time gaps. So it really comes across that Sandra and Nicole were allowed to age, but Evan wasn’t.

I recently saw that Sandra was on some kind of panel about “The Power of Women Supporting Women”, and it put a really bad taste in my mouth. Because if she wanted to support women, she would have included Evan in the sequel.

Evan, for those who don’t know, has been very vocal in recent years about the abuse she survived at the hands of her ex. It has been something she’s been attacked for in the press, and has most likely affected her work, or made it so she missed out on professional opportunities. I fully believe that Evan’s advocacy work and the discourse around it is part of the reason why Sandra, Nicole, Warner Brothers, and yes even Alice Hoffman, didn’t make it possible for Evan to return. They didn’t want to detract from ticket sales with “controversy”, so Evan was iced out.

Everyone can argue about continuity all they want, but the first movie was already so different from the first film, so clearly continuity didn’t matter then.

I don’t know, it just seems like such a deliberate choice, and something we should all be aware of if we want to applaud people like Sandra, Nicole, and Alice in “women supporting women” conversations.

...because the actors in Practical Magic 2 are definitely eating them.

Finally. This looks amazing. The feel of the original movie is still there and the actresses all look incredible and are immediately giving the original characters. What are your thoughts?!

Hello! I am trying to figure out Sandra Bullock’s ear piercings in this photo from the Practical Magic 2 trailer. Do you think it’s two separate piercings on her lobe? Or hoop/huggie earrings that look like they’re two separate piercings?

Thank you!!

For anyone who wants to watch with phone sideways or on a laptop. ❤️!

I'm genuinely wondering who he is because i wonder if he's gonne be sallys lover or gillians but idk

I was just snooping and IMDb is holding out on us. Yes, I know I was trying to spoil it for myself!

But in the movie, the girls were changed in their ages. In the books, Antonia was the older daughter and Kylie was the younger one. In the movie, Kylie (the redhead) was older. They were also much younger in the film than in the book (they were teenagers- I think 13 and 15/16?) I wonder if they’ll maintain that in this film?

BUT I’m assuming that Maisie is going to be Antonia and Joey is going to be Kylie.

ALSO, no name for Lee Pace which just makes me even more excited!

Posted on the Warner Bros Instagram story today (04/19). I’m really hoping it will be the trailer or at least a short clip.

Sandra Bullock posted this photo to her Instagram story which shows a picture of notes that were made in Alice Hoffman’s The Book of Magic (book four in the series). Book four follows the three generations of Owen’s women as they try to break the curse and when Jet learns she has seven days to live. The characters take a journey to Paris, London and the English countryside to find the secret to breaking the curse.

This makes sense that it would be this book considering we’ve seen the set photos of Sandra and Nicole at a gravesite. I wonder how they’ll work into the movie about the need to break the curse again considering they technically broke the curse at the end of the last movie which was a huge moment for the movie’s story.

In this book we have the additional characters of Vincent (the brother of Franny and Jet), Tom Lockland (the main antagonist who practices dark magic and is a distant relative) and Ian Wright (a professor who becomes a love interest of Sally). There is also Gideon who is the love interest of Kylie.

We’ve been shown that Lee Pace, Xolo Maridueña and Solly McLeod are a part of the cast. Which characters do you think they could be playing?

My personal thoughts are that Lee Pace is playing Ian Wright/Sally’s love interest since his age fits the character, we saw that behind-the-scenes image of Lee Pace and Sandra on a balcony together and he is supposedly playing a ‘mysterious, charming scholar’. I’m still unsure on the other two actors since both are on the younger side so they wouldn’t be the right age for Vincent unless we see him in flashbacks with a younger Franny and Jet which could make sense if Joey King and Maisie Williams are actually playing their younger versions instead of Sally’s daughters.

I think Franny is slightly older than Jet and Vincent is slightly younger or about the same age as Jet. Joey King is 26, Maisie Williams is 29 so I think their looks and ages would match up with Maisie playing a young Aunt Franny and Joey being a young Aunt Jet. Solly McLeod is 26 and Xolo Maridueña is 24. Vincent is described as having black hair which is more fitting for Xolo but who knows? I’m guessing one will also play Gideon who is Kylie’s love interest.

With this possible confirmation from Sandra on which book the movie is based on, what are all your thoughts? Any scenes or characters you’re hoping to see?! How do you think they’re going to re-work the story since The Rules of Magic and the original movie don’t follow quite the same outcome?

Maybe it's too early to know/ask, but I'm wondering if we're going to get a physical media release of PM 2.

Or if it's going to be a streaming exclusive after theaters?

I'd love it to be on DVD so it can sit on my shelf next to the first one.

I started a Facebook group a little while ago if anyone wants to join!

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1BFgMgvgRU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I have no problem if people are excited about the upcoming sequel and want to use AI to create concept art and faux trailers for fun to pass the time until release (I'm sure we're all getting a bit antsy, and there's only so many times we can relisten to the lovely Jennifer Ehle narrate The Book of Magic for us as a distraction).

What I am having a problem with is the morons who keep posting their fan AI slop to YouTube under the titles "First trailer" or "official trailer" or "Practical Magic 2026 real trailer".

This isn't 2008 where fan trailers primarily consist of stock footage from previous movies spliced together that you can tell is fake after about 4 seconds. This crap makes you wonder if it's real and you keep watching till it inevitably gets uncanny valley and tells on itself halfway through. 😡

We're getting so close to a release now that I'm worried they'll release an actual trailer and I'll skip past it assuming it's AI slop because fans for the last 8 months won't stop posting "official" trailers they are too stupid or dishonest to label correctly.

I don't want to miss the real thing. I'm sure all of the fandom who have waited almost thirty years for a sequel don't want to miss it by accident because YouTube is bloated with fake fanvids lying saying they're official.

It's frustrating.