The Umbrella Academy adds Britne Oldford, Jake Epstein, Cazzie David, more to season 3 cast
TV Features TV
Note: This post contains spoilers for season two of The Umbrella Academy.
When fans return to Netflix’s Umbrella Academy for season three, things will look notably different. We have a good old fashioned altered timeline to thank for that, as the gang returns from their adventures in the 1960s to find that the Umbrella Academy is now more. In its stead stands Sparrow Academy and a new class of defenders with special abilities—including Ben a.k.a. Sparrow #2 (Justin H. Min) who, in this new timeline, is significantly less dead and far more “Machiavellian” in his quest to become leader. His fellow Sparrows come with a fleshed-out cast, including Jingle Jangle’s Justin Cornwall, Hunters’ Britne Oldford, Degrassi: The Next Generation alum Jake Epstein, Genesis Rodriguez, and Cazzie David.
Here’s just a little more info on each character, courtesy of Netflix:
- Marcus, Sparrow #1 (Cornwall): “A charming, chiseled, colossus. Honest, virtuous, and demanding, Marcus keeps the family together. Graceful but lethal, calculated but compassionate, he is as smart as he is strong. Marcus is disciplined, rational and in control. He oozes confidence and leadership without ever having to raise his voice. “
- Fei, Sparrow #3 (Oldford): “Fei sees the world in a special way. She comes across as a misanthrope who would rather be alone than spend even a second with you. But truth be told, Fei wishes she had a friend. Most of the time, Fei is the smartest person in the room and willing to work things out. But if you cross her there’s no looking back because Fei won’t stop until the job is done.”
- Alphonso, Sparrow #4 (Epstein): “Years of crime fighting have left his face and body with countless visual reminders of his battles. To compensate, Alphonso is armed with a caustic and biting sense of humor. The only thing he likes better than verbally battering anyone foolish enough to get in his face, is a good pizza and a six-pack of beer.”
- Sloane, Sparrow #5 (Rodriguez): “A romantic and a dreamer who feels a higher cosmic calling leaving her eager to see the world and experience a life beyond her upbringing. But obligations to her family keep Sloane tethered to the Academy, as does her fear of crossing the family line. But Sloane has plans… and one day she might just be brave enough to act on them.”
- Jayme, Sparrow #6 (David): “Jayme is a loner hidden under a hoodie. She doesn’t say much because she doesn’t have to. Jayme has a fear-inducing snarl. Catch a glimpse of it, and you’ll run across the street to avoid what follows. Smart and sharp as a knife, she spends most of her time hanging with Alphonso, her only friend.”
A seventh Sparrow known as Christopher is currently credited as “EXISTENTIAL DREAD INDUCING PSYKRONIUM CUBE.” Christopher is “a telekinetic cube of unknown origin. He can turn the room freezing cold and induce paralyzing fear. He acts as the Sparrows’ consulted oracle who hands out incredible advice and serves as the family mediator. Trustworthy, loyal, and is treated by the Sparrows like any other sibling, Christopher is a force to be reckoned with.” Elliot Page, Tom Hopper, David Castañeda, Emmy Raver-Lampman, Robert Sheehan and Aidan Gallagher, Ritu Arya, and Adam Godley are all set to return once the show goes back in production, whenever that may be.
28 Comments
I’m really interested to see how Elliot Page’s transition will effect his character on the show. Will he still present as and portray Vanya as cisgender, or will they incorporate Elliot’s identity into Vanya’s?
I think it’s kind of irrelevant. Why would it matter, and why should it? Actors be acting. I fully support actors who won’t portray straight roles if they are LGBTQ and goes against their principles (I think Wentworth Miller mentioned this, but I may have it wrong), but in all seriousness, you have straight actors playing LGBTQ, and they don’t seemingly have a problem, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Sir Ian McKellen portrayed a Nazi on film in the ‘90s. Would it have been better to have had an actual Nazi?
C’mon dude this is a totally fair question. You can be a fierce advocate for trans rights, celebrate Elliott Page’s transition, and still wonder how/if it will impact the character they portray on screen.
I suppose I phrased my question to the question improperly. So we’ll try again: Why does it matter? I think the character that Elliot Page is portraying is fine as it is, and bringing in real world aspects of who is acting the part is altering the character. Better known as, who cares? So what? I’m gonna continue watching the series, but that Elliot is no longer Ellen should not affect who that character is on screen. It’s acting.
I think it could matter for several reasons:This could be an opportunity to mainstream a trans character and a transition storyline into mainstream culture – for many people this could be the first encounter they have with a trans personIt could change the trajectory of an established character. I haven’t read the original comic but – does this change Anya’s story if Anya transitions as well? It could define how future trans actors handle roles It could lend insight into the artistic, business, and career challenges of transitioning It could help us understand what it means to transition if Elliott decides they don’t think they feel comfortable taking on a female roleI can’t speak for OP but I read their question as genuine curiosity, not trying to make a point or further some agenda. Some folks like to use the comments section to ask questions have discussions. Struck me as a little aggro to jump down their throat for it.Also, I don’t think you intended this but comparing a trans FTM actor playing a CIS female lesbian or bisexual character to a non-Nazi actor playing a Nazi character might strike some folks as apples and oranges.
All good points, but I have to say, I only saw the previous poster continuing the discussion, perfectly in keeping with your stated belief about the purpose of comment sections. I saw no aggro throat-jumping or agenda-accusing on their part whatsoever.
(Maybe the “this other actor played a Nazi!” bit was a tad wince-making, but that’s about it.)
I’m not sure what point you’re making here.assumes an agenda. And Sir Ian McKellen portrayed a Nazi on film in the ‘90s. Would it have been better to have had an actual Nazi?is insulting because only a moron would believe it would be better to have an actual Nazi playing a role in a film.
Why cite that last thing when I already said, yeah, it was a bad comparison? The other bit, no, that’s pretty weak, and, again, (the main part of my reply, ie the part you couldn’t be bothered replying to) to call it “aggro” and “jumping down someone’s throat” is overstating things to a truly nutty degree.
lol wow zero-to-aggro in no time flat. I did reply. I felt like you understated the Nazi comparison. When someone asks an obvious question like that, and further, doing so invoking Nazis (a variation of Godwin’s Law) I have to question whether the case is even being made in good faith. Also – when someone says “I’m not sure what point you’re making here” to an innocent question, clearly it presumes the question asker has some kind of ulterior motive. Some might say, accusing them of having an agenda. You seem very upset at me, a stranger on the internet.
When someone ignores what I feel is the main point of my reply in order to focus on a secondary side-point, I consider that one of the circumstances which free me of the obligation to make any effort to be polite. (Though how you’re assigning all this supposed rage to my slightly-curt reply is kind of out of nowhere.)
And mentioning Nazis in passing in that context (that an actor played one) is not to “invoke” them in the sense you’re implying, like, at all. Not to mention, didn’t you hear? Godwin’s Law is dead. Godwin himself declared so about four years ago. (And it was always kind of bullshit, in the way it was frequently used as an automatic conversation-stopper regardless of context in a “Ha! You used “Nazi” in a sentence! I can declare the discussion over!” kind of way.)
I think it’s up to Page and the writers of the show whether or not it matters, I’m just curious about what they’ll decide.
I have two beliefs in this:1.) It’s Umbrella Academy. They can just go, ‘Yeah, entering alternate timelines sometimes causes people to merge with their alt selves so Vanya is a guy now.’2.) They just don’t touch it. The last two seasons have focused heavily on Vanya discovering herself and, purely from a viewer’s opinion, I wouldn’t want to retread that same story arc for a third time. This is due to my belief that if you want to actually take the time to explore someone’s transition in this way, you need the proper narrative space to do it and I would much rather spend the time exploring other plots.
Whatever direction they go, hopefully it’s in full collaboration with Page. Transition is not simply a matter of “acting” there can be issues of dysmorphia and medical treatments involved. Now it may be that those are not an issue for Page and the character continues as before, or it may be that they are and the storyline gets tweaked (seems fairly easy to do here). If there’s an example to be set, it should be one of dialogue and cooperation regarding the actor’s particular circumstances.
The safest bet would probably just ask him if he’s still comfortable playing a cisgender female or if he prefers that they incorporate his transition into the character.
…the gang returns from their adventures in the 1960s to find that the Umbrella Academy is now more IS NOW MORE WHAT?!
More distant from the comics.
And thank fucking god for that- people who expect direct adaptations of materials are just about the biggest slackjawed dunces out there.
Game of Thrones is a perfect example of what happens when you start ignoring the source material. This dunce believes that was a disaster.
That is irrelevant to “ignoring source material”- Game of Thrones suffers from poor plotting against the actual show, and the worst offenses the show committed came well past the source material’s continuity.In actuality, the more faithful an adaptation is of source material, the more the artistic elements of the adaptation suffer- Sin City is a good example. It adapted the graphic novel word by word, panel by panel, to the point where there is nothing admirable in the adaptation’s story. It’s a technical achievement for what they did, and the visuals were still artistic as all get out, but the story is meh- it’s exactly what you get from the source material.I’ll admit that there’s positive aspects to keeping original elements to a story, the Marvel MCU balances it pretty well IMHO; but if you lament that The Umbrella Academy is distant from the comics, just read the comics- what good does it to the world that a well-written adaptation has to be close to the comics?
You admit when GoT went away from the books it got worse, but you theorize it should have gotten better.You believe Sin City could have been improved by ignoring the source. I’m dubious. I liked the film and then read the comics and liked them too. But then I’m a dunce. I think adding a whole bunch of characters instead of just continuing the story of the members of the Umbrella Academy is most likely a big mistake. I’d rather see them fight the robot zombie Gustavo Eiffel then meet the Sparrows.
You admit when GoT went away from the books it got worse, but you theorize it should have gotten better.
Nope, not what I said. “… worst offenses the show committed came well past the source material’s continuity.” As in, the show carried past the reference, so you can’t say it failed because it didn’t faithfully adapt anything properly, it didn’t have anything to adapt from.
You believe Sin City could have been improved by ignoring the source.
Not what I said. I said that the most faithful elements of Sin City detracts from any artistic originality; faithful adaptations are clinical and banal when done literally.
But then I’m a dunce.
You chose to ascribe that to yourself, I don’t know you in any sense to declare that. Like whatever you want to like, but you are wrong if you think changes in story to Umbrella Academy detracts from its quality.
MORE UMBRELLA!!!
We already have an Umbrella Corporation, they will be hearing from our legal department.
A seventh Sparrow known as Christopher is currently credited as “EXISTENTIAL DREAD INDUCING PSYKRONIUM CUBE.” Christopher is “a telekinetic cube of unknown origin. He can turn the room freezing cold and induce paralyzing fear. He acts as the Sparrows’ consulted oracle who hands out incredible advice and serves as the family mediator. Trustworthy, loyal, and is treated by the Sparrows like any other sibling, Christopher is a force to be reckoned with.”
ummmmmmm, someone call the Fire Department, cause we got a Certified Hottie Alert!
That’s a hot box.
Let’s hope Jake Epstein gets treated a bit better than his character Brian was on Suits.Cazzie David is very lucky to look like her mother, who is NOT Cheryl Hines.
The Vol. 3 cliffhanger in the comic was the S2 cliffhanger introducing the new team and while the show definitely only takes bits and pieces of the comic arcs, this is passing the source materiel. Of course, there’s a hell of a lot of Vol 3 with Hotel Oblivion which they haven’t touched which could be the arc for S3, plus the arrival of Sparrow Academy. Basically Gerard Way had a whole tour for 2020 cancelled, hopefully he’s finally written Vol. 4. Cuz the show is basically gonna Game of Thrones it passing the source.