I said it 4 years ago and I stand by it, Colin Farrell was great. The stupid twist was stupid, should've just made him Grindelwald. Still salty.

 

And they'll cut the budget on CGI or sets instead of reworking the script, smh.

 

Oh yeah, I'd fully expect that films 4 and 5 will take place mostly on sets that are very limited in scope. They'll reuse the panning overhead image of Hogwarts from an earlier film, and build a "castle room" out of polystyrene on an industrial lot somewhere which will get used for any and every interior shot they need.

 

I'd thought Alexander Skarsgård would make an excellent Grindelwald.

 

Also a definite possibility if the financials are trending downwards but still profitable (especially once merch is added to the box office profits). It's really just going to depend on what the numbers and financial models look like and how long the various scandals stick around. It's certainly conceivable that Depp's firing is forgotten about in a week, or he continues a downward spiral that makes cutting ties with him seem like a smart move. By the same token Rowling doubtless has PR people telling her it would be a very good idea to stop loudly proclaiming her TERF views at every opportunity, and if she just shuts up about it for a while it'll probably drop from public consciousness for a lot of folks.

That said, budget cuts would definitely be felt when the films need lots of special effects to cover all the magic and magical creatures, and the series has so far leaned pretty heavily on the globe-trotting aspect as part of its appeal.

 

I dont really get why he's fired though, like didn't they cast him while everyone thought he was abusing his wife? I'd imagine keeping him after it became clear that it wasn't as onesided as initially belived, would be less controversial.

 

I was following the Depp thing for a while and I gotta say that this most definitely won't be even destruction of the both of them. Not that it should actually matter what an actor does in their personal life if they fit the part of the movie. I think in general Rowling was probably expecting him to look a bit more like he did as the Mad Hatter (thin, bouncy, etc...) but he's kind of just a middle-aged man with a beer gut. I also think his incredibly flamboyant appearance is just so overstated and unappealing.

 

Much like any company can (and generally should) choose to cease your employment if you get found guilty of a crime that could seriously impact their business...I think its a pretty reasonable action for hem to ask him to resign @AlexIY

All of Rowling's, and everyone elses, defence of him is blown out the water (as far as the media and general public is concerned) by the fact that a judge found the description of him being a wife beater was "substantially true" - its a hard thing to work the PR around.

 

Really, the more surprising thing is that they waited until now to cut ties with Depp. Most other companies dropped him pretty much the instant the scandal came out.

By the by, can someone more familiar with the UK legal system comment on whether there's any special legal significance to term "substantially true?" I've heard a couple conflicting things about what it means, from "the judge ruled he's a wife beater" to "the judge ruled that it doesn't meet the strict legal definition of libel."

 

The Sun proved the wife beating beyond the "balance of probability" test in 12 out of the 14 cases presented to the court as part of the trial. Balance of probability is the civil court standard, and is effective a 51% likelihood test. Basically the Sun had to prove it was likely that what they said was true in order for it not to be libellous.

 

Agreed, they did my boy dirty. Should just have Farrel play Grindlewald in the third one anyway with no explanation, fuck it.

That said, after the dumpster fire that was CoG, I can't really bring myself to care about these movies anymore. Can only hope whoever is making the thing isn't as apathetic about it as I am. Maybe Rowling will outsource this time.

 

I remember watching the first movie in the theater opening weekend - when Farrell transformed into Depp there was an audible groan from the audience. I certainly agreed with them, although I never make any commotion in a public theater. Honestly I don't recall much of hating on Ferrell, although a lot of people weren't as interested in the movie in general and hated on it pre-release in general.

 

Mark me down for just bringing back Colin Farrell to play Grindelwald. Maybe dye his hair blonde, who cares.

 

I'm seconding Karl Urban. That guy has a presence in every role he plays.

 

While I haven't follow this very much, I was under the impression Heard was literally caught on tape admitting she was fabricating abuse?

 

I believe the British libel law system is utter trash. This is from a science podcast I listen to, but apparently there is a movement to overturn it, as it is so horribly tilted. But @Taure may know more about British law.

 

There was a tape going around of Heard admitting she hit him and justifying it.

 

I was under the impression that UK libel laws were tilted in favour of the claimant, not the other way around. All they need to prove is that what was said caused damage to their public image in the UK, and it is down to the person who made the claim to provide evidence that it is true. In effect, they are assumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence by establishing their statements as true.

Over the years I've seen quite a lot of journalistic hand-wringing over how the biased libel laws in the UK are damaging our press, though honestly, when I look at publications like the Sun or Daily Mail it's hard to see. One wonders just how much sensationalist demagoguery they'd be putting out if the libel laws weren't biased.

 

The burden of proof for defamation in English law is essentially the same as everything else. The English law starting point is that reputation is something worth protecting in a similar way to bodily integrity or property.

Consider assault. If I want to sue you for assaulting me, all I I have to prove that you hit me. The burden then shifts to you, as the defendant, to prove that there was some lawful justification for hitting me such as self-defence.

So too with defamation. If I want to sue you for libel, all I have to prove is that you wrote something that damaged my reputation. The burden then shifts to you to prove that there was some lawful justification for doing so such as truth, public interest, or whatever.

As I understand it, in US law the burden is on the claimant to prove that (i) a defamatory statement was made, and (ii) that there was no lawful justification such as truth. It would be as if, in an assault case, there was a presumption that all violence is in self-defence unless proven otherwise - I would have to prove that you hit me and also prove that it wasn't self-defence.

So basically in US law reputation is considered of less value to bodily integrity and property, since it is not given the same level of legal protection. However I'm not a US lawyer and I have some vague recollection that the burden varies depending on whether you're a public figure or not.

 

So in this case the Sun had to prove, on the balance of the probability (so 51% likely to be the case), that the description of Depp as a wife beater was true. And they succeeded.

I know that there's a lot of evidence floating around, different recordings and different interviews. But at this point I think it's likely that the judge in the libel case is the only person to have fully heard of the evidence of both sides and weighed them against each other. So until this decision gets overturned on appeal, or Depp is found innocent in a criminal trial (which have a higher burden of proof), I'm comfortable accepting that this is very much a both sides situation and that anyone supporting one of them over the other is being an idiot.