I'm pretty sure the answer is that they're both toxic pieces of shit that most likely made each other's life a living shit. Neither victims nor abusers, just two dickheads.

oh lord I'm an enlightened centrist now wtf. Depp at least gets a point for not being the party that, literally, shits in the other party's bed

 

If we're looking at biological warfare, he scrawled psychological abuse all over the walls of their home in his own blood. To be fair, this was after she bit off the end of his finger. But still...

 

Okay. When someone cannibalizes part of your person, you should feel free to scrawl hateful shit with the amputated limb.

God they're some fucked up people.

(he should sell the pictures of the half eaten finger and the hateful messages to some black metal band to use as album art just saying)

 

I was under the impression that the finger tip was lost as a result of her throwing a bottle of Vodka at him, even by Depp's testimony:

Of course, I think Heard claims that he did it himself:

I am not aware of who is telling the truth here, but I'm pretty certain that she didn't bite his finger off in either accounts. This kind of game of Chinese whispers is fairly unhelpful when trying to draw a conclusion on what actually happened.

 

Fair, that's exactly what I meant by there's a lot of different bits of evidence and interviews floating around, and that the judge is the only neutral party who has actually reviewed all of it.

 

Captain Jack Sparrow still gets his booty.

 

Hah! I'm sure WB will resist on the grounds of some contractual breach by Depp, Depp will insist on being paid, and they'll settle somewhere in the middle.

 

Somewhere in the middle on 8 figures is...a hefty pay day.

 

Read a rumour today that Mads Mikkelsen will be taking over.

If Depp is out, I support Hannibal, so long as they either replace Jude Law with Hugh Dancy or Mads and Jude share a deep and penetrating on-screen kiss.

 

The guardian has reported that its Mikkelson as well. I'm quite pleased with it, I think he'll be able to pull off the intense charisma and quiet psychosis of the character without going the overtly crazy style of Depp.

 

I don't think JKR's comments on trans questions will stop films from being made in HP universe. Unlikely most viewers have heard of the issue, some large proportion won't care, the studio may make some token donations to trans rights or something. HP franchise is a big money maker.

 

Yeah and not to geet too deep into (we have a thread for that), Rowling's stance on Transgender is one still shared by a great deal of people and the concerns she brought up are legitimate concerns even if you're fully supportive of transitioning and what not. So, I don't see it hurting WB with anyone other than "Woke people"

 

The problem for her and WB is that, regardless of whether or not Arth is correct that many people share her views (I'd disagree, I think it's more likely that most folk have never actually considered the issue at all), there have been a bunch of negative headlines in mainstream media about her views, and more happen every time she does something.

A lot of people won't read the articles, or they'll skim them. But they'll remember seeing repeated headlines to the tune of "Rowling embroiled in controversy", "Rowling criticised for bigoted views", and "Radcliffe joins Watson and Redmane in criticism of Rowling".

For people who don't follow the stories closely, and who don't really know about the issue at all, continued negative headlines build up and leave a long term negative impression.

Will that be enough to stop them going to the cinema to see the film? I don't know. I know a lot of folk who dislike many aspects of going to the cinema and are easily put off going to a film by the smallest thing. It's generally a very expensive outing, and it's not difficult to get the DVD when a film comes out down the line. Negative headlines about someone tied up the franchise shortly before a film comes out can very much impact ticket sales, not by a huge amount certainly but by a noticeable percentage.

That's why studios are always keen to avoid controversy of any sort, and I wouldn't be shocked if they've already strong armed Rowling about it.

 

If we can't have Farrell, I guess Mikkelsen will do.

 

It's a goddamn bummer. Colin Farrell trying, and failing to convince the aurors to join him, only to have to turn his wand on them and they fall like children is the best part of FB1. He would have won too if it wasn't for that meddling swooping evil.

Also, I'm irrationally bothered that TIna used accio to summon the wand rather than the disarming charm. Surely it's not a new charm?

Do you all think they'll go with a similar aesthetic?

 

I imagine they'll try to keep the same general aesthetic, to prevent too much confusion. That picture you posted is...not bad tbh, I could see that as Grindelwald.

 

The movie didn't show it properly, but the Screenplay mentions that Grindelwald had dropped his wand when the swooping evil wrapped around him and that Tina summoned it from the ground.

 

It is your birthright, my boy. As is the name I now restore to you. Mads. Mads Mikkelsen. We will go down in history together as we remake these films.

Shame, would have loved Farrell to get the part. I thought he was one of the best parts of FB1. Either way, this series ruined my interest with FB2. That said, I'll see the rest of them for magic on the big screen and the general aesthetic, but quietly ignore all contributions to canon.

 

Apparently Farrell is tied up with his role in the next Batman film, so there wasn't even consideration of him for the part.

 

Mikkelson is denying he got the role. Likely his name was floated internally at WB and they are maybe talking to his agents, but they haven't reached out to him.