Jump to content

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald


Recommended Posts

Was really disappointed in it, thought it threw away all the development of the first movie, and was staggeringly clumsy in terms of how it portrayed the different worlds - the care that's gone into Potter and the first movie to hide the magic folk from the muggles just dispensed with for a series of boring action sequences flattening Paris. Maybe this movie is setting up what's to come, not that I ever think that's an excuse, but if the rules don't matter any more than it doesn't build much confidence. Really struggling to think of anything fun that occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
23 minutes ago, gospvg said:

Bye Bye Johnny

 

 

 

The Crimes of Depp.

 

I wonder if we'll see a missive from JK Rowling like we did about trans people, especially since she was a victim of abuse herself? Funnily enough, I doubt it.

 

The single worst moment in that first film was realising Colin Farrell wouldn't be in more of them and we had to put up with Ham Depp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

The Crimes of Depp.

 

I wonder if we'll see a missive from JK Rowling like we did about trans people, especially since she was a victim of abuse herself? Funnily enough, I doubt it.

 

The single worst moment in that first film was realising Colin Farrell wouldn't be in more of them and we had to put up with Ham Depp.


Has it actually, to date, been proven what domestic abuse happened in that household? In court? Seeing as there are accusations and evidence for abuse from both sides?

 

This was to do with a libel case; Depp was complaining about The Sun calling him a “wife beater”.


 

The domestic abuse is abhorrent, and I don’t even feel perturbed that Depp is out of a franchise I refuse to support any longer. 
However, The Sun winning anything in court, when it appears there may have been a lot of evidence to the contrary, is fucking shit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NexivRed said:


Has it actually, to date, been proven what domestic abuse happened in that household? In court? Seeing as there are accusations and evidence for abuse from both sides?

 

This was to do with a libel case; Depp was complaining about The Sun calling him a “wife beater”.


 

The domestic abuse is abhorrent, and I don’t even feel perturbed that Depp is out of a franchise I refuse to support any longer. 
However, The Sun winning anything in court, when it appears there may have been a lot of evidence to the contrary, is fucking shit. 

 

Potentially, but from what I understand, the core of the case was Depp saying he was libeled because the Sun called him a 'wife beater' and he lost because the judge agreed that he is, therefore no libel happened.

 

Not to say loads of other awful shit came out at the trial, but that wasn't the core of that trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

Potentially, but from what I understand, the core of the case was Depp saying he was libeled because the Sun called him a 'wife beater' and he lost because the judge agreed that he is, therefore no libel happened.

 

Not to say loads of other awful shit came out at the trial, but that wasn't the core of that trial.


Yes. One judge decided The Sun was allowed to call him a wife beater, despite the fact it seems he hasn’t been found to be one yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

I don't remember but wasn't it deemed "substantially true"?

 

Which I think is a legal term that means the claim by the Sun was able to prove that at least one of the occasions of accusations of violence could be proved to a civil standard.

 

Edit: I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if I'm right. Also, I think accusations by Depp against Heard don't really factor into whether Depp was violent to her as the Sun alleges. 

 

Personally, from what I heard during the trial, they both sound like awful characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

I don't remember but wasn't it deemed "substantially true"?


He’s never been convicted. She withdrew her allegations and they settled out of court. 
 

This is not some blind defence of Depp because I think he’s hot by the way.
It’s the fact that he was never convicted of abuse, but a shit rag of a newspaper have won a case based on the opinion of one man, and seemingly ignoring much evidence. 
 

It’s a ridiculous way to do things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

Which I think is a legal term that means the claim by the Sun was able to prove that at least one of the occasions of accusations of violence could be proved to a civil standard.


You’d like to think so, but the defence lawyers are apparently bemused at the outcome due to the actual evidence available. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NexivRed said:


He’s never been convicted. She withdrew her allegations and they settled out of court. 
 

This is not some blind defence of Depp because I think he’s hot by the way.
It’s the fact that he was never convicted of abuse, but a shit rag of a newspaper have won a case based on the opinion of one man, and seemingly ignoring much evidence. 
 

It’s a ridiculous way to do things. 

 

Tis daft but I think the correct way to refer to it is that at least one count of violence to his wife? partner? (I don't know) has been deemed to be true to a civil standard. he probably shouldn't have taken the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NexivRed said:


You’d like to think so, but the defence lawyers are apparently bemused at the outcome due to the actual evidence available. 

 

I find that a bit hard to believe though, because he now has a finding against him of physical violence, which surely they would've known was bad news. I prsume this is why he's left the film franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NexivRed said:


He’s never been convicted. She withdrew her allegations and they settled out of court. 
 

This is not some blind defence of Depp because I think he’s hot by the way.
It’s the fact that he was never convicted of abuse, but a shit rag of a newspaper have won a case based on the opinion of one man, and seemingly ignoring much evidence. 
 

It’s a ridiculous way to do things. 

 

Civil jurisdiction is balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The Judge made findings of fact that he believed Heard's versions of events - that's not an error in law so Depp is pretty screwed for an appeal.

 

Of course he knew that  he brought the case, but to be honest the fact that he did, and the fairly plentiful evidence that Heard is a nutcase and the fact that his two other long term partners failed to corroborate pretty much anything she reported in their relationships with him suggests to me he got pretty unlucky in the outcome

 

But that of course is why to bring a libel suit is a big risk....his career is finished now regardless of the truth of the matter 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Festoon said:

 

I find that a bit hard to believe though, because he now has a finding against him of physical violence, which surely they would've known was bad news. I prsume this is why he's left the film franchise.


This is where I have the problem. 
 

Quote

..it was also found on the balance of probabilities that such a statement was true.

Of the 14 incidents of physical violence alleged against then-wife Amber Heard, 12 of them had been proved to the civil standard. For the two incidents which could not be proven, the judge noted this was due to certain facts not being put to Depp during cross-examination. Further, the judge rejected Depp’s case that this was all hoax concocted by Heard finding that she had not been physically violent towards Depp.


All it means is someone gets to decide what they think is likely. One man. One person. And largely based on witness testimony; much of it from Heard herself. Fucking woolly. 

And regardless if it’s likely he might have shoved her, slapped her, or pushed her over, the terminology it then allows is totally unfair in my opinion. Especially when it’s legal to hit your fucking kids as a form of discipline. 
“Wife beater” carries an awful stigma. And seeing as he was never found guilty of hitting or harming his wife, it’s ridiculous it’s allowed.
 

 

What annoys me is, if there was domestic violence, the case shouldn’t have been dropped.
To accept a payout, I’m sure some would argue was likely to protect her from having to go to trial and live through the trauma of possible assault. No one wants to do that. 
 

But if you believe in bringing a perpetrator of assault to justice, and to offer your support to others scared of speaking out about domestic abuse, whatever their sex, then she had the perfect platform to do that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NexivRed said:


This is where I have the problem. 
 


All it means is someone gets to decide what they think is likely. One man. One person. And largely based on witness testimony; much of it from Heard herself. Fucking woolly. 

And regardless if it’s likely he might have shoved her, slapped her, or pushed her over, the terminology it then allows is totally unfair in my opinion. Especially when it’s legal to hit your fucking kids as a form of discipline. 
“Wife beater” carries an awful stigma. And seeing as he was never found guilty of hitting or harming his wife, it’s ridiculous it’s allowed.
 

 

What annoys me is, if there was domestic violence, the case shouldn’t have been dropped.
To accept a payout, I’m sure some would argue was likely to protect her from having to go to trial and live through the trauma of possible assault. No one wants to do that. 
 

But if you believe in bringing a perpetrator of assault to justice, and to offer your support to others scared of speaking out about domestic abuse, whatever their sex, then she had the perfect platform to do that. 

 

I dunno. I'm not a legal expert but I'm sure he was warned about the potential downsides before he took  the case.

 

I'm not arguing at all about the 'rightness' of the case or terminology. In any case they have ongoing litigation in the US where he's suing her and nothing that happened in that Uk case is admissable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dreamylittledream said:

But that of course is why to bring a libel suit is a big risk....his career is finished now regardless of the truth of the matter 

 

That's what I can't understand. What solicitor would let him go through with it? Unless he was blotto during the whole process or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.