By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Johnny Depp asked to resign from Fantastic Beasts series after court loss, #3 delayed

KManX89 said:
DonFerrari said:

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.

You think somebody who honestly believed they were abused, real or not would go to court with a fake makeup bruise to get a TRO when their ex was out of the country and couldn't defend himself the day after police came over and said she had no bruises and tip off TMZ to take pics?

Yeah, no, that's somebody who knows they're lying, plain and simple. This is to say nothing of the PILES of other evidence she knows she's lying.

Oh, and speaking of trouble:

We did it, guys... I think.

For me the only way she could really believe she was telling the truth (for physical, psychological and sexual abuse) would be if she isn't sane (well she doesn't look much normal) but her lawyers didn't go that way as that would also destroy her future career.

And considering that even a fake fundme raised 1M in like a day to pay for her lost cause I think that even with everything that happened she will be back on screen in a short time due to pressure from some movements.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
SegaHeart said:

Actaul victims (real woman that are abused by actual men) are disgusted of her right now saying she doesn't speak on behalf of actual woman that were abused.

My own thoughts do you think she'll win or lose if the court system votes in her favor with more evidence against her? Can she win?

Here is the actual letter for point of reference:

"Amber, no victim of domestic violence acts in the manner in which you do. You are the abuser, not the abused."



KManX89 said:
SegaHeart said:

Actaul victims (real woman that are abused by actual men) are disgusted of her right now saying she doesn't speak on behalf of actual woman that were abused.

My own thoughts do you think she'll win or lose if the court system votes in her favor with more evidence against her? Can she win?

Here is the actual letter for point of reference:

"Amber, no victim of domestic violence acts in the manner in which you do. You are the abuser, not the abused."

What a good letter and my sympathy goes to people that truly suffered abuse.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Darc Requiem said:

I find this actual malice debate curious. She had first hand knowledge of the situation. She knew she was lying. She knowingly published false statements. That's actual malice. More over in a he said/she said case the credibility is important and Amber has none. Once Camille Vasquez cross examined her and repeatedly caught he in lies. She had lost whatever credibility she had left with the jury if she had any left to begin with.

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.

I have no words for how ridiculous that "point" is.



KManX89 said:
DonFerrari said:

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.

You think somebody who honestly believed they were abused, real or not would go to court with a fake makeup bruise to get a TRO when their ex was out of the country and couldn't defend himself the day after police came over and said she had no bruises and tip off TMZ to take pics?

Yeah, no, that's somebody who knows they're lying, plain and simple. This is to say nothing of the PILES of other evidence she knows she's lying.

Oh, and speaking of trouble:

We did it, guys... I think.

Unfortunately, there are now rumors floating around that WB did a test screening where Amber Heard's character Mera appears for 25 minutes of the film, more than double the 10 minutes the WB exec claimed during the trial. Here is hoping the test audience loathed the 25 minutes of Amber cut.



Around the Network
Darc Requiem said:
DonFerrari said:

The point JWeinCom was pushing was that it isn't she telling a lie or not, was if she believed it was a lie.

I have no words for how ridiculous that "point" is.

I terms of legality, it's not ridiculous at all. In defamation cases malicious intent is integral. Being wrong is not the same as being malicious; if she genuinely believed herself she lacks the malicious intent behind defamation. That's just how law works, it's always more complicated than you think it is. Lawyers get paid ridiculous sums of money for a reason.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

Runa216 said:
Darc Requiem said:

I have no words for how ridiculous that "point" is.

I terms of legality, it's not ridiculous at all. In defamation cases malicious intent is integral. Being wrong is not the same as being malicious; if she genuinely believed herself she lacks the malicious intent behind defamation. That's just how law works, it's always more complicated than you think it is. Lawyers get paid ridiculous sums of money for a reason.  

No it's quite ridiculous as it doesn't hold up to the case in question. If the assertion is that you can't prove malice "because she believes her own lies" it doesn't hold up to the evidence presented in case. You can impeach a witness to show they are being knowingly deceptive. The best example of this is the 2016 Deposition from the UK case in which Amber lies about tipping of TMZ. She literally catches herself telling the truth in that video. So she is being knowingly deceptive. She does not believe her lies are the truth. Moreover her testimony in the VA case often contradicts her previous testimonies under oath. It's why the cross examination of Amber by Camille Vasquez was so devastating to her case. She would ask Amber a question, then show that Amber was lying with her very own words. That was the universal moment in which I saw the various lawyers live streaming the case switch from "Johnny doesn't stand a chance of winning" to "Johnny is going to win his case." 

I'm no lawyer. That said, when I can watch several lawyers make an assertion. I'll defer to their wisdom. Particularly when one of the lawyers is practicing attorney in VA. I'll take his word on the matter over a poster on the VGChartz that seems to have a contrarian take on the issue for the sake of being contrarian. 



shikamaru317 said:
KManX89 said:

You think somebody who honestly believed they were abused, real or not would go to court with a fake makeup bruise to get a TRO when their ex was out of the country and couldn't defend himself the day after police came over and said she had no bruises and tip off TMZ to take pics?

Yeah, no, that's somebody who knows they're lying, plain and simple. This is to say nothing of the PILES of other evidence she knows she's lying.

Oh, and speaking of trouble:

We did it, guys... I think.

Unfortunately, there are now rumors floating around that WB did a test screening where Amber Heard's character Mera appears for 25 minutes of the film, more than double the 10 minutes the WB exec claimed during the trial. Here is hoping the test audience loathed the 25 minutes of Amber cut.

It might've just been them testing the waters for what they can get away with, and judging by Twitter reactions, the response to her was highly negative (big surprise there), but if she's in it for 1 second, I won't be paying to see this, I don't care if they kill her off in the opening scene. Maybe if they acknowledged they done fucked it up with the whole JD situation and issued him an apology and potential film roles.

Oh, and speaking of WB fuck-ups, the whole Ezra Miller saga continues to blow up in their face and make them look worse by the day:

Nice going, WB, you fucking morons. You fired JD based on baseless accusations that have now been proven (and I mean legally, court-of-law P-R-O-V-E-N) false yet you give this guy a pass without so much as a peep after he was caught on video assaulting a woman (!), and where did that enabling get you? You're essentially harboring a fugitive who damn near cut a woman's eye off after putting a giant laceration in her head, threatened and stole from a live-in couple, threatened police after arresting him for disorderly conduct and groomed a 12-year-old (!) and ran off with her years later!

They basically have two options at this point: bury the movie or spend whatever it takes to replace him with Grant Austin. Whether that be CGIing out his face and redubbing his lines, reshoots, I don't care, they can't show his face in a millisecond of footage at this point. That would be a PR nightmare, it'd be worse than the Slender Man controversy. They're literally aiding and abetting at this point by keeping him in the film, there's no sugarcoating it. If they want to even pretend to care about moral or artistic integrity, either cut their losses (while also incurring them financially) or don't release the Flash movie at all, and WB can only wipe their hands of this debacle by doing one or the other. The minute that trailer goes live (and it's rumored to be dropping soon), they're gonna get massive amounts of backlash (maybe moreso than keeping Amber in AM2), obvious reasons.



KManX89 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Unfortunately, there are now rumors floating around that WB did a test screening where Amber Heard's character Mera appears for 25 minutes of the film, more than double the 10 minutes the WB exec claimed during the trial. Here is hoping the test audience loathed the 25 minutes of Amber cut.

It might've just been them testing the waters for what they can get away with, and judging by Twitter reactions, the response to her was highly negative (big surprise there), but if she's in it for 1 second, I won't be paying to see this, I don't care if they kill her off in the opening scene. Maybe if they acknowledged they done fucked it up with the whole JD situation and issued him an apology and potential film roles.

Oh, and speaking of WB fuck-ups, the whole Ezra Miller saga continues to blow up in their face and make them look worse by the day:

Nice going, WB, you fucking morons. You fired JD based on baseless accusations that have now been proven (and I mean legally, court-of-law P-R-O-V-E-N) false yet you give this guy a pass without so much as a peep after he was caught on video assaulting a woman (!), and where did that enabling get you? You're essentially harboring a fugitive who damn near cut a woman's eye off after putting a giant laceration in her head, threatened and stole from a live-in couple, threatened police after arresting him for disorderly conduct and groomed a 12-year-old (!) and ran off with her years later!

They basically have two options at this point: bury the movie or spend whatever it takes to replace him with Grant Austin. Whether that be CGIing out his face and redubbing his lines, reshoots, I don't care, they can't show his face in a millisecond of footage at this point. That would be a PR nightmare, it'd be worse than the Slender Man controversy. They're literally aiding and abetting at this point by keeping him in the film, there's no sugarcoating it. If they want to even pretend to care about moral or artistic integrity, either cut their losses (while also incurring them financially) or don't release the Flash movie at all, and WB can only wipe their hands of this debacle by doing one or the other. The minute that trailer goes live (and it's rumored to be dropping soon), they're gonna get massive amounts of backlash (maybe moreso than keeping Amber in AM2), obvious reasons.

Another way that they could save some face would be releasing a note that they won't ever hire him ever again, but since this movie is finished they are going to release as is BUT EVERY SINGLE CENT OF PROFIT WILL GO TO SOME NGO THAT DEALS WITH VICTMS OF ABUSE.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."