Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. 11/16/18 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

He was my favorite part of that True Detective season. I want to see those two movies but haven't yet.

 

[Jake Lipson]

J.K. Rowling, David Yates and David Heymen have addressed the Johnny Depp-sized elephant in the room: http://deadline.com/2017/12/jk-rowl...r-amber-heard-gettert-grindelwald-1202221941/

While I understand Rowling's perspective here, I also sort of think that, since Depp is playing Grindlewald, calling the film "The Crimes of Grindlewald" is unintentionally pulls focus to Depp's issues. Since they are keeping him, it might be smart to rename the film in a less suggestive manner.

 

[Edwin-S]

What was he accused of?

 

[TravisR]

What was he accused of?

Beating up Amber Heard who was briefly his wife.

EDIT: Just to clarify, that was an accusation and the police saw no evidence of a crime when they were called.

 

[Edwin-S]

Beating up Amber Heard who was briefly his wife.

Thanks.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Interestingly, Eddie Redmayne previously co-starred with Amber Heard, who appeared in a supporting role in The Danish Girl. I wonder if working with her on that film, and then working with Depp on this, might have been awkward in any way, particularly if he is close to Heard. I don't know -- just an interesting coincidence.

Also: it's worth noting that, even though his casting is set for this film, if it should become necessary to replace him in the future for any reason at all, they have a unique, built-in device to allow for that. In the event that Depp is not able to continue with the franchise, Grindlewald simply magics himself back into the guise of Colin Farrell. I get that they are hoping not to have to do that, and won't for this film, but that would be an organic storyline way of taking care of this, should the issue ever arise between now and 2024-5 or so whenever they finish the five films. I'm sure Depp knows that, too, so hopefully that knowledge will keep him from acting out on the set (as he reportedly did during Pirates 5, where he was less replaceable.)

Variety has an article about social media response to JKR's statement:

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/j-k-rowling-johnny-depp-casting-twitter-1202633382/

 

[Johnny Angell]

Beating up Amber Heard who was briefly his wife.

EDIT: Just to clarify, that was an accusation and the police saw no evidence of a crime when they were called.

Does Amber Heard claim he beat her?

 

[TravisR]

Does Amber Heard claim he beat her?

Looking at Wikipedia, she did when she filed for divorce which eventually resulted in a massive payday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Depp#Family,_relationships_and_domestic_violence_allegations

 

[Jake Lipson]

At the conclusion of their divorce settlement, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard issued a joint statement, which reads:

Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gains. There was never an intent of physical or emotional harm. Amber wishes the best for Johnny in the future. Amber will be donating proceeds from the divorce to a charity.

Amber Heard re-posted the above earlier statement today on Instigram, accompanied by the caption:

For the record, this was our FULL joint statement. To pick and choose certain lines and quote them out of context, is just not right. Women, continue to stand up and stay strong. Love, Amber

Although there is clearly a lot more information than this statement provides, I feel like this is all we are entitled to know as fans, since this is what they want to say publicly and the rest is their personal business between them. And based on this, as well as the fact that this is a personal matter between two people, I don't think JKR or the filmmakers have enough reason or evidence to justify firing Depp, even though it seems like that's what most fans want them to do. As Depp's professional colleagues and, in the case of WB, his employers on this project, they probably know more than we do. If they have made an informed decision to to keep him, I respect their right to do so.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't see how they could fire him without eating the cost of his contract. It's true that a lot of these mega-contracts in entertainment industries will include some kind of morals clause that will allow the studio to terminate someone's employment if they do something significantly out bounds in their personal lives.

But even if there was a clause in Depp's contract like that, I don't see how they could fire him for something that occurred before he was hired, that was public knowledge before that hiring. They settled their divorce case in the summer of 2016. Fantastic Beasts 2 comes out in 2018. Warner had all the information it needed when it hired Depp, and nothing has changed and no new information has come out between now and then.

Firing Depp from Fantastic Beasts now would be as ridiculous as if Disney fired Robert Downey from the next Avengers movie now because of Downey's drug problems in the 1990s.

 

[Jake Lipson]

JKR's statement said that the news regarding Depp and Heard came out "around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie." Therefore, it is possible they cast him earlier than we think they did. But, yes, this has always sort of seemed to me to be a dead issue. The example of Plummer subbing in for Spacey doesn't quite work, because that role was shot in 10 days and is ultimately a showy supporting role. Depp, who is the title character, undoubtedly has a much larger role and would be much more difficult to replace.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Also... Kevin Spacey allegedly harrassed, abused and assaulted coworkers in the workplace. Having Kevin Spacey continuing to work on set created a safety issue for everyone else working on the production. Johnny Depp has never been accused of harassing, abusing or assaulting coworkers. Johnny Depp does not make the set an unsafe work environment.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Having Kevin Spacey continuing to work on set created a safety issue for everyone else working on the production.

Well, All the Money in the Wold with Spacey was 100% complete when Ridley Scott made the call to replace him, so even if Spacey had remained in the film, he would have had no further opportunity to make the set unsafe. Scott replaced him entirely due to the negative public perception surrounding him at the moment, which would have distracted from the film itself.

But, your point is well taken. Since Depp is behaving appropriately on the set, they really don't have cause to terminate him.

Also, I highly doubt that the box office for Crimes of Grindlewald will be negatively impacted by the decision to keep Depp. Even those Harry Potter fans who are upset about this casting will ultimately still go see the film. If his performance in the film isn't great -- if he does a Jack Sparrow impression again, as we discussed in earlier posts -- that might be a problem. But I don't see his divorce as being an impediment to the film's grosses. And hopefully he is doing a good job in the role. We certainly know he can.

 

[Jake Lipson]

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2...tors-finish-filming-on-crimes-of-grindelwald/

Various cast members on Twitter and Instigram have been posting that they have wrapped their roles in Crimes of Grindlewald, so if the production hasn't completely wrapped yet, it will soon. It's always possible there could be some reshoots later, but winding down is just more proof that Depp is going to stay in the film. His role is much more significant than Spacey's (who only worked for 10 days on All the Money in the Wold anyway), so I doubt they could replace him in brief reshoots even if they wanted to, which they don't.

Now, when will we get the first teaser? Fantastic Beasts unveiled a brief teaser on The Force Awakens, but I feel like we would know already if we were going to get something on Last Jedi since that's this week. Assuming they want to put the trailer on a WB film, their options right now seem to be either Paddington 2 in January (which is also produced by David Heymen) or Ready Player One at the end of March.

 

[Jake Lipson]

EW has an interview with David Yates about Dumbledore's sexuality. And, basically, the film is not going to address it.

http://ew.com/movies/2018/01/31/fan...kly&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

“Not explicitly. But I think all the fans are aware of that. He had a very intense relationship with Grindelwald when they were young men. They fell in love with each other’s ideas, and ideology and each other.”

I think this is deeply problematic. JKR has said that Dumbledore is gay and was in love with Grindlewald. She said it years ago. But it wasn't actually addressed in the Dumbledore backstory section of Deathly Hallows, either. To me, if she says something, but it actually isn't addressed within the storytelling of the novels (or, in the case of Fantastic Beasts, films), does it really mater? Because Deathly Hallows was Harry's story, it didn't need to focus on Dumbledore quite as much, but If they're not going to clearly explore this in a story that is about Dumbledore and Grindlewald, then what is the point of it at all? Saying essentially that "the fans are aware of that" is a cop out.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Dumbledore being gay. I just think that if he is, it has to actually matter to the story they're telling, and I'm not seeing that bear itself out. "Dumbledore's gay, and this film involves his ex-lover as the title character, but we're not actually going to talk about that" doesn't inform the story as much as they seem to think it does. If they're not going to address it, they don't get to wear it as a point of pride that he is gay, but only in the background.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm not to worried, especially yet... we don't know how much of Dumbledore or Grindlewald will be in this particular film, and after this one, there's still three more to go... so plenty of opportunities for it to come up at a later time.

 

[Jake Lipson]

we don't know how much of Dumbledore or Grindlewald will be in this particular film

Well, considering that Grindlewald is in the title, I would think we're going to get a lot of him, at least. We also know they had a casting call for teenage versions of Dumbledore and Grindlewald, which would seem to indicate that we will see their backstory in flashbacks. You're right that there are three more and they can address it later, but if we are seeing flashbacks to their prior relationship, it would seem to be a logical thing to address.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Rowling and Yates have earned the benefit of the doubt from me. It may also be a matter of, "Yes, the movie is totally about this, but we wanted the extent of it to be a surprise!"

 

[Jake Lipson]

Rowling and Yates have earned the benefit of the doubt from me.

That is true.

On another note, as long as they are doing what is logical and not keeping us in the dark like Lucasfilm, I would think Warner Bros. will have a teaser ready to go with Ready Player One in March. So, not too long.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One thing you can say about Warner and their Potter unit -- they are fast workers. Every single Potter film came out on time except for Part 6, and that was finished for it's original date - the studio moved it because the writer's strike at the time delayed one of their future movies, so they delayed the finished sixth film just so they wouldn't have a summer without a release, but not due to any fault of the filmmakers. So I expect Yates and Co to be ready.