22
votes
‘Aquaman 2’ flooded with drama: Jason Momoa allegedly drunk on set, Amber Heard scenes cut, Elon Musk’s letter to WB and more
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Tatiana Siegel
- Published
- Oct 10 2023
- Word count
- 1499 words
Headline (and title) is pretty misleading. Momoa allegedly being drunk comes from a single note by Amber Heard’s therapist of something Heard claimed, specifically “Jason said he wanted me fired… Jason drunk — late on set. Dressing like Johnny. Has all the rings too.” With multiple sources refuting it. And Heard is an unreliable narrator.
TL;DR for the rest is WB/DC is and will continue to be a mess. And Aquaman 2 is a lame duck.
I don't think this is nearly as well-known or unambiguous as you're saying.
I'd recommend reading The bleak spectacle of the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial
I’m not sure linking to an opinion piece is evidence of anything. You might as well link to a tweet that says something similar about how anyone that thinks Heard is lying is a raging sexist.
Also, in no sense is Depp a B-list star. He is kind of permanently an A-lister, he’s done enough classics that will be rewatched (and have been rewatched) for decades and has been wildly acclaimed for many of his performances. Not to mention having a long career of lead roles and box office hits. Compared to Heard’s much shorter list of supporting roles and only one box office hit.
Even if you believe every word Heard says, you can’t deny Depp’s celebrity. Doing so just signals that they’re not very interested in any semblance of truth coming out. They’re just taking sides.
It sounds like maybe you didn't read past the first part? The linked post has a lot of evidence included in the opinions. It's a good read, whatever side of it you may be on. I think she seems like a shallow person and kind of childish and unlikeable, but it's pretty clear that the hate campaign that took place against her caused her not to have any chance at all in that trial. It is undeniable that he abused her when you see the evidence from the court case (and add to that years and years of other people in Depps life saying the he becomes violent and ragey when drunk). She was not blameless either, based on the testimony of their marriage counselor, but it didn't sound equal at all. And it doesn't negate the fact that a ginormous hate fueled smear campaign happened and ruined her career probably forever, while Depp keeps on keepin on. The things that were posted about her were objectively mysoginistic, they were just good at convinving people she deserved it. (Also very common thing mysoginists do). Who cares if it refers to them both as B list, that's not really relevant to anything. Depp hasn't been in anything huge since captain jack sparrow, maybe thats why he's downgraded? Everyone sucks here, but Depp sucks a lot more. This was not a marriage between two equals, and he used his weight to hurt her. Her being a mean bitch in fights with him after years of literally being kicked and punched is deserving of at least some empathy in my opinion. He seems to think if he can't remember doing it, it didn't count, and he wouldn't be the first addict to behave indignantly when confronted with his own actions that he wishes he could ignore. He just has the money to pay lawyers to help him make it more convincing, and an army of people who love him as his characters. It's too easy to convince people to hate a woman.
That's the thing though. Even if Depp didn't actually do the things Heard accused him of, there would be misogynist either way. However, this is in the same vein as minsandrists hating on Depp even when presented the evidence. If you look at the sheer amount of media PR posts against Depp and were pro Amber, conveniently leaving out plenty of court evidence, then you would realise that Depp was screwed hard by the media before, during, and after the trial. In fact, a lot of people were already convinced Depp was guilty even before the UK trial. I myself believed so, even more after the UK trial. However, after the televised trial in the US (which was an extremely good move), it turned out that many of Heard's claims could NOT be substantiated. Going back the UK judge's notes, it was found that the rulings were extremely biased. The UK judge literally wrote several times, "I am inclined to believe Ms. Heard" and "there is no reason for her to lie".
Nonetheless, the Heard camp just pointed its finger at misogynistic women-haters and went, "That's evidence that Depp is abusive and the system was rigged!" What? Literally people have compared Depp to Weinstein, saying Depp would not have had any sympathy if Depp looked like Weinstein, regardless that no other actress came forward against Depp for abusing them. Hell, even one of the exes (Barkin) only came forward against Depp WITH ZERO testimony to his violence AGAINST HER but that Depp had thrown a bottle to a wall due to other guests exhibiting bad behaviour. That's literally mindblowing.
It's common for abusive addicts to deny their actions because facing them doesn't align with who they believe themselves to be (and they get the benefit of not remembering what they did). I felt like the texts from his assistant to Amber saying "when I told him he kicked you, he cried" and the assistant playing damage control, is pretty damning, not proof, but evidence. He had evidence of her being abusive back, not proof. I think they were both toxic to each other and both violent. But neither of them were being charged with being violent. That is not what the trial was.
People always talk about this case as if Depp was on trial for abuse charges, but he wasn't. The lawsuit was filed BY Depp, against Amber, for giving an interview about the relationship. That's it. She talked about him, he sued her, and she then had to try to prove in court what she talked about in the interview. Smear campaigns followed. Why would anybody come forward if they would immediately be sued by an A list millionaire addict with the resources to ruin their life? I wouldn't. No one else came forward is a really weak argument for someone's innocence. The "she's faking it for attention" argument from people who say she just wanted to cash in on the #metoo thing is also classic misogyny, old as time.
Depp also defended both Weinstein and Roman Polanski, on the record. I think that's maybe why the comparison happened. If you are a long time addict, very rich, not held accountable because people clean up after you, and you have defended rapists and pedophiles, it doesn't feel like a stretch of the imagination that you are capable of abusing someone. I don't think that's misandry to identify patterns of problematic behaviour. I don't think she deserved to be sued for talking. He could have published something himself and moved on but he couldn't stand her talking about him so he ruined her life. That does look like misogyny to me. So yeah, everyone sucks here and these two people have the emotional maturity of middle schoolers. I strongly dislike them both.
Not exactly. You have to add further context. Depp never came after her after their divorce. Heard got her money in full. Depp only sued for defamation (because who wouldn't, especially when it ruins entire careers you've built over decades) when Heard published multiple articles about Depp supposedly abusing her.
The trial was about proving that he was defamed about the claims made in the article, so I'm not sure why you're denying it and then diminishing it by saying it was just "Heard talking about their relationship". No, it wasn't. It was explicitly and specifically about Heard claiming on media and various press tours that Depp abused her as how she described in the media.
I personally would sue someone for making false claims about me, even if I can write a counter article. Who the hell would believe me otherwise? A woman's words carry way more weight than mine, and only fringe, incel groups would be on my side (as a kiss of death sort of thing by association).
So, yes, she definitely deserved to be sued. She did not stop making false claims. That's the main point. She kept making these claims and the lies just snowballed. From The Sun to some Polish talk show to a Domestic Violence concert for Christ's sake.
It's easy to point at DMV victims and claim they're suffering from BWS (battered woman syndrome) due to supposedly guilty or shaky nervous foundations, but that's why we can't just apply armchair or pop psychology. The evidence based on the photos and videos report no such abuse claimed by Heard.
I personally do no idolize any celebrity. I do not view Depp as an angel or some perfect being, and I acknowledge Depp is in some ways a scumbag; and I do not view Heard as entirely a liar or completely malicious. However, in this particular instance, it was just unfortunate that things turned out the way it did. But Depp did not deserve for all his efforts to go to waste because of unsubstantiated claims against him.
This is a late response, but again this is just ramblings. Not evidence of anything. And again, it's like I'm reading a tumblr blog post from some 19 year old. Getting labeled with "exemplary" by other young, or just viscerally one-sided, members of the site.
I can easily link and quote from a different opinion piece.
Because it's not so cut and dry.
I linked to a 5000 word Substack post. if you want to compare that to a 280-character tweet because they both contain opinions...OK.
is that your main disagreement with the blog post?
Hey, thanks for sharing this. I had pretty intentionally stayed far away from the Depp/Heard trial because every single piece of information about it seemed unbearably toxic, to the point where I actually didn’t know what the verdict was.
The actual outcome seems miserable, but I appreciate this post nonetheless.
Thank you for posting, whether one agrees with it or not. I’ve edited the comment to be less severe.
Aquaman 1 was literally the same plot as Black Panther, except told from the other brother's POV. Black Panther did it better.
You do realise original story plot is older than The Bible?
Everything is a Remix ...
is an interesting video essay about how all popular culture stories are rehashed and re-skinned versions of stories that have come before. Nothing is truly unique, nor has it been for quite some time.
https://youtu.be/X9RYuvPCQUA?si=c5aq0Bkphk9PYdM-
I think that's what bothered me about James Cameron's Avatar. At the end of the day it was just Pocahontas with aliens.
Every movie can be boiled down in that way. Star Wars is basically WW2 but in space. I definitely think Avatar is missing some je ne sais quois for it to be a bigger deal between movie releases instead of just during that release window, but I don't think the plot is it. Maybe it's a problem with the characters, such as them not showing enough of Jake Sully to get us attached to him before his adventure (This was apparently in a director's cut of the movie, idk why they didn't just include it), or there not being any 1 character besides the Na'vi in general who were particularly iconic/well designed? Maybe it's missing stuff like symbols or iconic lines of dialogue that help a series stay alive through references, memes, and parodies. Or maybe it's just something as simple as the massive delay for the second movie.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." - King Solomon, ~950 BCE (allegedly).
Yeah, sure, but the person said Black Panther did the same plot better. It might not be true but that's a valid thing to discuss even if you argue that lots of stories share similar themes.