11
votes
Johnny Depp to star in ‘Ebenezer: A Christmas Carol’ at Paramount with Ti West directing; Andrea Riseborough also joins movie dated for November 2026
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Justin Kroll
- Published
- Oct 23 2025
- Word count
- 336 words
I have no opinions about Mr Depp, but I don't see how anything new can possibly rival the sincerity, charm and absurdity that is Muppets Christmas. If they play this straight, it won't be as cutely charming as Muppets. If they're going for surreal horror, well that would be very different and not for me. Guess I'll wait and see.
We’re getting two Christmas Carol adaptations back to back since Robert Eggers is making a film with Willem Dafoe.
Frankly there are so many adaptations worth watching, one thing I don't like about the adulation of the Muppets Christmas Carol (which is great, don't get me wrong) is how often other versions seem to get written off. A personal favorite of mine is the 1951 film with Alastair Sim as Scrooge. I don't know how this one will turn out, but I'm excited to see what creative filmmakers like West and Eggers can achieve with this source material!
Depp already completed a film at Lionsgate so this being from a major is really the culmination of his comeback story. Back in 2022 when the trial happened i had assumed Depp would be given an Oscar as a sort of apology from the industry. I don’t think this is the vehicle for that necessarily but it’s a step in the direction of that happening.
Ok so cancelling does not exist. #metoo does not exist.
I believe that newer evidence points to Mr Depp being the victim in domestic violence, and that his ex weaponized social media in an attempt to get him cancelled. (Please correct if wrong; I'm often out of the loop)
It wasn't even newer evidence. Anyone who watched the trial (like I did) can tell you how obvious it seems that Amber Heard fabricated the majority of her claims, and was very likely the actual physical abuser. Her testimony was repeatedly proven to be false, there were multiple recordings of her admitting to hitting Depp on several occasions, and even her "expert" psychiatrist witness came across as highly unethical and genuinely unhinged during the cross examination.
p.s. Well worth watching is also the ex-TMZ employee's testimony.
Every time Depp pops up you and i have that credential that we watched the trial as it unfolded
Could you or @cfabbro or anyone who knows about Depp/Heard trail point me towards a balanced/nuanced take on the whole situation? The vast majority of my 'woke' and leftist friends (not used here as a pejorative, I consider myself woke and leftist) severely dislike Depp even after the trail, with opinions ranging from:
Depp used his influence, wealth, power and Hollywood fame etc. to manipulate proceedings/public opinion away from Heard towards a mysoginistic view that she is hysterical/malicious ex-wife stereotype and that she remains the victim in this case.
To:
Heard was a perpetrator of abuse but this was alongside or perhaps because of similar abuse by Depp both previously and at the time of proceedings.
My understanding of the court case was essentially the latter: paraphrasing here but - both parties were in the wrong but there was more evidence and consistency with Depp's claim. Combined with a more money/power/public backing, Depp came out on top although this does not mean he was 'innocent' as it were. (And thus he is still 'cancelled' and I am soft-boycotting his work).
I'm very happy to be challenged on this and would love a (as much as can be within reason short and consise) resource to take to friends who have different opinions if there is something that is a nuanced and fair approach.
Legal Eagle has a decent summary breaking down the verdict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMeaBvJI5_w
p.s. @Arthur, if you care to hear my own personal opinion after having watched the entire trial, and trying to remain as objective as I could throughout:
Depp undeniably has extremely severe substance abuse problems, and is an incredibly sloppy drunk who also has a habit of trashing rooms while drunk, but there was zero credible evidence of him being physically abusive toward Heard. Whereas Heard appears to be an incredibly manipulative compulsive liar who repeatedly got caught lying about the incredibly severe physical abuse she claims to have suffered at Depp's hands, and on the contrary, was actually proven to be the physically abusive one in the relationship.
Depp "coming out on top" has very little to do with his money, and almost everything to do with Amber Heard getting caught up in her own lies, and proven rather definitively (IMO) to have fabricated evidence of abuse while also attempting to manipulate the public into turning against Depp via TMZ and her Op-ed.
And I also personally think the "both parties were wrong" argument is a total cop out by people who want to seem like they're being "fair" or "nuanced" by acting as if the truth lies somewhere in the middle when it actually doesn't in this particular case.
Thanks - I appreciate your input here - I'll get round to watching the video you provided when I have some time.
I suppose what I mean when wanting a fair and nuanced approach is one that goes beyond 'Johnny never hit her' and examines motivations and actions from both sides. I don't doubt that Heard carried out numerous unjustified behaviours (whether that be DA, faking injuries, lying etc.) I wonder what behaviours are justified in light of certain experiences. Eg. What behaviour is justified when your partner is drunk/high and causing physical damage your house and immediate surroundings? With hindsight we know that he (probably) didn't hit her, but would she know that in the moment?
On the flip side, was Depp's behaviour justified in the face of abuse against him?
This is speculation, of course, and I'll stop before I go to far into it because it is uneducated speculation. But from what little I do know I would feel uncomfortable deeming one party wholly innocent or wholly guilty. If however, that is the case, I do believe a fair and nuanced examination would reveal this.
The other question for me is: Is the kind of person that Depp is ie. a person who has severe substance abuse issues, anger issues, ect the kind of celebrity I feel comfortable supporting socially or financially (by consuming media with him in)?
I strongly feel that celebrity is a privilege and not a right, and that as an audience and consumers we ought to hold celebrities to a high standard. In my opinion this means disengaging with celebries that are individually or socially destructive. That's not to say that I wish them ill - I truly hope that Depp can get the support he needs to address his issues if he hasn't already. In consideration of this, I think the answer is no. I feel uncomfortable supporting Depp socially and financially because of his behaviours. But I may reconsider this after doing more research. And I don't expect everyone to land on the same conclusions as me. I'm sure most celebrities wouldn't hold up to my high standard of scrutiny, and perhaps my expectations are unreasonable. But I also feel that any individual is entitled to their own opinion to support or not-support any public figure as they see fit. At the end of the day, celebrities are only important as long as the public want them to be.
Heard was literally laughing at and repeatedly mocking Depp in the video she filmed of him trashing his kitchen while drunk/high. A video which she later sent an edited version of to TMZ, in which she removed the parts of the video that made her look bad, but that was played in full during the court proceedings. She also repeatedly filmed/photographed him in other compromising situations (e.g. while passed out with ice cream spilled all over himself) in order to embarrass him. If she feared for her safety in his presence at any point, there was zero credible evidence of that presented in court, but plenty to suggest the opposite.
I do understand wanting to see both sides of an argument, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, and feeling uncomfortable with the idea that one party could be wholly innocent or guilty. But in this case, after watching the trial in almost its entirety (I think I only missed two days of the proceedings, but did still watch lengthy summaries by lawyers of those days), I genuinely do believe Heard actually was the malicious manipulative liar that Depp accused her of being. And while Depp undeniably has his own issues, primarily with substance abuse, nothing he actually did was truly worth cancelling him over.
Now, with that said, I absolutely agree with you that people are entitled to their own opinions, and there is nothing wrong with deciding not to support someone for any reason anyone deems fit. I myself have quite a few people that I 100% refuse to support in any way/shape/form because of allegations against them (e.g. Neil Gaiman, Louis CK, Russell Brand) or because of their bigoted personal beliefs/action (JK Rowling, Orson Scott Card, Brendan Eich, Dave Chappelle). And if anyone decides to do the same for Johnny Depp, I totally understand why they would come that decision, and don't actually care that much either way despite me disagreeing with them in this particular instance.
Learned a couple of things from this comment, thanks for that!
What is your take on the defense team that Depp used? They admitted to purchasing services of bots to manipulate public opinion for use on social media. What @Arthur said above...
...is also what I had seen over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, actually watching the trial lends more credibility to comment on it than most others, but plenty happened outside of the courtroom too, like this social media botting stuff.
They did? Do you have a citation for that? The only things that come up on google are a bunch of accusations of that, but no real proof that Depp or his defense team was involved, and no admission by Depp or any of his associates to that effect either, AFAICT. And I certainly don't remember that ever being brought up in the defamation trial, or being admitted to by Depp or his team. I intentionally tried to avoid reading about anything going on outside the courtroom at the time though, since I genuinely was trying to remain as impartial as I could be about the proceedings.
Edit: Here is what Tortoise Media had to say about it:
Source
Perhaps I am regurgitating old stuff from social media without realizing it. However I definitely remember a clip back then where one of his lawyers said they used bots or manipulated social media - something to that effect. But your source is all I could find as well. (I am discounting using stuff from tiktok and reddit threads as a main source).
One thing I will say about Depp's money that gave him a distinct advantage was how insanely competent his legal team was compared to Heard's. And given how professional Depp's lawyers were and behaved, I very much doubt any of them would have ever admitted to doing such a thing. And TBH, I highly doubt they actually would have done anything like that to begin with given how highly they valued their professional reputations, not to mention the fact that getting caught doing something like that could potentially be career ending.
Are you sure it wasn't Elaine Bredehoft (Heard's lawyer) that said something about that? Because, unlike Depp's lawyers, IMO she behaved somewhat unprofessionally even during the trial (E.g. See the clip of her accusing the ex-TMZ employee of "getting his 15min of fame"), but even moreso afterwards. For instance, I know that she repeatedly threw around a lot of unfounded accusations (i.e. repeating things that were dismissed or proven inaccurate in court) about Depp during interviews she gave immediately after losing the trial.
I would also caution against what you consider guilty in this relationship and what the law thinks about guilt. If I'm wrong and reading that into your post incorrectly please let me know.
Nevertheless, I can assure you that no matter the verdict neither party could be considered a good and loving partner and they're both guilty of being awful to each other. If this is your criterion then yes, both of these people suck.
But in the eyes of the law, Depp likely did not abuse or physically harm Heard and was proven innocent.
LOL, yep. IMO, it was genuinely fascinating to watch. I've never watched a trial from start to finish like that before, but that one was a doozy!
Won't bother replying to the dv stuff since there's already been a discussion here. So there are also all the instances of him being a bad colleague at work. Arriving hours late, violence against people on set, unprepared, etc. As far as I could tell at least, the court case was just 1 aspect of it. The other is that he is awful to work with.
Someone hasn't been paying attention