Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

CatFromHue · 22-06-2019 3:01am

pixelburp wrote: »

Must be pretty red-faced of RLM to have had him over a couple of times.

The more pertinent question is: how known are these abuses that people just look the other way? Weinstein is the obvious example, but Josh Trank (who worked with Landis on Chronicle) came out after this exposé to say Landis was banned from the set during the shooting of Chronicle; so either Trank is just currying favour in a "I always knew he was a bad egg" sorta way, or else Landis was abusive on that set, making Trank & co. passively complicit.

If Trank saw some stuff he didn't like, then banned Landis, and never worked with him again then I can't see how he's complicit. He can't control what happens after their project ends.

I watched this on youtube before about Weinstein and it's a bit scary as it makes an awful lot of people passively complicit. It's 19mins but a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tihITlPAn4

TLDW

Weinstein won people Oscars and awards so people were ok with ignoring his excesses as he might win them one

JP Liz V1 · 05-07-2019 11:32pm

The man who alleges Kevin Spacey groped him in a Nantucket bar in 2016 has dropped his civil suit but criminal trial still going ahead

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/kevin-spacey-drop-civil-suit-1203260058/

p to the e · 08-07-2019 3:22pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The man who alleges Kevin Spacey groped him in a Nantucket bar in 2016 has dropped his civil suit but criminal trial still going ahead

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/kevin-spacey-drop-civil-suit-1203260058/

I think this case is a strange one. Apparently Spacey's team are looking to locate a phone that will provide a good defence for the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/08/kevin-spacey-accuser-cellphone-nantucket-alleged-groping

I believe Spacey has made a lot of lads sit on the casting couch over the years (cough Colin Farrell cough cough) but a case like this may make him more bullet proof.

The Black Oil · 21-07-2019 6:04pm

This'll certainly be interesting, and difficult viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4U0mpZ9N8s

Agent Coulson · 28-07-2019 9:19pm

This should be a ratings winner.

Harvey Weinstein Rape Trial Coverage Headlines Court TV Rebirth.

Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial in New York, which is slated for September, will headline gavel-to-gavel courtroom coverage on the reborn Court TV.

The network, reactivating a TV brand that revolutionized trial coverage as much as ESPN did sports or CNN did news, relaunched in May as a multicast network operated by E.W. Scripps-owned Katz Broadcasting. During a panel session Saturday at TCA summer press tour, executives were challenged about their claims that Court TV will be “the only network” covering the Weinstein trial gavel-to-gavel.

They conceded that they cannot legally broadcast live from inside the courtroom at New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, which will be the site of a full-on media circus. But Court TV’s unique DNA, they maintained, will create a unique experience for viewers amid the scrum.

https://deadline.com/2019/07/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-coverage-headlines-court-tv-rebirth-strategy-tca-1202655710/

p to the e · 29-07-2019 12:47pm

Good old American Capitalism at its finest. And is it just me or is calling the documentary "Untouchable" a bit insensitive.

santana75 · 30-07-2019 9:40am

p to the e wrote: »

I believe Spacey has made a lot of lads sit on the casting couch over the years (cough Colin Farrell cough cough) but a case like this may make him more bullet proof.

Really? Maybe Im naive and not well informed but I never heard anything like that. I suppose anything is possible though

Agent Coulson · 03-09-2019 7:45pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

This'll certainly be interesting, and difficult viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4U0mpZ9N8s

The Doc drew 1 million viewers on BBC 2 on Sunday night while up against Peaky Blinders on BBC1 & The Handmaidens Tale on Channel 4 so that pretty impressive numbers.

It's a tough watch at times.

p to the e · 24-02-2020 6:00pm

The saga continues...

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/24/harvey-weinstein-guilty-trial-charges-verdict

This article links some of the complexities involved in the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/24/harvey-weinstein-trial-metoo-movement

pixelburp · 11-03-2020 4:37pm

So Weinstein has been sentenced to 23 years in prison for two counts of sexual assault (3rd and 1st degree). No idea if there's an appeals stage, how or if Weinstein has much chance in reducing that figure. I also wonder if he's still liable for civil cases, or indeed any other criminal charges.

El Duda · 11-03-2020 5:03pm

He'll be a gonner within a year or 2.

Fantastic news for women everywhere.

Caquas · 11-03-2020 11:34pm

I wonder would Weinstein even be charged in Ireland? At the start of MeToo, there was much talk that we would see many powerful Irish predators brought to justice. So far, nothing.

Even if someone was convicted of the same offences here, I doubt he would have serve more than three years (i.e. max sentence 10 years with at least three suspended, out in four, early release in 3).

Our Court of Appeal has just confirmed a sentence of 11 years in this egregious case of defilement - two 14 year old girls. He got one pregnant after removing her contraceptive with a Stanley knife (!). He got them both hooked on heroin.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/evil-manipulative-sex-abuser-who-also-introduced-girls-half-his-age-to-heroin-avoids-hike-in-very-lenient-sentence-987267.html

The lenient sentence was not because the trial judge misunderstood the evil perpetator in this case.

He said the trial judge’s description of Vickers as “manipulative, controlling, violent, narcissistic, and involving pure evil activity” was a “very apt one indeed”.

Nor was it due to important mitigating factors

The chief difficulty presented in the case was the discount afforded for the mitigating factors, the only significant mitigation being Vickers’ guilty plea. While not without value, Mr Justice Birmingham said Vickers’ plea was not an early one, and was entered against a background of overwhelming evidence".

There is no way to reconcile our courts' sentencing policy with that in the Weinstein case. If you think justice was done in the Weinstein case, you must be outraged on a daily basis by the leniency our courts show to criminals of all sorts, including violent offenders and sexual predators. Our media will hail the Weinstein verdict but ignore the obvious disparity except, in some cases, to call for tougher sentencing for sexual assualt.

During the recent election, did you hear any politician talk about sentencing policy or the provision of additional prison places?

str8talkingguy · 12-03-2020 1:28am

Caquas wrote: »

I wonder would Weinstein even be charged in Ireland? At the start of MeToo, there was much talk that we would see many powerful Irish predators brought to justice. So far, nothing.

Even if someone was convicted of the same offences here, I doubt he would have serve more than three years (i.e. max sentence 10 years with at least three suspended, out in four, early release in 3).

Our Court of Appeal has just confirmed a sentence of 11 years in this egregious case of defilement - two 14 year old girls. He got one pregnant after removing her contraceptive with a Stanley knife (!). He got them both hooked on heroin.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/evil-manipulative-sex-abuser-who-also-introduced-girls-half-his-age-to-heroin-avoids-hike-in-very-lenient-sentence-987267.html

The lenient sentence was not because the trial judge misunderstood the evil perpetator in this case.

Nor was it due to important mitigating factors

There is no way to reconcile our courts' sentencing policy with that in the Weinstein case. If you think justice was done in the Weinstein case, you must be outraged on a daily basis by the leniency our courts show to criminals of all sorts, including violent offenders and sexual predators. Our media will hail the Weinstein verdict but ignore the obvious disparity except, in some cases, to call for tougher sentencing for sexual assualt.

During the recent election, did you hear any politician talk about sentencing policy or the provision of additional prison places?

Its the difference between private and public jail systems,here it costs money to jail people,in the States it make makes money to jail people.

p to the e · 12-03-2020 10:17am

pixelburp wrote: »

So Weinstein has been sentenced to 23 years in prison for two counts of sexual assault (3rd and 1st degree). No idea if there's an appeals stage, how or if Weinstein has much chance in reducing that figure. I also wonder if he's still liable for civil cases, or indeed any other criminal charges.

Apparently he's still facing charges in LA. He'll definitely appeal on the grounds of trial by media or something like that. I ain't no fancy pants lawyer.

Hangdogroad · 24-06-2020 10:30am

Ron Jeremy charged with several counts of rape. Don't know if these related to his porn film career as the alleged offenses are fairly recent.

JP Liz V1 · 25-06-2020 12:09am

Ansel Elgort has denied claims he sexually assaulted a 17-year-old girl in New York in 2014.

The US actor was accused by a Twitter user identifying herself as Gabby, on Friday, in a now-deleted post labelled "my story with Ansel Elgort".

The Baby Driver star responded online saying: "I cannot claim to understand Gabby's feelings but her description of events is simply not what happened."

He says they had "a brief, legal and entirely consensual relationship."

The actor, who was 20 years old at the time, went on to apologise for the way it ended, admitting that he just "stopped responding to her" and "disappeared".

https://news.yahoo.com/ansel-elgort-denies-sexual-assault-103156303.html

p to the e · 26-01-2021 10:51am

"A US bankruptcy judge has agreed a $17m (£12.4m) payout to women who accused disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct."

I wonder will this even make a dent in his finances.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55791641

Also Asia has a book to sell. She has done more harm to the #MeToo movement by her involvement in it in my opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55794610

26-01-2021 1:41pm

Will Armie Hammer's career survive the allegations?

https://www.thecut.com/2021/01/paige-lorenze-speaks-out-about-armie-hammer-allegations.html

EltonJohn69 · 27-01-2021 8:05am

p to the e wrote: »

"A US bankruptcy judge has agreed a $17m (£12.4m) payout to women who accused disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct."

I wonder will this even make a dent in his finances.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55791641

Also Asia has a book to sell. She has done more harm to the #MeToo movement by her involvement in it in my opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55794610

I don’t think he is getting out of jail/ his money is of little use

Agent Coulson · 15-02-2021 9:03pm

David Boreanaz & Amy Acker have both come out in support of Charisma Carpenter joining most of the other Buffyverse cast.

Edit, As does Eliza Dushku

https://www.instagram.com/p/CLLQW6cJ2gF/

Brief_Lives · 16-02-2021 2:18pm

WHat did Boreanaz say? i have the internet police here... can´t access instagram....

Hande hoche! · 16-02-2021 2:37pm

Not surprised by joss Whedon.

Potatoeman · 16-02-2021 2:46pm

Cas Anwar from the expanse was dropped from the show. Apparently he’s accused of grooming underage girls.

S.M.B. · 16-02-2021 5:14pm

Brief_Lives wrote: »

WHat did Boreanaz say? i have the internet police here... can´t access instagram....

Similar to most Buffyverse alumni in offering his support to Charisma and that he's proud of her for speaking out. Feels like Michelle Trachtenberg's response was the only one that goes a bit beyond showing support from what I saw.

p to the e · 17-02-2021 11:02am

Until any details come out saying otherwise my feeling is that Whedon was just a major asshole. And who hasn't worked for an asshole in their life? And to be a director spinning many plates you have to be a bit of an asshole.

See, there are three kinds of people: dicks, pussies and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along and dicks just want to fúck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes. And all the assholes want is to shít all over everything. So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because, pussies get fúcked by dicks. But dicks also fúck assholes! And if they didn't fúck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shít

pixelburp · 17-02-2021 11:18am

p to the e wrote: »

Until any details come out saying otherwise my feeling is that Whedon was just a major asshole. And who hasn't worked for an asshole in their life? And to be a director spinning many plates you have to be a bit of an asshole.
[...]

I don't agree with that, and it's too easy to just sniff that the "auteur" is an accepted, necessary part of a Hollywood workplace. That to create great work you need to be some colossal tyrant, making people's life a misery for the purposes of art? Naw. At the end of the day, it's just another workplace, and a working set should be a collaborative environment of different talents, crafts and people - why would hostility and viciousness be part of that? There are dozens - hundreds? - of directors whose sets don't require or emphasise power structures. We don't think of them because there they are, spinning plates as you say, without the need to "just" be an ásshole.

I don't deny that as industries go, filmmaking is probably more stressful than most, given the pressures of time, budget, location etc. etc. That a bastard is needed at the top is a myth of old Hollywood IMO; it's debatably acceptable as a Stanley Kubrick or James Cameron, with the thin justification that at least they created great work at the end of it. Reading about Shelley Duvall losing hair because of Kubrick makes for a fascinating story, but was it all worth it?

Joss Whedon is a hack director whose work looks like TV movies. Everyone else is under stress on the set, him SteveJobs'ing around the place isn't needed if he knew how to manage people right.

p to the e · 17-02-2021 11:32am

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't agree with that, and it's too easy to just sniff that the "auteur" is an accepted, necessary part of a Hollywood workplace. That to create great work you need to be some colossal tyrant, making people's life a misery for the purposes of art? Naw. At the end of the day, it's just another workplace, and a working set should be a collaborative environment of different talents, crafts and people - why would hostility and viciousness be part of that? There are dozens - hundreds? - of directors whose sets don't require or emphasise power structures. We don't think of them because there they are, spinning plates as you say, without the need to "just" be an ásshole.

I don't deny that as industries go, filmmaking is probably more stressful than most, given the pressures of time, budget, location etc. etc. That a bastard is needed at the top is a myth of old Hollywood IMO; it's debatably acceptable as a Stanley Kubrick or James Cameron, with the thin justification that at least they created great work at the end of it. Reading about Shelley Duvall losing hair because of Kubrick makes for a fascinating story, but was it all worth it?

Joss Whedon is a hack director whose work looks like TV movies. Everyone else is under stress on the set, him SteveJobs'ing around the place isn't needed if he knew how to manage people right.

That's fair. Enough directors have made films of the same scale without any controversy but my point still stands that until more details appear he may just have been an asshole. I've worked for several "toxic" assholes over the years and never had the urge to out them. Maybe that's on me. Unless there was something sinister to Whedon's working environment then I don't think this will change much.

Hannibal_Smith · 17-02-2021 11:39am

Wow. Just read Carpenter's post. I can't believe that about Joss Whedon.

Tony EH · 17-02-2021 11:41am

p to the e wrote: »

Until any details come out saying otherwise my feeling is that Whedon was just a major asshole.

I haven't read everything to do with this Whedon business, but this would be my take on it too. Although, I will say, I have never been a fan of his, irrespective of his assholery. I absolutely hated Buffy and loathed the smart arse dialogue is put into everything. Whedon is one of those figures from the 90's that's responsible for all of this "meta" quippy dialogue shite that litters everything today. The only thing I can give him a pass on would be 'Firefly'.

But as to him being an asshole (at times), he's in a LOT of company in "Hollywood" circles. Especially in the director club, where being an asshole can almost be a requirement of the job. Look at most of the famous directors from yesteryear, who created the classics of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A lot of them would be the topic of many a Twitterati "he said/she said" tweet today if they were still working.

Not that I would put Whedon in the bracket as the greats from the past mind you. he wouldn't even come close. But he also isn't in the same bracket as the likes of Harvey Weistein either, whose misconduct is a whole different kettle of fish.

pixelburp · 17-02-2021 11:58am

p to the e wrote: »

That's fair. Enough directors have made films of the same scale without any controversy but my point still stands that until more details appear he may just have been an asshole. I've worked for several "toxic" assholes over the years and never had the urge to out them. Maybe that's on me. Unless there was something sinister to Whedon's working environment then I don't think this will change much.

Kind of? The only reason "toxic" management persists, is 'cos it's allowed to persist, especially in fields where oh, that's just how it's always done. Now, arguably actors have an avenue for grievance most of us worker drones don't - social media or a canny agent - so it's easier for them to agitate from a safe distance. I've read of enough cases where folks have gone to HR or whatnot to flag abuses, only for it to backfire spectacularly, so it's easier said than done to combat shítty management. Going double if in general, one's not especially confrontational by nature. But where possible, we should all do so 'cos like I said, cracking the whip is a bullshít way to lead a team of any stripe

p to the e · 17-02-2021 12:04pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Kind of? The only reason "toxic" management persists, is 'cos it's allowed to persist, especially in fields where oh, that's just how it's always done. Now, arguably actors have an avenue for grievance most of us worker drones don't - social media or a canny agent - so it's easier for them to agitate from a safe distance. I've read of enough cases where folks have gone to HR or whatnot to flag abuses, only for it to backfire spectacularly, so it's easier said than done to combat shítty management. Going double if in general, one's not especially confrontational by nature. But where possible, we should all do so 'cos like I said, cracking the whip is a bullshít way to lead a team of any stripe

Unless it's a whip testing factory

CastorTroy · 17-02-2021 12:28pm

So directors are like head chefs? Except directors probably don't insist on addressing them as "Director"

Potatoeman · 17-02-2021 12:48pm

The issue with Weldon is that he’s very ‘woke male feminist’ in his online persona but cheats on his wife and bullies female actors. He is a hypocrite of the highest order and takes swipes at other people while doing worse himself.

The actress should have offered to step back for a season if she had an unplanned pregnancy and should have had enough forethought not to get a tattoo while in the middle filming of a season.

Earthhorse · 18-02-2021 10:45am

Whedon's a tricky one. Maybe it's my bias as I'm a fan.

He had affairs whilst also preaching about feminism; not sure what the consequence of that should be. Is his message wrong because he's a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. Should he lose his job because of the affairs? The consequence should be in his personal life.

His treatment of Carpenter (and she's the only one who has spoken out in detail) is another matter. I'm really disappointed to hear he called a pregnant woman fat even if it was a "joke". His handling of her performance anxiety, by making jokes it seems, appears to have been the wrong approach too, only exacerbating the situation. Shouting at people is also beyond the pale but it's not clear was this a once in a blue moon thing or a regular occurrence; given that other performers on his shows (namely Anthony Stewart Head and Amy Acker) have said they didn't experience anything of that nature it appears to have been rare enough or perhaps saved for people he knew he could get away with it around.

Carpenter losing her job for getting pregnant and his general treatment of her during that time is the worst of it in my opinion. Feels like his attitude and behaviour toward her during that time was appalling. What should be the consequence of this again? He should have faced consequences at the time but it's too late now. He should apologise (assuming her account is accurate) but I doubt any apology would be welcomed by the public though in truth that doesn't matter as Carpenter is the one owed an apology.

Honestly until more details emerge I'm just not sure what to think about it all; he's been in the business for decades, working on half a dozen shows and as many big budget movies and a handful of people have complaints about him. It's a huge deal to those involved I'm sure but beyond that I'm just not sure what people expect.

blue note · 18-02-2021 11:14am

I won't be getting out my pitchforks just yet.

With all these accusations, you only ever get to hear one side of it. It's very difficult to defend yourself without people accusing you of attacking a victim. And it would massively hurt your career to come in to defend one of the "abusers."

I'm not saying carpenter is making any of this up or that her perception of what happened is in any way inaccurate, but I'm just saying that we only ever get to hear one side of it, so I'm slow to throw all of these guys in the bin.

CastorTroy · 18-02-2021 2:27pm

I think in the case of Michelle Trachtenberg, she or someone might be better to clarify what happened with her or people would assume the worst. Not that Joss is coming out of this smelling like roses, but there’s a big difference between being verbally abusive and doing something to a teenage girl.

FunLover18 · 18-02-2021 3:04pm

blue note wrote: »

I won't be getting out my pitchforks just yet.

With all these accusations, you only ever get to hear one side of it. It's very difficult to defend yourself without people accusing you of attacking a victim. And it would massively hurt your career to come in to defend one of the "abusers."

I'm not saying carpenter is making any of this up or that her perception of what happened is in any way inaccurate, but I'm just saying that we only ever get to hear one side of it, so I'm slow to throw all of these guys in the bin.

I know what you mean, I'm someone who tries to see something from different perspectives but I can't imagine any perspective where firing someone for getting pregnant seems in any way justifiable, especially when you consider she was fired after she gave birth which just comes across as incredibly petty.

blue note · 18-02-2021 4:23pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I know what you mean, I'm someone who tries to see something from different perspectives but I can't imagine any perspective where firing someone for getting pregnant seems in any way justifiable, especially when you consider she was fired after she gave birth which just comes across as incredibly petty.

I've seen a few people in my years blame one thing for their treatment when in fact they were just not well liked / a team player / good at their job etc. From the top of my head, one girl was polish and thought that was why she couldn't get promoted. In reality she couldn't get on with anyone and was a nightmare to manage. The prospect of people reporting to her was funny but scary.

I'm sure Joss Whedon would say that she wasn't fired for being pregnant. Whether she was or not I don't know. But we have only heard her side and people say they support her. No-one else has come out and said she was fired for being pregnant either.

Just to reiterate, I don't know what happened. I think she's being honest and I think others would honestly have a different recollection of the time. It all just makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to condemn a man in my own mind when the accusations have not been tested at all. While at the same time I don't want to doubt carpenter either.

jill_valentine · 18-02-2021 4:39pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

The actress should have offered to step back for a season if she had an unplanned pregnancy and should have had enough forethought not to get a tattoo while in the middle filming of a season.

Andy Hallett wore prosthetic horns, coloured contacts and full green makeup on every inch of his skin visible, every single time he was on screen, for 76 episodes.

Not every MUA will have green face paint, but the stuff you hide a tattoo with is in every studio make up room in the world. It's not a remotely reasonable complaint.

Having to write around actors happens all the time, and Whedon was able to do it when it suited him - it's why Buffy spent an episode as a rat. It's part of his job. Making it weird and personal is no more rational than flipping his **** at James Marsters for getting popular.

IAMAMORON · 18-02-2021 4:41pm

All the best directors are dicks and intolerable to work for. They work marathon hours, dealing with a smorgasbord of egos, trying to get things done on time and to an acceptable level that means they have a job after the current production is complete.

You should try Ridley Scott for size....

All the best actors put up and shut up. They will all admit that also.

I cannot support someone crying like a snowflake almost 20 years later over a few angry bollickings they got late at night off their director. If they were doing their job...

We are not talking about the shop floor in Penneys or Dunnes here either.... this is big contracts, big 6-7 figure salaries. These snowflakes need to cry their 20 year old PTSD all the way to the bank......

jill_valentine · 18-02-2021 5:03pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All the best directors are dicks and intolerable to work for. They work marathon hours, dealing with a smorgasbord of egos, trying to get things done on time and to an acceptable level that means they have a job after the current production is complete.

Most of that would actually be the Producer or Cinematographer's jobs.

Actors aren't coalminers, but the work isn't always easy either. It requires learning a lot of lines, blocking etc at short notice, and potentially with changes happening in the meantime. It takes for granted a LOT of external work on your body, looks, press etc, and for a lead on a show like this, the days are as long or longer than the director when you account for training, stunt rehearsal, make up etc. And no matter what, you have to be in exactly the right form for the camera, at all times. It is not as simple as swanning in at 9am and playing let's pretend.

Whedon is a third generation screenwriter who got second chances nobody else in the world would have gotten with Buffy and later Firefly. Before then, he worked as a scriptdoctor, even though he was writing parts of movies people would go on to mock for years. And after Buffy, he drove one of Marvel's then very hypiest titles into the ground and got handed the keys to their kingdom anyway.

He's not being shot down suddenly and out of nowhere here, he's just running out of extra lives. He's not the victim of anybody's ego but his own.

pixelburp · 18-02-2021 5:06pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All the best directors are dicks and intolerable to work for. They work marathon hours, dealing with a smorgasbord of egos, trying to get things done on time and to an acceptable level that means they have a job after the current production is complete.

You should try Ridley Scott for size....

All the best actors put up and shut up. They will all admit that also.

I cannot support someone crying like a snowflake almost 20 years later over a few angry bollickings they got late at night off their director. If they were doing their job...

We are not talking about the shop floor in Penneys or Dunnes here either.... this is big contracts, big 6-7 figure salaries. These snowflakes need to cry their 20 year old PTSD all the way to the bank......

You seriously think Charisma Carpenter was earning a 6-7 figure sum on Buffy, in the 1990s? Absolutely open to correction here, but I'd be genuinely shocked, even after the show blew up, popularity wise.

Most actors are not millionaires, especially those on genre projects; try getting a high mortgage after telling the bank manager you're an actor

And if it wouldn't be acceptable in any field of work, why should it be in this instance? Maybe the difference here and now is that Whedon's star has fallen enough that someone like Carpenter can come out and talk about what happened - without feeling like she'll endure victim blaming ... which.. well, see above I guess?

IAMAMORON · 18-02-2021 5:09pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Whedon is a third generation screenwriter who got second chances nobody else in the world would have gotten with Buffy and later Firefly. Before then, he worked as a scriptdoctor, even though he was writing parts of movies people would go on to mock for years. He drove one of Marvel's then very hypiest titles into the ground and got handed the keys to their kingdom anyway.

None of those things make him a bully? Or Toxic?

IAMAMORON · 18-02-2021 5:16pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You seriously think Charisma Carpenter was earning a 6-7 figure sum on Buffy, in the 1990s? Absolutely open to correction here, but I'd be genuinely shocked, even after the show blew up, popularity wise.

Most actors are not millionaires, especially those on genre projects; try getting a high mortgage after telling the bank manager you're an actor And if it wouldn't be acceptable in any field of work, why should it be in this instance? Maybe the difference here and now is that Whedon's star has fallen enough that someone like Carpenter can come out and talk about what happened - without feeling like she'll endure victim blaming ... which.. well, see above I guess?

I just think it both tactless and poorly timed to decide to gripe about someone you worked with 20 years ago... especially via social media?

Is she promoting a memoir? ... Then maybe I get that it could be a publicity grab.

Apart from that I am quietly confident her sleepless nights at the hands of Dr Evil are well over now.

I have forgotten most of the things my bosses called me 20 years ago, most normal people do.

Any decent director worth their salt is entitled to a certain air of menace about them. They need to get shdone, quite often to tight schedules and they have bosses to answer to also.

IAMAMORON · 18-02-2021 5:23pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You seriously think Charisma Carpenter was earning a 6-7 figure sum on Buffy, in the 1990s? Absolutely open to correction here, but I'd be genuinely shocked, even after the show blew up, popularity wise.

It was a primetime Network show, I am sure she was doing alright all things considered.....

She wasn't waiting tables or selling posh dresses down in Bev anymore, that's for sure.

Earthhorse · 18-02-2021 5:24pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Most of that would actually be the Producer or Cinematographer's jobs.

Not that I agree with IAMA's original statement but Whedon was writing, directing and an executive producer on Buffy. Ditto Angel and the shows were running in parallel for a while. It's pretty unlikely Carpenter was working longer hours than him overall but even so it wouldn't excuse his behaviour (IMO; it my explain some of his behaviour though).

Whedon is a third generation screenwriter who got second chances nobody else in the world would have gotten with Buffy and later Firefly. Before then, he worked as a scriptdoctor, even though he was writing parts of movies people would go on to mock for years. And after Buffy, he drove one of Marvel's then very hypiest titles into the ground and got handed the keys to their kingdom anyway.

He's not being shot down suddenly and out of nowhere here, he's just running out of extra lives. He's not the victim of anybody's ego but his own.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with your editorialising here. He was sought after as a script doctor. His work on Avengers sort of set the template for how to write a movie around a team of super heroes. He may have written some bad stuff and had some failures along the way but his successes have more than compensated for that; both creatively and financially I would say.

But this is all adjacent as to whether he was abusive to staff; in fact it's pretty much irrelevant to it.

pixelburp · 18-02-2021 5:24pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I just think it both tactless and poorly timed to decide to gripe about someone you worked with 20 years ago... especially via social media?

Is she promoting a memoir? ... Then maybe I get that it could be a publicity grab.

Apart from that I am quietly confident her sleepless nights at the hands of Dr Evil are well over now.

I have forgotten most of the things my bosses called me 20 years ago, most normal people do.

Any decent director worth their salt is entitled to a certain air of menace about them. They need to get shdone, quite often to tight schedules and they have bosses to answer to also.

Rubbish. 90% of directors do not need to "menace" anyone, it's a collaborative, multi-discipline environment. Stressful I imagine, tight deadlines yes, but remarkably most sets are not hives of aggression, hostility or behaviour that, again, in any other work environment wouldn't be tolerated. Most sets are cooperative, most directors understand that respect goes a long way, not least with the acting talent. The "auteur" explanation is a weak excuse to behave like a tyran. Oh, it's for the art.

The victim-blaming doesn't really add anything to the conversation TBH. I appreciate there MAY be more subtleties and sides going on here, but that's on Whedon and those around him to come out and say - taking swipes at those trying to bring up their experiences years after the fact smacks as insincere considering that cliche that time heals all wounds.

And the 'aul "oh, I had a bad boss 20 years and I turned out OK..." excuse? Well given nobody here knows a damn thing about your career, I don't think your personal subjective experience is the barometer here of what should be allowed on a set.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It was a primetime Network show, I am sure she was doing alright all things considered.....

She wasn't waiting tables or selling posh dresses down in Bev anymore, that's for sure.

So you don't actually know what she was earning? Acting is not well paid, not in the low to middle tier and it's only upon things like syndication that you get any kind of job security. No it's not waiting tables, but it's not a secure income either.

jill_valentine · 18-02-2021 5:28pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

None of those things make him a bully? Or Toxic?

No more than any of your stuff about how cushy actors have it make them incapable of being mistreated.

Directors aren't kings, they're one of a hundred people on a set filled, lit, built, and made to look good by other people. If they act like arseholes, they're arseholes. Whedon has a very longstanding reputation as an arsehole, and his returns do nothing to justify it. Evidently he wasn't doing it in service to the craft, he just got to coast on passes anyway.

Which I don't believe you're silly enough to misunderstand as the point. I am not very interested in being led up the garden path if your responses will all be to that effect.

mikhail · 18-02-2021 5:30pm

pixelburp wrote: »

... The victim-blaming doesn't really add anything to the conversation TBH. I appreciate there MAY be more subtleties and sides going on here, but that's on Whedon and those around him to come out and say...

I mostly agree with you, but I think Whedon will say nothing regardless of whether he's apologetic, or embarrassed, in denial, or even wronged in the fashion a few posters have suggested, because nothing he could say would help, not an apology, not a denial, not a correction, absolutely nothing. It'd just mean the whole thing stays in the press a day longer.

pixelburp · 18-02-2021 5:54pm

mikhail wrote: »

I mostly agree with you, but I think Whedon will say nothing regardless of whether he's apologetic, or embarrassed, in denial, or even wronged in the fashion a few posters have suggested, because nothing he could say would help, not an apology, not a denial, not a correction, absolutely nothing. It'd just mean the whole thing stays in the press a day longer.

That's true and fair, there's clearly a court of public opinion at play, and Whedon is in a tricky situation. The lack of proxies still surprises. And I would say an apology would help. This being Hollywood a public mea culpa will be needed if he wants to work again for sure, an acknowledgement that his behaviour wasn't good enough. I certainly don't buy into the idea that those that have sinned should be forever sullied.

Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

Comments