Joss Whedeon, getting more canceled by the day

[DanteGabriel]

21 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Way to tackle the argument and not the arguer, good job.

I like to think I'm talented enough to to both but by all means keep indulging in butthurt on behalf of HoI.

I'll also note you edited out 95% of my post which did have substantive criticism of his post, so honestly, get over yourself and take your own advice.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

He's hosting a prime time network TV game show!

I didn't say he wasn't working, I said his career isn't in the place it was before all this. Look at how insanely prolific he had been beforehand, and how much new work he was constantly getting. Now he has Talking Dead and The Wall, both of which he had from the before the accusation.

I'm not saying his career is dead, but the luster is clearly off his star and he's no longer the go-to host darling for every type of gig imaginable.

[Vaughn]

That's fair and just from a 'talent' perspective, welcome. He's a terrible podcast host.

[Week]

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

I didn't say he wasn't working, I said his career isn't in the place it was before all this. Look at how insanely prolific he had been beforehand, and how much new work he was constantly getting. Now he has Talking Dead and The Wall, both of which he had from the before the accusation.

I'm not saying his career is dead, but the luster is clearly off his star and he's no longer the go-to host darling for every type of gig imaginable.

You are also ascribing any career impact entirely on the accusation made on Medium (where, again, he wasn't named but a group of readers attacked him - a very different scenario IMO). Maybe he wanted to do less, maybe people found his schtick grating (*raises hand*). Same for Aziz.

 

As for the discussion re: shrug at "innocent people" getting caught up in these instances -- once again we struggle to find any clear instances of this happening and completely ignore that no alternative solutions are offered. Employee-focused HR, strong collective bargaining, etc. no longer exist nor can be trusted by those subjected to abuse. Social media has filled that gap.

So what's the better solution folks? What solution will protect employees/actors/spouses etc. while also appropriately investigating, assessing, and punishing people in power? Shutting down social media as an avenue (which, cat is out of the bag folks) would return to the status quo where Weinstein's, Cosby's, Allen's, etc. could victimize and move on without a problem. Truly, the onus is on those complaining about the falsely accused to come up with a better system.

[polishgenius]

I can't believe we spent like five pages debating with someone whether it was morally okay for Kubrick to have abused Duvall. Fuck me lads.





 

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

I can't believe we spent like five pages debating with someone whether it was morally okay for Kubrick to have abused Duvall. Fuck me lads.

Appropriately, a quote from Charisma Carpenter comes to mind: "I'd say we've hit bottom...oh no, here's a lower place."

[DanteGabriel]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Or I can base that on Shelly Duvall's own words:

“If it hadn’t been for that volley of ideas,” she says in the Rolling Stone video, “and sometimes butting of heads together, it wouldn’t have come out as good as it did. And it also helps get the emotion up and the concentration up because you get more out of yourself. He knew that. And he knew that he was getting more out of me by doing that. So it was sort of like a game.” 

All right, since my previous point has been disappeared, but the point is worth repeating: sometimes victims of abuse, even long after the abuse, will pretend they were okay with things because it takes a lot to go against society's programming and entrenched power structures, and stand up and acknowledge they were abused. It's especially difficult for women, who are trained in Western society to make nice and avoid creating a fuss.

There is, earlier in this thread, discussion of the fact that Charisma Carpenter made positive comments about Whedon in public before finally feeling prepared enough to talk about what he did to her. Same with Michelle Trachtenberg, evidently.

So I do not think Duvall's quote is the slam dunk exoneration of Kubrick you seem to think it is.

[Zorral]

11 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Does that read to anyone else like someone had to consume significant alcohol to have the bravery to share?  

To say that is just ...  NO! 

She's writing the way people who constantly twitter write.  Sheesh.

 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I am.  I am disagreeing with that point.  She was a rising star, and her critically panned performance in the movie hurt her career - disregarding everything else.  That's, actually, fairly objective.

 Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that abuse improved her performance.

Lordessa, back as an undergrad, involved with the university drama dept., every two-bit college professor who considered himself at least the equal of Kubrick played toxic, destructive, ugly games on purpose with cast, tech and their families / sig others as well, all admitted by more than one for his own dramatic entertainment, as well as for just seeing what would happen, and ya, it will be really good for -- always, the leading female roles -- them as actors, and for the production.  Which turned me against theater, among other things.  These guys were all guys, i.e. male; one could see literally them feeding off this, puffing up and the rest.  They began to get confused as to what was real and what wasn't.  Fortunately most of them had wives who knew just how to cut them back down to the reality that they weren't gods, but doing a student play for a two-bit theater department, not Shakespeare in the Round at La Mama.

Fortunately in the last few years I've had great experiences with great directors (not as actor, I'm not any sort of actor, and won't even play one in a play) who pull out such wonderful performances, and who are anything but abusive.  The same with music producers, professors, and others in such positions, who don't get juice from abusing anything.  Things have changed in some places.  I'm talking top-o' the line people here.  So much destruction has been committed under the justification of 'genius.'  Bah.

 

 

[briantw]

4 hours ago, sifth said:

I'm confused, just because it had a happy ending, are you somehow saying it somehow doesn't make it f'd up?

People lie buddy and social media has made lying easier than ever before.

What's the alternative?  To not investigate accusations of abuse or misconduct because sometime people lie?  

[polishgenius]

45 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

She's writing the way people who constantly twitter write.

 

No she isn't.

[Ran]

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

No she isn't.

Yeah, as someone who tweets, this is not actually normal on twitter, and I don't think it's normal for her. But don't take my word for it -- she has a nice instagram with photos of her cat, makeup looks, photos from fashion shoots and red carpets, etc. with her comments that have a very different grammar.

I couldn't say why that post was different, but that it was different, yes, it was, and it's not because that's how the young'uns write these days.

 

[Zorral]

If you say so.  But why call her drunk? Why ASSUME she's drunk or taking drugs?  That made no sense, other than a default manner of thinking of women as out of control in some way or another, rather than thinking about what her words said.  Or are you saying her words are without content?  Breaking them up is one stylistic manner of emphasizing what she is stating.  Why not assume that first rather than assume she's drunk?  That sort of assumption without any evidence whatsoever, is an extension of the abuse that she is speaking about.

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

If you say so.  But why call her drunk?

I mean BFC very clearly explained why he thought she might be drunk: because she tweeted what must have been a high-stress, difficult thing to do while typing in an odd way. I'm not sure I agree that it's the only possible conclusion but he wasn't vague about this, especially in his second post. 


 

[Kalbear]

This is like the Holy Grail castle Aaagh skit. You don't take time to chisel out the word Aaagh. 

People who are drunk don't.type.like.this. That's specifically done for emphasizing and being serious - punctuation especially so. If she were drunk it would likely have a lot less actual pauses and probably almost no punctuation, and significantly more spelling errors.

[DaveSumm]

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That sort of assumption without any evidence whatsoever, is an extension of the abuse that she is speaking about.

Jesus, calm down. Here in the UK, you type like that, people will say “what are you, drunk?” Cos we might well be. Male, female, abused, whatever. It’s not a huge deal. Just as reasonable a hypothesis as any other. Highlighted by the fact that “a stylistic manner of emphasis” is the best alternative you could come up with.

[Week]

20 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Jesus, calm down. Here in the UK, you type like that, people will say “what are you, drunk?” Cos we might well be. Male, female, abused, whatever. It’s not a huge deal. Just as reasonable a hypothesis as any other. Highlighted by the fact that “a stylistic manner of emphasis” is the best alternative you could come up with.

The gas is lit, oh is the gas so very lit.

There was no need for a hypothesis. Any hypothesis made to question motives, emotional state, or otherwise of someone speaking out about their abuse is pretty not great.

She also is pretty clearly not in the UK, so any "hypothesis" with that context in mind is absurd on it's face. Even aside from the other pretty clear obnoxiousness of such a "hypothesis".

[polishgenius]

 

5 minutes ago, Week said:

The gas is lit, oh is the gas so very lit.

Right? You're trying to pretend BFC was being critical or casting doubt on the story by making the comparison when he very clearly didn't. You can and several people have suggest that it was neither justified nor helpful to make that comparison without saying or implying he must have been trying to knock her down with it, but you're insisting on doing so despite gaslighting being much harder when we can go back and read what he posted. Stop it.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Week said:

She also is pretty clearly not in the UK,

She's not. BFC is. The point isn't that British drunks type differently the point is that it may be a sorta colloquial reaction to assume someone is drunk when they're typing oddly (I dunno if that's really plausible, but it's pretty obviously what DS was saying).
 

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

If you say so.  But why call her drunk? Why ASSUME she's drunk or taking drugs?  That made no sense, other than a default manner of thinking of women as out of control in some way or another, rather than thinking about what her words said.  Or are you saying her words are without content?  Breaking them up is one stylistic manner of emphasizing what she is stating.  Why not assume that first rather than assume she's drunk?  That sort of assumption without any evidence whatsoever, is an extension of the abuse that she is speaking about.

Why does anyone care if she was drunk or not to begin with?  If she was, great.  If not, also great.  Don't care.  The important part is the content of the tweet, not the weird punctuation.

[Ran]

This is at this stage a wildly non-constructive discussion, to be honest, so lets move off of it. If there's more news on the original topic, this is the place to post it, but spending your time talking about one another doesn't seem very useful.