# Joss Whedon Allegations: The Undoing of the "Buffy" Creator



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

Elsewhere, I said that I wasn't going to start a thread about the recent interview from Joss Whedon.  But it seems like at least a few folks have something to say about it, so I made a liar out of myself.  And fair enough; Joss Whedon is (among other things) an icon of Geek Media.  He has been an undeniable influence across multiple fandoms...there was a time not too long ago that he was being hailed as the best director and best writer in the industry.  And then...boom.

-----
Intro from Independent.co.uk:

Joss Whedon is being criticized for his defense of the allegations made against him by Gal Gadot and Ray Fisher.  On Monday, the writer-director finally addressed accusations of toxic misconduct on the set of _Justice League _and _Buffy the Vampire Slayer, _which have shattered his reputation since 2020.​​Fisher, who played Cyborg in _Justice League,_ was the first to speak out against the director.​​_Wonder Woman _actor Gal Gadot also spoke about her "issues" with Whedon, telling Israeli channel N12 that "He kind of threatened my career and said if I did something, he will make sure my career is miserable."​​In response to this, Whedon brushed off the criticism while speaking to New York Magazine, stating that Gadot "misunderstood" him as "English is not her first language."​








						The Undoing of Joss Whedon
					

The Buffy creator, once an icon of Hollywood feminism, is now an outcast accused of misogyny. How did he get here?




					www.vulture.com
				




*The Undoing of Joss Whedon*
The _Buffy _creator, once an icon of Hollywood feminism, is now an outcast accused of misogyny.  How did he get here?

The full "New York Magazine" article by Lila Shapiro can be read here.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

From an earlier thread:

My wife and I would spend hours watching _Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog _and shotgunning episodes of _Firefly _back when we were dating, and chatting about why "Hush" was the best episode of _Buffy _ever filmed (you know it's true), and so on.

And then..._Dollhouse _happened.  There was a cracking noise in the snowy mountains above the village.

And then the divorce, and the open letter from his ex-wife.  A rumbling noise in the distance.

And then Charisma Carpenter came forward, and then others came forward as well, and the avalanche was all around us.

We haven't watched any of his stuff in years.  And that's kinda sad, considering how important his work was to our dating relationship.  All that talent, buried under bad publicity, personal failings, and shockingly terrible responses.  That interview was the first thing that Joss Whedon has produced in years, and all I could do was cringe and facepalm while I read it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 18, 2022)

As I said, has anyone in geekdom fallen so far and so fast as this guy?

And to pop up with this self-serving BS? It used to be that Joss Whedon was known for writing the quippiest, hippest material. 

Now he only opens his mouth to change feet.


I hope that he stops, please. Some of his past work (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dr. Horrible, the first Avengers) remains stone-cold classics. I have amazing memories of the times when I watched Buffy, and the people I watched it with, and the amazing conversations that we had. I don't want him to continue wrecking that.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> In response to this, Whedon brushed off the criticism while speaking to New York Magazine, stating that Gadot "misunderstood" him as "English is not her first language."



You know a nice way to prove you are not misoginistic? Gaslighting women making allegations against you...


----------



## Gradine (Jan 18, 2022)

The stuff that happened to Charisma was an open secret for a very long time. Dude ruined a perfectly good show because he threw a fit over his lead actress getting pregnant.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I have amazing memories of the times when I watched Buffy, and the people I watched it with, and the amazing conversations that we had. I don't want him to continue wrecking that.



I have the same struggle with the harry potter series (just an example, not trying to move this thread to _that_ can of worms). It's a choice between still having access to stuff that brings you so much joy and giving money to people who use their fame to make the world worse. My decision was to keep consuming HP stuff, but only by "alternative means" (Ahoy!)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 18, 2022)

Gradine said:


> The stuff that happened to Charisma was an open secret for a very long time. Dude ruined a perfectly good show because he threw a fit over his lead actress getting pregnant.




Watching it at the time, I didn't know what was going on behind the scenes, but everything about her character at the end of her run on Angel was so off and wrong. It didn't ruin the show, but in fairness, I also have had no desire to re-watch Angel since I found out. So maybe it did?


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Watching it at the time, I didn't know what was going on behind the scenes, but everything about her character at the end of her run on Angel was so off and wrong. It didn't ruin the show, but in fairness, I also have had no desire to re-watch Angel since I found out. So maybe it did?



Folks in my social (media) circle have tried to go back and re-watch _Buffy_ and _Angel_.  The kindest thing I've heard is that "it hits different" today, in light of these allegations.  Especially _Angel _and _Dollhouse._

I really enjoyed _Cabin in the Woods _when it came out in theaters, but that was the only time I saw it. (Can't decide if I liked the merman or the unicorn best....) I always have a craving to re-watch it every Halloween, but I've never been able to do it...partly because I don't want to spend more of my money on it, and partly because I don't want to ruin my good memories of the film.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

All the stuff with black widow in Avengers 2 was already rough back then... now it really pisses me off.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 18, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Folks in my social (media) circle have tried to go back and re-watch _Buffy_ and _Angel_.  The kindest thing I've heard is that "it hits different" today, in light of these allegations.  Especially _Angel _and _Dollhouse._




I don't know. I think Buffy still holds up pretty well. I re-watched that after the whole thing came out. I've probably seen it all the way through five times since it aired (like you, it holds a special spot for me). Some things hit a little different, but it's still good TV with some amazing characters. And some episodes, like Hush or Once More With Feeling, are just stone-cold classics. 

But while I appreciated Dollhouse at the time ... there is just no way I could go back and re-watch that.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

Gradine said:


> The stuff that happened to Charisma was an open secret for a very long time. Dude ruined a perfectly good show because he threw a fit over his lead actress getting pregnant.



And also getting a tattoo, apparently.  It reads like he felt entitled to an inappropriate amount of control over his actors and actresses.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 18, 2022)

Just goes to show the danger in deifying anyone (Whedon, JK Rowling, MJ, Gygax, etc).


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I don't know. I think Buffy still holds up pretty well. I re-watched that after the whole thing came out. I've probably seen it all the way through five times since it aired (like you, it holds a special spot for me). Some things hit a little different, but it's still good TV with some amazing characters. And some episodes, like Hush or Once More With Feeling, are just stone-cold classics.
> 
> But while I appreciated Dollhouse at the time ... there is just no way I could go back and re-watch that.



The stuff that best holds up well now -- Buffy, Dr. Horrible, Avengers #1 is stuff where everyone is an actual teenager (and thus muddling their way through life by trial and error and we kinda expect them to make mistakes), or deliberately flagged as deeply flawed characters (who we either love watching fall, or root for figuring things out). So if Xander seems a little like a 'nice guy' of the incel variety or Dr. Horrible says he loves Penny but can't turn away from from his selfish behavior or the Avengers act like bickering siblings until they pull it all together and best Loki in the third act, it... well it just fits. Shows involving adults (and not Byronic figures like four-color comic superheroes) making adult decisions -- like Angel and Dollhouse-- well, those seem a little more off. Firefly, by that measure, is about half-and-half. Mind you, it's my favorite of his works, but honestly I think that has *a lot *to do with the cast chemistry rather than the premise or writing or the like. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Just goes to show the danger in deifying anyone (Whedon, JK Rowling, MJ, Gygax, etc).



To paraphrase XKCD, '_let me tell you about how important Ender's Game was to my childhood...'_


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 18, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> To paraphrase XKCD, '_let me tell you about how important Ender's Game was to my childhood...'_



David Eddings _*was *_one of my favorite authors...


----------



## darjr (Jan 18, 2022)

I kept bouncing off Enders Game. Something about it always led me to setting it down and just walking away. Can’t really point out exactly what though. Or remember, that’s how much I just eventually didn’t care.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> David Eddings _*was *_one of my favorite authors...




Oh... oh no...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> David Eddings _*was *_one of my favorite authors...




Could be worse.

Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

I watched the movie and found the premise and twist interesting, but soon after I found out who wrote it and lost interest completelly


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....



_oof_


----------



## embee (Jan 18, 2022)

I suspect the article was some attempt to rehab his image. At least for me, it didn't work. 

Among the lowlights was his trading on the name of his mother's student for feminist cred; the likely deliberate elision of Television Without Pity (the unnamed blog referred to in the article) which is galling if only for the fact that TWOP was run by two women who, arguably, pioneered media criticism in the 21st century, and; the complete sidelining of the fact that Joss Whedon's family has been in the TV business for decades.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 18, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Oh... oh no...



Well, that was a particularly depressing run of Google.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....



Whoo boy, yeah, that's so much worse. Eddings' books were dumb fun fantasy but hardly foundational. MZB opened the floodgates for women authors of Fantasy & Sci-Fi, and fought tooth and nail to never let them shut. There's definitely quite a lot more to square there regarding her legacy and the revelations that came out about her and her husband.


----------



## Divine1943 (Jan 18, 2022)

Hey, how do I block posts with out blocking the author of the said post? Because I don’t want stuff like this to clog up my feed when I come visit this site. No offense to the author of the post, I simply don’t have the desire to see stuff like this.


----------



## J.Quondam (Jan 18, 2022)

I've learned today some things I didn't know about certain writers I've enjoyed. Ugh.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 18, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> I've learned today some things I didn't know about certain writers I've enjoyed. Ugh.




For me, the worst* recent one was probably Isaac Asimov. 

I was like ... c'mon. Asimov???? _sigh_


*Worst in terms of shock combined with love of the work. MZB is, obviously, "worse."


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

Divine1943 said:


> Hey, how do I block posts with out blocking the author of the said post? Because I don’t want stuff like this to clog up my feed when I come visit this site. No offense to the author of the post, I simply don’t have the desire to see stuff like this.



You can unwatch the thread...


----------



## Divine1943 (Jan 18, 2022)

Bolares said:


> You can unwatch the thread...



Still shows up when I visit the mobile site. I’m sorry, I don’t want to see anything about allegations, or anything about Josh Wheadon. I’m asking if it is possible to hide threads to better customize my experience.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Jan 18, 2022)

Divine1943 said:


> Still shows up when I visit the mobile site. I’m sorry, I don’t want to see anything about allegations, or anything about Josh Wheadon. I’m asking if it is possible to hide threads to better customize my experience.



You should message the mods.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2022)

Divine1943 said:


> I’m asking if it is possible to hide threads to better customize my experience.






BookTenTiger said:


> You should message the mods.




As far as I am aware, there is no way to hide individual threads.


----------



## embee (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> David Eddings _*was *_one of my favorite authors...






Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....



My boss wants me to convey his thanks. I'm done with the internet now.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 18, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Well, that was a particularly depressing run of Google.
> 
> Whoo boy, yeah, that's so much worse. Eddings' books were dumb fun fantasy but hardly foundational. MZB opened the floodgates for women authors of Fantasy & Sci-Fi, and fought tooth and nail to never let them shut. There's definitely quite a lot more to square there regarding her legacy and the revelations that came out about her and her husband.



My father in law did work on her house back when. Apparently it was run like a weird commune with a super toxic vibe.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> For me, the worst* recent one was probably Isaac Asimov.
> 
> I was like ... c'mon. Asimov???? _sigh_
> 
> ...



Honestly, these sorts of things never surprise me (I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist), but yelch this is a gross attitude on his part:



> The question then is not whether or not a girl should be touched. The question is merely where, when, and how she should be touched.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 18, 2022)

_glances at lovecraft before looking back towards this mess_


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....




I haven't heard about this.  What about Marion Zimmer Bradley?

On the creator's part, I find that you can enjoy a person's work without actually appreciating the person themselves.  There are a LOT of entertainers and others that were absolutely horrendous people (Charlie Chaplin I hear about, for example), but you can still enjoy their contributions to the arts and otherwise. 

Separating the person from their work and noting the contributions of that work is probably one of the better things to do once you start realizing how flawed many of the people that are significant (not just the arts, in science and other fields) in our culture really are.

PS: This is looking at it with one finger pointing and four pointing back, and of course, I hope that I am not considered so flawed, but one cannot tell how others perceive them sometimes.  If it turns out I am flawed horribly, by today's standards or future standards, people would look at how I am, and my work, as separate entities where one is not representative of the other.  Not that I think I have done anything wrong or horrible, but sometimes you aren't sure how others may perceive you.  One individual's hero is another's villain sometimes.

I hope never to be the villain, but I already know that some do not like me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 18, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Well, that was a particularly depressing run of Google.
> 
> Whoo boy, yeah, that's so much worse. Eddings' books were dumb fun fantasy but hardly foundational. MZB opened the floodgates for women authors of Fantasy & Sci-Fi, and fought tooth and nail to never let them shut. There's definitely quite a lot more to square there regarding her legacy and the revelations that came out about her and her husband.



Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing? 

I mean the homophobia and other problematic elements of the Elenium already disappointed me when I went back and read it again a couple years ago…


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?
> 
> I mean the homophobia and other problematic elements of the Elenium already disappointed me when I went back and read it again a couple years ago…



It's bad enough...


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I haven't heard about this.  What about Marion Zimmer Bradley?
> 
> On the creator's part, I find that you can enjoy a person's work without actually appreciating the person themselves.  There are a LOT of entertainers and others that were absolutely horrendous people (Charlie Chaplin I hear about, for example), but you can still enjoy their contributions to the arts and otherwise.
> 
> Separating the person from their work and noting the contributions of that work is probably one of the better things to do once you start realizing how flawed many of the people that are significant (not just the arts, in science and other fields) in our culture really are.



It's not just about that though. I can separate a person from their work. But consuming/paying for that work directly supports that person. So even if I can separate the person form the work I have to ask myself if I want to make them richer...


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?




It is really bad.


----------



## Jer (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?



The Bradley stuff is bad enough that you might not want to google it.  It involves allegations of child abuse.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 18, 2022)

Bolares said:


> It's not just about that though. I can separate a person from their work. But consuming/paying for that work directly supports that person. So even if I can separate the person form the work I have to ask myself if I want to make them richer...




I find by the time I find out anything, I've already bought and supported that individual already...so what do you do?

If you find their actions problematic and those that supported them as problematic, you have already supported the problem and the actions.

On the otherhand, many of those we talk about are already dead.   Who are you supporting then...the dead use no money that I know of.  I suppose their heirs might...but how do we judge whether heirs are good or bad?

Instead of view ourselves as villains for supporting those who took actions we find unlikeable now, and thus we were those who supported those actions...perhaps it is better to see us as supporting the creations that they made that perhaps speak in a different manner or created situations differently than those who created them?

Look forward to making positive changes in the community in the future rather than condemning ourselves for the past.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 18, 2022)

Jer said:


> The Bradley stuff is bad enough that you might not want to google it.  It involves allegations of child abuse.



Okay...that sounds bad.  

I think this is a prime example of separating the creator and the creation.  I have many of her books already.  I bought them already and have them in my library.  I don't think it serves anyone to simply toss them out.  

On the otherhand, the implications people are making is I absolutely would be horrified by the author's actions in real life.  
That's not an easy thing to live with if you see that by buying stuff the creator wrote, you in turn were supporting bad behavior.   

You could see instead that you were supporting what the material created represented and what it accomplished, rather than the creator themselves...and thus see that (as long as the results of the material were positive) you were supporting an idea that created positivity rather than the negative results of the author, creator, inventor, or any other item of the individual.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?
> 
> I mean the homophobia and other problematic elements of the Elenium already disappointed me when I went back and read it again a couple years ago…



The nature of how he wrote the relationship between Sparhawk and Ehlana takes on an extra creepy vibe when I learned Eddings' history.  It was bad enough with a 40ish year old guy going back and forth with a teenager girl of "I raised this little girl" to "this little tart keeps seducing me and I can't help but have sex with her.  And it was really good." back to "I raised this little girl", rinse and repeat.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?
> 
> I mean the homophobia and other problematic elements of the Elenium already disappointed me when I went back and read it again a couple years ago…



What Eddings and his wife did was pretty unspeakable and horrific.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Look forward to making positive changes in the community in the future rather than condemning ourselves for the past.




One major way to make positive changes going forward is to make perfectly clear in the present that some things are not acceptable, and to make it clear that there are consequences.

I daresay most authors want to have a legacy - for their works to outlive them.  Therefore, that legacy is one place we can choose to enact consequences.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I find by the time I find out anything, I've already bought and supported that individual already...so what do you do?
> 
> If you find their actions problematic and those that supported them as problematic, you have already supported the problem and the actions.
> 
> ...



You seem to be choosing the exact circunstances where what I said wouldn't apply... Sure, I wouldn't burn already bought books, but I choose to not buy stuff from them from then on... Dead people don't make money, if I can see that whoever owns the rights right now isn't being bad, sure, I have no problem buying (if the work itself is not problematic and not contextualized).

I never said I view myself, or anyone else, as a villain for supporting anyone, I just said what I do to support my own convictions. It has nothing to do with guilt or villany.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I haven't heard about this. What about Marion Zimmer Bradley?



Her children have come out about Bradley and year stepfather did to them. Systematic abuse is the dry and clinical way I'll put it, but the details are out there.

In regards to complicity of supporting an author...a reader who would like a feminist take on Arthurian legend is engaged with remote material cooperation with an author's bad actions, which isn't morally problematic as it is neither proximate nor formal,  particularly if they are secret as these were. Personally, I'd feel icky now, but that's more a gut feeling than a moral analysis.


----------



## Jer (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Okay...that sounds bad.
> 
> I think this is a prime example of separating the creator and the creation.  I have many of her books already.  I bought them already and have them in my library.  I don't think it serves anyone to simply toss them out.



My problem is that with most of these creators I'm prevented from enjoying their works because I know the context of their lives now.  Their works read a lot differently once you know about the baggage in their lives.  For some authors it brings a new appreciation (finding out about Phil Dick's struggles with mental illness actually brought more to his work), for others it makes them impossible to read without noticing their baggage - sometimes to the point of not being able to enjoy their works at all (Whedon's Dollhouse and Firefly both come across very differently to me now, Bradley's books are in the same camp).

For dead authors like Bradley and Lovecraft I'm not worried about the ethics of monetarily supporting them because they're dead, but it sure does change the way I read their works knowing what they were like - often to the point of not being able to read some of their works at all.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 18, 2022)

This sounds like a good time to remind people that Whedon has nothing to do with The Nevers (on HBO) anymore, and that it's a good show with a lot of people who are absolutely not Joss Whedon doing quality work,


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

Mallus said:


> This sounds like a good time to remind people that Whedon has nothing to do with The Nevers (on HBO) anymore, and that it's a good show with a lot of people who are absolutely not Joss Whedon doing quality work,



That's mentioned in the article, too.  Sounds like they went to great lengths to distance themselves from Joss.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> David Eddings _*was *_one of my favorite authors...






Jer said:


> The Bradley stuff is bad enough that you might not want to google it.  It involves allegations of child abuse.



I meant Eddings. Sadly, I am familiar with the Bradley stuff.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 18, 2022)

At what point do you admit that you honestly, don't care?

Lovecraft's writings may be in the public domain, but folks are still making money off of them despite his history. Then there's Henry Ford (who did have a change of heart), along with IBM.

What do you think of this painting?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 18, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> At what point do you admit that you honestly, don't care?
> 
> Lovecraft's writings may be in the public domain, but folks are still making money off of them despite his history. Then there's Henry Ford (who did have a change of heart), along with IBM.
> 
> What do you think of this painting?



The quality of a given work (better than I can do, but less good than many skilled amateurs I know, in this case) is irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 18, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> On the creator's part, I find that you can enjoy a person's work without actually appreciating the person themselves.  There are a LOT of entertainers and others that were absolutely horrendous people (Charlie Chaplin I hear about, for example), but you can still enjoy their contributions to the arts and otherwise.
> 
> Separating the person from their work and noting the contributions of that work is probably one of the better things to do once you start realizing how flawed many of the people that are significant (not just the arts, in science and other fields) in our culture really are.



For dead artists, yes. But I just don't like spending money on content knowing it will go to certain people.  So your point works for me when it comes to Alfred Hitchcock, but not for some living artists.


----------



## TheSword (Jan 18, 2022)

A book is one thing. But a TV show or a film is comprised of the efforts of a multitude of people. Of which the showrunner is only one.

This shouldn’t stop us appreciating what everyone else contributed and enjoying the shows. In fact, considering what an ass hat he seems to have been, it’s even more remarkable.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> The nature of how he wrote the relationship between Sparhawk and Ehlana takes on an extra creepy vibe when I learned Eddings' history.  It was bad enough with a 40ish year old guy going back and forth with a teenager girl of "I raised this little girl" to "this little tart keeps seducing me and I can't help but have sex with her.  And it was really good." back to "I raised this little girl", rinse and repeat.



Yeah, that was one of the things that stood out when I reread the trilogy. That, and the way Sparhawk speaks internally about the “fantasy Arabia” he had recently spent time in, and the homophobia, and probably other stuff. Ugh.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 18, 2022)

TheSword said:


> A book is one thing. But a TV show or a film is comprised of the efforts of a multitude of people. Of which the showrunner is only one.
> 
> This shouldn’t stop us appreciating what everyone else contributed and enjoying the shows. In fact, considering what an ass hat he seems to have been, it’s even more remarkable.



You don't think there is any degree to which this outlook, in action, contributes to “open secrets” about creator’s behavior in order to protect one’s own carreer? 

Also most books have several people involved in making them. It’s just that editors aren’t generally looking for game outside the professional circles that hire them.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The quality of a given work (better than I can do, but less good than many skilled amateurs I know, in this case) is irrelevant to the discussion.



You may have misunderstood my point (which may not have been communicated very well). You can say I'd totally buy the painting without caring that Hitler painted it.

EDIT: Then there are whole genres of music that would go along with Joss' treatment of women.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, that was one of the things that stood out when I reread the trilogy. That, and the way Sparhawk speaks internally about the “fantasy Arabia” he had recently spent time in, and the homophobia, and probably other stuff. Ugh.



Some of that stuff I attribute to the times when it was written.  But knowing his views and actions towards children, and then writing a teenage girl essentially seducing a middle aged man who essentially was her father (so not his fault!), seemed extra creepy.  Someone once told me that since his crimes were in the 60s, he totally could been a reformed person in his later years.  Looking at the writing of the elenium series (early 90s), and it doesn't seem so much had changed.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Some of that stuff I attribute to the times when it was written.  But knowing his views and actions towards children, and then writing a teenage girl essentially seducing a middle aged man who essentially was her father (so not his fault!), seemed extra creepy.  Someone once told me that since his crimes were in the 60s, he totally could been a reformed person in his later years.  Looking at the writing of the elenium series (early 90s), and it doesn't seem so much had changed.



That's really not something that just "gets better."


----------



## TheSword (Jan 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You don't think there is any degree to which this outlook, in action, contributes to “open secrets” about creator’s behavior in order to protect one’s own carreer?
> 
> Also most books have several people involved in making them. It’s just that editors aren’t generally looking for game outside the professional circles that hire them.



No. I don’t.

This isn’t about actors keeping things quiet. They have stepped forward. You also can’t blame someone for trying to protect their career when they’re not in a position of power.

It’s about acknowledging that Buffy et al, wasn’t just Whedon’s work. So we can enjoy it for everyone else’s benefit.

Unless co-wrote, a novel is predominantly created by the writer. The editor may assist and refine. But I trust you can see there is a whole order of magnitude between that and the legions involved in a TV show. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people would have no idea who or what a showrunner is. Everyone knows the name of the person who’s book they are reading.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jan 18, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I really enjoyed _Cabin in the Woods _when it came out in theaters, but that was the only time I saw it. (Can't decide if I liked the merman or the unicorn best....) I always have a craving to re-watch it every Halloween, but I've never been able to do it...partly because I don't want to spend more of my money on it, and partly because I don't want to ruin my good memories of the film.




In fairness to an excellent movie, Whedon didn't direct The Cabin in the Woods, and only co-wrote it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 18, 2022)

Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon.  The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard.  It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor.  He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior.  IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl.  I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.

So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors?  The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man.  Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe Fisher deserves more credit than I'm giving him.  Please, don't take this to mean I think Fisher was lying or Whedon's actions with him were excusable.  And feel free to set me straight about how it happened.  Maybe his refusal to step down was stronger, maybe it's because of modern social media, maybe it was just the right time.  But something doesn't feel good about the fact that the whistleblower against Whedon's reign of misogyny was a male jerk who worked with him for a few months, rather that the otherwise (AFAIK) very nice people who were abused by him for years.

It's a good thing that people listened to Fisher.  But looking at the way it went down makes me think we're still going after the squeaky wheels rather than the root causes.  And that doesn't feel like a good coda to the Me Too movement.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 18, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon.  The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard.  It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor.  He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior.  IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl.  I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.
> 
> So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors?  The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man.  Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.
> 
> ...




Well, from an outside perspective it seems to me that American culture takes racism a lot more seriously than misogyny*, and usually takes an allegation of racism a lot more seriously than an allegation of misogyny. In terms of Hollywood specifically, abuse of women seems to have been routine, and I'm guessing is not extinct despite #MeToo. Abuse of young male actors has not been unknown either, of course. Either way, Hollywood has a sex problem - it normalises abuse. 

*I nearly wrote 'sexism', but Whedon's issues with women seem to go well beyond sexist attitudes, into actually wanting to hurt women.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Jan 18, 2022)

The one thing I took away from the article is that I think Whedon has absolutely no real understanding of himself at all.
He's convinced he does, but he really doesn't.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 18, 2022)

I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?

(if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

S'mon said:


> Well, from an outside perspective it seems to me that American culture takes racism a lot more seriously than misogyny*, and usually takes an allegation of racism a lot more seriously than an allegation of misogyny. In terms of Hollywood specifically, abuse of women seems to have been routine, and I'm guessing is not extinct despite #MeToo. Abuse of young male actors has not been unknown either, of course. Either way, Hollywood has a sex problem - it normalises abuse.
> 
> *I nearly wrote 'sexism', but Whedon's issues with women seem to go well beyond sexist attitudes, into actually wanting to hurt women.



That part about the writer being shamed in a meeting, in front of her colleagues, with a mock slideshow?  complete with sound effects and funny voices?  That really got to me.  That was someone using their position of power to humiliate and torture someone for their own amusement.


----------



## payn (Jan 18, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Maybe I'm alone in this, but it bothers me a little that the Ray Fisher case was (seemingly) the one that really blew it up for Whedon.  The stuff with Trachtenburg and Carpenter was definitely covered up for years, and even the conflict with Gadot was (IMO) minimized a lot until Fisher came out and pushed his story so hard.  It bothers me because when I read Fisher's side of his story, he really comes off as a whiny, egotistical actor.  He didn't deserve the consequences he got from Whedon, but I can see a lot of other directors freaking out at Fisher for his behavior.  IMNSHO, he might have been on track to be the next Katherine Heigl.  I also can't help but think about the fact that he had no acting credits (this was his first movie), and that Whedon wasn't even director for the entire project.
> 
> So my mind keeps coming back to the question: Why did the industry listen to this one no-name prima donna who only worked with Whedon for half a movie, when people were willing to ignore his systematic, years long abuse of other respected actors?  The painfully obvious answer is that they cared more because he was a man.  Maybe because he was also a minority? In any case, it doesn't sit right with me.
> 
> ...



I can think of a couple of things. First, sadly folks in power never paid for things like this back in Buffy days. Second, sometimes they did if they out lived their usefulness. Piss off too many people, not have any powerful friends, and its time up for you. However it added up, they were done putting up with JW.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jan 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Just goes to show the danger in deifying anyone (Whedon, JK Rowling, MJ, Gygax, etc).



(Slight tangent, but others have posted similar things.)

This is probably my least favorite part of any fandom/nerd-community.

I love D&D. I love a ton of fantasy and sci-fi books, shows/movies, and video games. I love consuming sci-fi and fantasy media. I love listening to music, too. There are some celebrities that I think are genuinely funny and seem nice.

I just don't get why some people feel the need to idolize them and put them on a pedestal. They're human. They make mistakes just like the rest of us. A lot of them make worse mistakes than we do. There are some creators that were absolutely garbage people, but created good things.

The "creator worship" that a lot of nerd communities and fandoms participate in is . . . baffling to me, to say the least. It's legitimately harmful to treat creators this way, even the "good ones". The ones that are legimitately decent/good people don't deserve that kind of worship, and it cannot be good for their mental health to feel that they need to live up to their fans' unrealistic expectations/viewpoint of them. It's _extremely_ harmful when this happens with awful creators, especially those that are still alive. Celebrity worship of dead people isn't good, but doing it to alive people that are garbage people is one of the worst common practices in the modern world, IMO.

Whether it be Joss Whedon, JK Rowling, Michael Jackson, Gary Gygax, David Bowie on the bad side of things, or others that seem to be good people . . . they should not be idolized. It's bad for everyone.

Side Note: I was raised in a church where I was taught to basically worship certain alive individuals as if they weren't human people, but instead as if they were better than all of the rest of us, and to do exactly as they told us 100% of the time, _even if they were wrong_. Most of my family and I have since left this church (cult), but my family and I are still dealing with the fallout of this type of indoctrination, and it's extremely harmful in many ways.

No one should idolize anyone. We're all humans, none of us are gods, and it's extremely harmful to treat people as if they are "above humans". (I actually think that a major part of maturity is learning to treat others as people and not as perfect. We see our parents as perfect growing up, and a large part of the teenage years is learning that this isn't true. Those that can't learn this are a major part of what makes certain adults immature.)


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 18, 2022)

S'mon said:


> I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?
> 
> (if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)



It gets sticky when you try to define a person's ideals by their words and not their actions.  I'm not a philosopher, but I feel that a person's opinions are defined *by* their actions.  I don't think a person espouses an ideal just by talking about it.

It's easy for me to go around saying that "pineapple on pizza is bad."  Lots of people will agree with me, applaud my efforts, voice their support for me in my crusade against pineapple.  But it's gonna be really embarrassing for me when the pizzeria owner comes forward and tells everyone that I always order my pizza with pineapple, and have done it for years.  And then all the pizza delivery drivers come forward and say "oh yeah, he orders pineapple all the time, it's kind of an open secret."  And all those people who looked up to me as a champion of anti-pineapple ideals are going to (rightly) feel hurt, angry, and betrayed.

Tangent:
At that point, is it really everyone else's fault for putting me on an anti-pineapple pedestal, knowing full well that I am just a fallible human like any other?  Or am I just a liar that got caught?


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 18, 2022)

As an aside, I'd like to point that in the past, Hollywood had "fixers" who would deal with issues like sexism and other "unpleasantness"  Joseph Edgar Allen John "Eddie" Mannix for example, but now the only thing holding back any actual stories/allegations isn't much.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 18, 2022)

S'mon said:


> I was wondering, in judging immorality do you guys differentiate people's opinions from their actions, or are they equivalent? It seems to me Whedon espouses the 'right opinions' and does bad things. Is that worse than JK Rowling espousing 'bad opinions'? Or do you think expressed views do more harm (since lots of people see them) whereas bad actors only harm their direct victims?
> 
> (if this query isn't allowed please delete of course)




To me, "differentiate" is probably the right word here.  Yes, actions are different that thoughts.  I analyze them them separately.  They are not equivalent.  But I also wouldn't say that one is more or less important than the other.  I think Whedon is probably worse that Rowling at the end of the day, but that's a matter of severity and amount, not actions vs. thoughts.  Such comparisons of who is "worse" are rarely useful, IMNSHO (though they can be entertaining).

If it matters, I'm also the type of person who has little problem separating the artist from the art.  I still like reading Lovecraft.  I can still enjoy watching BtVS.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> And also getting a tattoo, apparently. It reads like he felt entitled to an inappropriate amount of control over his actors and actresses.



From the article, it looks like there were some ongoing problems with Carpenter.  She was having difficulties remembering her lines, she once got her hair cut shorter while an episode was still in production, and of course there's the tattoo.  Not that this makes Whedon less of a jerk, but I do think he had some legitimate complaints about Carpenter.


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> It gets sticky when you try to define a person's ideals by their words and not their actions.  I'm not a philosopher, but I feel that a person's opinions are defined *by* their actions.  I don't think a person espouses an ideal just by talking about it.
> 
> It's easy for me to go around saying that "pineapple on pizza is bad."  Lots of people will agree with me, applaud my efforts, voice their support for me in my crusade against pineapple.  But it's gonna be really embarrassing for me when the pizzeria owner comes forward and tells everyone that I always order my pizza with pineapple, and have done it for years.  And then all the pizza delivery drivers come forward and say "oh yeah, he orders pineapple all the time, it's kind of an open secret."  And all those people who looked up to me as a champion of anti-pineapple ideals are going to (rightly) feel hurt, angry, and betrayed.
> 
> ...



nope. You will be impaled on a pepperoni spear as an example to others


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

I've seen Bowie, Asimov and Eddings mentioned.

Is there a repository of People-Who-Turned-Out-To-Not-Be-Good somewhere? As somebody hadn't heard about Bradley (I knew!), clearly it's hard to keep up.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I find by the time I find out anything, I've already bought and supported that individual already...so what do you do?
> 
> If you find their actions problematic and those that supported them as problematic, you have already supported the problem and the actions.
> 
> ...



I don’t think anyone thinks themselves a villain for _unknowingly_ buying stuff made by an abuser. 

But we cannot make positive change in the future without holding people accountable, and being honest about the past.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> I've seen Bowie, Asimov and Eddings mentioned.
> 
> Is there a repository of People-Who-Turned-Out-To-Not-Be-Good somewhere? As somebody hadn't heard about Bradley (I knew!), clearly it's hard to keep up.



Sadly, it seems more efficient to look for a list of confirmed good people in media. The list would be much shorter.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> You may have misunderstood my point (which may not have been communicated very well). You can say I'd totally buy the painting without caring that Hitler painted it.



Good for you.


trappedslider said:


> EDIT: Then there are whole genres of music that would go along with Joss' treatment of women.



No, there aren’t. Artists, certainly. In every single genre. But no whole genres. Nor would your comment be relevant if there were.


TheSword said:


> No. I don’t.
> 
> This isn’t about actors keeping things quiet. They have stepped forward. You also can’t blame someone for trying to protect their career when they’re not in a position of power.



I said nothing about blaming such folks. Nor did I say anything about individual actors being morally required to speak up.  

Buying products that put money in the hands of known abusers helped perpetuate the idea that it is often worth it to just stay quiet about the abuser, as long as they are good at making successful content. 


TheSword said:


> It’s about acknowledging that Buffy et al, wasn’t just Whedon’s work. So we can enjoy it for everyone else’s benefit.



Great. And those people can’t make a living if you don’t buy a Buffy box set?


TheSword said:


> Unless co-wrote, a novel is predominantly created by the writer. The editor may assist and refine. But I trust you can see there is a whole order of magnitude between that and the legions involved in a TV show. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people would have no idea who or what a showrunner is. Everyone knows the name of the person who’s book they are reading.



Both require many people to create. The argument either stands or fails irrespective of the work being a novel or a show or movie.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 19, 2022)

I did not know about Eddings. Holy crap.

(For others not in the know: He and his wife were arrested and jailed for a year for child abuse. Not sexual abuse in this case; they literally locked the poor kid in a dog cage. This was before they published anything outside of academia.)


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> I've seen Bowie, Asimov and Eddings mentioned.




Is there a new controversy about Bowie? He started talking out against his Thin White Duke persona decades ago.


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Sadly, it seems more efficient to look for a list of confirmed good people in media. The list would be much shorter.



true, but I feel like I must treat people with some modicum of respect and assumption of innocence.  Which also means that if I miss the news report where they killed folks, I'm clueless.

And just to comment on this fragment below, which I cannot get my cursor to go beneath... While I agree with the direction of the rest of the good doctor's post, this aspect has some weaksauce.  Getting paid residuals for past work is part of Hollywood compensation package.  For some, as they age out, it may be their only compensation. So I would not presume that people who worked 20 years ago on a show, don't need the money from you buying the boxed set NOW because they can still work. Maybe they can't.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Great. And those people can’t make a living if you don’t buy a Buffy box set?


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Is there a new controversy about Bowie? He started talking out against his Thin White Duke persona decades ago.



I didn't know of anything until this thread and your post.  On googling, I get the impression that of the 3 I mentioned he reformed early and earnestly.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is probably my least favorite part of any fandom/nerd-community.




My theory is that when people become part of a fandom, or as you put it nerd-*community*, it's part of their core identity.  And anything associated with that fandom will have a much deeper significance to those people than simply being something they enjoy.  When _Firefly _was still on the air, I had several friends who really, really got into it and I couldn't have a conversation with any of these people for very long before the conversation steered towards _Firefly _and it was bloody annoying.  It was a big part of their lives and they networked with other "Browncoats," as the fans referred to themselves, and actually built a lot of social connections they still have to this day.  

And this is different from people who simply like a show, book, game, or whatever.  When something is tied up in our identities, we tend to defend it when aspects are criticized.  I thought myself immune to such things, but as a graduate student I remember getting into a discussion with an Englishman where he asserted that colonist had no justification for their little rebellion, which, as an American, kind of struck a nerve.  

Pictured below:  Two graduate students discussing the finer points of the Stamp Act and the legitimacy of the British Parliament to govern the American colonies.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> What do you think of this painting?




*Mod Note:*
I think it qualifies as trolling.  

Time for you to take a break from the discussion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> true, but I feel like I must treat people with some modicum of respect and assumption of innocence.  Which also means that if I miss the news report where they killed folks, I'm clueless.
> 
> And just to comment on this fragment below, which I cannot get my cursor to go beneath... While I agree with the direction of the rest of the good doctor's post, this aspect has some weaksauce.  Getting paid residuals for past work is part of Hollywood compensation package.  For some, as they age out, it may be their only compensation. So I would not presume that people who worked 20 years ago on a show, don't need the money from you buying the boxed set NOW because they can still work. Maybe they can't.



I don’t think that Buffy is still selling enough boxed sets at this point to make anyone’s living, and very few people work on just the one show, ever.  

But either way, “what about the other people who make a living from the thing” isn’t a strong argument against holding creators accountable.  

Besides which, no one is ever obligated to buy a particular product.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 19, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think that Buffy is still selling enough boxed sets at this point to make anyone’s living, and very few people work on just the one show, ever.
> 
> But either way, “what about the other people who make a living from the thing” isn’t a strong argument against holding creators accountable.
> 
> Besides which, no one is ever obligated to buy a particular product.



Part of the tragedy of misbehavior in Hollywood is that it impacts more than the _abused_ and the _abuser_ . . . but also just about everyone involved in their projects to varying degrees. Everyone involved in _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ is losing out here, even if only a bit if their involvement was minimal or just because it was so long ago.

I totally respect anyone who decides to boycott Whedon and all of his projects going forward. I also respect those who decide to separate the creator from the creation and continue their love of Buffy, Firefly, or what-have-you. And there are those like me, who aren't boycotting anything but our motivation to revisit old loves has dropped significantly.

I still love _Buffy the Vampire Slayer _for the pioneering and enjoyable show it was, and I take comfort that while Whedon's writing was a part of that, so was the acting of the incredible cast he managed to snag. I'll watch Buffy again someday for Sarah Michelle Gellar, David Boreanz, Alyson Hanigan, and the rest of that amazing troupe of performers. But, like others have said, I imagine the show will hit differently, and I'm in no rush to start my Buffy re-watch anytime soon.

There are other creators I've enjoyed in the past who I just can't anymore. Others where I'll need some time, and others yet where my enjoyment didn't skip more than a beat or too . . . . How I react to any given piece of art and the artist behind it will vary because . . . life, people, and art are complicated.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> As an aside, I'd like to point that in the past, Hollywood had "fixers" who would deal with issues like sexism and other "unpleasantness"  Joseph Edgar Allen John "Eddie" Mannix for example, but now the only thing holding back any actual stories/allegations isn't much.



I would consider that progress.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 19, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, there aren’t. Artists, certainly. In every single genre. But no whole genres.



I'll disagree with this point.

Each artist is responsible for their own work and behavior, regardless of the genre they create within. But there are definitely genres that encourage bad behavior in artists, to the point where some artists take on terrible behaviors they wouldn't otherwise to gain cred within an industry or fandom.

Gangster rap is a great example. A genre born out of oppression, poverty and dysfunction, that has given us some amazing art, but a genre rife with misogyny, material greed, and the promotion of style over substance. Not every artist within the genre is guilty of those sins, but the list is much shorter than those who are. This isn't my judgement against the genre, I used to listen to a lot of it, and still love some of the classics . . . and I realize that it is a reflection of the reality the original artists lived within . . . but, I have a hard time listening to a lot of it today, now that I'm older and more aware.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Gangster rap is a great example. A genre born out of oppression, poverty and dysfunction, that has given us some amazing art, but a genre rife with misogyny, material greed, and the promotion of style over substance. Not every artist within the genre is guilty of those sins, but the list is much shorter than those who are.




And you blame that on the genre, and not on the oppression, poverty, and dysfunction?


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Part of the tragedy of misbehavior in Hollywood is that it impacts more than the _abused_ and the _abuser_ . . . but also just about everyone involved in their projects to varying degrees. Everyone involved in _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ is losing out here, even if only a bit if their involvement was minimal or just because it was so long ago.



I suspect this is one of the reasons why bad behavior is often tolerated for so many years.  Not just in Hollywood but at work, social clubs, political parties, and within other organizations.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> And you blame that on the genre, and not on the oppression, poverty, and dysfunction?



I don't blame it on the genre itself, no. Tried to make that clear in my post, sorry if I did not. 

And I also don't blame even the individual artists within the genre who use those tropes often, while they are responsible for their choices and their art, are heavily influenced by their upbringing and culture, and the genre itself (if they came into the genre after it was established, that is).

The genre is a reflection of the culture it sprung from, or perhaps better yet, how that oppressed culture has been (and still is) treated by the mainstream culture. Yet, the genre is still rife with the tropes of misogyny, violence, and materialism. It's not a judgement, but an observation.

And of course, gangster rap doesn't consist of solely negative tropes, there's a lot of strength, rebellion, and independence in those songs. I actually have more respect for some of the early gangster rap pioneers than I did when I was young and listening to them for the first time, both for their artistry and their struggle to make it happen.

I was a white, suburban, middle-class kid in the 80s when rap exploded into the mainstream and for a while it was my jam. I found the violence and cursing edgy . . . but didn't really understand the misogyny and materialism, or where this music was coming from or why it was the way it was. Now that I'm older, I realize that I was never a part of the culture that gave birth to this genre, but the negative tropes bother me now and I have a hard time going back to some of my favorite albums from those days.

And there are plenty within the hip-hop/rap community who are uncomfortable with those tropes as well. It's not just suburban white guys like me.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> And you blame that on the genre, and not on the oppression, poverty, and dysfunction?



I'm not really sure to be honest.  There's a point where it's sometimes hard to tell how much art is being influenced by the real world versus how much the real world is influencing the art.  For whatever reason, rappers were expected to "life the life" as it were.  When Steve Earle sang about growing pot illegally and setting up booby traps for the DEA in "Copperhead Road," none of us really expected Earle to be living that life.  We expected Biggie Smalls, Tupak Shakur, and Snoop Dogg to live the life though because that's kind of how gangsta rap was sold to us.  It made it more authentic I guess.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> And there are plenty within the hip-hop/rap community who are uncomfortable with those tropes as well. It's not just suburban white guys like me.



This is the part that makes the original comment incorrect. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.


----------



## Khelon Testudo (Jan 19, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> (Slight tangent, but others have posted similar things.)
> 
> This is probably my least favorite part of any fandom/nerd-community.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately worshiping and idolizing creators and celebrities is a very human thing to do.


----------



## TheSword (Jan 19, 2022)

Deleted. It just isn’t worth the argument.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> From the article, it looks like there were some ongoing problems with Carpenter.  She was having difficulties remembering her lines, she once got her hair cut shorter while an episode was still in production, and of course there's the tattoo.  Not that this makes Whedon less of a jerk, but I do think he had some legitimate complaints about Carpenter.




When someone has anxiety, the way the boss reacts to it can make it a lot worse (going through this myself currently!). A bit of sympathy/empathy can go a long way.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> And there are plenty within the hip-hop/rap community who are uncomfortable with those tropes as well. It's not just suburban white guys like me.




I get the impression that gangsta rap became a dominant genre, and became the way it is, with the tropes it has, mostly because that's what suburban white guys liked and purchased. As opposed to the earlier black nationalism of eg NWA. It's certainly a genre rife with misogyny. I used to go to a gym (Virgin Active) and someone had switched the music channel in the men's changing rooms to a gangsta rap one. When I heard "I'm gonna strip you naked and give you to my soldiers" I complained to the front desk. The flabbergasted young woman there had no idea this was going on - and the channel was changed.

Gangsta rap tropes treat women as discardable. I don't think they have much to do with Joss Whedon, who afaict seems to have been acting out revenge fantasies against his mother.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 19, 2022)

Give a man a hole, and he is a pariah for a day. Give a man a shovel and he is a pariah for a lifetime.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

S'mon said:


> When someone has anxiety, the way the boss reacts to it can make it a lot worse (going through this myself currently!). A bit of sympathy/empathy can go a long way.



And one of the things that makes it difficult for people suffering from a mental illness or disorder is that it's not always readily apparent to others.  If someone has a broken leg, it's usually obvious to the rest of us and we'll usually make accommodations for them without a second thought.  But if you don't know someone has anxiety issues, their behavior can appear disruptive for no discernable reason.  Someone very close to me has anxiety issues, and before I understood what the problem was it was extremely frustrating dealing with her.  It's still frustrating at times but at least I understand what the problem is now and can work around it to the best of my ability.  

Again, this doesn't make Whedon less of a jerk.  It's just that the Carpenter situation didn't just come out of the blue and I can see how he might have gotten frustrated.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And one of the things that makes it difficult for people suffering from a mental illness or disorder is that it's not always readily apparent to others.  If someone has a broken leg, it's usually obvious to the rest of us and we'll usually make accommodations for them without a second thought.  But if you don't know someone has anxiety issues, their behavior can appear disruptive for no discernable reason.  Someone very close to me has anxiety issues, and before I understood what the problem was it was extremely frustrating dealing with her.  It's still frustrating at times but at least I understand what the problem is now and can work around it to the best of my ability.
> 
> Again, this doesn't make Whedon less of a jerk.  It's just that the Carpenter situation didn't just come out of the blue and I can see how he might have gotten frustrated.



I don't know... The victim doesn't have to be a saint. Carpenter is human, and will make mistakes and bad choices as everyone else. I don't see the point in looking at her flaws when discussing how abusive Whedon was. If Whedon was abusive it kind of doesn't matter if Carpenter's work ethic wasn't the best.

If an employee, or something similar, isn't doig what they are supposed to do you have to be professional and take the problem to the relevant people. Talk to the studio, to her manager, something like that. Nothing excuses, explains or makes what Whedon did understandable.

Bringing it back to TTRPGs, if you have a problem players you kick them from your table, you don't take a dump on their lawn.


----------



## Bohandas (Jan 19, 2022)

Jer said:


> For dead authors like Bradley and Lovecraft I'm not worried about the ethics of monetarily supporting them because they're dead, but it sure does change the way I read their works knowing what they were like - often to the point of not being able to read some of their works at all.




In that case you might want to avoid reading anything written more a couple hundred years ago. Especially the works of classical antiquity.


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think that Buffy is still selling enough boxed sets at this point to make anyone’s living, and very few people work on just the one show, ever.
> 
> But either way, “what about the other people who make a living from the thing” isn’t a strong argument against holding creators accountable.
> 
> Besides which, no one is ever obligated to buy a particular product.



I don't disagree with holding creators accountable.  But in my mind, holding people accountable means a black bag, van ride, and an isolated location. Extreme if taken literally, but a direct action aimed directly at the perpetrator.

Boycotts are drone strikes as hitmen with rifles are to assassination.  Explosions take out bystanders. A good rifle takes out the man. So it is with accountability actions.  Joss ain't hurting. At best he's sidelined, living comfy in his rich man's house.

Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Not that this makes Whedon less of a jerk, but I do think he had some legitimate complaints about Carpenter.




Oh, come on.  Any time we have a sentence of the form, "Not that this means X, but...," the effect is to press X.  

Folks on the set could not leave Whedon alone with an underage female cast member, for fear of the abuse he'd put upon her.  Whatever "legitimate complaints" he had are irrelevant in comparison to that.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> I don't disagree with holding creators accountable.  But in my mind, holding people accountable means a black bag, van ride, and an isolated location. Extreme if taken literally, but a direct action aimed directly at the perpetrator.
> 
> Boycotts are drone strikes as hitmen with rifles are to assassination.  Explosions take out bystanders. A good rifle takes out the man. So it is with accountability actions.  Joss ain't hurting. At best he's sidelined, living comfy in his rich man's house.
> 
> Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.



Other way to look at it is that boycotts may make the industry think twice before hiring the abusers (knowm or open secrets). I don't know if a whole production "deserves" to be boycotted because of one person, but at the same time abusers shouldn't have space in large productions.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> From the article, it looks like there were some ongoing problems with Carpenter.  She was having difficulties remembering her lines, she once got her hair cut shorter while an episode was still in production, and of course there's the tattoo.  Not that this makes Whedon less of a jerk, but I do think he had some legitimate complaints about Carpenter.



How about his mockery of her religious beliefs...?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.




The gaffer is paid before the film ever hits the screen.  They are not waiting for ticket sales or advertising revenues for their compensation.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> I don't know... The victim doesn't have to be a saint. Carpenter is human, and will make mistakes and bad choices as everyone else. I don't see the point in looking at her flaws when discussing how abusive Whedon was. If Whedon was abusive it kind of doesn't matter if Carpenter's work ethic wasn't the best.
> 
> If an employee, or something similar, isn't doig what they are supposed to do you have to be professional and take the problem to the relevant people. Talk to the studio, to her manager, something like that. Nothing excuses, explains or makes what Whedon did understandable.
> 
> Bringing it back to TTRPGs, if you have a problem players you kick them from your table, you don't take a dump on their lawn.



Outside of the racism/misogyny factors, this seems like the fundamental problem Hollywood has -- it seems to think that it acts differently than other places of business. Mind you, everywhere else has had to have their learning curve, and some places still have ways to go, but right up until MeToo, Hollywood seems to have pretended that it's special and gets to play by different rules. It seems, frankly, that they were right.


Umbran said:


> The gaffer is paid before the film ever hits the screen.  They are not waiting for ticket sales or advertising revenues for their compensation.



I am hardly an expert, but I think it is only actors who are routinely paid using the royalty model. Everyone else is paid by the day of shooting, IIRC.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> I don't disagree with holding creators accountable.  But in my mind, holding people accountable means a black bag, van ride, and an isolated location. Extreme if taken literally, but a direct action aimed directly at the perpetrator.
> 
> Boycotts are drone strikes as hitmen with rifles are to assassination.  Explosions take out bystanders. A good rifle takes out the man. So it is with accountability actions.  Joss ain't hurting. At best he's sidelined, living comfy in his rich man's house.
> 
> Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.



This is an extremely inappropriate set of analogies.


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> The gaffer is paid before the film ever hits the screen.  They are not waiting for ticket sales or advertising revenues for their compensation.



good point. probably bad example. But somebody gets paid residuals on DVD sales besides Whedon.

My point is, not everybody approves of drone strikes because of the collateral damage.

Crapping on people for being concerned about that isn't a good look.


----------



## Jer (Jan 19, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> In that case you might want to avoid reading anything written more a couple hundred years ago. Especially the works of classical antiquity.



Except of course that I go into reading those things understanding the context of the time. So, you know, it's not exactly the same as going back to read a book I enjoyed in my youth after finding out that the author was a serial child abuser.


----------



## Janx (Jan 19, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is an extremely inappropriate set of analogies.



it sure is.  But ultimately, while I agreed with the rest of your posts. 

I disagreed with your implying that people who were concerned about royalties for others were therefore actively supporting Whedon.

Your concern is not the only concern. Your way is not the only way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> it sure is.  But ultimately, while I agreed with the rest of your posts.
> 
> I disagreed with your implying that people who were concerned about royalties for others were therefore actively supporting Whedon.
> 
> Your concern is not the only concern. Your way is not the only way.



I implied no such thing, so keep your moralizing to yourself.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Oh, come on.  Any time we have a sentence of the form, "Not that this means X, but...," the effect is to press X.
> 
> Folks on the set could not leave Whedon alone with an underage female cast member, for fear of the abuse he'd put upon her.  Whatever "legitimate complaints" he had are irrelevant in comparison to that.



Agreed. It smacks of victim blaming.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> But somebody gets paid residuals on DVD sales besides Whedon.




Typically writers, directors, and actors get residuals.  Tech crew and such don't.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> How about his mockery of her religious beliefs...?



What about it?  I don’t recall excusing Whedon’s behavior.  The man has exhibited toxic behavior according to multiple witnesses.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> good point. probably bad example. But somebody gets paid residuals on DVD sales besides Whedon.
> 
> My point is, not everybody approves of drone strikes because of the collateral damage.
> 
> Crapping on people for being concerned about that isn't a good look.



No one got crapped on. Stop trying to make it into something it isn’t.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle.   "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say.  I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human.  The problem is that Joss Whedon is _an abusive, cruel _human.


----------



## Jer (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle.   "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say.  I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human.  The problem is that Joss Whedon is _an abusive, cruel _human.



Right. There might be some truth to the idea that we shouldn't be so quick to put people up on pedestals, but that's separate from the fact that Whedon treats other people like garbage and doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with that.  Too many folks in my own social circle are ready to jump on the former in order to dismiss the latter for reasons I don't quite get.

(I also get annoyed by friends who are like "well I never liked his stuff anyway".  That also isn't really the point.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle.   "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say.  I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human.  The problem is that Joss Whedon is _an abusive, cruel _human.



Seriously. This isn't a case of behavior that was ever broadly considered normal and fun that people have had to unlearn the normalization of, the guy is an abusive bully. The normal opinion of such dudes has been very negative since before Whedon was born. 

"He's only human" is an important point in the case of childhood bullies, as there are ways to help a kid stop being that person and not grow up into an even worse person. 

This is a grown man who couldn't be trusted to be in a room alone with a teenager who he had power over.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Is "He's only human" the new "boys will be boys"?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> Is "He's only human" the new "boys will be boys"?




HEY!

YOU! Yeah, you Bolares.

Don't you DARE drag Dua Lipa into this mess. All she does is make straight bangers. Pure fire.

She doesn't need to be pulled into this mess.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> HEY!
> 
> YOU! Yeah, you Bolares.
> 
> ...



Defending a bard Snarf?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> Defending a bard Snarf?




She is not a BARD. She is a GODDESS. 

Sorry, I forgot it was you. _She is a powerful outsider with godlike powers ..._


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> She is not a BARD. She is a GODDESS.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot it was you. _She is a powerful outsider with godlike powers ..._



She inspires, she does magic with her music, she seduces, she has high charisma, she probabl has a rapier... looks like a bard to me


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> She inspires, she does magic with her music, she seduces, she has high charisma, she probabl has a rapier... looks like a bard to me




What? She's obviously not a Bard.

She spends all this time telling you she's levitating ... and you choose a class that _doesn't even have that spell on its spell list?_

Bolares, I think your Bard obsession has gotten in the way of your critical thinking.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle. "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say.



Yeah, it’s not like I’ve heard anyone say anything unreasonable.  Whedon has a reputation for being a cruel and nasty boss.  Yeah, he’s only human.  But there are consequences for being a cruel and nasty human.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> She spends all this time telling you she's levitating ... and you choose a class that _doesn't even have that spell on its spell list?_



Duh... magical secrets

also... I'M THE ONE WITH A BARD OBSESSION?   I have a calling Snarf out as a bard obsession.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

What the hell is a Dua Lipa?  Is this some new class?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> Duh... magical secrets




First, you try and drag her into this mess.

Then, you call Dua Lipa a four letter word (ahem, the "B" word).

When the revolution comes, you will be the first to have Dua Lipa's Irresistible Dance cast upon you.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> When the revolution comes, you will be the first to have Dua Lipa's Irresistible Dance cast upon you.



Why would you threaten me with something so delightful?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> Why would you threaten me with something so delightful?




The first twenty-four hours are a delight ... after that, the chafing starts.

You don't want death-by-chafing. It's a close second to the worst death of all- being trapped in a room with Bards.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

Bolares said:


> She inspires, she does magic with her music, she seduces, she has high charisma, she probabl has a rapier... looks like a bard to me



I wouldn't count rapier ownership as proof of Bardhood. I own two of the things and I'm not a Bard.

... or am I?


----------



## payn (Jan 19, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wouldn't count rapier ownership as proof of Bardhood. I own two of the things and I'm not a Bard.
> 
> ... or am I?



I've got some bad news for you...


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

payn said:


> I've got some bad news for you...



Wendy's discontinued the  Bacon Portabella Mushroom Melt?


----------



## Gradine (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle.   "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say.  I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human.  The problem is that Joss Whedon is _an abusive, cruel _human.



Quoted for truth. Everything we've learned about Whedon at this point, even from his own mouth, is that he is a horrible human being. And no, we shouldn't "idolize" horrible human beings.

There is, however, virtue in exemplars and role models. This is, after all, the central thesis behind inclusive media. People who open doors that have been shut by people with power and privilege, and who pave the path forward so that those who follow in their wake can get by a little bit easier, push a little bit farther. Of course, this is not at all mutually exclusive; Marion Zimmer Bradley being one of many examples. One could argue Whedon did the same, pushing the envelope of female-lead action television, to say nothing of some of the first positive portrayals of gay people on American TV. Buffy is considered as ground-breaking as it is for a reason, after all. And yeah, there are parts of it that do not hold up at all for a variety of reasons, several of which _don't _even involve Xander. 

There is importance both in boosting role models and in holding bad actors accountable. We can do both, and probably would, if not for the power and privilege that is afforded anyone to reach a position to be a nationally-known role model at all. 

Say what you will about the Harry Potter books, there's a reason they resonated as well as they did for its generation of fans, in particular the outcasts and misfits (many of them queer! Seriously, the only millennial I've ever met that was both queer and _didn't _get way into Harry Potter growing up is... myself, and I'm both (a) barely a millennial at all at (b) didn't realize I was queer until my early 30's). That J.K. Rowling has developed into a distinctly horrific and cruel individual doesn't change what her works meant to those who it meant so much to. 

Harry Potter has been a good test case for "what am I, a consumer, supposed to do now that I know", because the Venn Diagram between "Trans People active on the internet" and "Harry Potter fans' is essentially a small circle completely inside a larger circle. Of course there's been disagreement, but the best I've seen to a consensus is this: the time to be an open and effusive Harry Potter fan has passed. That does not mean you have to throw all your books and merch on the bonfire, nor does it mean disavowing the memories you had of the books shaped the person you eventually became; the parts of the books that once spoke to you and might still speak to you still can. But also like... not financially supporting a loud and powerful voice for bigotry is kind of a given. This includes anything that promotes the works at all; don't talk somebody else into buying and reading all the Harry Potter books, for instance.

This is, I think, a sensible solution for the "horrifying reveal and pedestal shattering" phase of most of horrible peoples' careers, up to and including Whedon. 

Terrible folks who are dead are another beast entirely, to which I would say follow the money. The Eddings' trust is in the hands of a school, for instance.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 19, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think that Buffy is still selling enough boxed sets at this point to make anyone’s living, and very few people work on just the one show, ever.
> 
> But either way, “what about the other people who make a living from the thing” isn’t a strong argument against holding creators accountable.



You can't hold him accountable through a boycott, though.  Like at all.  If all of his revenue streams ended tomorrow, he's still set for this life, the next one and the one after that.  All you can affect are the ones who didn't do anything wrong and need the money from residuals.  A lot of actors only get smaller roles which don't pay tons in residuals, so anything they get is needed.

If you want some sort of boycott, don't give him future work.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> good point. probably bad example. But somebody gets paid residuals on DVD sales besides Whedon.
> 
> My point is, not everybody approves of drone strikes because of the collateral damage.
> 
> Crapping on people for being concerned about that isn't a good look.



And not just DVD sales.  There's also syndicated re-runs and streaming services.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> What? She's obviously not a Bard.
> 
> She spends all this time telling you she's levitating ... and you choose a class that _doesn't even have that spell on its spell list?_
> 
> Bolares, I think your Bard obsession has gotten in the way of your critical thinking.



Psh!  Goddesses have class levels as we have seen from their stats over the years, and goddesses of song have bard levels.  As for levitating, she added that spell to her class list as one of her 10th level Magical Secrets spells. You're fighting the good fight on this one, but...


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 19, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wouldn't count rapier ownership as proof of Bardhood. I own two of the things and I'm not a Bard.
> 
> ... or am I?



Clearly you must be a CG drow ranger.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Psh!  Goddesses have class levels as we have seen from their stats over the years, and goddesses of song have bard levels.  As for levitating, she added that spell to her class list as one of her 10th level Magical Secrets spells. You're fighting the good fight on this one, but...




I am 164% certain that "Magical Secrets" is just some sort of _Bard's Cant _that means, "Ima cheat, cuz Ima bard."


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 19, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am 164% certain that "Magical Secrets" is just some sort of _Bard's Cant _that means, "Ima cheat, cuz Ima bard."



That one I can't argue against.  You got me there.  I'm not really sure that helps her out, though.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 19, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That one I can't argue against.  You got me there.  I'm not really sure that helps her out, though.




Has anyone ever considered that Dua Lipa is a Warlock, with the Patron of Awesome, who resides on the Positive Energy Plane, the source of all late-night dancing? 

Occam's Razor, and all that.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> You can't hold him accountable through a boycott, though.  Like at all.  If all of his revenue streams ended tomorrow, he's still set for this life, the next one and the one after that.  All you can affect are the ones who didn't do anything wrong and need the money from residuals.  A lot of actors only get smaller roles which don't pay tons in residuals, so anything they get is needed.
> 
> If you want some sort of boycott, don't give him future work.



A boycott would hurt more people than intended, too.  A lot of talent goes into producing a television show, and Joss Whedon isn't the only one receiving revenue every time an episode of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer _is broadcast or streamed.  Boycotting that show will reduce the revenue stream for all the people involved, and that isn't fair.

It reminds me of when Roseanne Barr tweeted herself into exile, back in 2018.  As a public figure she absolutely should have known better, and she definitely deserved to be fired for it.  But unfortunately, you can't have a show called _Roseanne _without her, and so her show was cancelled.  Suddenly, all of her colleagues and costars, as well as the writers and costumers and even the caterers, were all out of work.  I don't think that was fair...but I don't think it was avoidable, either.

I'm not sure what the answer is.  But I think it's going to be a lot more complicated than "To Boycott, or Not To Boycott."


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 19, 2022)

Was never a big Whedon fan. Liked Firefly though Angel and Buffy were stupid at the time but wife and sister in law love them so kinda got forced to watch them occasionally. 

Currently reading the Elenium. Unlike most Eddings got punishment for his misdeeds and generally believe ex cons get a second chance.

 Still enjoying the book but it's not so amazing now vs the 90's.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> It reminds me of when Roseanne Barr tweeted herself into exile, back in 2018.  As a public figure she absolutely should have known better, and she definitely deserved to be fired for it.  But unfortunately, you can't have a show called _Roseanne _without her, and so her show was cancelled.  Suddenly, all of her colleagues and costars, as well as the writers and costumers and even the caterers, were all out of work.  I don't think that was fair...but I don't think it was avoidable, either.



I mean, it's not like there wasn't going to be a replacement for Roseanne, also employing a number of writers, costumers, actors, caterers, and whatever. They may or may not be *those* writers etc, but on the whole it's a zero-sum game.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> A boycott would hurt more people than intended, too.  A lot of talent goes into producing a television show, and Joss Whedon isn't the only one receiving revenue every time an episode of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer _is broadcast or streamed.  Boycotting that show will reduce the revenue stream for all the people involved, and that isn't fair.
> 
> It reminds me of when Roseanne Barr tweeted herself into exile, back in 2018.  As a public figure she absolutely should have known better, and she definitely deserved to be fired for it.  But unfortunately, you can't have a show called _Roseanne _without her, and so her show was cancelled.  Suddenly, all of her colleagues and costars, as well as the writers and costumers and even the caterers, were all out of work.  I don't think that was fair...but I don't think it was avoidable, either.
> 
> I'm not sure what the answer is.  But I think it's going to be a lot more complicated than "To Boycott, or Not To Boycott."



No, you can't have a show called "Roseanne" without her, however, you can kill off her character, offstage, and then start up a show called "The Conners" that is the same, just without Barr, and run it until now IIRC.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

I didn't mean to drive this discussion into the weeds regarding _Roseanne._  My point was that any attempts to boycott Joss Whedon's work will unavoidably affect others...others who might not deserve to be punished for Whedon's abuse.  Thus, "boycott Joss Whedon" isn't an ideal solution.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I didn't mean to drive this discussion into the weeds regarding _Roseanne._  My point was that any attempts to boycott Joss Whedon's work will unavoidably affect others...others who might not deserve to be punished for Whedon's abuse.  Thus, "boycott Joss Whedon" isn't an ideal solution.



However, others in Hollywood have stopped working with him, so it's not really a going concern.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 19, 2022)

Is he getting work at all?


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Is he getting work at all?



No, I don't think so.  The interview implied that he hasn't worked since 2020, and his involvement (and name) has been scrubbed from projects that were still in production at that time.

I'm curious about the completed shows that are now in syndication (or streaming, or available for sale.)  I wonder what kinds of royalties Joss Whedon will continue to receive from them, if any.  I know very little about that side of showbusiness.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> No, you can't have a show called "Roseanne" without her, however, you can kill off her character, offstage, and then start up a show called "The Conners" that is the same, just without Barr, and run it until now IIRC.



Some of you might remember the Valerie Harper vehicle _Valerie _which became _The Hogan Family _after she was ejected from her own show.  Valerie was written off as having been killed off stage when a dispute over payment with the producers couldn't be resolved.  I also remember an interview with Tim Allen in the 90s, maybe it was on Howard Stern, and they asked him his opinions on legalizing drugs.  He said something along the lines of, "I can't really answer that question.  I have a lot of people who depend on me for their livelihood and if I say something ABC doesn't like it doesn't just affect me."  

Personally, Whedon's behavior isn't enough for me to boycott anything he's touched.  But if it is for other people, I'm okay with that.  Nobody's obligated to watch something.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> No, I don't think so.  The interview implied that he hasn't worked since 2020, and his involvement (and name) has been scrubbed from projects that were still in production at that time.
> 
> I'm curious about the completed shows that are now in syndication (or streaming, or available for sale.)  I wonder what kinds of royalties Joss Whedon will continue to receive from them, if any.  I know very little about that side of showbusiness.




 He should still get whatever his contract says. Even if they stopped streaming it they may have to pay him regardless.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> He should still get whatever his contract says.



Yeah, I figured.  But what does a typical contract like this usually contain?  What could we expect someone like Joss Whedon to be contracted for, regarding a show like _Buffy the Vampire Slayer..._a show that has been long-completed, but is still available for purchase/syndication/streaming?  How much money would Joss receive each time an episode of _Buffy _is streamed?  Or would he receive a cut from Warner Brothers when/if Hulu or Netflix purchases the permissions to stream _Buffy?  _And if so, how much?  Do other actors have similar contracts as well?

The contracts I'm accustomed to seeing are all on a per-show or a per-run basis (limited theater background).  I've never had to deal with anything like syndication or royalties.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 19, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Is he getting work at all?



Here's the thing. He'll disappear for a few years, and then he'll be back to making movies and nobody will act like anything is weird about that. It happens all the time, and it's going to keep happening, because eventually enough people will be like "it's in the past and he's changed!" and maybe that will be true but it very very rarely works out that way, and it really really sucks, and I'm not sure what anybody can actually do about that other than to continue to demand real accountability.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 19, 2022)

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but Hollywood isn't a normal place.  Apparently when Ethel Mermen sang "There's No Business Like Show Business" she wasn't just whistling Dixie.  For all the money it generates, the industry is small and insular.  Just take a look at any given actor, writer, and producer and see how many of them got into showbusiness because of family connections.  In a place like that, I can see how abusive behavior gets ignored.  People are afraid of speaking up because everyone knows each other.  If you get branded a trouble maker you might legitimately have a hard time finding meaningful work.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 19, 2022)

I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are _still _willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' *sex criminal**. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.

*that we're aware of, in any case


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 19, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are _still _willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' *sex criminal**. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.
> 
> *that we're aware of, in any case



Man, I knew about Weinstein 20 years ago, and I was just a teenager posting on movie forums: everyone knew that.

Whedon had a long career before he broke our as an uncredited script doctor. He .ighr never be a front man again, but I bet he starts getting that sort of work again soon if he hasn't already. :/


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 19, 2022)

Janx said:


> I don't disagree with holding creators accountable.  But in my mind, holding people accountable means a black bag, van ride, and an isolated location. Extreme if taken literally, but a direct action aimed directly at the perpetrator.
> 
> Boycotts are drone strikes as hitmen with rifles are to assassination.  Explosions take out bystanders. A good rifle takes out the man. So it is with accountability actions.  Joss ain't hurting. At best he's sidelined, living comfy in his rich man's house.
> 
> Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.



I don't think most folks who choose to boycott or avoid work by certain artists are doing it to punish the artist. It's more like, _"This artist makes me uncomfortable or angry, so I no longer enjoy their art, so I will no longer purchase or consume it."_ The fact that the artist may lose out on some bucks is incidental.

Likewise, I'm not going to go purchase something I'm not interested in because the gaffer needs a paycheck. He got paid, he likely isn't getting any royalties on the product. The other actors and creatives involved might lose out on some royalties, but . . . that's the business. There are all sorts of reasons why a TV show or movie might tank, the lead creative on the project being revealed as a jerk is only one of them. Similar situations for other collaborative art forms.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are _still _willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' *sex criminal**. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.
> 
> *that we're aware of, in any case



Polanski was the first name I thought of. In high school my English class was "treated to" his 1971 version of MacBeth. Just watching that, at the age of 15 (I think). I could tell he was a walking ad for chemical castration. Hell, he's got a few movies set to come out soon!


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The other actors and creatives involved might lose out on some royalties, but . . . that's the business.



It just seems short-sighted (and unnecessarily cruel) to boycott _Angel _and hand Charisma Carpenter the same punishment we're handing Joss Whedon because "that's the business."

Not that I have a better idea in mind.  Just food for thought, I guess.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 19, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> In that case you might want to avoid reading anything written more a couple hundred years ago. Especially the works of classical antiquity.



Meh. There are plenty of historical artists who weren't terrible people. I don't buy into the fallacy that everyone who lived in a certain time or culture is inherently racist, misogynist, or something else terrible. Certainly those attitudes were more prevalent in different times and places, but there are always those who push the boundaries in a positive way.

And most historical works are . . . . not really consumed by the general public anyway. To the average person, they can be appreciated both artistically and for historical value, but . . . we're not diving deep into those older genres or the lives of the artists. And that's okay.

And yes, if you do learn about an artist who was an awful person when they lived centuries ago . . . it's okay to gain a different perspective on their work and decide it's not for you. The artist doesn't get a pass because they're dead or lived in a time when racism or misogyny was more prevalent than today. It's also okay to feel the distance between the artist and the present day, and not have a problem with their art . . . or even become fascinated with their art due to the terrible nature of the artist.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 20, 2022)

Hey, for some reason Mel Gibson is getting work again, and I have no honest idea why.  It's not like _he _reformed or apologized.  So who knows what will happen with Joss.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Hey, for some reason Mel Gibson is getting work again, and I have no honest idea why.  It's not like _he _reformed or apologized.  So who knows what will happen with Joss.



Bit of a difference there: Gibson is mentally ill and has substance abuse issues, and he has recurring apologies when he's back on the wagon. And when he is on the wagon, he can apparently be very pleasant to work with. 

Whedon is far worse than that, he is a stable jerk.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 20, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> It just seems short-sighted (and unnecessarily cruel) to boycott _Angel _and hand Charisma Carpenter the same punishment we're handing Joss Whedon because "that's the business."
> 
> Not that I have a better idea in mind.  Just food for thought, I guess.



Personally, I don't boycott much . . . as to your point, you often punish a lot more folks than the ones you're angry at. And I generally don't think they are all that effective anyway unless a lot of people are on board. 

But I'm fine with folks who do, whether it's a hard boycott intended to punish the evil doer (_"I want to make Joss Whedon pay!"_) or a soft boycott (_"I just can't watch and enjoy Buffy anymore."_). But this isn't a lot of people, and their decisions to boycott aren't seriously affecting anyone's bottom line, Whedon's or Carpenter's.

Charisma (_as a representative of other creatives affected by any boycott_) might lose out on some royalties, but . . . that's the business . . . and she's not wise if she's relying on those royalties to pay the bills. And Charisma's a smart girl, she's doing fine, even if not as visibly when she was one of the stars of a hit TV show. She's got some good interviews out there, I like the relatively recent one with Michael Rosenbaum on his podcast.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 20, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Hey, for some reason Mel Gibson is getting work again, and I have no honest idea why.  It's not like _he _reformed or apologized.  So who knows what will happen with Joss.



Kevin Spacy, too.  Apparently in May 2021 it was announced that he would be starring in a film called _The Man Who Drew God, _which is about a blind artist who is wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child.  And in August of 2021, he was filming in California for a film called _Peter Five Eight._

The multiple sexual assault allegations against him were made in October 2017.  Not even 4 years had passed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 20, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Yeah, I figured.  But what does a typical contract like this usually contain?  What could we expect someone like Joss Whedon to be contracted for, regarding a show like _Buffy the Vampire Slayer..._a show that has been long-completed, but is still available for purchase/syndication/streaming?  How much money would Joss receive each time an episode of _Buffy _is streamed?  Or would he receive a cut from Warner Brothers when/if Hulu or Netflix purchases the permissions to stream _Buffy?  _And if so, how much?  Do other actors have similar contracts as well?
> 
> The contracts I'm accustomed to seeing are all on a per-show or a per-run basis (limited theater background).  I've never had to deal with anything like syndication or royalties.




 Generally you pay for the rights regardless if you screen it or not. 

 Buffy is in Disney+ here specifically star. I think the streaming companies generally pay for the rights of a show and residuals may or may not apply on older contracts. 

 But ufa show got "cancelled" the streaming service would eat the loss afaik as they've already paid for the rights to stream said show. 

 Residuals often aren't as much as you think unless you're the major star/creative/producer type. 

 Hollywood had issues for decades eg the casting couch.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 20, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are _still _willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' *sex criminal**. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.
> 
> *that we're aware of, in any case




 If I was a betting man (I'm not) I wouldn't bet against this. 

 Joss will pop up again in a few years. Hell get work may not be as high profile as before idk. "There's no such thing as bad publicly"  saying exists for a reason.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 20, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Generally you pay for the rights regardless if you screen it or not.
> 
> Buffy is in Disney+ here specifically star. I think the streaming companies generally pay for the rights of a show and residuals may or may not apply on older contracts.
> 
> ...



A local talk radio host, John Moore, has said a few times that he knows when someone is airing "The Day After Tomorrow" because he gets a cheque for something like $0.50, for his portrayal of "TV News Caster."


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 20, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> A local talk radio host, John Moore, has said a few times that he knows when someone is airing "The Day After Tomorrow" because he gets a cheque for something like $0.50, for his portrayal of "TV News Caster."




 Yep I've seen things like 87 cents cheques being sent out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2022)

Gotta say, it’s a good thing I’ve cultivated an ability to detach creatives’ output from their personal lives.  (Ditto others in the public eye.)  I was largely unaware of the scandalous & evil acts perpetrated by several people mentioned in here.  I generally don’t seek out such info unless and until it is unavoidable news.

“Feet of clay…”, never meet your idols* and all that. 

I make no claims of consistency in my reactions to such revelations, either.  Sometimes, I simply stop engaging with their creations, sometimes I don’t.  But I don’t simply forgive & forget, either.  I might not boycott, but I might also deprioritize buying/viewing/reading etc. their future work for so long as to make no difference.




* Better, don’t idolize your fellow humans.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 20, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gotta say, it’s a good thing I’ve cultivated an ability to detach creatives’ output from their personal lives.  (Ditto others in the public eye.)  I was largely unaware of the scandalous & evil acts perpetrated by several people mentioned in here.  I generally don’t seek out such info unless and until it is unavoidable news.
> 
> “Feet of clay…”, never meet your idols* and all that.
> 
> ...




 Pretty much what I do. Might stop giving them money but not gonna destroy existing material I own/consume. 

 I don't generally idolize anyone though or have a favorite band/author/director etc.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Jan 20, 2022)

Usually, if somebody's made it onto society's crap list but I still want to watch their work I buy a physical copy of it second-hand - I'll find a used copy online or in a bargain bin somewhere. Nobody involved with the project is still making any money on that particular copy of it.


----------



## Hex08 (Jan 20, 2022)

Yup, Joss Whedon has shown himself to be a pretty crappy person. If it were only one or two people calling him (or anyone) out, then maybe it's just conflicting personalities and different perceptions of the situation. When it's a whole lot of people then the odds are good that he's the ass he's being made out to be.

That said, I can't fathom why people suddenly decide that they can't watch his previous work because of the revelations. The work is still the work and its quality hasn't changed since Joss was outed as a jerk. I still love and frequently rewatch Firefly and Avengers and Joss being a cruel person doesn't change the quality of the shows. I'm sure if went back and rewatched Buffy I would probably still enjoy it. I worry that the feel of The Nevers is going to drastically change (if it comes back) without Joss.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Yup, Joss Whedon has shown himself to be a pretty crappy person. If it were only one or two people call him (or anyone) out, then maybe it's just conflicting personalities and different perceptions of the situation. When it's a whole lot of people then the odds are good that he's the ass he's being made out to be.
> 
> That said, I can't fathom why people suddenly decide that they can't watch his previous work because of the revelations. The work is still the work and its quality hasn't changed since Joss was outed as a jerk. I still love and frequently rewatch Firefly and Avengers and Joss being a cruel person doesn't change the quality of the shows. I'm sure if went back and rewatched Buffy I would probably still enjoy it. I worry that the feel of The Nevers is going to drastically change (if it comes back) without Joss.



It is not the craft of the work that changed, but the meaning takes on a new light. Stories bear meaning, and learning new information can really change the tenor of a story. Xander has not aged well, for example.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Xander has not aged well, for example.



How has Xander not aged well? Or are you referring to Nicholas Brendan, who has had a bit of a rough time.


----------



## Vael (Jan 20, 2022)

Honestly, Xander's character hadn't aged well even before the allegations. He's judgmental and not a good friend, he slut shames the women in his life, kinda a garbage character


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> How has Xander not aged well? Or are you referring to Nicholas Brendan, who has had a bit of a rough time.



He's a nasty misogynistic little creep, and an authorial self insert. Should have been a red flag at the time, frankly.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2022)

Vael said:


> Honestly, Xander's character hadn't aged well even before the allegations. He's judgmental and not a good friend, he slut shames the women in his life, kinda a garbage character



But hey, he makes funny quips and is a "nice guy"


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 20, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Yup, Joss Whedon has shown himself to be a pretty crappy person. If it were only one or two people call him (or anyone) out, then maybe it's just conflicting personalities and different perceptions of the situation. When it's a whole lot of people then the odds are good that he's the ass he's being made out to be.
> 
> That said, I can't fathom why people suddenly decide that they can't watch his previous work because of the revelations. The work is still the work and its quality hasn't changed since Joss was outed as a jerk. I still love and frequently rewatch Firefly and Avengers and Joss being a cruel person doesn't change the quality of the shows. I'm sure if went back and rewatched Buffy I would probably still enjoy it. I worry that the feel of The Nevers is going to drastically change (if it comes back) without Joss.



Iirc, Joss wasn't involved in the Nevers except the first couple episodes anyway


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 20, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Terrible folks who are dead are another beast entirely, to which I would say follow the money. The Eddings' trust is in the hands of a school, for instance.



Reed College IIRC, a private liberal arts college in Portland which charges nearly $80000 per year.

Must ... resist.

I successfully resisted.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If you want some sort of boycott, don't give him future work.



The only way to do that is to not give money to anything with his name on it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I didn't mean to drive this discussion into the weeds regarding _Roseanne._  My point was that any attempts to boycott Joss Whedon's work will unavoidably affect others...others who might not deserve to be punished for Whedon's abuse.  Thus, "boycott Joss Whedon" isn't an ideal solution.



I disagree. Strongly. TV and film are industries run on reputation. The point isn’t whether Whedon will suffer due to Buffy residuals drying up.  
The point is that studios will give him less work, he won’t be invited to as many conventions, or speak at as many colleges, etc, if everyone knows that his reputation is toxic and repellant.


----------



## Hex08 (Jan 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It is not the craft of the work that changed, but the meaning takes on a new light. Stories bear meaning, and learning new information can really change the tenor of a story. Xander has not aged well, for example.



I get that stories bear meaning, I just don't see that the story or meaning has changed. What we know about the creator has changed. It seems to me that people are projecting their feelings about the creator onto the work and the story. 

I guess everyone has to come to terms with this stuff in their own way.


----------



## Smackpixi (Jan 20, 2022)

I feel like what people need to see, for their satisfaction, sense of justice, schadenfreude, amusement, or whatever is the bad actor broken and humbled, and never doing it again.  This Eddings guy did some horrific stuff, then wrote some books people liked.  Was he properly broken and humbled first?  I don’t know.  

I think it matters, cause yeah, learning about people you liked and respected who got away with being awful sucks, whether they directed your favorite movie or just bagged your groceries perfectly, doesn’t matter, you feel scammed, fooled, and pissed about it, if I’d only known…

But once busted and shamed, and jailed, or fined or whatever, even bad people need to get on with their life.  While I share the immediate impulse that no never can they do the thing they love again, I also, well, maybe, eventually in some capacity think that reformed people should be back contributing to society, to its culture.

This Joss fork doesn’t seem to have any self awareness of his actions, or seems to think he can explain them away still, so, yeah, i’m still on the dogpile side, but should he figure it out, or at least figure out acting the part of a pride broken, maybe there’s time when even people much worse than him can be allowed do use their talents again?


----------



## Irlo (Jan 20, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I get that stories bear meaning, I just don't see that the story or meaning has changed. What we know about the creator has changed. It seems to me that people are projecting their feelings about the creator onto the work and the story.
> 
> I guess everyone has to come to terms with this stuff in their own way.



Of course they are (projecting).  Story and meaning change when we change, and what we know and experience changes us. For some of us, our feelings about the creator of various works strongly influence what we take from those works and what they mean to us. And when the basis of those feeling turns out to be not only wrong but completely contrary to our ideas, that changes how we see the work.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

Smackpixi said:


> I feel like what people need to see, for their satisfaction, sense of justice, schadenfreude, amusement, or whatever is the bad actor broken and humbled, and never doing it again.  This Eddings guy did some horrific stuff, then wrote some books people liked.  Was he properly broken and humbled first?  I don’t know.
> 
> I think it matters, cause yeah, learning about people you liked and respected who got away with being awful sucks, whether they directed your favorite movie or just bagged your groceries perfectly, doesn’t matter, you feel scammed, fooled, and pissed about it, if I’d only known…
> 
> ...



I don’t think most people want to see Joss broken or humbled. We just want to end his influence on our culture, or failing that reduce it and lessen his ability to get new things made that will influence the culture.  

I don’t expect him to face any punishment. As long as he doesn’t have _power_, it’s just about not putting my money on things with his name, and doing what I can to contribute to making his reputation as a creator very clear that his name on a project is repellant to a significant portion of potential consumers.


----------



## Smackpixi (Jan 20, 2022)

Why would you want his influence on culture ended?  People like his movies and shows, I’m way less impressed myself, but tastes, whatever.  Insofar as people like that, it’s not the thing needing ending.  Him being an ashhole needs to be ended.  How we go about that, not really concerned about, whatever people that care suggest fine with me.

Buffy’s not the problem.  Him being a douche while making it is.  End that, then accept another Buffy?  People want another Buffy, if it’s in him, let’s get it out after he understands how to treat people.  People need to not be ashholes, I’m fine with rejecting them until they aren’t.  But once they decide to be decent people…maybe ok to have another Buffy?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Bit of a difference there: Gibson is mentally ill and has substance abuse issues, and he has recurring apologies when he's back on the wagon. And when he is on the wagon, he can apparently be very pleasant to work with.
> 
> Whedon is far worse than that, he is a stable jerk.




I think it's pretty clear that Whedon does have a personality disorder that makes him treat women so badly. He's not a good person; he's not a monster like Weinstein or Epstein. A good person might have a personality disorder and dark urges, but would also have some sense of honour/integrity that minimised how much they hurt the people around them. Whedon seems to lack any sense of that. 

It's a sad case, given that his disordered personality also seems connected to his creative genius and the stuff people loved about his creations. Obviously I mostly feel sorry for his female victims, and people need to be protected from him. If he makes a living as an anonymous script doctor, that does not bother me at all. But he should not be directing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2022)

Smackpixi said:


> But once busted and shamed, and jailed, or fined or whatever, even bad people need to get on with their life. While I share the immediate impulse that no never can they do the thing they love again, I also, well, maybe, eventually in some capacity think that reformed people should be back contributing to society, to its culture.



I agree that people who have done the punishment assessed them by society need to be reintegrated back into regular society…if they can.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to be able to do whatever it was they were doing before.  Besides ongoing legal issues that may be a roadblock, there may also be lingering anger from the fanbase.  And the fact that others in that field may not wish to associate with that person anymore.

I’m not talking about a lack of forgiveness.  I’m talking a lack of trust.

Over the past few years, the poster child (for me) has been Tim Lambesis- founding member and lead vocalist of American metalcore band As I Lay Dying.  He was arrested in 2013 after attempting to hire a hitman (actually an undercover police officer) to murder his wife, pled guilty in 2014 and was sentenced to serve six years in prison.  Lambesis was released on parole in December 2016.

Supposedly, he and his wife have somewhat reconciled.  He was welcomed back into the band.  AILD recorded a new album and were slated to do several concert festivals. 

….but other artists- some of whom had been friends with Lambesis for years- didnt want to be on a bill with him, and threatened to walk.  Some fans also threatened repercussions.  Ultimately, AILD was dropped from several lineups.

AILD continues to record & release albums.   They still haven’t been welcomed back to all of the tours and festivals they used to play, though.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 20, 2022)

S'mon said:


> I think it's pretty clear that Whedon does have a personality disorder that makes him treat women so badly. He's not a good person; he's not a monster like Weinstein or Epstein. A good person might have a personality disorder and dark urges, but would also have some sense of honour/integrity that minimised how much they hurt the people around them. Whedon seems to lack any sense of that.



While I'd hesitate regarding any kind of clinical diagnosis, honestly, the bombast and dismissiveness of Whedon's latest response paints him as someone who can't even understand how they're _supposed_ to behave - which is even more worrying than someone who pretends to be sorry. It might be a strategic gamble on his part, but if it is, I think it will fail.



> It's a sad case, given that his disordered personality also seems connected to his creative genius and the stuff people loved about his creations.




I think people are past excusing assh*le behaviour because of genius, and the received wisdom is now _see a counsellor and take your meds._


----------



## S'mon (Jan 20, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I think people are past excusing assh*le behaviour because of genius, and the received wisdom is now _see a counsellor and take your meds._




I definitely am not in any way excusing his behaviour. I strongly dislike the idea that the _auteur_ should be held to different standards than the rest of us.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 20, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Whedon's latest response paints him as someone who can't even understand how they're _supposed_ to behave




I share your impression.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 20, 2022)

I never got the reverence for Buffy. We watched it as it was airing back in the day (my best friend and his girlfriend/later wife/now ex-wife were huge fans), and it was _always_ problematic [stuff]. Always. I never even saw it being particularly feminist, LGB-friendly, or even female-empowered; sure, much of the main cast was female, but the show was still extraordinarily patriarchal under the window dressing.

And in the commentary for the Buffy Complete Series DVD set, Whedon straight up talked about harassing the actors and making their working lives hell. It's pretty messed up that he's trying to defend himself now, when he literally went on record 20-odd years ago talking about all the crap he was pulling.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 20, 2022)

I watched Buffy many years ago.  It was a while ago.

If I recall, it started to go downhill fast after she died (yes, I know, she came back, but it was when she died that it started going downhill).

What's worse, is that was actually a pretty good ending point if one really wanted to get down to it. 

The show took a MASSIVE dive rather quickly and the next season I just could not get into the show anymore. 

I DID start watching some of Angel, but I don't think I made it past season 2.  Perhaps that was what was missing from Buffy, not as much Angel in the show anymore and too much Spike (and no offense to the actor, he did a superb job, but perhaps that's what I didn't care for much in Angel when Spike came on in that show as well??)

I suppose this doesn't have much to do with the thread itself, but I don't think Whedon had as much impact on what I enjoy as it has others.

I watched Firefly long after it was popular (and had dropped).  I watched it after watching Serenity.

I did (and still do) think Whedon's cut of Justice League is FAR superior to Snyders.  Snyder's is just too long, too graphic, and too dark.  Maybe it reflects what comic books are today, but it certainly doesn't reflect what they used to be.  If one wants that, go to Marvel.  Snyder's was like the opposite of everything Marvel's movies are.

I think that's about the most I've watched of Whedon's stuff that I am aware of.  In that light, I suppose I should not have as big a voice in relation to concerns about him...others...maybe.

Thank goodness that thus far (as far as I know) nothing has ever come out about Brian Jacques.  I have all his books and still enjoy them and hope more material (I know he has passed, but movies, shows, games, etc. could still be made) is created.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jan 20, 2022)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Whedon's Astonishing X-men 24-comic run which was pretty good. There were other comics which he did but I felt his 2-year story arc with A-Xmen was great. I never could get into BtVS or Angel, it wasn't for me, so I was no fan of his, until I read these from a friend who was a die-hard Whedon fan.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 20, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> The show took a MASSIVE dive rather quickly and the next season I just could not get into the show anymore.



Oh, yeah.  Buffy should have ended on a high note with season 5.  Even with the musical episode, I found seasons 6 and 7 to be rather tedious.  The series finale wasn't bad but it couldn't make up for the bad seasons.  



doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think most people want to see Joss broken or humbled. We just want to end his influence on our culture, or failing that reduce it and lessen his ability to get new things made that will influence the culture.



You can't un-ring a bell as the influence of the likes of Whedon, Cosby, Bradley, and other terrible people can't really be removed.  All those women influenced by MZB's work will remain influenced by that work even despite the horrific revelations her children made a few years back.  But it's a bit easier to lessen the ability of a living person from influencing the culture in the future.  Though I have a feeling Whedon will eventually find work again.  Perhaps not as a showrunner, but as a script doctor or writing in another capacity.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 20, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> I never got the reverence for Buffy. We watched it as it was airing back in the day (my best friend and his girlfriend/later wife/now ex-wife were huge fans), and it was _always_ problematic naughty word. Always. I never even saw it being particularly feminist, LGB-friendly, or even female-empowered; sure, much of the main cast was female, but the show was still extraordinarily patriarchal under the window dressing.



Were you watching it when it premiered almost 25 years ago?  It had a distinctive voice compared to many other shows from the late 90s in a time where horror/fantasy was fairly uncommon on television.
Edit:  It just occurred to me that you said you were watching it as it aired.  So, yeah, you were watching it 25 years ago.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Oh, yeah.  Buffy should have ended on a high note with season 5.  Even with the musical episode, I found seasons 6 and 7 to be rather tedious.  The series finale wasn't bad but it couldn't make up for the bad seasons.
> 
> 
> You can't un-ring a bell as the influence of the likes of Whedon, Cosby, Bradley, and other terrible people can't really be removed.  All those women influenced by MZB's work will remain influenced by that work even despite the horrific revelations her children made a few years back.  But it's a bit easier to lessen the ability of a living person from influencing the culture in the future.  Though I have a feeling Whedon will eventually find work again.  Perhaps not as a showrunner, but as a script doctor or writing in another capacity.



Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.  

I don’t care about anything other than reducing, and if possible wholly stopping, the amount of _continued influence via new works_ the person can have. Everything else is irrelevant. Well, justice would be great but it’s happened so rarely I don’t hold out any hope at all. 

As I already said, Joss isn’t going to be speaking at colleges or conventions any time soon, his projects are not getting greenlit, he is not continuing to influence the culture. 

I get really tired of this sort of nitpicking. The point is as clear as it can be, now, so please don’t come to me with a complaint about how technically this or that. I do not care.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 20, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.
> 
> I don’t care about anything other than reducing, and if possible wholly stopping, the amount of _continued influence via new works_ the person can have. Everything else is irrelevant. Well, justice would be great but it’s happened so rarely I don’t hold out any hope at all.
> 
> ...



Nobody forced you to reply.  You weren’t clear otherwise I wouldn’t have written what I did and I don’t think I’m nitpicking.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jan 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> He's a nasty misogynistic little creep, and an authorial self insert. Should have been a red flag at the time, frankly.






Parmandur said:


> But hey, he makes funny quips and is a "nice guy"



It was kind of right when the show had ended that it started getting recognized the 'nice guy' was actually kind of a toxic trope. TV and movies of the 80-90s had a lot of coded as nerd male characters (Ross on Friends, Niles on Frasier, etc.) that were secretly in love with female friends and if said friend would just recognize how perfect they were for each other (instead of the jock stereotype she really dated) than things would be great (but then the plot arc would be over, so endlessly cycle on this until the audience is sick of it and them getting together at show end is unrealistic but at the same time inevitable). Which is a longwinded way of saying yes it should have been a red flag all along, but it also seems reasonable that it didn't stand out given by what it was surrounded.



GreyLord said:


> I watched Buffy many years ago. ...<snip>



Buffy seems to be one of those shows where even the super-fans tend towards, "I love everything about it, except in season ___, why in the heck did they..." There are so many (not just in seasons 6&7, the good stuff just thinned out so it was more obvious) missed opportunities, plots that went no where, inconsistent characterizations (Spike is effectively 3-4 distinct characters, depending on who was winning in the writer's room that week), favorite characters being written off, other characters sticking around despite having little to no reason for being there, and so on. There are good bits and pieces in the mix (which has to be why it has had such an impact), but I can't find a specific stretch of the show where it really was the peak awesomeness I remember it being.


----------



## Bohandas (Jan 20, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> And most historical works are . . . . not really consumed by the general public anyway.




What about the Iliad? The Iliad starts with a debate about the correct distribution of comfort women.

Or Journey to the West, which talks about slaves and eunuchs just about every other page?


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Which is a longwinded way of saying yes it should have been a red flag all along, but it also seems reasonable that it didn't stand out given by what it was surrounded.



Oh, no, totally agreed: although I didn't see Buffy until about 2014, so the dated feeling of the show was pretty apparent by then.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Nobody forced you to reply.  You weren’t clear otherwise I wouldn’t have written what I did and I don’t think I’m nitpicking.





doctorbadwolf said:


> don’t think most people want to see Joss broken or humbled. *We just want to end his influence on our culture, or failing that reduce it and lessen his ability to get new things made that will influence the culture.*



*Rereading *what you replied to, I find it very hard to see where you could possibly conclude that I think we can erase the influence a creator has already had, other than perhaps going out of your way to find something to disagree with. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t expect him to face any punishment. As long as he doesn’t have _power_, it’s just about not putting my money on things with his name, and doing what I can to contribute to making his reputation as a creator very clear that his name on a project is repellant to a significant portion of potential consumers.



Either way, the rest of the post should have made it clear.  

So, yeah, regardless of your intent, you came across as needlessly nitpicking. Not to mention performing the obnoxiously common practice of discrediting the very idea of accountability.


----------



## Bolares (Jan 20, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> What about the Iliad? The Iliad starts with a debate about the correct distribution of comfort women.
> 
> Or Journey to the West, which talks about slaves and eunuchs just about every other page?



Great use of whataboutism


----------



## MGibster (Jan 20, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> *Rereading *what you replied to, I find it very hard to see where you could possibly conclude that I think we can erase the influence a creator has already had, other than perhaps going out of your way to find something to disagree with.



Based on what you wrote, it looked to me like you wanted to try.  Sorry about that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Based on what you wrote, it looked to me like you wanted to try.  Sorry about that.



Fine, it happens. Maybe just don’t assume extremely foolish naïveté on the part of people you’re having a discussion with.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 20, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I get really tired of this sort of nitpicking.






MGibster said:


> Nobody forced you to reply.




Folks, can we not do this?  Please?  Thanks.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 20, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> It was kind of right when the show had ended that it started getting recognized the 'nice guy' was actually kind of a toxic trope. TV and movies of the 80-90s had a lot of coded as nerd male characters (Ross on Friends, Niles on Frasier, etc.) that were secretly in love with female friends and if said friend would just recognize how perfect they were for each other (instead of the jock stereotype she really dated) than things would be great (but then the plot arc would be over, so endlessly cycle on this until the audience is sick of it and them getting together at show end is unrealistic but at the same time inevitable). Which is a longwinded way of saying yes it should have been a red flag all along, but it also seems reasonable that it didn't stand out given by what it was surrounded.




One difference, to me at least, is that Xander isn't supposed to be a hero and is intentionally shown to be a very flawed character.  Those flaws aren't supposed to age well, they're supposed to be flaws.  And there are many times when he faces consequences.  Relating to your example, Xander not only doesn't end up with Buffy, but it's shown that his hang ups about her ruins other parts of his life.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jan 20, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> One difference, to me at least, is that Xander isn't supposed to be a hero and is intentionally shown to be a very flawed character.  Those flaws aren't supposed to age well, they're supposed to be flaws.  And there are many times when he faces consequences.  Relating to your example, Xander not only doesn't end up with Buffy, but it's shown that his hang ups about her ruins other parts of his life.



Oh certainly, I alluded to that on my first post in-thread. There are multiple layers to why this wasn't notable. One is that Xander being flawed as part of the character, but I also think that a reason was that the 'Nice Guy' (by which we mean a not nice guy) was not a recognized toxic trope at the time.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 20, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Oh certainly, I alluded to that on my first post in-thread. There are multiple layers to why this wasn't notable. One is that Xander being flawed as part of the character, but I also think that a reason was that the 'Nice Guy' (by which we mean a not nice guy) was not a recognized toxic trope at the time.



Oh, it was a trope at the time all right. It just wasn't an _ironic_ term.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jan 20, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Oh, it was a trope at the time all right. It just wasn't an _ironic_ term.



That's what I mean by toxic. But yes, I did discuss what a nice guy at the time was.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 21, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> What about the Iliad? The Iliad starts with a debate about the correct distribution of comfort women.
> 
> Or Journey to the West, which talks about slaves and eunuchs just about every other page?



Both are classics and rightly so . . . . and most folks have not read them. They hold a great deal of influence on modern art, because many artists and intellectuals have read them, but the average person? Nope.


----------



## Bohandas (Jan 21, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Both are classics and rightly so . . . . and most folks have not read them. They hold a great deal of influence on modern art, because many artists and intellectuals have read them, but the average person? Nope.




Ok. That makes sense.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 22, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gotta say, it’s a good thing I’ve cultivated an ability to detach creatives’ output from their personal lives.  (Ditto others in the public eye.)  I was largely unaware of the scandalous & evil acts perpetrated by several people mentioned in here.  I generally don’t seek out such info unless and until it is unavoidable news.



I care so little about who creates the stuff that I enjoy, that I only learned that I did enjoy stuff from some of those people mentioned here when I googled them.

Sure the actors are front and center when I watch a show, but directors, show runners, these I hardly register


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 22, 2022)

Mirtek said:


> I care so little about who creates the stuff that I enjoy, that I only learned that I did enjoy stuff from some of those people mentioned here when I googled them.
> 
> Sure the actors are front and center when I watch a show, but directors, show runners, these I hardly register



The thing is, though, directors/writers/showrunners provide a better predictive index of quality, so I pay attention to behind the scenes names to find out more of what I enjoy.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The thing is, though, directors/writers/showrunners provide a better predictive index of quality, so I pay attention to behind the scenes names to find out more of what I enjoy.



I suspect you're correct.  Although I don't really follow directors/writers/showrunners, when I think about how bad a particular show is it's usually not the actors I'm finding a great deal of fault with.  Gates McFadden did just fine in the _Star Trek:  The Next Generation _episode "Sub Rosa," but there's only so much an actor can do when the plot revolves around Beverly Crusher banging a ghost that not so long ago was banging her grandmother.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jan 23, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Imagine if you were a Marion Zimmer Bradley stan ....




I was, unfortunately. It was only last year when someone here mentioned her being awful that I googled and found out that horror story.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 24, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I was, unfortunately. It was only last year when someone here mentioned her being awful that I googled and found out that horror story.



And it's harder to accept when this person has a great deal of personal meaning to you.  _The Mists of Avalon _is one of the few interesting modern takes on the Arthurian legends I've ever read (even if it's not my favorite I can recognize that it's good) and is probably the only fantasy book I ever saw my mother read.  But while I just acknowledge that MZB was a good author, for a lot of people, MZB meant something much more to them.  She encouraged and inspired a lot of women authors to to write fantasy.  For those folks, the news about MZB was devastating.


----------



## dragoner (Jan 24, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I was, unfortunately. It was only last year when someone here mentioned her being awful that I googled and found out that horror story.



She and her husband were head of the Science Fiction Writers Association, that whole organization has stumbled from one disaster to another. Not long ago here I tried to clue people in about the writer of Altered Carbon, which if one reads the books and follows the fandom, knows he is a piece of work. Not that he really hid it in his books, people really didn't like hearing it though.

Whedon was really post my time, I saw the movie Buffy, except I really did not like High School, being a weird math nerd with a funny accent to going to punk rocker. My wife liked Firefly somewhat, though I'm not that big a fan of westerns, living out west, one saw that the Hollywood version was totally made up. I mean Cormac McCarthy does a better version, though I doubt we'll be seeing _Blood Meridian_ as a sci-fi adaptation anytime soon you know uh ... then again (begins typing notes).

“The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.

The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man's mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.”
  - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian


----------

