Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

p to the e

pixelburp wrote: »

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

Unless it's a whip testing factory

CastorTroy

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

Potatoeman

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

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

Earthhorse

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

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

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

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

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

blue note

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

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

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

CastorTroy

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

FunLover18

blue note wrote: »

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

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

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

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

blue note

FunLover18 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

jill_valentine

Potatoeman wrote: »

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

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

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

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

IAMAMORON

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

You should try Ridley Scott for size....

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

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

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

jill_valentine

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

pixelburp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

You should try Ridley Scott for size....

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

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

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

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

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

IAMAMORON

jill_valentine wrote: »

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

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

IAMAMORON

pixelburp wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IAMAMORON

pixelburp wrote: »

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

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

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

Earthhorse

jill_valentine wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

pixelburp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

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

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

jill_valentine

IAMAMORON wrote: »

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

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

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

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

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

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

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

pixelburp

mikhail wrote: »

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

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

jill_valentine

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not that I agree with IAMA's original statement but Whedon was writing, directing and an executive producer on Buffy.

There's a point to concede there alright (though an EP and a Producer can be very different, and as a viewer, I can say his parallel showrunning stuff had very tangible focus at the time) but the substance remains - actors on shows like Buffy work for their money, and while the folks on Buffy were doing pretty okay, they weren't living in gold houses or anything.

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

After how many tries? Buffy the movie failed. His most famous scriptdoctor achievements are a) the bit of Speed everybody hates, and b) the line from X Men everyone took the piss out of for years and years and years.

He turned in his Marvel comics stuff so far past deadlines it crippled the titles he worked on. Firefly the series failed. Dollhouse failed. Even Angel had to struggle for its life throughout its run.

Each one of these examples came along at critical junctures in his career and cost the parent companies fortunes - but every time he still got another swing until he got it right.

There probably is another writer out there who could have done that stuff without all the bollockology. But we'll never know because Whedon got all those shots instead. And in the meantime, he effectively ended Carpenter and Fisher's careers, and likely others.

A lot of success stories in Hollywood aren't really about how uniquely good you are at what you do, but how many chances you keep getting and the other guy didn't. Who gets to have those extra chances, well, it tends to be people like Joss Whedon more often than it's people like Charisma Carpenter or Ray Fisher.

Agent Coulson

Shia LaBeouf ex saying she is lucky to be alive after he threatened to kill them both while driving his car saying he would smash it into a wall, has filed a lawsuit against him for sexual battery, assault, and infliction of emotional distress.

IAMAMORON

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Shia LaBeouf ex saying she is lucky to be alive after he threatened to kill them both while driving his car saying he would smash it into a wall, has filed a lawsuit against him for sexual battery, assault, and infliction of emotional distress.

I hope she has it on Dash cam?

Can that fella even drive?

I would expect Megan Fox to come out and support him on that one. He doesn't look the type to tell his partner that if she doesn't shut the phuck up he is going to drive the car into the nearest wall?

I presume she went to the cops after to show off any bruises he gave her?

pixelburp

I have always thought it funny that for all his plaudits, Whedon's CV isn't actually bursting with hits either - purely in terms of successful output. Buffy was a sensation at the second attempt but as you say Jill, everything else was a noted failure. And I'm certainly not going to forget how he wrote Alien Ressurection any time soon (even if it was his first script IIRC).

In fact, I'd go one further and say, at the risk of coming across troll'y, or angling for a Hot Take: Firefly was overrated. Minus the snarky dialogue - which I'd argue is Whedons biggest, lasting and most prominent contribution to pop-culture - it was very a formulaic show, dressed up in so much Western garb raided from the costume department, it strained credulity at times.

Nor was Whedon's pivot to directing that spectacular either; so not like this tyranny, apparently justified in the eyes of some, yielded great results: while a noteworthy movie for what it represented in the genre, The Avengers looked like a bland TV movie, and he never looked to be growing his craft either. Justice League was as bland and boring-looking as that other film. For comparison, I watched The Trial of the Chicago 7 recently and it was interesting to see how another writer-cum-director, Aaron Sorkin, had clearly built his craft from the prior feature he helmed.

This is coming off a little "I always knew he was rubbish", but I as someone who never really got into Buffy in the first place, I never quite "got" the adoration Whedon received either. And given recent revelations, his status as this creator of empowered female characters now comes across a little awkward.

johnny_ultimate

The whole 'it happened 20 years ago, so how dare she complain now!' argument always strikes me as particularly moot. The fact is that the landscape has changed substantially over even the last few years - not always for the best, but certainly to an extent where people feel genuinely empowered and encouraged to speak up about behaviour that should never have been acceptable. Not to dismiss the genuinely traumatic and personal reasons people may not have spoken up at the time, but it's clear now society at large has moved beyond a point of finding bad workplace behaviour acceptable or tolerable.

Frankly, there's no need for any boss to be an 'asshole' - it's possible to be a tough boss and still treat people (even those you don't get on with on a personal level) with the basic decency and dignity they deserve. If you can't do that, then you deserve what's coming to you. Since Joss Whedon has proudly built his name on being something of a prominent male feminist - or at least a purveyor of 'strong female characters' (c) - that by most accounts he didn't live up to those standards is something that well deserves being called out, no matter how late the reckoning comes after the fact.

blue note

jill_valentine wrote: »

His most famous scriptdoctor achievements are a) the bit of Speed everybody hates, and b) the line from X Men everyone took the piss out of for years and years and years.

What were these two?

Personally, I find the adoration of him a bit much. I liked buffy when I was a teenager, but it really wasn't that good. I only saw an episode of firefly so can't really judge.

I did really like the cabin in the woods in fairness. And I really enjoyed the avengers when it came out, but oddly I looked back on it and it was very average.

Basically, as regards his output, some of it is good, some not great. He's middling for me.

Earthhorse

jill_valentine wrote: »

After how many tries? Buffy the movie failed. His most famous scriptdoctor achievements are a) the bit of Speed everybody hates, and b) the line from X Men everyone took the piss out of for years and years and years.

After about two tries? His career started on Roseanne, then he wrote Buffy but the movie was sort of taken away from him and didn't work and then he wrote Toy Story which was a huge success.

I think you're mistaken about that line from Speed; besides which he wrote 98.8% of the dialogue according to according to Graham Yost (who wrote the movie). The X Men line didn't come out well but the job of a script doctor is to generally punch up a script and make bits work that didn't which Whedon apparently did with aplomb.

He turned in his Marvel comics stuff so far past deadlines it crippled the titles he worked on. Firefly the series failed. Dollhouse failed. Even Angel had to struggle for its life throughout its run.

It's generally agreed Firefly failed due to Fox's scheduling and misunderstanding of it and how to market it. Angel was renewed for five seasons; that's really not bad even if it struggled during its run.

Each one of these examples came along at critical junctures in his career and cost the parent companies fortunes - but every time he still got another swing until he got it right.

Right but you're leaving out the bits where his success made the companies fortunes; Toy Story, Buffy, Avengers.

There probably is another writer out there who could have done that stuff without all the bollockology. But we'll never know because Whedon got all those shots instead. And in the meantime, he effectively ended Carpenter and Fisher's careers, and likely others.

A lot of success stories in Hollywood aren't really about how uniquely good you are at what you do, but how many chances you keep getting and the other guy didn't. Who gets to have those extra chances, well, it tends to be people like Joss Whedon more often than it's people like Charisma Carpenter or Ray Fisher.

Whedon is an extremely talented storyteller and especially strong with dialogue. He also appears to have an amazing work ethic when you look at everything he's produced over the years. If he was given more than his fair share of chances (which I don't really see any evidence of) that is hardly on him but on the dysfunction of the industry in which he works. Punishing him won't solve that, nor does he deserve to be punished for having second chances.

He may deserve to be punished for his treatment of his staff but I'm not sure what that punishment should be.

pixelburp

One thing on Firefly that's worth speculating on, had the internet been around it might have been saved I reckon. Viral traction is more relevant than ever, compared against raw viewing numbers, and Fox would have seen the hype online and likely(probably?) given it another shot. You look to something like The Expanse for a recent example of a show saved from death by dint of online fervour. And going by those I was in college with during Fireflys original run, Whedonites were fanatical for this. I guess fans had their hand in getting Serenity greenlit mind you, but I dunno if that was planned as a backdoor to another series or not.

jill_valentine

blue note wrote: »

What were these two?

Personally, I find the adoration of him a bit much. I liked buffy when I was a teenager, but it really wasn't that good. I only saw an episode of firefly so can't really judge.

I did really like the cabin in the woods in fairness. And I really enjoyed the avengers when it came out, but oddly I looked back on it and it was very average.

Basically, as regards his output, some of it is good, some not great. He's middling for me.

He was hired mostly to staple extra time onto the end of Speed, which is where all the train stuff came from.

The X Men line was the bit about a toad struck by lightning.

I was an enormous Buffy fan and I do feel the show's influence has been largely great, but Whedon's creative feet of clay started showing in huge ways towards the end of that show and around the same time on Angel.

Shortly after it ended, rumours started going around the fandom that he just wasn't a very nice guy to work with, and Buffy nerds were aware of the Carpenter stuff from around then, but it all kinda faded into the background when the MCU fanbase kicked off.

Sad Professor

jill_valentine wrote: »

He was hired mostly to staple extra time onto the end of Speed, which is where all the train stuff came from.

What's the source for this? Whedon was hired to re-write the dialogue, which he did extensively. If he had added to the plot, creating an entire act as you suggest, he would not have been denied credit.

And does everyone really hate the third act of Speed?