News Superman & Lois Ordered to Series at The CW
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
I misspoke, the allegations were from men and women, not the victims who appear to have been exclusively women. But there was inappropriate physical contact.
https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/warner-bros-sexual-harassment-andrew-kreisberg-1202612522/
EDIT: Ninja'd while formatting quotes.
Like the Law and this, should be blind in its application. It doesn't matter who he/she is, what political affiliation, etc. If they create a hostile work environment, especially harassments of Women OR Men ( It irks me quite a bit that they tell men to "Suck it up" and don't get believed as much as women.. women can be harassers too (Personal experience) )
Say what the line is, if anybody crosses it, there gone. Period.
As for Andrew, it seems from what is shown that he should go, and from what I've seen on Nick Cannon, he should also go.
As for Sawyer, I don't know, Haven't researched it. If it was 10 years ago and he apologized, and he is currently Not doing anything bad, then no, he shouldn't go, if it was 3 months ago, then yes, he should go.
Alot of this stuff is overblown, make an apology on stuff done years ago, and then continue on, if they go back to doing that, then yeah, can them. but people getting canned for stuff done 10 years ago is a bit much.
Say what the line is, if anybody crosses it, there gone. Period.
As for Andrew, it seems from what is shown that he should go, and from what I've seen on Nick Cannon, he should also go.
As for Sawyer, I don't know, Haven't researched it. If it was 10 years ago and he apologized, and he is currently Not doing anything bad, then no, he shouldn't go, if it was 3 months ago, then yes, he should go.
Alot of this stuff is overblown, make an apology on stuff done years ago, and then continue on, if they go back to doing that, then yeah, can them. but people getting canned for stuff done 10 years ago is a bit much.
So now we’re drifting into a “cancel culture” debate? Protip: There’s a whole thread devoted to the topic in TNZ, where it belongs.
(Lordy, I’ll be glad when there’s finally an actual show to talk about ....)
(Lordy, I’ll be glad when there’s finally an actual show to talk about ....)
Read a little more carefully. The article is not claiming 15 women and 4 men were victims. They were a source of information who complained. If I witness you sexually harass a woman, and I sign a complaint against you, that does not mean you harassed ME.
And notice how this worked--all the complaints were anonymous for fear of retaliation. A fair fear, but people should have a right to confront their accuser so that facts can be determined, even if it is under closed doors. Otherwise, couldn't anyone conspire to accuse anyone of anything?
The article also does NOT elaborate on what was alleged. If I give you an unwanted hug, that could be sexual harassment, even though in my mind, it's just a hug, not a move for something more. Am I wrong? Yes. But this is not something like rape.
Further to that point: "Kreisberg told Variety, “I have made comments on women’s appearances and clothes in my capacity as an executive producer, but they were not sexualized. Like many people, I have given someone a non-sexual hug or kiss on the cheek.” He denies that any inappropriate touching or massages occurred."
Let's take him at his word. Something like this could be handled by making him aware of the situation, even anonymously, and you know what would happen? He would apologize and it never would happen again. Why do drug users, criminals and violent people get multiple chances and Kreisberg is blackballed forever on what could conceivably be a misunderstanding?
Let's take this a bit further:
"None of the sources Variety spoke to reported Kreisberg to Warner Bros. human resources, on the assumption that they would pay a price for that, given how important his position was at the company. “Going to HR never crossed my mind, because it seems like nothing’s been enforced,” one woman says. But as word spread of this story, human resources began interviewing the women on his staff."
They have HR for that purpose of dealing with things, but they chose another path. While I get their logic, their way, a man gets convicted publicly without the ability to confront his accuser.
Last year, a high-level female producer who works with Kreisberg brought her concerns about his inappropriate behavior and his harassment of employees to a senior executive at Berlanti Productions, the company owned by mega-producer Greg Berlanti, who oversees all of the series Kreisberg works on. “There was zero response,” this woman says. “Nothing happened. Nothing changed.”
Ok--how do they really know that? Maybe they investigated it, found the claims to be unwarranted, and he was found not guilty. But notice that this paragraph talks about inappropriate behavior and harassment.
Nothing sexual alleged. Could he have been a difficult boss? Very possible. Maybe his employees were intimidated, but bosses can be like that. They're not all coddling. I'm not saying he did nothing wrong. I'm saying there isn't enough to convict him or blackball him for life.
A male writer who worked for one of the CW shows Kreisberg has run says, “It was an environment in which women — assistants, writers, executives, directors — were all evaluated based on their bodies, not on their work.”
This goes back to my prior point. This is a man defending a woman who he feels is a victim, not a victim himself.
Without witnessing what happened, it's impossible to judge. The Variety article does not show enough to convict.
Asked if any colleague, anyone from Berlanti Productions or anyone from Warner Bros. ever told him that he should not make sexually harassing comments to women, Kreisberg said, “No.”
Once again getting to the point-- you don't have to swat a fly with a flame thrower. Maybe a serious talking to by Berlanti could have stopped this without costing this man his job.
Again--this is NOT Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton.
Read Kreisberg's own comments. There are two sides to every story. I know people want to judge immediately and always side with the accuser, and I get that, but not every circumstance is the same.
And I still stand with the idea that the Arrowverse has not been as well written since he left.
Right. The question really becomes whether THIS arises to the level of being blackballed forever. Sometimes people do wrong without even realizing it. If their core is good, they should be given a second chance. I don't believe what he did arises to a capital offense. Was it bad? Yes. Should he have been reprimanded? If true, 100 percent. But blackballed for life? No.
Sometimes people deserve a second chance, sometimes they don't. Depends on the action.
I think we can all admit that we weren't there, we weren't a part of the investigation, and not everything is as it seems.
You're actually right. It will be nice when we can talk about the actual show. I only wanted to say that the writing got worse without him. It is a pet peeve when I see someone convicted without a trial and real evidence. I don't know if justice was served.
Well, there was probably an investigation, especially of upper level staff, they probably drop kick an actor quickly, but somebody up there maybe not so much, but close to 20 people came forward to say "yes" he's atleast a creep, worse a bad influence in the work area.
Maybe--we just don't know. You COULD be right. Or it could be something else. But let's go with your last sentence. Let's say he was a creep. I'm not saying he was in fact, but for this purpose, we can use it.
Let's also take his statements as true. That in his mind, he did nothing inappropriate and things he did were job related. You may not believe it, but for this purpose, use it.
Put yourself in his position at this moment. You're a moral person. You're happily married. You have kids. In your mind, you're not even THINKING you did anything wrong, let alone ACTUALLY did something wrong. Now someone brings this to your attention. You're not Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton.
You'd be pretty floored at first. Despite how you made these people feel, and again, for this purpose, we believe them too, you had no idea. You think about it, you think about your actions, and maybe you even see it from the other point of view and how your actions could be interpreted.
You would likely feel remorse and a need to make it right. My point is, I think he should have had the chance to do just that. ONE chance.
He was not shown to have done the casting couch scenario. Maybe he was a difficult boss. Maybe he blurred a line without realizing in HIS mind. There is a big difference between what he did and what a Harvey Weinstein did. In a world where Roman Pulanski STILL hasn't seen any punishment for raping a 13 year old girl, Andrew Kreisberg should not be blackballed for life. All I'm saying is that if he could apologize and ACTUALLY change--work through it and prove himself, he should be allowed to write again. We are a forgiving society - at least for lesser offenses. I don't think the punishment fit the crime.
Lois is unique, in that she had her own daily comic strip in the papers in the '40s and her own comic book starting in the '50s. I used to buy her comic regularly in the '70s. Her adventures weren't just about a strong reporter, she dealt with all kinds of actual villians. I do consider her an equal, storywise, to Clark and I'd be happy with a show, like say Lois and Clark, that treated her that way.
I've said before that I'd love an Amy Adams "Investigative Reporter, Lois Lane" movie that treated Clark as a secondary character (e.g., he's waiting in the bathtub when she gets home from her feats of journalistic derring-do 
).
).
Right on both counts.
Fair, but you have to admit, that's a much different show than the Adventures of SUPERMAN. A show about Alex's life might or might not work. I can't say, but maybe there IS an audience for it. But it's not a superhero show, and that's my point. Same with Lois--a show about Lois without Clark is a completely different animal. It might be very interesting, but it's not what I'm tuning in to see when watching SUPERMAN.
On Flash, same issue when they do too much with Iris.
I've said before that I'd love an Amy Adams "Investigative Reporter, Lois Lane" movie that treated Clark as a secondary character (e.g., he's waiting in the bathtub when she gets home from her feats of journalistic derring-do
I like Amy Adams. I'm not a fan of her Lois Lane. But I do like her work. It would take tremendous writing to make Clark a secondary character on that kind of show because of the life he lives. They would have to do what Supergirl failed at--make Superman be secondary without hurting the character. I think it can be done. I still say Supergirl should have had Superman as a secondary character/mentor that rarely got involved except on special episodes.
I haven't seen that show, but it's clearly not Batman. If Alfred is young, then that means Bruce is likely not born yet and the most you can hope for is Thomas Wayne as a doctor, but this could be even before that. I believe Alfred was MI6 or something like that, which basically means you are describing a show about an MI6 spy, and not a Batman show. This lead character can be anyone--it just happens to be Alfred. The Batman connection is very secondary. Or at least it sounds that way.
The same would hold true on Lois Lane: Investigative Reporter.
In the later 1940s, Lois Lane actually had a solo backup feature in the Superman books, short stories where she'd investigate stories, get in trouble, and get out of it all on her own, without needing Superman to bail her out. I've only read a few of them, but they're pretty awesome. A solo Lois Lane series would definitely work.
Or you could do something similar, an adaptation of the Brenda Starr comic strip. I remember Brooke Shields played her in a movie once, but otherwise, nobody seems to have picked up on that potential.
Thank God Pennyworth isn’t a Batman show. It’s so much more colorful and entertaining than Mr. “Darkness, No Parents.”
As it happens, I’m currently in the middle of a rewatch of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and it’s even more delightful than I remembered.
It's not a Batman show, that's why I didn't call it one. (Anyone who watches it expecting it to be one would be sorely disappointed.) I actually agree with you regarding the distinction between a superhero show and a show about a character who knows (or will know) a superhero. My only point referencing Pennyworth is that it's a kick-ass show about someone who isn't usually a main character and isn't a superhero. And that I'd be down for other DC peripherals if they were their own beast the way it is. For reference, I don't care for the writing on most of the CW DC shows but Pennyworth is a corker, and I wish Constantine had gone on longer. I enjoyed most of Swamp Thing, and even managed to kind of get into the groove of Krypton. I like 90% of Titans, and what I've seen of Doom Patrol so far, though I am yet to go back to it yet.
I think it's on a network I can't watch, but sounds worth a look. It's perfectly fine that it isn't a Batman show. Other than the connection for some cool easter eggs, it sounds like something that could be done whether Batman existed or not. It's its own show, with a different premise and people who want that type of show are the audience. It's not necessarily the SAME audience. A Batman show about the adventures of Alfred is a terrible idea. An Alfred show though is fine.
I think it was the last GOOD live action Superman. I liked Smallville, but the no tights no flights rule kind of took Superman out of it, especially after they cheated us in the finale and in Crisis.
Funny you mentioned Krypton--it was only ok for me. Annoyed it was canceled on a cliffhanger, but I wasn't so into it that I was THAT annoyed. Doom Patrol is also just ok for me. I'm not rushing to watch it, especially because HBO Max isn't on Roku.
Constantine also wasn't much of a character for me. Pennyworth sounds like something I would like. I think Swamp Thing is heading to CW so I'll catch it then.
Yes, there could be a show about a supporting character -- but when that happens, that character is no longer a supporting character--it's his or her show. Alex Danvers: Agent of DEO might be ok. All those storylines that I hated would have a place there. But it isn't ok on Supergirl.
Thing is a character like Alex doesn't have that history, and I really wouldn't pick up a show just about her. Lois has totally sustained her own personal comics fanbase and is more than capable of sustaining a comic hero based show with Clark as an occasional supporting character.
Basically Lois is a unique character with over a half-century of her own publications who is totally capable of driving her own series.
So, I really don't see an "Alex, DEA" being a fraction as viable as a Lois Lane series. Like I say, I read that Lois series for years. I mean, I agree with you that supporting characters in Supergirl shouldn't be driving the plots so much, but Lois is not comparable. She's a co-star in any Superman story as far as I'm concerned.
Yep.
I also tend to agree with something Lauren Winn said on a recent podcast (paraphrased): "Superman is inherently a love story. If it's not a love story, then revisit what you've written."
Hasn't this character already appeared on Supergirl? I wonder why they're recasting. Maybe it's a post-Crisis version?