Damn, Gene could be a dumbass when he wanted.
The Fall of Joss Whedon
- Thread starter FreezeC77
- Start date
- Status
Pointing out that adult directors not being allowed to be alone with child actors isn't something unique to Joss isn't "going to bat for him".
Maybe read everything else posted last page.
To be fair, which we don't want to, it could be as innocent as Joss calling another adult a c^^k s^^king Fa^^ot within earshot of Michelle, which was perfectly respectable language between adults in the 90s. Although a 14 year old girl... I don't know what my point is, but a normal 14 year old girl is a ###king disgusting pervert.
Seriously.
There's not a lot he couldn't have done without the police becoming involved.
Did he get her dunk and show off his penis?
Police and Jail.
Maybe he yelled at her for forgetting her lines until she cried?
Which is treating her as an adult, more so than abusing a child.
But adults don't like being treated like that, which is how we got to where we are.
Last edited:
I bet he insulted her or threatened her career or something or used crude language like calling her a bitch or something. Things that are bad when you do it to adults but adults are adults. When you do it to a kid people will rise up and want to protect them.
The Hollywood Reporter had a piece today talking about this issue in general, "In Hollywood, Is the Press the New Human Resources?"
The idea that it's only wrongdoing if the public finds out about it seems to be the core issue, here. There wouldn't be any "cancel culture" if institutions weren't outsourcing the job of policing their members to the larger culture, instead of doing it themselves. Having both worked in toxic cultures, and in cultures that had recently been toxic and had cleaned house not long before my arrival, it's always easier to deal with little problems, rather than ignoring them and giving the perpetrators more power and authority.
The idea that it's only wrongdoing if the public finds out about it seems to be the core issue, here. There wouldn't be any "cancel culture" if institutions weren't outsourcing the job of policing their members to the larger culture, instead of doing it themselves. Having both worked in toxic cultures, and in cultures that had recently been toxic and had cleaned house not long before my arrival, it's always easier to deal with little problems, rather than ignoring them and giving the perpetrators more power and authority.
This is not a point without merit. I'm skeptical enough to think that for folks at the top of the pyramid that this is simply another time in which to be wary rather than to reform the way they do business.
I did, and what I posted still stands.
Joss not being allowed to be alone with Michelle is not something that is or would have been unique to him and her specifically, regardless of her personal comments about the situation, because it has been codified into general rule that child actors are not allowed to be alone - anywhere - with any adult who is not their legal guardian.
I’m sure that general rule came about to prevent situations such as between Whedon and Trachtenburg. The fact that it had to be enforced with Whedon is notable though. I don’t think that came about just to be in compliance with the rule as a formality.
Dude.... I'm sorry....
But while it is more and more apparent Joss was really just a piece of trash, you keep posting stuff that basically says 'if you look it from a different angle he didn't do anything wrong'. Ofcourse people are saying you're basically defending him.
Remember when you argued, at length, that Zack Snyder couldn't possibly have disliked any post-production changes Joss Whedon made to Justice League, because of rules! from the Directors Guild? Remember how you turned out to be completely wrong about that?
In real life, the context surrounding whether any particular rules/laws are observed is often more important than the rules themselves.
Last edited:
I think it's kind of a simple situation. If he tried something sexual the rule makes sense. If it wasn't sexual it still makes sense because he is a bully or seems to be a bully from what we have heard. That's how both possibilities seem equally possible with the guy and it's just a matter of time before the whole truth comes out and it will.
^ I was purposely trying to be vague about exactly what happened as it didn't seem germane to the point I was making.
It might be a general rule, but in this case they made it pretty clear in the interviews that it was do to something specific that occurred with Whedon, and that is why it was noteworthy. He did or said something that made the other people around him concerned for her.
Yeah, the way it's been explicitly stated it wasn't that *nobody* was allowed to be alone in a room with her, just Whedon. She seemed to be making a very clear and unequivocal point, or else why even mention it.
I don't know what mental gymnastics a person must perform to see something so clearly specific as a general rule.
I mean if you go into a pub and there's a notice behind the bar for the staff that says "do no serve this person" next to a pinned up photo of some bloke, would you say to yourself: "hmm...well I guess it must be a general rule here not to serve anyone!" and promptly leave?
I don't know what mental gymnastics a person must perform to see something so clearly specific as a general rule.
I mean if you go into a pub and there's a notice behind the bar for the staff that says "do no serve this person" next to a pinned up photo of some bloke, would you say to yourself: "hmm...well I guess it must be a general rule here not to serve anyone!" and promptly leave?
I can understand wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes you just have to accept that a person is an ass. I kept trying to do that with Whedon for a long time, but after the last couple stories about him I read, it became pretty clear that he really is a complete douchenozzle.
When it comes to someone like this (ie, a person you'll likely never have to interact with, but may indirectly benefit from your actions) all that really matters is whether or not you feel comfortable giving that person money to do with as they see fit.
Personally I have a sliding scale that goes from HP Lovecraft (he's dead, so who cares?) to Orson Scott Card (he donates to deprograming camps, so fuck that noise!) Right now Whedon isn't at OSC end of things yet, but he's not exactly in the middle either. I'm personally inclined and content to simply ignore anything he makes from here on out. So pretty much like Gibson, Allen, Spacey, Rowling & Carano; I no longer care what he does. Not watching it, not reading it. Not interested.
- Status
