Hate to break this to you, but Melissa Benoist has only a passing interest in superheroes in real life. When she got the role she was asked repeatedly about her geek credentials at SDCC, and she basically explained she used to be a big Star Wars fan as a kid, and she'd read a few graphic novels in high school. Pretty much her primary interests are singing and serious drama. If she's developing her own content, it is more likely to be closer to Glee than Supergirl.Maskripper wrote: ↑2 years ago I wonder if that production company will make superhero shows for Warner Brothers.
Perhaps she thereby gets her own TV show that she produces and stars in?
Buffy hurts. That show (and Angel) had so much heart; it's awful to think it was produced through Joss being a massive shitheel.Bert wrote: ↑2 years ago I'm all for Benoist starting her own production company and I wish her well. As for the idea that she might create superheroine content that would be appealing to this site, I'd say that's extremely unlikely. Melissa's life arc over the last five or six years argues strongly against it. As good as the first two or three years of Supergirl was (despite the eye-rollingly bad writing), events have conspired against seeing more such content from her, either as an actress or producer.
First, Melissa was in, or in the process of getting out of, a physically abusive relationship when she got her big break and landed the Supergirl role. As is often the case in these terrible situations, she didn't tell anyone about it at the time. This led to her acting out scenes of violence on the show week in,week out as she was dealing with the trauma of being a battered woman. That really sucks.
Second, the main creative force behind the show was forced out (rightly) during the third season for being abusive with cast and crew. That, combined with Melissa bravely coming forward with her story of partner abuse, resulted in a quick about face in the structure of the show.
So, given these facts, it seems clear that nothing produced by or starring the lovely Melissa is ever going to venture into anything resembling peril.
We were very lucky to get Supergirl the show. But through an unlikely series of terrible events, the show ended up neutered and unwatchably over-woke. Oddly, news from the past week has outed Joss Whedon as another abusive prick. Multiple actors have called him out for being a giant asshole, or worse. So two of my favorite shows of the last 25 years, Supergirl and Buffy, both have ugly asterisks next to them now. Dang it.
Yeah, I think most everyone was. It sucks to see people you admire turn out to be scumbags. I used to have tremendous respect for Joss Whedon. Now, much as I still love Buffy, this spoils it a little. I have the same problem with Supergirl. I was so critical of the show when they made the big pivot away from good action, only to learn that Melissa was a domestic abuse survivor. Now that colours all the things I originally loved about the show.
What is with these creeps? That's just like Louis C.K. and Weinstein. Did they have a little club?Shakeshift wrote: ↑2 years ago There have been rumors of Joss Whedon purposefully exposing his genitalia to female stars of his shows for years circulating on the con circuits in NYC and Boston. I wouldn't be surprised if he exposed himself to Trachtenberg when she was 15, hoping to see if she was interested in his junk. He's such a fucking dirtbag.
The whole entertainment industry is just so disposed to powerful little cliques, isn't it? If you're in a good position you can make or break people by snapping your fingers. So many people are so desperate to get into it, and employment and success can be so precarious that they'll tolerate a huge amount from the powerful, and until recently the powerful (and hell Joss Whedon was just one producer and that was still enough) I guess felt little fear of reprisal.Bert wrote: ↑2 years agoWhat is with these creeps? That's just like Louis C.K. and Weinstein. Did they have a little club?Shakeshift wrote: ↑2 years ago There have been rumors of Joss Whedon purposefully exposing his genitalia to female stars of his shows for years circulating on the con circuits in NYC and Boston. I wouldn't be surprised if he exposed himself to Trachtenberg when she was 15, hoping to see if she was interested in his junk. He's such a fucking dirtbag.
Its extreme narcissism. Exposing one self is a symptom of this. Another is wielding of power.
I don't believe these people are victims. They know what they are doing. This is more one narcissist exploiting another. None of the women Weinstien exploited gave back their oscars or the millions they made. And not ONE of these women warned the next woman. That's why I find the claims against Cosby to be bogus. 60 women and not one of these women warned any other woman?The whole entertainment industry is just so disposed to powerful little cliques, isn't it? If you're in a good position you can make or break people by snapping your fingers. So many people are so desperate to get into it, and employment and success can be so precarious that they'll tolerate a huge amount from the powerful, and until recently the powerful (and hell Joss Whedon was just one producer and that was still enough) I guess felt little fear of reprisal.
Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years ago
I don't believe these people are victims. They know what they are doing. This is more one narcissist exploiting another. None of the women Weinstien exploited gave back their oscars or the millions they made. And not ONE of these women warned the next woman. That's why I find the claims against Cosby to be bogus. 60 women and not one of these women warned any other woman?
I think that is a repugnant sentiment, and frankly just bald-facedly ignorant of the psychology of abuse. And I beg your pardon, but how do you know none of them warned anyone else? When systems of power are in place, or are seen to be in place, the whole point is that people feel unable to come forward publicly. Plus, your very reaction is part of the reason why people stay quiet. They're terrified of not being believed, and of potentially ruining their career and getting no justice. Also... give back their Oscars? What the fuck, frankly, are you talking about? "I was abused therefore let me just hand back all my achievements." That makes it seem like you think they 'paid' for their success with what happened to them, and that to demand justice they have to give their success back.Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoIts extreme narcissism. Exposing one self is a symptom of this. Another is wielding of power.
I don't believe these people are victims. They know what they are doing. This is more one narcissist exploiting another. None of the women Weinstien exploited gave back their oscars or the millions they made. And not ONE of these women warned the next woman. That's why I find the claims against Cosby to be bogus. 60 women and not one of these women warned any other woman?The whole entertainment industry is just so disposed to powerful little cliques, isn't it? If you're in a good position you can make or break people by snapping your fingers. So many people are so desperate to get into it, and employment and success can be so precarious that they'll tolerate a huge amount from the powerful, and until recently the powerful (and hell Joss Whedon was just one producer and that was still enough) I guess felt little fear of reprisal.
1. I don't believe they were victims.Maskripper wrote: ↑2 years ago
Wow..... so, when you are a victim to someone you should give back your prizes and earned money?
I've just bought the option on that idea, Maskripper. The 90 year old Peruvian will be played by Eva Mendes and will include a wrap-around framework of her in aged makeup and then go to a flashback for most of the movie with her as a beautiful broccoli farmer in the foothills of Peru who falls in love with Andy Garcia and, well, you get the picture. Tragedy ensues with horrific dental issues in act two!Maskripper wrote: ↑2 years ago
As long she doesn't produce an indie-drama series about a 90-year-old Peruvian grandmother who sits in her mountain hut, baking broccoli pie while she is waiting for the mailman who never shows up to bring her the new teeth she ordered from a catalog back in 1998....it should be a good thing.
Somehow It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't consider someone blatantly victimized to be a victim due to some poppycock explanation or another. Weinstien's actors earning acclaim for their performance through his bullshit doesn't invalidate their achievement, and to indicate that it DOES simply because they were victimized through the process is a whole lotta bullshit.Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoIts extreme narcissism. Exposing one self is a symptom of this. Another is wielding of power.
I don't believe these people are victims. They know what they are doing. This is more one narcissist exploiting another. None of the women Weinstien exploited gave back their oscars or the millions they made. And not ONE of these women warned the next woman. That's why I find the claims against Cosby to be bogus. 60 women and not one of these women warned any other woman?The whole entertainment industry is just so disposed to powerful little cliques, isn't it? If you're in a good position you can make or break people by snapping your fingers. So many people are so desperate to get into it, and employment and success can be so precarious that they'll tolerate a huge amount from the powerful, and until recently the powerful (and hell Joss Whedon was just one producer and that was still enough) I guess felt little fear of reprisal.
I accept women are my equals and they are moral agents and culpable for the choices they make. These women weren't mugged. They knew what they were getting into and were willing to perform sex acts to further their career. If this happened the Henry Cavill would you say he was a victim?Femina wrote: ↑2 years ago
Somehow It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't consider someone blatantly victimized to be a victim due to some poppycock explanation or another. Weinstien's actors earning acclaim for their performance through his bullshit doesn't invalidate their achievement, and to indicate that it DOES simply because they were victimized through the process is a whole lotta bullshit.
YES. Were you not aware that Kevin Spacey's victims were men? It doesn't just happen to women and no-one - except you - is pretending that it is.
Were their careers ruined for saying NO?Damselbinder wrote: ↑2 years agoYES. Were you not aware that Kevin Spacey's victims were men? It doesn't just happen to women and no-one - except you - is pretending that it is.
Yes people view things differently. Its called diversity. And instead of forcing everyone into one collective that imposes one view on all, accept there are different views. So what I see this issue differently. At least I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm some hero "saving the little ladies".
You actually believe you have 28 facets of your character worthy of profiling? Would each part include a trip to the pub and give in-depth analysis of your ales of choice?
No no. Not 28 parts devoted the the same moderator. 28 different moderators. Personally, I think Tally should have wished for 29!DrDominator9 wrote: ↑2 years agoYou actually believe you have 28 facets of your character worthy of profiling? Would each part include a trip to the pub and give in-depth analysis of your ales of choice?
And handsome? By what measure? In a fall off the motorbike and dragged 50 feet on your face kind of way handsome?
Equality has got zip all to do with victimization, crime and punishment. Regardless of age, race, or gender a victim is a victim. It doesn't matter if you see the person you're sexually harassing is your equal, it's still sexual harassment.Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years ago I accept women are my equals and they are moral agents and culpable for the choices they make. These women weren't mugged. They knew what they were getting into and were willing to perform sex acts to further their career. If this happened the Henry Cavill would you say he was a victim?
Probably says something that you're perspective is 'fooling around got the oscar' The Actor got the Oscar by putting in a performance that the Academy deemed prolific enough to award it to them. It's got fuck all to do with who hired them. There's no rhyme or reason in deducing that since she kept the symbol of her occupational excellence as awarded by her peers, that she just has to accept that she's gonna sometimes get fucked by Harvey Weinstein sometimes when he feels like it, HOW he feels like it. It's nonsense.Yes if fooling around got an actress an oscar and a movie role then NO she is not a victim. She could have walked away. And its not assumed walking away means you never win. Plenty of actresses win without doing these things.
Which again, has fuck all to do with punishing abusers for their victimization. Equality is in punishing everyone for the same crimes equally, not in assuming that because we are equals there is no crime.I will not infantalize women. They don't deserve that insulation. They can be just as rotten, diabolical, narcissistic and exploitative as men. Women are equals, not special needs kids.
How about Mira Sorvino, who was essentially blacklisted after turning Weinstein down? Wasn't she a victim? I always wondered what happened to her after her big break and Oscar win and now we know why she largely disappeared from films and never achieved the stardom and took advantage of that Oscar win. Now we know. One wonders how many careers Weinstein torpedoed and derailed because some of these women refused Weinstein's unwanted advances and attention.Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoIts extreme narcissism. Exposing one self is a symptom of this. Another is wielding of power.
I don't believe these people are victims. They know what they are doing. This is more one narcissist exploiting another. None of the women Weinstien exploited gave back their oscars or the millions they made. And not ONE of these women warned the next woman. That's why I find the claims against Cosby to be bogus. 60 women and not one of these women warned any other woman?The whole entertainment industry is just so disposed to powerful little cliques, isn't it? If you're in a good position you can make or break people by snapping your fingers. So many people are so desperate to get into it, and employment and success can be so precarious that they'll tolerate a huge amount from the powerful, and until recently the powerful (and hell Joss Whedon was just one producer and that was still enough) I guess felt little fear of reprisal.
Why is it if someone has a different view than you or does not agree you push them to the most extreme horrific label?
Don't know Bob. conservatives in Hollywood get black listed all the time for example so there are many reasons for black listing. Maybe she said something unacceptable?bushwackerbob wrote:How about Mira Sorvino, who was essentially blacklisted after turning Weinstein down? Wasn't she a victim? I always wondered what happened to her after her big break and Oscar win and now we know why she largely disappeared from films and never achieved the stardom and took advantage of that Oscar win. Now we know. One wonders how many careers Weinstein torpedoed and derailed because some of these women refused Weinstein's unwanted advances and attention.
I am not aware of anything Sorvino may have said in order for her to get blacklisted in the 90's, and conservative actors kind of stand out in stark contrast to the rest of that liberal crowd in Hollywood and I think we would already know if she had conservative leanings. Being a conservative actor to be sure was no walk in the park in the 90's, but it is nothing compared to today when telling folks you have killed a family of five (sarcasm) is preferable to calling oneself a conservative in Hollywood circles in this day and age. Comparing the obvious talent of Mira Sorvino to Tara Reid is like comparing a four course meal at your favorite restaurant to getting a happy meal at McDonald's. Tara Reid had some much publicized substance abuse problems which led to her career stalling at one point as well.Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoWhy is it if someone has a different view than you or does not agree you push them to the most extreme horrific label?
Don't know Bob. conservatives in Hollywood get black listed all the time for example so there are many reasons for black listing. Maybe she said something unacceptable?bushwackerbob wrote:How about Mira Sorvino, who was essentially blacklisted after turning Weinstein down? Wasn't she a victim? I always wondered what happened to her after her big break and Oscar win and now we know why she largely disappeared from films and never achieved the stardom and took advantage of that Oscar win. Now we know. One wonders how many careers Weinstein torpedoed and derailed because some of these women refused Weinstein's unwanted advances and attention.
She turned Weinstein down. If he black listed her then yes I would agree she's a victim. Is Tara Reid a victim?
You didn't actually respond to me so I assume that means you've given up? I've got no context to answer your question with. I don't recall 'labeling' anything in this conversation outside of esoterically notating things. But with what I've got to work with here, I'd encourage you to take your own question and apply it to your own opinion. You appear to have taken the stance that, a person sexually assaulted in the Hollywood sphere A: Doesn't deserve to keep the awards they've earned (or perhaps SHOULDN'T keep them as a form of principle protest?) in the industry if they have actually been sexually assaulted somewhere along the process, B: Are at equal fault with the instigating parties if they don't immediately turn around and report the incident regardless of whatever societal and occupational pressures they may be under and C: That the casting couch is the primary notation of import in the acquisition of any acclaim they acquired along the process. It's not EXTREME to say that appears like 'extreme horrific' bullshit. In fact all of that appears, to me, like 'extreme horrific labeling' of the problem of the Casting Couch... then an attempt to WRITE IT OFF under the label of 'oh er... equality!'
Ouch... I just hope Tera Reid isn't reading this.bushwackerbob wrote: ↑2 years ago Comparing the obvious talent of Mira Sorvino to Tara Reid is like comparing a four course meal at your favorite restaurant to getting a happy meal at McDonald's. Tara Reid had some much publicized substance abuse problems which led to her career stalling at one point as well.
In the case of Spacey (at least in the Mass case) wasn't the person who accused him proven to be lying?Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoWere their careers ruined for saying NO?Damselbinder wrote: ↑2 years agoYES. Were you not aware that Kevin Spacey's victims were men? It doesn't just happen to women and no-one - except you - is pretending that it is.
No. No in fact FIFTEEN people ultimately came out to accuse him... Fifteen MEN, who are traditionally less likely to come out about this sort of thing thanks to the BS culture that likes to shame men for showing any kind of vulnerability, and while most of them didn't peruse any form of legal compensation, their stories all paint a fairly consistant picture of behavior. It's not necessarily the NUMBER of accusations so much as it is the consistency and familiarity of Spacey's behavior throughout these many different statements made by his victims. The one LAWSUIT was dropped because the accuser died... and traditionally death is the end of any legal battles you're involved in... which in my opinion is a shame, since resolution of these sorts of things protects future victims as much as it brings justice to victims of the past.Dazzle1 wrote: ↑2 years agoIn the case of Spacey (at least in the Mass case) wasn't the person who accused him proven to be lying?Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoWere their careers ruined for saying NO?Damselbinder wrote: ↑2 years agoYES. Were you not aware that Kevin Spacey's victims were men? It doesn't just happen to women and no-one - except you - is pretending that it is.
He dropped his lawsuit because he was going to have to testify and he had already been proven a liar. He died after thatFemina wrote: ↑2 years agoNo. No in fact FIFTEEN people ultimately came out to accuse him... Fifteen MEN, who are traditionally less likely to come out about this sort of thing thanks to the BS culture that likes to shame men for showing any kind of vulnerability, and while most of them didn't peruse any form of legal compensation, their stories all paint a fairly consistant picture of behavior. It's not necessarily the NUMBER of accusations so much as it is the consistency and familiarity of Spacey's behavior throughout these many different statements made by his victims. The one LAWSUIT was dropped because the accuser died... and traditionally death is the end of any legal battles you're involved in... which in my opinion is a shame, since resolution of these sorts of things protects future victims as much as it brings justice to victims of the past.Dazzle1 wrote: ↑2 years agoIn the case of Spacey (at least in the Mass case) wasn't the person who accused him proven to be lying?Mr. X wrote: ↑2 years agoWere their careers ruined for saying NO?Damselbinder wrote: ↑2 years agoYES. Were you not aware that Kevin Spacey's victims were men? It doesn't just happen to women and no-one - except you - is pretending that it is.
Legally this statement is false. People remain innocent until proven guilty and that's not likely to ever change. SOCIALLY it can be very different... but that's actually the reality of the first amendment at work. Most people believe the Freedom of Speech allows them to say or do whatever they want without consequence, but that isn't true. Freedom of Speech isn't freedom of consequence, ALL it covers is legality. You're free to say whatever you want, you aren't free of societies ability to ostracize you for it... because everyone else has the freedom to tell you that you're a monster and they want nothing to do with you... which is why nobody should be on Twitter... period.
That's Hobbesian thinking and its fundamentally flawed. It suffers from Hobbes's paradox.
Which is why I followed up the statement with further consideration. I don't believe in anything ABSOLUTELY. I always, always, ALWAYS prefer to look at a thing from multiple angles, consider the circumstances etc. before I come to my own conclusions (though I would like to think I come to no conclusion so completely as to ignore good evidence that refutes it) I can't say that I always SUCCEED at this, cause I'm human, but it is the method I strive toward. Where I CAN'T do that of course, I have more general trends of thought, and I would still consider that generally it's better for people to worry about breaking the law where the question of abuse toward others is concerned than it is for people to feel free to do whatever they want to others, whenever they want.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest
