Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[Peace 47]

Yeah, all we can really go on is what is in the news reports.  If what was reported is accurate, the defense didn’t fail to question this particular juror about his past sexual abuse.  The juror just did not disclose it in the first place.

Anyone who checked the box on their juror questionnaire about being connected to past sexual abuse was subject to additional questioning by both prosecution and defense in the presence of the judge, and then that juror’s answers were sealed to protect their privacy. It was reported that this particular juror had no answers under seal.  Plus, he himself said in his interview he had no recollection of such a question on the questionnaire.  Therefore, it strongly seems to be the case that he was at fault, not counsel on either side.

As I mentioned in a prior post, the one article quoted someone as saying that the Supreme Court’s standard for granting a new trial in these situations is that (1) a juror failed to answer honestly a material question and (2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a “challenge for cause” to this person being sat on the jury. When I first read the articles, I really thought that this test had been met because being a sexual abuse survivor is certainly material (not dispositive, just material), and the defense would have a strong argument that they would have challenged (based on this person’s post-trial interview responses).  There does seem to have been at least one other abuse survivor on the jury, though, (per news reports) who presumably answered the questionnaire truthfully, so it’s not as though every abuse survivor was (or should be) bounced.

[GaT]

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

If the juror was not asked any questions, that's the defense team's fault, isn't it? Why would they challenge the result based on their own failure?

And if the jury followed all the instructions they were given about how to deliberate, then the juror did nothing wrong.

 

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

With regard to an appeal, I'm not 100% sure what you have to do to get one, but I thought you had to have evidence of misconduct or a technical mistake, or maybe new evidence.

So if it's determined that the defense failed to question the juror, and nothing was hidden or lied about in the selection process, that wouldn't give grounds for an appeal. Though, I guess Maxwell could try to claim ineffective counsel.

If the jury was not given proper instructions (or failed to follow them), that might get a mistrial ruling and aid her in getting a new trial. That would be the fault of the judge or the jurors, and not the lawyers.

All the potential jurors in the case were asked in a confidential questionnaire whether they or any relatives or friends had been the victim of sexual abuse or harassment. The juror (or is it jurors?) didn't disclose the fact that they were a victim. The question was asked.

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, GaT said:

 

All the potential jurors in the case were asked in a confidential questionnaire whether they or any relatives or friends had been the victim of sexual abuse or harassment. The juror (or is it jurors?) didn't disclose the fact that they were a victim. The question was asked.

So it sounds like the question now is whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell and her team think its worth the effort to aim for a declaration of mistrial.

[Rootbeer]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

So it sounds like the question now is whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell and her team think its worth the effort to aim for a declaration of mistrial.

Why wouldn't they?  The alternative is to allow her sentencing to proceed and she will be sent to prison. In addition, this seems like a pretty clear cut, rather simple, issue for an appeal.  And the juror handed it to them on a silver platter.  If her goal is to beat the rap, and I think it is, getting a new trial on the charges on which she was convicted is the first step and I would expect that the team will use any means necessary to achieve that.

Remember, Ghislaine is crazy rich, she's got the money to afford to drag this out as long as necessary.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Rootbeer

[merylinkid]

Oh it is totally worth pursuing.   It goes back to another trial where she takes her chances or maybe she finally does cut that deal knowing the likelihood she will be convicted again.   IF she does go to a new trial, the new jury WILL NOT be allowed to be influenced by the previous verdict.   They have to listend and decide ONLY on the evidence presented at the new trial.   IF it comes out they were prejudiced based on the old verdict, we are right back where we are now.

Of course, while all this goes on, declaring a mistrial, setting a new trial, or an appeal, Maxwell is sitting in prison.   She is not getting bail.   Bwahahahahahaahahaha.

[MissAlmond]

I'm surprised anyone is surprised there's people questioning Juror #50's motives considering some are still skeptical on the official cause of Jeffrey Epstein's death. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, GaT said:

 

All the potential jurors in the case were asked in a confidential questionnaire whether they or any relatives or friends had been the victim of sexual abuse or harassment. The juror (or is it jurors?) didn't disclose the fact that they were a victim. The question was asked.

Whether is disclosed it or not isn’t known by the public. The actually questionnaires are sealed and the press only knows that he wasn’t asked follow-up questions. One juror says he doesn’t remember that question but he would have answered honestly. The defense says he didn’t disclose it and the prosecution is asking for an inquiry into what happened. No one will know for certain until it is unsealed. The assumption is that he didn’t disclose it but that can’t be confirmed yet. 

The second juror with a history of sexual abuse has not said how they answered so that one is a complete mystery at the moment. 

[Enero]

10 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

Remember, Ghislaine is crazy rich, she's got the money to afford to drag this out as long as necessary.

I don’t think she’s filthy rich. When her dad died it was learned that he was billions in debt. The family was essentially left broke. From the documentaries I watched on her it was said she was barely making it off the trust fund she was left upon her father’s death and that’s one reason why she hooked up with Epstein because he was very wealthy, and could support the life style that she was accustomed to. I think I read her husband is rich, but don’t know if he’s wealthy. 

Anyway, this issue with the juror is very disappointing. Sometimes I wish these jurors from high profile cases would go home quietly and stay away from the media.  I do not like the idea of her getting another trial. Just like there’s a chance she’ll get convicted again, there’s also a chance she could get off. The latter of which would be infuriating.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Enero

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Enero said:

I don’t think she’s filthy rich. When her dad died it was learned that he was billions in debt. The family was essentially left broke. From the documentaries I watched on her it was said she was barely making it off the trust fund she was left upon her father’s death and that’s one reason why she hooked up with Epstein because he was very wealthy, and could support the life style that she was accustomed to. I think I read her husband is rich, but don’t know if he’s wealthy. 

At her bail hearing prosecutors said that she had over a dozen bank accounts ranging from hundreds of thousands to $20 million. She and Epstein used offshore accounts so she’s probably sitting on a lot of cash. She and her husband offered $22 million at her bail hearing to get house arrest. She may have been broke after her father died but she made a whole lot on money working with Epstein. Epstein’s net worth was over $500 million when he died. There is no way she’s not filthy rich. 

Her husband is a tech millionaire but it was reported last week that he dumped her for another woman before the trial. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Guest

[aradia22]

Quote

IF she does go to a new trial, the new jury WILL NOT be allowed to be influenced by the previous verdict.   They have to listend and decide ONLY on the evidence presented at the new trial.   IF it comes out they were prejudiced based on the old verdict, we are right back where we are now.

How does this work in high profile cases? Not to namecheck anything specific but assuming any of the notorious cases that got this much press coverage were re-tried, I have trouble imagining someone not having heard about it even if you were lucky enough to find twelve people without strong opinions. And twelve people who are that oblivious of current events don't seem like great adjudicators of justice. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by aradia22
added a word

[merylinkid]

6 hours ago, aradia22 said:

How does this work in high profile cases? Not to namecheck anything specific but assuming any of the notorious cases that got this much press coverage were re-tried, I have trouble imagining someone not having heard about it even if you were lucky enough to find twelve people without strong opinions. And twelve people who are that oblivious of current events don't seem like great adjudicators of justice. 

That's exactly how it works.   Either they have never heard of it.   And I bet you there ARE people who haven't heard.   OR they have but have not made up their opinions yet.   I was listening to one pod about this, I think it related to Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos and that question was asked.   They used the Casey Anthony case.   Everyone and their great aunt in South Florida had heard of the case.   So the issue was had they already made up their minds.   The thing is, if someone has not already made up their mind they are awfully how to persuade which is how you get an acquittal like you did in Casey Anthoney's case (along with no cause of death there so pretty hard to prove intentional murder).   Which sounds like its headed for acquittal right?   But Maxwell's case was high profile before the first trial and she was convicted.   So its up to the prosecution to make sure their evidence is even more solid this time around.   Both sides get to present the case just as if it wasn't tried before.   It's not just a repeat of the first trial with the same evidence, in the same order by the same witnesses.   Both sides know the strengths and weaknesses.

[ifionlyknew]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

That's exactly how it works.   Either they have never heard of it.   And I bet you there ARE people who haven't heard.   OR they have but have not made up their opinions yet. 

That is if you take people at their word.  With high profile cases there is more likely going to be people who want to serve on the jury for whatever reason.  And of course you really have no way of knowing that.

Before the internet and especially before social media it was easy to not know about high profile cases. You might knew of the case but  you didn't know a lot of details.  With the Maxwell case this story has been in the news for years. There have been multiple books written about it and a few documentaries.   An unspoiled jury pool would be all but impossible. 

[SusanM]

35 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

There have been multiple books written about it and a few documentaries.   An unspoiled jury pool would be all but impossible. 

My husband would be someone's dream juror then.  I mentioned the Maxwell case to him when she got convicted and got a blank look, same thing with Josh Duggar.  Going further back while of course he knew who Bill Cosby was he had never heard about any of the accusations against him until he was actually on trial.  I think those of us who are a little more plugged in to social media - and who actually watch the news for more than the weather report - sometimes overestimate how much others know or, for that matter care, about these kinds of news stories.

[Zella]

36 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I think those of us who are a little more plugged in to social media - and who actually watch the news for more than the weather report - sometimes overestimate how much others know or, for that matter care, about these kinds of news stories.

Agreed. And it's not just these news stories--it's most news stories. 

[callie lee 29]

On 1/7/2022 at 2:22 PM, Peace 47 said:

 

I can guarantee there are people who haven't heard of this case at least to any serious degree. I know them. They don't follow news and have no social media. They may have heard the name but know nothing about what it means or the background. 

[aradia22]

Sure, like I have a pretty surface level understanding of the Theranos thing. But if for some reason she was retried in a year and I was in the jury pool, I'd still think "probably guilty." And for an even more high profile case, I think it'd be difficult not to have an opinion about Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby unless you were truly living in the middle of nowhere and shunning human contact and any information of current events. 

Also, all my knowledge of Josh Duggar comes from this thread. But as soon as you hear the most basic details, I don't know how you don't start to form an opinion, even if you'd still be capable of weighing the actual evidence. Especially for a retrial, "innocent until proven guilty" feels difficult. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

Sure, like I have a pretty surface level understanding of the Theranos thing. But if for some reason she was retried in a year and I was in the jury pool, I'd still think "probably guilty." And for an even more high profile case, I think it'd be difficult not to have an opinion about Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby unless you were truly living in the middle of nowhere and shunning human contact and any information of current events. 

I generally consider myself aware but I know next to nothing about Theranos. I have an early 20’s family member is in active on social media and pretty aware of social issues who was completely confused when I said something about #MeToo and who only knew the most vague details of Weinstein and Cosby. For plenty of people it is just not something that comes up in their world. 

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

Also, all my knowledge of Josh Duggar comes from this thread. But as soon as you hear the most basic details, I don't know how you don't start to form an opinion, even if you'd still be capable of weighing the actual evidence.

It’s not actually required that jurors are completely unaware or no opinions about the case. Their minds can’t be made up ahead of time and they have to be open to the possibility that the defendant may be guilty or innocent. 

For example, almost all my knowledge of Josh Duggar comes from this thread. I have mild opinions of his family but I didn’t watch the show and really haven’t read enough for me to have a definitive opinion of his guilt or innocence because I haven’t paid that much attention to the actual evidence. For that reason I would be able to be on his jury because I would be open to all of the evidence before I decide on a verdict. That would be true even if he had a retrial. 

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

Especially for a retrial, "innocent until proven guilty" feels difficult. 

For me it’s really the opposite. Voting that someone is criminally guilty is a very high bar that requires a lot more evidence than you can get without really digging into a case. 

[aradia22]

Quote

It’s not actually required that jurors are completely unaware or no opinions about the case. Their minds can’t be made up ahead of time and they have to be open to the possibility that the defendant may be guilty or innocent. 

Well, there goes my reason for getting out of jury duty. (Kidding.) But thanks for explaining. There are definitely cases I know less about that I would be able to judge without bias or where I could at least be objective on which charges someone was guilty of. 

Though I still think people who are engaged in the world would make better jurors. Not like true crime internet sleuths or news obsessives. Just like, people who have seen some headlines and have some general curiosity about the world and interest in being citizens of the community. 

[Zella]

5 hours ago, Dani said:

For that reason I would be able to be on his jury because I would be open to all of the evidence before I decide on a verdict.

Yeah as someone who has been involved with Duggar snark sites for years, I'd have been removed from that jury pool very quickly. LOL 

[Cherpumple]

10 hours ago, Dani said:

I generally consider myself aware but I know next to nothing about Theranos.

This is me with the whole NXIVM cult thing. It was just completely off my radar. As are most big scandals involving famous athletes because I barely follow any sports. There's just so much information swirling around it's impossible to keep up with everything, so everyone has blind spots. Incidentally, I became aware of Theranos about a year ago when YouTube randomly recommended a video about Elizabeth Holmes's bizarre affectations - the deep voice, the intense stare - and I was intrigued enough to click on it.

[merylinkid]

You can be engaged in the world and still honestly answer that you will keep an open mind to decide based on only evidence presented.   People do it all the time.   You have an OPINION on Harvey Weinstein.   But you also know you only know what you read in the papers or heard on the news.   The curiosity to know more means you want to hear all the evidence as laid out to meet the very specific charges.

Jurors aren't just sent back to a room and told "Decide if he is guilty or not."  They are given very specific instructions of actually constitutes guilt and they have to see if the evidence presented at trial meets those instructions.   So you can THINK someone is guilty but if the evidence is not presented to get there, you have to vote not guilty.   That's wht happened in the OJ case.   The prosecutors did not do their job of presenting the evidence.   The jury could not apply the evidence and find a guilty verdict.   The Defense had done enough (the glove was a HUGE mistake by the prosecutors) to raise reasonable doubt.   

All a jury is asked to do is listen to the evidence fairly and apply the evidence to the charge based on the law, not on what they heard about the case before the trial.   It's easier than you think.

[Llywela]

Prince Andrew fails to get US civil case dismissed

[aradia22]

Quote

This is me with the whole NXIVM cult thing. 

It just seemed like it would be terrible for my mental health to dig into that. 

[scarletine]

On 1/12/2022 at 8:45 AM, Llywela said:

Prince Andrew fails to get US civil case dismissed

On top of that...he's now lost all his military titles and patronages, as well as his HRH use. He will be standing trial as a private citizen, and not as a royal. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

[BetterButter]

Ghislaine Maxwell ends fight to keep the names of 8 'John Does' a secret after Virginia Giuffre demands they be made public

[merylinkid]

She is sooooo ready to talk.    She has finally realized that no one is coming to save her from going to jail for a good long time.   Her only hope to get it out all out there.   

Not sure what deal she can cut though.   With Epstein dead, she is the top of the pyramid.   So she tells about all the men who used the girls?   Who supplied those girls?   The guys flipping on her would make more sense to get to the top of the pyramid.   But her flipping on them is moving down the scale.   

Those 8 men are VERY NERVOUS right now.    There have been a lot of phone calls to a lot of very expensive lawyers.

[orza]

It could just be about money. The article states that those John Does all have legal representation who are working to keep their names private so why should Maxwell spend any more money on the matter.

Quote

 

Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre, who have accused Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein of sex trafficking, have asked a judge to unseal material from an earlier civil lawsuit she filed against Maxwell.

The lawsuit was settled in 2017, but Giuffre has fought for years to have material from it unsealed. The "John Does" all appear to be people who have stepped into the litigation over the years and asserted privacy rights for parts of the sealed material.

 

I didn't know that Maxwell had settled a lawsuit with Giuffe, i.e., paid her money to drop her suit. I'm not sure what to make of Virginia Giuffre. I'm gonna assume that she wants the names of the John Does revealed so she can file lawsuits and hopefully settle them, too.

In general, I don't support the notion of pursuing civil suits for criminal acts. Those cases belong in the criminal justice system where the burden of proof is higher. Regardless of what plaintiffs say about wanting justice or healing or closure, in the end civil suits are about money.

In the case of Giuffe, I'm having a hard time seeing how devoting so many years of her life pursuing lawsuits is a healing experience. It does seem that it is all about the money for her.

 

[merylinkid]

A private citizen can't force a DA to file a criminal case.   They can bring the allegations of a crime to police but it is ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide to pursue.   If they don't, there is nothing the victim can do criminally.

A civil suit is what a private citizen can do on their own.   yes, the only damages are money but its the only avenue open to them.   

Giuffre did not settle a suit with Maxwell, Maxwell was specifically covered under the deal with Epstein.   

[Guest]

3 hours ago, orza said:

In the case of Giuffe, I'm having a hard time seeing how devoting so many years of her life pursuing lawsuits is a healing experience. It does seem that it is all about the money for her.

What is healing is going to be different for every person. Or she may be more concerned with vengeance. There are a lot of possible reasons other than money.

Although, if she is just after the money I’m certainly not going to criticize her for it after everything she’s suffered at the hands of rich and powerful men. 

3 hours ago, orza said:

In general, I don't support the notion of pursuing civil suits for criminal acts. Those cases belong in the criminal justice system where the burden of proof is higher. Regardless of what plaintiffs say about wanting justice or healing or closure, in the end civil suits are about money.

So what? Seriously, why is it wrong for victims to want some financial compensation for the damages willfully inflicted on their lives? Since civil trials won’t result in the defendant being in jail I have zero issue with the standard of proof not as high. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Guest

[Blergh]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

She is sooooo ready to talk.    She has finally realized that no one is coming to save her from going to jail for a good long time.   Her only hope to get it out all out there.   

Not sure what deal she can cut though.   With Epstein dead, she is the top of the pyramid.   So she tells about all the men who used the girls?   Who supplied those girls?   The guys flipping on her would make more sense to get to the top of the pyramid.   But her flipping on them is moving down the scale.   

Those 8 men are VERY NERVOUS right now.    There have been a lot of phone calls to a lot of very expensive lawyers.

I'll bet that there are a  lot MORE onetime clients out there telling their wives that they've suddenly had to leave town on 'company business' because they each individually believe that they COULD be one of the Epstein Eight! 

[ifionlyknew]

I figured she would be willing to talk at some point.  Staying silent doesn't get her anything but talking might get her a lighter sentence.

She might be at the top of the pyramid but I think there is plenty of reasons to go after men who were provided girls by Epstein and Maxwell not least of which might be they are still engaging in those crimes.

Edited January 17, 2022 by ifionlyknew
The word not is important

[possibilities]

If some of the people she provided services to are prominent, powerful folks, Maxwell being at the top of the trafficking pyramid would not mean there is no one she can flip on. It would mean there are a lot of people she could name, that prosecutors might be interested in.

Our system of criminal justice does nothing in the way of reparations or victim compensation, so civil suits are the only way that victims can receive anything to deal with the harm they've had perpetrated on them. And money is the only kind of restitution available. What else can they even ask for? No one is going to give them free therapy or set up any other services. The only route available is a civil suit with money awarded, which can be used to do things to heal. 

[scarynikki12]

9 hours ago, possibilities said:

Our system of criminal justice does nothing in the way of reparations or victim compensation, so civil suits are the only way that victims can receive anything to deal with the harm they've had perpetrated on them. And money is the only kind of restitution available. What else can they even ask for? No one is going to give them free therapy or set up any other services. The only route available is a civil suit with money awarded, which can be used to do things to heal. 

And for a lot of predators losing some of their money matters way more. If that's they only way they can actually be given some kind of punishment for the crimes they committed then I say have at it.

[Luckylyn]

 More stories about Family Vloggers.  
8 Passengers punished their two youngest kids by not giving them Christmas gifts but only giving the older kids gifts. Making a public display of punishing your kids makes me uncomfortable.  I’m not opposed to kids having consequences for poor behavior but monetizing it is messed up.  I could imagine these kids getting made fun of at schools because of their parents filming things.

I can’t imagine responding to my child’s bleeding and crying by putting a camera in their face.

Some sort of regulation should be happening for these channels.

[SVNBob]

7 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

Some sort of regulation should be happening for these channels.

There sort of is, which led to a different kind of bad incident, but may have prevented others like above.

In 2018, there was a married "influencer" couple who were "documenting" the process of adopting a baby from Thailand.  When they were told that the baby couldn't appear on YouTube or any social media for a year (when the adoption would be finalized), they cancelled the process.  They then tried to adopt from South Korea, but were told they would not easily be approved due to their social media presence, so they ended that process too.

[Luckylyn]

12 minutes ago, SVNBob said:

There sort of is, which led to a different kind of bad incident, but may have prevented others like above.

In 2018, there was a married "influencer" couple who were "documenting" the process of adopting a baby from Thailand.  When they were told that the baby couldn't appear on YouTube or any social media for a year (when the adoption would be finalized), they cancelled the process.  They then tried to adopt from South Korea, but were told they would not easily be approved due to their social media presence, so they ended that process too.

I found a video about that

 

[Spartan Girl]

What Joss Whedon Has to Say For Himself

Couldn’t find the whole New York Magazine profile piece, but the excerpts I saw sent me into several rage strokes. Dismissing Ray Fisher’s accusations because he’s “a bad actor”?! Claiming that Gal Gadot “misunderstood” because “English isn’t her first language”?! FUCK YOU!!!!

And if you think that’s bad, here’s this little gem:

Fuck you, Joss Whedon, you fucking phony beta-male piece of shit!

Edited January 17, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Luckylyn]

4 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

What Joss Whedon Has to Say For Himself

Couldn’t find the whole New York Magazine profile piece, but the excerpts I saw sent me into several rage strokes. Dismissing Ray Fisher’s accusations because he’s “a bad actor”?! Claiming that Gal Gadot “misunderstood” because “English isn’t her first language”?! FUCK YOU!!!!

And if you think that’s bad, here’s this little gem:

Fuck you, Joss Whedon, you fucking phony beta-male piece of shit!

Wow he just makes it even worse.  He isn’t self aware and willing to learn.  Nothing is his fault. 

[ifionlyknew]

22 minutes ago, SVNBob said:

There sort of is, which led to a different kind of bad incident, but may have prevented others like above.

In 2018, there was a married "influencer" couple who were "documenting" the process of adopting a baby from Thailand.  When they were told that the baby couldn't appear on YouTube or any social media for a year (when the adoption would be finalized), they cancelled the process.  They then tried to adopt from South Korea, but were told they would not easily be approved due to their social media presence, so they ended that process too.

Some people should not be parents.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

What Joss Whedon Has to Say For Himself

Couldn’t find the whole New York Magazine profile piece, but the excerpts I saw sent me into several rage strokes. Dismissing Ray Fisher’s accusations because he’s “a bad actor”?! Claiming that Gal Gadot “misunderstood” because “English isn’t her first language”?! FUCK YOU!!!!

And if you think that’s bad, here’s this little gem:

Fuck you, Joss Whedon, you fucking phony beta-male piece of shit!

Vulture has published the whole article online. 
The Undoing of Joss Whedon

It’s actually mind blowing to me that he agreed to be interviewed for his own expose. According to him, everything is a misunderstanding or a lie. 

[Spartan Girl]

22 minutes ago, Dani said:

Vulture has published the whole article online. 
The Undoing of Joss Whedon

It’s actually mind blowing to me that he agreed to be interviewed for his own expose. According to him, everything is a misunderstanding or a lie. 

Thanks.

The audacity of this asshole to compare himself to a tragic Shakespeare villain made me want to vomit. And the part at the end where he argues that he was “too nice.” TOO NICE. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

And for the article to act like he was the sole person responsible for Buffy’s success is just…vomit. Buffy, flawed that it ultimately was, had a lot of people working behind the scenes that deserve credit, not just him. Which is why I don’t begrudge the fans that still love the show, despite everything. It’s not MY cup of tea anymore (not just because of Whedon), but I don’t want to ruin it for anyone else. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: Joss Whedon

He was afraid that if he didn't have affairs with those hot young actresses, he'd "always regret it"?

Listen, you fake feminist pile of sludge, girls and women are not bucket list experiences like mountain climbing or sky diving, they're human beings. I'd say Joss should be more concerned with regretting being an abusive, hypocritical coward... but that's giving him way too much credit. Men like him aren't capable of regret, because that implies they have self-awareness and some semblance of a conscience. Joss will no doubt whine and mewl about how none of this was his fault until the bitter end.

Oh, and Joss? Even if you want to use the "language barrier" excuse in regards to Gal Gadot*... actions speak louder than words, asshole. Did you raise your voice at her? Were you glaring red-faced at her? Did you corner her, raise your hand to her, or demonstrate any kind of body language that could clearly be construed as deliberately intimidating? You don't need to speak the same language to understand when you're being threatened!

*For the record, I'm calling 100% bullshit on this claim. 

 

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

And the part at the end where he argues that he was “too nice.” TOO NICE. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

As the late, great Stephen Sondheim said, "Nice is different than good".

That said, I refuse to believe Joss is even capable of being "nice".

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

And if you think that’s bad, here’s this little gem:

 

Pretty sure my eyes just rolled out of my head altogether after reading this. Oh, please. Get the hell over yourself, dude. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Annber03

[Mabinogia]

Does Joss not realize he just used the basic excuse of most racists. "I had to sleep with her, she was hot and in my vicinity"? I really didn't think I could hate him any more than I did. points to him, he totally proved me wrong. 

For me Buffy (the show) worked because of the cast. They just worked so well together and inhabited their characters so perfectly. He also made Buffy the movie and that sucked balls. 

[Lugal]

A Shakespeare villain?  You can't say that Whedon doesn't have an inflated ego.  I was never really in the Cult of Whedon.  Buffy never really appealed to me and I never watched Angel (I didn't hate or avoid either show, but just didn't make it a point to seek out and watch them).  I did like Firefly, and I've explained why before.  Despite doing "work on himself", it still sounds like typical Whedon: Nothing is ever his fault.  See his comments on Alien 3 and Storm's Toad line in X-men.

Joss Whedon seems to have a lot of "poor little rich kid syndrome" going on.  Not downplaying his childhood, it sounds like a horrible house to grow up in, but that doesn't excuse shit when you're a grown man.  Despite that, he grew up privileged (going to boarding school in England for example) and let's separate privilege and power.  He had actual power on the sets of the shows he ran.  Now he's lost both and for the first time in his life he actually has to face the consequences of his actions.

We all have regrets, I regret not pursuing certain women in my life.  But, even with those women, I was not A) married or involved at the time and B) in a position of power over them.  You make choices, commitments and it closes off certain doors.  It's telling that he can be nearly 60 before learning that life lesson.

33 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

For me Buffy (the show) worked because of the cast. They just worked so well together and inhabited their characters so perfectly. He also made Buffy the movie and that sucked balls.

As I understand it, he didn't have much to do with the Buffy Movie other than selling the script and would complain about how much was changed.  Again, showing the privilege, he got a chance to redo it as a TV series, something few other writers ever get.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

Whedon says he cut down Cyborg’s role for two reasons. The story line “logically made no sense,”

I am not familiar with the movie in question but this really funny coming from the guy who gave us entire seasons of Buffy and Angel that made practically no sense and whose writing method has always been basically flying by the seat of his pants.

Quote

I couldn’t shut up because I finally found somebody I found more important than me.”

Press X to doubt.

I am not surprised Whedon is digging himself deeper with his side of the story. He is obviously one of those people who never know when to shut up and always see themselves as victims when things go wrong. Kind of like some of his characters, like Spike or Anya.

[Browncoat]

I still like Firefly, but it might be time to change my screen name here.

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Does Joss not realize he just used the basic excuse of most racists. "I had to sleep with her, she was hot and in my vicinity"? I really didn't think I could hate him any more than I did. points to him, he totally proved me wrong. 

The other excuse that surprised me was when he talked about how any inappropriate behavior when Buffy first started was because he was so young, when he was 31. If you make it to 31 and haven't figured out how to behave in a professional setting maybe it is just because you are an asshole.

2 hours ago, Lugal said:

As I understand it, he didn't have much to do with the Buffy Movie other than selling the script and would complain about how much was changed.  Again, showing the privilege, he got a chance to redo it as a TV series, something few other writers ever get.

Few people who call themselves writers probably actually ever sell their scripts, and even fewer get them actually produced.

2 hours ago, Lugal said:

Despite doing "work on himself", it still sounds like typical Whedon: Nothing is ever his fault.  See his comments on Alien 3 and Storm's Toad line in X-men.

I remember all those excuses, for pretty much anything he made that wasn't successful, see also: Dollhouse, Firefly, the Buffy movie. It's never because what he made actually wasn't very good. The Alien one always stands out for me since he said something about how even the cast was bad. I hardly remember watching that movie, but I remember it being bad. But looking at who was in it, it has a pretty awesome cast.

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, Lugal said:

A Shakespeare villain?  You can't say that Whedon doesn't have an inflated ego.  I was never really in the Cult of Whedon.  Buffy never really appealed to me and I never watched Angel (I didn't hate or avoid either show, but just didn't make it a point to seek out and watch them).  I did like Firefly, and I've explained why before.  Despite doing "work on himself", it still sounds like typical Whedon: Nothing is ever his fault.  See his comments on Alien 3 and Storm's Toad line in X-men.

It is horrifically telling that Joss Whedon relates to, and sympathizes with, Richard III. 

As for the infamous "toad" line from X-Men, Whedon blamed Halle Berry's line reading, claiming she read it too seriously.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit, buddy.

Regardless of anyone's opinions of Ms. Berry's acting abilities, the line is objectively stupid and just plain bad. You could combine the dramatic gifts of the greatest actresses who ever lived, and that dumbass line still would have fallen flat. 

Sorry, that was barely relevant to the discussion, but I had to get it off my chest.

 

[DearEvette]

My lord that entire article was eye roll worthy from start to finish.

Quote

"Whedon said he could no longer remain silent as people tried to pry his legacy from his hands. But there was a problem. Those people had set out to destroy him  and would surely seize on his every utterance in an attempt to finish the job."

Quote

"He admired strong women like his mother, yet he’d discovered he was capable of hurting them, “usually by sleeping with them and ghosting or whatever.”

Quote

"He had felt he “had” to sleep with them, that he was “powerless” to resist. I laughed. “I’m not actually joking,” he said. He had been surrounded by beautiful young women — the sort of women who had ignored him when he was younger — and he feared if he didn’t have sex with them, he would “always regret it.”

Yeah the article is summed up as:

1) I blame my mother

2)No, no, I didn't say that. You misunderstood my meaning and tone.

3)I am sorry but young pussy, amirite?

I think the article did a good job of really neutralizing him when it comes to his sexism and misogyny but missed the boat on when addressing some of the problematic areas with race. 

He makes and excuses and is apologetic toward the women, but his comments on Ray Fisher went largely unchallenged and seemingly gave him a platform to continue to gaslight him.  Calling him a 'bad actor' and saying the audiences hated him.  Well of course the audience didn't like him in your cut since by all accounts you gutted the character's storyline and made odd narrative choices for him and treated the actor poorly.  How the hell are you going to get a good performance out of him if you show such disdain?  And then to repeat weird conspiracy theories that he was a Snyder plant there solely to sow seeds of discontent?  Wow.  And the author of the piece just let that sit there with no follow up.