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

[Blergh]

The MOST important concept  that we individually (and the authorities) need to do is to hear out and carefully listen to EACH claim and all the involved parties'  while evaluating every bit of physical and verbal evidence- and NOT flinch or drop the ball . . doing our best to use rationality and sheer logic while making a concerted effort to disregard any sentimentality or prejudice re what one may prefer to believe about any of the parties!

Yes, I admit that the above concept is a VERY tough order- especially considering how lives can get drastically changed with emotions stirred to a fever pitch!

But rational fairness  (however seemingly fleeting or out of reach )is the best way to maintain hope in the face of chaos.

[Makai]

4 hours ago, Blergh said:

The MOST important concept  that we individually (and the authorities) need to do is to hear out and carefully listen to EACH claim and all the involved parties'  while evaluating every bit of physical and verbal evidence- and NOT flinch or drop the ball . . doing our best to use rationality and sheer logic while making a concerted effort to disregard any sentimentality or prejudice re what one may prefer to believe about any of the parties!

I really can’t agree when it comes to the general public. We generally aren’t going to see every bit of evidence and aren’t entitled to every bit of evidence. Even juries don’t see every bit of physical and verbal evidence. There are a lot of reasons why that is a nearly impossible standard. One of the biggest is that lack of consent is generally not a measurable or provable thing. It involves the state of mind of the person and can change in a second. Two people could watch an sexual assault and have completely different opinions on if the assault took place. I am a big proponent of affirmative consent and in absence of that I am inclined to believe an accuser when they say they didn’t consent. 

[Spartan Girl]

Ricky Martin's nephew withdraws accusation

It sounds like maybe we did jump the gun on this one. At least that's what I'm hoping because the accusation was so heinous. 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I will always wonder exactly what went on there. 

[SunnyBeBe]

4 hours ago, Superclam said:

I will always wonder exactly what went on there. 

It is perplexing.  I was just trying to envision Martin walking around outside the nephew’s apartment for weeks……idk.  Wouldn’t there be video?  I wonder what their background is.  Has nephew made false accusations before?  Does he suffer with delusions?  

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Ricky Martin's nephew withdraws accusation

It sounds like maybe we did jump the gun on this one. At least that's what I'm hoping because the accusation was so heinous. 

I blame it on the instant crucifixation via social media. With cesspools like Twitter, it's "GUILTY!" whenever stories like these first come out, without, you know, waiting for the investigation to pan out. 

The law should just be changed to guilty until proven innocent, since there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in the world of public opinion and social media infecting every part or our lives.

[Spartan Girl]

It’s really troubling given the stigma the LGBTQ community is STILL going through these days, having to endure accusations of grooming, etc. 

Apparently, the nephew has a history of troubled behavior. Even his own dad called him out on it. It all reminds me of that SVU episode where Billy Porter got railroaded by false accusations, and none of the squad except Rollins believed him until the damage was done. In any case, I’m glad this got cleared up before it went on too long.

[Irlandesa]

Some people did jump all over him.  But there were some strange things about the accusation too.  If nothing else comes out about Ricky Martin, I think this will just be a blip.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Some people did jump all over him.  But there were some strange things about the accusation too.  If nothing else comes out about Ricky Martin, I think this will just be a blip.

I wonder if/how this was connected to the lawsuit from his former manager. Is this the allegation the manager said could end Martin’s career or is there another explosive allegation involved?

[Guest]

On 7/16/2022 at 1:14 AM, Jaded said:

When people are asked to cite false accusations they usually mention the few that were publicized so much that coverage of them was run into the ground. With them being in the news so much while going on they seemed to stand out in peoples minds more then actual sexual assault cases that occur. Instead of sympathy being shown towards survivors some people decide to bring up those few over publicized false accusations instead. 

I will admit that Ricky Martin's name isn't one I thought I'd see get named in this thread the way it has. It serves as a reminder that you never really know about people.

I hearby cite the false accusation of Ricky Martin in response to the accusations against Ricky Martin.

I wish more people took this approach

On 7/16/2022 at 8:10 AM, Blergh said:

The MOST important concept  that we individually (and the authorities) need to do is to hear out and carefully listen to EACH claim and all the involved parties'  while evaluating every bit of physical and verbal evidence- and NOT flinch or drop the ball . . doing our best to use rationality and sheer logic while making a concerted effort to disregard any sentimentality or prejudice re what one may prefer to believe about any of the parties!

Edited July 22, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[Blergh]

Either the nephew is a troubled person who attempted to extort money via concocting claims  about his wealthy uncle and somehow convinced at least one other uncle to back him up until the nephew saw the light and decided entirely on his own to recant said claims OR Ricky Martin DID what the nephew originally claimed and after said claims were made public record with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico threatening to imprison Mr. Martin for 50 years due to its strict laws against incest, Mr. Martin and/or other members of the extended family pressured the nephew to perjure himself in order to save the family's cash cow from being stockaded for a half century!

It's hard to imagine that it's not one of the above scenarios but I truly have no idea which of these it could be.

Either way, it sounds as though there are members of the extended Martin family with serious issues that could impact innocent members whose pleas for help could wind up being ignored in the aftermath.

IOW, NO ONE even came close to 'winning' this contest and its a sad day for that family no matter which of these scenarios one may believe.

[bluegirl147]

14 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I blame it on the instant crucifixation via social media. With cesspools like Twitter, it's "GUILTY!" whenever stories like these first come out, without, you know, waiting for the investigation to pan out. 

The law should just be changed to guilty until proven innocent, since there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in the world of public opinion and social media infecting every part or our lives.

I couldn't agree more.  A false allegation can destroy a person's life even once the accusation is disproved.  Ricky Martin will probably be fine but there will be people who use this as away to disparage the LGTBQ community as @Spartan Girl said.  

[Guest]

I was just listening to a podcast from a couple weeks ago where Terry Crews was talking about #MeToo, why he came foward about being groped at a Hollywood party, and Ari Emmanuel and his agencies handling and behavior of that situation which led to a lawsuit. 

What a bunch of hypocritical scumbags.

I know, old news.  But I had never heard what went beyond behind the scenes with that.  Actually, a bit of perusing of articles and wikipedia seems like there was some protecting of movers and shakers in Hollywood with the reporting of that, as usual.

[Hiyo]

Good thing there are people still willing to come forward and share their stories regardless.

[Spartan Girl]

The Take just posted this interesting video:

[BetterButter]

Mystikal has been arrested in Louisiana and charged with multiple crimes including rape, domestic violence and false imprisonment.  

Quote

On Sunday (July 31), Mystikal was arrested in Ascension Parish, La. and charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, according to police records obtained by XXL. The arrest is in connection to an alleged incident that occurred the prior day, July 30. 
 

[RealHousewife]

^ Sadly, not surprised. Mystikal sounds like such a monster. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

I heard that the Batgirl movie is being cancelled.

I said that Warner Brothers should cancel The Flash movie because of all of Ezra Miller's controversies and the response was oh absolutely not, they can't do that.  But Batgirl can be cancelled?

Edited August 3, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I heard that the Batgirl movie is being cancelled.

I said that Warner Brothers should cancel The Flash movie because of all of Ezra Miller's controversies and the response was oh absolutely not, they can't do that.  But Batgirl can be cancelled?

I think canceling Batgirl while not canceling The Flash is a bad decision but the two movies are not all that comparable from a business standpoint. Batgirl cost $80-90 million and The Flash cost $200 million.  Batgirl was a streaming movie and The Flash is a theatrical release. The Flash is a tentpole that was going to setup the future of DC entire cinematic universe and Batgirl was a minor part of that extended universe. 

I am absolutely baffled by their decision to shelve a nearly completed movie but it’s not the same as shelving The Flash. Canceling Batgirl is a sign that Discovery is massively restructuring and refocusing DC. Canceling The Flash would be on a whole different level. 

Having said all of that with this news today all bets are off. Although this is such a bad move from a PR standpoint that it’s probably safe to say Flash isn’t going to be canceled. If they were going to do the morally right thing there would be no reason to let this story release first. 

[MissAlmond]

7 hours ago, Dani said:

Batgirl was a streaming movie and The Flash is a theatrical release.

Yep. The reason given at the moment (because things change) there's been a change of leadership at Warners-Discovery. The new bosses greatly opposed the previous one's strategy of leaning hard into streaming. They want Warner's to focus again on theatrical releases. Apparently this has been brewing ever since the old regime released the studio’s entire 2021 theatrical slate simultaneously on HBOMAX.

https://deadline.com/2022/08/batgirl-scoob-discard-warnerbros-discovery-david-zaslav-jason-kilar-hbo-max-strategy-1235084032/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batgirl-shelved-at-warner-bros-hbo-max-1235191371/

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/batgirl-movie-why-not-releasing-warner-bros-1235332062/

7 hours ago, Dani said:

I am absolutely baffled by their decision to shelve a nearly completed movie

The explanation according to the Deadline article . . . 

Quote

But there were reasons for the move. In both cases, the filmmakers were told that it came down to a “purchase accounting” maneuver available to Warner Discovery because the company has changed hands, and also changed strategy from the previous regime. This opportunity expires in mid-August, said sources, and it allows Warner Bros Discovery to not have to carry the losses on its books at a time when the studio is trying to pare down $3 billion in debt across its divisions.

and Variety:

Quote

In other words, the movie was nearly finished, and already building awareness among fans. Why would Warner Bros. Discovery throw all that away? According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the most likely reason: taxes.

Never forget it's called show business folks. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

The explanation according to the Deadline article . . . 

Okay. Purchase accounting is the first explanation I’ve seen that makes sense. I hadn’t considered that. 

It also makes it a near certainty they are not shelving The Flash since now would be the time to do to minimize the loss. 

[MissAlmond]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

It also makes it a near certainty they are not shelving The Flash since now would be the time to do to minimize the loss. 

It's becoming obvious this is really about Getting Rid of HBOMAX. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Vermicious Knid]

They also shut down a whole bunch of shows on TNT and TBS, so not just MAX. They are looking to save $3 billion and can take write offs for many of these.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Dani said:

Okay. Purchase accounting is the first explanation I’ve seen that makes sense. I hadn’t considered that. 

It also makes it a near certainty they are not shelving The Flash since now would be the time to do to minimize the loss. 

I don't disbelieve the refocus on theatrical releases and purchase accounting as a reason but I think the Flash is one of the reasons for the cancellation that they will not admit to.

I don't think the will shelve the Flash but I think they will be overhauling it pretty extensively at a minimum. 

We know that they are reshooting on Aquaman 2 with the admitted reason being that they needed to swap Batmans because it didn't make sense now that Aquaman 2 releases before The Flash due to EM.  But how much does a June (Flash) vs March(Aquaman) date really help minimize the problems with Miller if they aren't going to do anything with the movie.  Not much.  So reversing the orders and reshooting parts of Aquaman points to adjusting something with The Flash. 

And that is also true of Batgirl.  The Flash was supposed to set up and lead directly into Batgirl on HBOMax.  So that makes it more complex to do damage control with The Flash if they have to worry about how it ties into Batgirl, expecially if the worry is EM Flash being tied to this Batgirl movie damages the potential of the Batgirl IP or how they monetize Keaton's return.  Because they just cancelled a movie that Michael Keaton was reprising Batman in (and cut hime out of another). This makes no sense in a post Spiderman No Way Home World.

But maybe there was enough Aquaman and Batgirl in the Flash that cutting that along with some reshoots allow them to do something about the movie.  Like relegate EM to the background and put Keaton more front and center or introduce a brand new Flash, etc.

I suspect that this decision was made for other reasons and the accounting/strategy pushed it into the justifiable side of the column.

[MissAlmond]

18 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I suspect that this decision was made for other reasons and the accounting/strategy pushed it into the justifiable side of the column.

Warner-Discovery has tons of debt. The new regime hates the decisions of the old regime. Other HBOMAX scripted shows have been quietly shelved, while the unscripted CNN Originals was just picked up. Rumors are rife serious layoffs are about hit HBOMAX staff.  So my belief is the opposite is true:  Accounting/strategy is indeed the reason they've axed Batgirl with The Flash/Erza Miller situation being the cherry on top.

Edited August 4, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Vermicious Knid]

Kevin Spacey ordered to pay $31M
 

Quote

Kevin Spacey has lost his bid to overturn a $31 million arbitration award he was ordered to pay House of Cards producer MRC for sexual misconduct involving young crew members behind the scenes of the Netflix series.

Spacey was dropped from the Netflix series during its sixth season after allegations surfaced that he preyed on young men. The dispute was sent to arbitration, where an arbitrator found that the actor breached his contract by violating anti-harassment policies and failing to provide services “in a professional manner.” The arbitrator also found that Spacey wasn’t entitled to be paid for the remainder of his contract, even though it contained a pay-or-play provision, and that his breaches caused the show’s sixth season to be shortened and rewritten and cost MRC eight-figures in costs and lost revenue....

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mel Red Recana on Thursday confirmed the award, adopting a tentative ruling after hearing oral arguments.

“The Arbitrator’s conclusion that Respondents’ breach caused the aforesaid damages is a factual finding which the court generally cannot review for error,” Recana explains in the ruling, which is posted below. “Further, the court cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the arbitration award. A three- arbitrator panel also affirmed the Arbitrator’s Final Award in proceedings under the JAMS Optional Arbitration Appeal Procedure.”

[Kel Varnsen]

Wow, does Kevin Spacey even have $31 million? Or is this going to be a case where money is taken off his salary for the rest of his life for what ever crappy d list movie production will hire him.

[MissAlmond]

55 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Wow, does Kevin Spacey even have $31 million?

I was about to ask the same question. I know Spacey was also an executive producer, but from his IMDB page, I doubt many of those films provided that sort of payoff. Oh well. 

[Cinnabon]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Wow, does Kevin Spacey even have $31 million? Or is this going to be a case where money is taken off his salary for the rest of his life for what ever crappy d list movie production will hire him.

He’s been in a lot of big movies over the years. A shame he’s a predator because he’s also a great actor. His victims will get nice payouts.

[Kel Varnsen]

5 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

He’s been in a lot of big movies over the years. A shame he’s a predator because he’s also a great actor. His victims will get nice payouts.

He has been in a lot of big movies, but most of the big ones people know him for, didn't really have huge budgets. LA Confidential ($35M), Seven ($33M) and American Beauty ($15M). Other than Superman Returns I am not sure he has done much that would have had a huge payday. I mean he has been working since the 80's so I guess if he invested his money wisely he might have $31 million he can pay, I was just surprised.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

I was about to ask the same question. I know Spacey was also an executive producer, but from his IMDB page, I doubt many of those films provided that sort of payoff. Oh well. 

They may not but five seasons of House of Cards would. In one of the early season it was reported that he was making 500,000 an episode. Based on estimates what he made on the show is close to what he has to pay for misconduct on the show. Seems fitting. 

[Notabug]

10 minutes ago, Dani said:

They may not but five seasons of House of Cards would. In one of the early season it was reported that he was making 500,000 an episode. Based on estimates what he made on the show is close to what he has to pay for misconduct on the show. Seems fitting. 

As part of the arbitration process, I would expect that Spacey was required to provide financial information to the arbitrator to help determine the penalty if he was found liable.  Also, since this particular misconduct occurred in conjunction with his employment on House of Cards, I am sure the production company divulged how much Spacy was paid to act in the series and it was undoubtedly in the neighborhood of 31 mil.

From what I can find, Spacey appeared on 65 episodes.  Presuming he was getting half a million per episode, that adds up to a sum very close to what he was penalized.  

[BetterButter]

Jennette McCurdy alleges predatory treatment at iCarly from male figure she calls "The Creator"

Quote

In her new memoir, Jennette McCurdy alleges Nickelodeon offered her hush money in exchange for staying silent about her experiences with the unnamed figure

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BetterButter said:

Jennette McCurdy alleges predatory treatment at iCarly from male figure she calls "The Creator"

There’s no chance she’s not talking about Dan Schneider. 
https://www.looper.com/618303/the-dan-schneider-controversy-explained/

[Trini]

McCurdy's Washington Post interview: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/08/05/jennette-mccurdy-memoir-interview/

Quote

The former ‘iCarly’ actress opens up about her abusive mother, struggles with eating disorders and her Nickelodeon child star past in her memoir, ‘I’m Glad My Mom Died’.

[MissAlmond]

Quote

"For years, Schneider had been under a cloud of suspicion over the treatment of some younger stars of his shows. Among the things that have raised eyebrows are his tweeted photos of the toes of his young female stars." 

What.The.Hell.

Edited August 5, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Blergh]

Not only have I never understood why Nickelodeon stuck with Mr. Schneider for SO long despite his rather blatantly creepy behavior towards their performers, but I never got why, in the first place, they considered hiring  someone in that position who'd ONLY been known as a supporting player on a late 80's early 90's sitcom (Head of the Class).

Miss McCurdy's late female DNA donor sure appears as though she'd have made Judy Garland's exploitative female DNA Donor (Ethel Gumm) look like a parent of the year!

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Blergh said:

but I never got why, in the first place, they considered hiring  someone in that position who'd ONLY been known as a supporting player on a late 80's early 90's sitcom (Head of the Class).

I don’t understand why that part would be surprising. Acting or being well known isn’t a prerequisite for being a producer. He is a despicable human being but he also created some of their most popular show.

Under normal circumstances hiring a former child star to create shows for a network that primarily works with child actors should have been a good thing. 

The director of WandaVision was also a supporting player on a late 80’s sitcom and by out accounts it helped him to create a great environment for the child actors. 

[SVNBob]

10 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

"For years, Schneider had been under a cloud of suspicion over the treatment of some younger stars of his shows. Among the things that have raised eyebrows are his tweeted photos of the toes of his young female stars." 

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but when Jaime Spears became pregnant during the filming of her Nickelodeon show Zoey 101, when she was 15 or so, weren't there rumors that Schneider was the father?

Or was that a speculation I jumped to back then based on the other stories of his questionable behavior?

[Blergh]

9 hours ago, Dani said:

I don’t understand why that part would be surprising. Acting or being well known isn’t a prerequisite for being a producer. He is a despicable human being but he also created some of their most popular show.

Under normal circumstances hiring a former child star to create shows for a network that primarily works with child actors should have been a good thing. 

The director of WandaVision was also a supporting player on a late 80’s sitcom and by out accounts it helped him to create a great environment for the child actors. 

Not to belabor this, but I would have thought a network would have opted to have hired someone who had had experience in  actually producing something (even if it had been a  local 5 station's 5 AM farm report or  traffic alert ) instead of having been a supporting performer.

Regardless, it seems as though Mr. Schneider made little if any effort to hide his creepiness towards the network's performers from Day One, so why they didn't DUMP him ASAP and have hired an actual producer to produce their shows is puzzling and infuriating!

Edited August 6, 2022 by Blergh

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

Regardless, it seems as though Mr. Schneider made little if any effort to hide his creepiness towards the network's performers from Day One, so why they didn't DUMP him ASAP and have hired an actual producer to produce their shows is puzzling and infuriating!

Because he made them money. He was probably cheaper than an established producer and as was said, his shows were hits. Hollywood has a long history of not really caring about their talent, especially kids who can't really stick up for themselves. If Schneider was bringing in more money than he was costing the studio, they aren't going to fire him unless a lawsuit forces them too, because that would cost them money. 

My heart breaks for kids like McCurdy who not only had to deal with the predators/abusers on set but also did not have parents who would fight to protect them but would prefer to feed their children to the wolves for the money. She really had no one looking out for her.

[Wiendish Fitch]

11 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

My heart breaks for kids like McCurdy who not only had to deal with the predators/abusers on set but also did not have parents who would fight to protect them but would prefer to feed their children to the wolves for the money. She really had no one looking out for her.

Note to parents: when your kid writes a memoir titled I'm Glad My Mom is Dead, ya done fucked up.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

Not to belabor this, but I would have thought a network would have opted to have hired someone who had had experience in  actually producing something (even if it had been a  local 5 station's 5 AM farm report or  traffic alert ) instead of having been a supporting performer.

I don’t know a ton about producing but it seems like it’s not unusual for people to get into it without producing experience. The number of actors who go straight from acting to producing is really high. Actors can make very good producers because they have more empathy for the actors. Clearly that not what happened here but I can’t fault Nickelodeon for hiring him when he is a good writer and had good ideas. I can and do fault them for nearly everything else. 

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

Regardless, it seems as though Mr. Schneider made little if any effort to hide his creepiness towards the network's performers from Day One, so why they didn't DUMP him ASAP and have hired an actual producer to produce their shows is puzzling and infuriating!

It’s infuriating but I don’t find it puzzling. They are a network designed to make money off of kids. Even if they were trying to be responsible their very purpose is often going to be at odds with the well being of the child actors. It also extremely unlikely that anyone involved was complaining officially in the beginning. These kids are generally not going to have the resources available to them to speak out or even the knowledge to understand why something makes them uncomfortable.

This story reminds me a lot of the Wil Wheaton one in that the kids often don’t can’t voice their discomfort until they are older and the people close it them are clueless. They often don’t even understand that abuse was abuse at the time. To me it shows just how important conversation about boundaries and consent are and that adults in charge and parents need to pay more attention to the subtle signs of stress. 

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I don’t know a ton about producing but it seems like it’s not unusual for people to get into it without producing experience. The number of actors who go straight from acting to producing is really high. Actors can make very good producers because they have more empathy for the actors. Clearly that not what happened here but I can’t fault Nickelodeon for hiring him when he is a good writer and had good ideas. I can and do fault them for nearly everything else. 

Producing credit on a tv show has a lot of meanings.

First and foremost a producing credit is given to the creator of the show.  Even if they have no day-to-day direct involvement in it, if it was their idea/creation -- they get the credit.

But the real top dog on a show is the executive producer and is usually the showrunner, they have broad range of power and oversight as to casting, story direction, hiring writers etc.

A lot of time producers come up through the writing room ranks.  So the longer a show runs, the longer a writer has been there, the more their ideas contribute to the direction the show takes they can go up in the ranks and add on producer credits in addition to their writing credits. Also a successful writer added to a writing room from another similar show on the network may be given and outright producer credit.

But once in awhile actors in a show will also be given a producer credit.  If they have a production company deal with a network so that their star power is determined a big enough draw to get a show made then they will also get a producer credit from the jump. Or if the show wants to lure a big name they'll give that person a producer credit right off the bat, promising them some control over how their character is developed.

If a show is really successful and the lead actor(s) or primary stars in an ensemble are considered critical to or responsible for the success of the show, they can also negotiate a producer credit as a way to keep them tied to and invested in the show a littler longer.  In some cases all it is a more money and another credit to add to their resume.  But in a lot of other instances it grants the actor access to the writers so they can have a hand in how their character is developed and even sometimes in shaping whole stories.

So it isn't surprising that networks have had a long history producers esp. in successful shows that earn the network a lot of money.  It is also not surprising that a child star with a an ambitious momager who is supporting their entire family with her earnings would be vulnerable to just the sort of thing Jennette Mccurdy had to suffer through.  Further reason than just her retirement from acting that the poor woman would have no interest or desire of being part of the iCarly revival.  It would be triggering.

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Note to parents: when your kid writes a memoir titled I'm Glad My Mom is Dead, ya done fucked up.

The real kicker on top of everything else was I saw a quote in the AV club article where she talks about how she did Nickelodeon shows for like 10 years and since they exist in their own little bubble it probably wouldn't lead to better acting jobs even if she wanted that. So on top of giving up a normal childhood, having to deal with a stupid level of shit from your boss and parent and probably not even getting a decent education because it was backstage tutors, you also can't really continue to work as an actor because no one else in your business cares about those shows. So what the hell are you supposed to do with your life after that? It's at least a great reminder that I would never want my kids to be famous actors (at least as kids).

Edited August 6, 2022 by Kel Varnsen

[Ms Blue Jay]

Anyone who makes or lets their kids act is extremely evil given what we know.  First of all it's child labour.  Second of all it kills and destroys so many kids.

I had to do jobs since I was was a kid.  I get that my parents didn't have money but thinking back to how much I "made" I really wonder how it could have helped matters at all.  Regardless, at least I wasn't in the public eye or further exploited by the people I worked for.  If you're going to force your kids to work, at least don't pick the entertainment industry.   People shouldn't use or look at their children as moneymakers.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[rcc]

If a child has talent and wants to act and or sing there is nothing wrong in pursuing it. Parents and agents should advocate for them. Their money needs to be invested for their future. If they want out, then they should be out. 

[bluegirl147]

19 minutes ago, rcc said:

If a child has talent and wants to act and or sing there is nothing wrong in pursuing it. Parents and agents should advocate for them. Their money needs to be invested for their future. If they want out, then they should be out. 

There needs to be more oversight.   Daycare centers are regulated by the state to ensure children in their care are in a safe environment.  Why shouldn't movie and tv shows with child performers have the same rules?

[Mabinogia]

I honestly think a lot of the trouble start when the child becomes a financial provider for the family. I don't think children working in television/movies, is inherently bad, I just think that they need an advocate other than the parents. Almost like a case worker, who makes sure that the bulk of their money is going into savings and not being used to support their family, and that they aren't being forced to do things that make them uncomfortable, either from studio pressures or from parental pressures. 

[Kel Varnsen]

1 minute ago, Mabinogia said:

I honestly think a lot of the trouble start when the child becomes a financial provider for the family. I don't think children working in television/movies, is inherently bad, I just think that they need an advocate other than the parents. Almost like a case worker, who makes sure that the bulk of their money is going into savings and not being used to support their family, and that they aren't being forced to do things that make them uncomfortable, either from studio pressures or from parental pressures. 

Even if the 100% of a child actor's money is going into long term savings, and even if their family is independently wealthy so they don't need the money, and even if no one involved in the production is a creepy predator, if a kid is a lead or major character, it could still be a situation where a kid could feel responsible for the livelihood of everyone involved in a production. And that on its own would be a messed up situation.