Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

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

OtterMommy

By OtterMommy
in Everything Else TV

OtterMommy
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Notabug

Notabug

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Oh I'm sure this contributed to Sharon being labeled difficult.  And why exactly was she difficult?  Because she didn't want to have sex with someone just because someone told her to?  Scary thing is this is still happening.  

Probably the most people has talked about Billy Baldwin in decades. 

I imagine she might've also been labelled 'difficult' for having the audacity to suggest that her male co-star was not a good actor and having sex with him was not going to help.

Baldwin's reaction to her revealing this indicates to me that he was not only not a good actor, he is also not a good person and would be no fun to work with.

  • Like 10
  • Fire 1
  • Applause 4
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Lady Whistleup
Lady Whistleup

I just find it infuriating that we still want to look for "perfect victims." Victims are never perfect -- they're human. Amber Heard could be a truly shitty human being, and Johnny Depp could have abu

Proclone
Proclone

Exactly.  Heard isn't a perfect victim.  She's probably a deeply unpleasant toxic person, that doesn't hide particularly well...and none of that precludes her from being abused.  If you subscribe

Hiyo
Hiyo

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

Posted Images

Jaded

Jaded

On 3/14/2024 at 1:43 AM, Bastet said:

Boy howdy.  I get that it smarts to hear you suck at your craft, but, first of all, he does, so she's far from the first person to say so, and secondly, this kind of shit does not do him any favors:

Baldwin is not the point of the story (which is presumably why when she first wrote about it she didn't even name him) -- it's that she was casually instructed to fuck someone as part of her job as an actor and then dismissed as uptight when she wouldn't (and, as an aside, about the stupidity of the notion that would generate on-screen chemistry enough to distract from a co-star's anemic performance).

I had always thought of him as the least offensive Baldwin brother. His reaction to Sharon sharing her truth regarding her treatment in the entertainment industry sure changed that.

  • Like 8
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

10 hours ago, Jaded said:

Nickelodeon actors allege abuse in 'Quiet on Set' doc: These former child stars have spoken up

Dan Schneider addresses allegations of a toxic workplace on his Nickelodeon TV shows

Fuck off, Schneider.

It’s really pissing me off how the internet expects everyone to say something about it, and feel entitled to trash Josh Peck and Miranda Cosgrove for not making a big public statement. Drake even told people to back off Josh, saying that he reached out privately. As for Miranda, well gosh, you think maybe she just wants to process things before (and if) she wants to say something?!

  • Like 11
  • Applause 3
Katie W

Katie W

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It’s really pissing me off how the internet expects everyone to say something about it, and feel entitled to trash Josh Peck and Miranda Cosgrove for not making a big public statement. Drake even told people to back off Josh, saying that he reached out privately. As for Miranda, well gosh, you think maybe she just wants to process things before (and if) she wants to say something?!

And why are they expecing people who were CHILDREN at the time this was going on to speak out? I think the people that have the most to answer to our the adults that were around and let this go on.  Including those that wrote character letters for the person that abused Drake Bell. I'm looking at James Marsden and Taran Killam. And the producers that went on to hire Brian Peck afterwards at Disney! 

  • Like 10
  • Applause 10
Jaded

Jaded

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

So...none of us are going to talk about the fact that Sean Comb's house(s) got raided in relation to sex trafficking charges?

I think the downtick in regards to people posting since certain changes started being made has something to do with that. I meant to post about the raids last night and earlier today then got distracted and forgot each time.

I wonder if people are going to start asking Jennifer Lopez about it all even though their relationship was so long ago.

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1
Bastet

Bastet

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Oh I’m more than fine with it, I’m just wondering why no one else posted about it here before me!

I was off yesterday, so I wasn't online much, and I was out last night so didn't watch any news.  I heard a headline about it on the car radio, but didn't read any news beyond headlines until this morning.

Here's an article, but not much is known about the raid, just that it's part of an ongoing federal investigation.  Of course, what is known is the slew of civil allegations against Combs.

This one includes some speculation.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 3
bluegirl147

bluegirl147

50 Cent said this:

“Now it’s not Diddy do it, it’s Diddy done they don’t come like that unless they got a case,” 

Gotta say I agree with him.  Feds aren't coming in hot like that unless they got a whole bunch of probable cause.

18 hours ago, Jaded said:

I wonder if people are going to start asking Jennifer Lopez about it all even though their relationship was so long ago.

She was smart to get away from him all those years ago.

  • Like 14
BetterButter

BetterButter

‘Zoey 101’ Actor Matthew Underwood Says He Was Assaulted by Former Agent; Defends Fellow Nickelodeon Stars ‘Staying Silent’ About ‘Quiet on Set’

Quote

In a statement regarding the Investigation Discovery docuseries “Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV,” Underwood opened up about being assaulted by his former agent, whom he does not name.

 

  • Sad 5
Jaded

Jaded

(edited)

Kanye West accused of threatening to lock students in cages in new lawsuit

Cuba Gooding Jr. Accused of Sexually Assaulting Producer Lil Rod on Sean 'Diddy' Combs's Yacht: Lawsuit

Touré Says Diddy Terminated His Cousin’s Internship After Refusing To Sleep With Him

 

Edited by Jaded
  • Sad 8
Notabug

Notabug

12 hours ago, Jaded said:

Nickelodeon 'Double Dare' host Marc Summers says 'Quiet on Set' producers blindsided him

I kinda wondered what Summers was doing there.  His show wasn't part of Schneider's stable and was actually off the air before Schneider ever worked at Nick.  I presume the producers wanted him because his show was very popular in its time and he was one of the best known performers on Nick when he was there.  I guess they just wanted a recognizable face.

I agree with Summers, if, indeed, he was told they were doing a story about his days at Nickelodeon and then whipped out a picture of Schneider as some sort of 'gotcha' moment, expecting him to talk about a guy he doesn't know and shows he didn't work on; that was some dirty pool.  

The specials themselves are really just a rehash of stuff we've already heard and even the 'exclusive' with Drake Bell, while highlighting the way kids on Schneider's shows were victimized; didn't even scratch the surface of Bell's own terrible behavior as a predatory adult.

  • Like 7
Bastet

Bastet

16 hours ago, Jaded said:

Kanye West accused of threatening to lock students in cages in new lawsuit

Cuba Gooding Jr. Accused of Sexually Assaulting Producer Lil Rod on Sean 'Diddy' Combs's Yacht: Lawsuit

Touré Says Diddy Terminated His Cousin’s Internship After Refusing To Sleep With Him

 

Three stories, zero surprises.

  • Like 10
  • Useful 1
Anduin

Anduin

Given this is about Vince McMahon, sex offender, I suppose this belongs here. Anyway, could he start another pro wrestling company? The answer is maybe. But he'll be 79 by then, does he still have the drive? The energy? Where would he get the money from? Who would perform? Who would go to see the shows? Would any network air the shows?

Answering my own question, if he calls it something like the Anti Woke Wrestling Federation, he could probably get money from rich conservatives. And some wrestlers share those politics, they might be interested. Some audience members too. As for airing, some kind of pay to stream. But at the same time, there are a dozen indie wrestling companies out there. Many are long established. The level of IWA-MS or CZW, I mean. He'd have to conquer those opponents before aiming for the B tier, your TNA or AEW level.

Or maybe with some money he buys into one of those established indies and starts reshaping it in his own image.

No, I'm not supporting him in any way. I'm posting here because I doubt that anyone who matters will see it. He deserves to suffer the consequences of his own actions. The wrestling industry is better off without him.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

13 hours ago, Anduin said:

Given this is about Vince McMahon, sex offender, I suppose this belongs here. Anyway, could he start another pro wrestling company?

I hadn't really thought about that but it would be interesting to see what happens. He is supposed to be selling off his TKO shares I think so between that and his own personal fortune he would have a ton of cash to work with. I imagine the big challenge would be getting big name performers to work with him. Dwayne Johnson is probably his biggest supporter but he just got a spot on the TKO board and the Rock name back, probably in exchange for a big investment. I can't see Vince wanting to do something that wasn't big, but going big means getting big names who are ok with your scandal and wanting to work with him.

  • Like 2
Anduin

Anduin

6 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I hadn't really thought about that but it would be interesting to see what happens. He is supposed to be selling off his TKO shares I think so between that and his own personal fortune he would have a ton of cash to work with. I imagine the big challenge would be getting big name performers to work with him. Dwayne Johnson is probably his biggest supporter but he just got a spot on the TKO board and the Rock name back, probably in exchange for a big investment. I can't see Vince wanting to do something that wasn't big, but going big means getting big names who are ok with your scandal and wanting to work with him.

Yeah. There have to be some wrestlers who'd go for it, but big names not locked down by contract? I can't see it happening. Maybe if he bought into an established company with a few like-minded middle-level wrestlers, then promoted it far and wide among conservatives. Well, we'll see what happens in the next year or so.

  • Like 2
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

2 hours ago, Anduin said:

Yeah. There have to be some wrestlers who'd go for it, but big names not locked down by contract? 

He could always sign Hogan. I also hear that Gina Carano is looking for work (and she has already done MMA and American Gladiators). 

After that I could totally see Vince being the guy who just hires wrestlers with name recognition from other promotions that have been let go because of drug problems (steroids or recreational) or because of too many concussions.

  • Like 4
Anduin

Anduin

8 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

He could always sign Hogan. I also hear that Gina Carano is looking for work (and she has already done MMA and American Gladiators). 

After that I could totally see Vince being the guy who just hires wrestlers with name recognition from other promotions that have been let go because of drug problems (steroids or recreational) or because of too many concussions.

Carano! Of course. She'd be a natural fit for this hypothetical company. But drug/concussion problems? There've already been a few trials about that. While he survived with his job intact the other times, he might not be so lucky again.

  • Like 2
Danielg342

Danielg342

(edited)
On 4/15/2024 at 9:33 PM, Anduin said:

Given this is about Vince McMahon, sex offender, I suppose this belongs here. Anyway, could he start another pro wrestling company? The answer is maybe. But he'll be 79 by then, does he still have the drive? The energy? Where would he get the money from? Who would perform? Who would go to see the shows? Would any network air the shows?

Side note- I do wonder why these forums don't have a wrestling forum or at least a topic, considering it *is* on TV. In any case...

Could Vincent Kennedy McMahon start his own wrestling company? I wouldn't put it past him. Many thought that McMahon would only leave WWE on his deathbed, so I could see him getting the itch to get back in the game once he's able to do so.

The only question I have is whether or not it would work. On top of all the logistical concerns you mentioned- who would broadcast his promotion? Who would invest in it? Who'd be willing to work with him, etc.- the problem with McMahon's hypothetical promotion is that I'm not sure McMahon really has his finger on the pulse of wrestling like he used to. Wrestling punditry is almost universal in its proclamations that Paul Levesque- AKA Triple H- has vastly improved the WWE product since becoming the head of creative in WWE after taking over the role when McMahon was first forced out of WWE in 2021.

Plus, I watched almost every WWE program for two years from June 2018 to June 2020, and a lot of that stuff was literally the worst TV I'd ever seen in my life (see Shane McMahon vs. Miz, Rusev vs. Bobby Lashley, The Big Dog eating dog food, the mishandling of The Fiend, etc.).

About the only positive out of that 2018-2020 period is that Becky Lynch became a real star during that period (though it was kind of by accident) and women's wrestling grew somewhat by getting a Royal Rumble match, the Mae Young Classic and a pay-per-view of their own, Evolution. There weren't too many other positives, and those that were positives were either moments of serendipity (Kofimania) or they came from ideas the wrestlers made themselves that McMahon approved, like The Fiend and later The Bloodline.

So, while I can't say for sure that a new McMahon promotion would fail, I feel that there's a good chance it will, simply because I'm not sure the old man knows what he's doing anymore. If the other stuff that could impede McMahon- like being unable to find a TV partner or investors, or even writers to work for him (remember, Vince used to love ripping up the scripts to his shows and force complete re-writes mere minutes to air time)- then McMahon's poor vision for what wrestling is in the 21st century will likely doom the promotion.

It may be good for fits and giggles while we watch it implode worse than WCW did in its final years, but that's about it.

Edited by Danielg342
  • Like 1
SoMuchTV

SoMuchTV

17 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

Side note- I do wonder why these forums don't have a wrestling forum or at least a topic, considering it *is* on TV. In any case...

There is a sports forum here:

https://forums.primetimer.com/forum/189-sports/

with the option to start a new topic.  Existing topics are for NBA, NFL, various Superbowls, golf, tennis, etc.  That would seem like the appropriate place to start a thread.

It's near the bottom of the home page, under Beyond TV Shows > Interests and Hobbies.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Danielg342

Danielg342

8 hours ago, SoMuchTV said:

There is a sports forum here:

https://forums.primetimer.com/forum/189-sports/

I'm aware of the sports forum. I'll put it into consideration. I hesitate to put a wrestling topic there since, technically, it's not a competitive sport- it's more appropriately "sports-themed theatre". Then again, the vast majority of wrestling fans are also sports fans, so maybe there is a fit.

JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

Rebel Wilson memoir to be published in UK with Sacha Baron Cohen passages redacted

Quote

The UK edition of Australian actor Rebel Wilson’s memoir will be published with redacted passages relating to her experience on set with Sacha Baron Cohen.

In a chapter titled Sacha Baron Cohen and Other Assholes, Wilson recounts filming the 2016 comedy film Grimsby – released in the US as The Brothers Grimsby – alongside Baron Cohen. “SBC summoned me via a production assistant saying that I was needed to film an additional scene,” she writes.

“What followed was the worst experience of my professional life. An incident that left me feeling bullied, humiliated, and compromised. It can’t be printed here due to peculiarities of the law in England and Wales”. The rest of the page of the book is blacked out, and there are several further lines redacted on the following pages.

Quote

“We are publishing every page, but for legal reasons, in the UK edition, we are redacting most of one page with some other small redactions and an explanatory note,” a spokesperson for HarperCollins told the Guardian. “Those sections are a very small part of a much bigger story.”

I understand there's a legal reason, but I still don't like such censorship. And I'm not even a fan of Rebel Wilson, just ... principle.

I hope people who want to read it will buy the uncensored version.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
Ohiopirate02

Ohiopirate02

40 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Rebel Wilson memoir to be published in UK with Sacha Baron Cohen passages redacted

I understand there's a legal reason, but I still don't like such censorship. And I'm not even a fan of Rebel Wilson, just ... principle.

I hope people who want to read it will buy the uncensored version.

The Streisand Effect will be out in full force with this one.  Those passages are available in other versions of the book, and will be  shared on social media.  

  • Like 7
Zella

Zella

(edited)

I'm also assuming that UK readers can still order editions from other countries. I've bought UK editions of books before from Amazon and had them shipped to me in the US. (Mainly if the book is released there first because I have no patience or chill when I really want to read something. LOL) 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 5
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

1 hour ago, Quof said:

No, they're saying it's "because the judge allowed the jury to hear and consider evidence which was inadmissible"  Everyone is entitled to due process.

They’re basically saying the testimony of all those women was inadmissible, even though it showed a pattern of behavior. Feels like bs to me. 

  • Like 6
MadyGirl1987

MadyGirl1987

(edited)
2 hours ago, Quof said:

No, they're saying it's "because the judge allowed the jury to hear and consider evidence which was inadmissible"  Everyone is entitled to due process.

8 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

They’re basically saying the testimony of all those women was inadmissible, even though it showed a pattern of behavior. Feels like bs to me. 

Yeah, I'm blaming the judge and prosecutors for this one. They should have known if allowing women to testify about unrelated charges/cases would be considered swaying the jury or prejudicial information, if those are the right terms. Information presented has to be relevant to the case and unfortunately it seems they allowed information that wasn't. From my reading, it sounds like they didn't meet the standard for admissible evidence of prior bad acts, which the prosecutors and the judge should have known and addressed at trial.

At least this isn't like Cosby and he isn't free. His LA convictions stand, and his career and life as he knew it is over.

Edited by MadyGirl1987
  • Like 5
  • Useful 5
Quof

Quof

21 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Feels like bs to me. 

If police had beaten a confession out of him - prima facie inadmissible - and the judge allowed the jury to hear it, should a conviction be allowed to stand?  I don't want to be ruled by a justice system that doesn't protect basic procedural fairness. 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

2 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Yeah, I'm blaming the judge and prosecutors for this one. They should have known if allowing women to testify about unrelated charges/cases would be considered swaying the jury or prejudicial information, if those are the right terms.

They took a risk, but it's not like the court was unanimous in its decision about whether or not it was a reversible error.  It was 4-3. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 10
Danielg342

Danielg342

6 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

They should have known if allowing women to testify about unrelated charges/cases would be considered swaying the jury or prejudicial information, if those are the right terms. Information presented has to be relevant to the case and unfortunately it seems they allowed information that wasn't. From my reading, it sounds like they didn't meet the standard for admissible evidence of prior bad acts, which the prosecutors and the judge should have known and addressed at trial.

I think the problem is that the claims of the women unrelated to the case had not been tested in court, so they were little more than hearsay. It would be like if the judge had allowed testimony from someone who said "Harvey Weinstein is an alien from another planet" or "Harvey is a murderous cannibal"- since there is no proof that happened, you can't use it as proof that Harvey acted in that manner before.

It seems to me that Harvey was convicted on little more than Hollywood gossip. That's a poor standard for conviction, and I rightly think the prosecution needs to do better. True justice deserves no less.

  • Useful 7
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

31 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

It seems to me that Harvey was convicted on little more than Hollywood gossip.

I don't see it that way. Gossip is "I heard this about so and so."  The women who testified shared their personal, lived experiences with Weinstein about how he abused them. That kind of testimony is often allowed in court.  The original judge and 3 of the 7 upper court judges thought it met the burden.  4 in the upper court felt it did not.  So the judges looking at the case were split evenly overall. It just happens that 4 happened to be an upper-court majority.

  • Like 11
  • Useful 3
Danielg342

Danielg342

(edited)
10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't see it that way. Gossip is "I heard this about so and so."  The women who testified shared their personal, lived experiences with Weinstein about how he abused them. That kind of testimony is often allowed in court.  The original judge and 3 of the 7 upper court judges thought it met the burden.  4 in the upper court felt it did not.  So the judges looking at the case were split evenly overall. It just happens that 4 happened to be an upper-court majority.

Maybe I used the wrong word but it's semantics. The court simply said that the trial judge can't use as evidence the testimony of women who allege crimes against Harvey Weinstein that have not been proven in court. Which is especially important because those allegations were for similar crimes that Weinstein was on trial for. The judge ruled that because Weinstein had no prior criminal history before the New York convictions, it is a grievous error to allow testimony of people who accuse Weinstein of the same crimes as those he was actually on trial for, since it made the jury believe he had committed those crimes before when no court had deemed he had done so.

My level of legal expertise is nowhere near a level where I'm in a position comfortable enough to say "the judge got it right" or "the judge got it wrong". I'm only going to comment on what I see. I know there will be people who will read what the court says and find confusion with it, since, in their minds, the "untested allegations" against Weinstein are as true as they can be, but, you have to remember that, in a court of law, if allegations have not been tested in court, a court cannot see those allegations as "true".

It'd be like if someone was convicted of murder based solely on testimony of others that the person committed other murders other than the murder they're accused of committing. That's not a conviction that can be allowed to stand, because then you're risking people getting convicted purely on the weight of others simply running their mouths, with what they're saying being, potentially, falsehoods. People should only be convicted of the crimes they're actually accused of, not only crimes that stand simply on hearsay.

Edited by Danielg342
  • Like 1
  • Useful 4
OtterMommy
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...