Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Skyfall

Talking Dead: Where Chris Hardwick Got His Groove Back

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I really didn't want to comment again, but must say that in today's climate, being a "bad boyfriend" and/or a complete jerk IS a crime which can destroy someone's career and livelihood.

A black man was fired from his job at Home Depot, because he didn't accept abuse from an angry customer - racist, toxic abuse. That is today's climate, and always has been. He lost his livelihood due to a racist customer. Women have lost jobs for years, when not accepting sexual harassment and abuse. Why are they the problem now?

I don't see how taking a troubled young woman, and reminding her that his last relationship failed because of a lack of sex, and then knowingly jumping on her when she obviously doesn't want it, is only seen as toxic. "Why didn't she leave?" seems to be the question. Why not, "Why did he do that? Why did he have sex with someone who was only laying there, because he'd manipulated her into doing so?" Obviously feeling no pleasure, even crying, and he joked and called it "the starfish"?

I didn't want to comment again either. I haven't read anything since before my last comment here.

Edited by Anela
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

On 7/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, SimoneS said:

Now I have to watch to support Yvette. I don't give a shit about Hardwick or the fan outrage on his behalf.

Go Yvette! You rock! You will be great!

 

Same. I might not watch the main show anymore (TWD), but I love Yvette. I watched this show once, for the first time in months, but I don't remember which episode, or why. Maybe it was after the finale? I'd stopped watching it, before I stopped watching the show itself.

Edited by Anela

Share this post


Link to post

Great buzz about Yvette from SCDCC! I am glad that she did so well. I will be watching TD to support her. I hope karma bites anyone wishing her ill in the ass.

@Anela, great comments! Defending men who behave like Chloe alleged Hardwick did has been the societal norm for far too long. 

Edited by SimoneS
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I am so glad Chris is back to work at AMC.  At least that is what I have read today.  I did not think the issues Chloe brought up were abuse  or abuse of power and I am glad AMC agrees.  A lot of people stood up for Chris during this situation and I hope he heard it all and understands how many people thought he had gotten a raw deal. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Oh look, all the claims that Hardwick's career would be destroyed by Chloe's allegations turned out to be untrue and pure hysteria. What a shock! RME.

Since turnabout is fair play, I will respond like the people who intended to boycott Yvette Nicole Brown and won't be watching TD with Hardwick. 

Edited by SimoneS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/22/2018 at 8:40 AM, SimoneS said:

 Defending men who behave like Chloe alleged Hardwick did has been the societal norm for far too long. 

Who is defending him? First of all, NO ONE knows what goes on behind closed doors. I certainly don't. I can't stand the sight of Hardwick's face, but is being a rotten boyfriend or a little creep now something that should cause someone to lose his livelihood? A grown woman who stays with rotten boyfriend/littel creep for three years has made her choice for whatever her personal reasons may be and needs to live with that, learn from it and move on.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who is defending him? First of all, NO ONE knows what goes on behind closed doors. I certainly don't. I can't stand the sight of Hardwick's face, but is being a rotten boyfriend or a little creep now something that should cause someone to lose his livelihood? A grown woman who stays with rotten boyfriend/littel creep for three years has made her choice for whatever her personal reasons may be and needs to live with that, learn from it and move on.

Assuming any of that is actually true and not just her version of the truth.

It's the right move, beyond obvious there was nothing there. Of course in this world he'll still be condemned and excuses made about how Hollywood covered for another abuser.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Oh look, all the claims that Hardwick's career would be destroyed by Chloe's allegations turned out to be untrue and pure hysteria. What a shock! RME.

CH got this one job back; that’s a far cry from saying his career and reputation has been restored - so maybe you can take some solace in that.

Sorry, but I cannot accept the notion that accusation dictates an automatic assumption of guilt, simply because it’s a woman accusing a man.  The idea intellectually offends me, on multiple levels:

  • There is zero logical support for such an assumption, unless one accepts the postulate ALL men actively strive to assault and/or oppress ALL women ALL the time - and I, for one, do not accept that postulate.
  • The concept of fairness should not be gender-biased, in favor of any gender - and that includes its application in the extended concept of innocent until proven guilty.
  • If a woman makes an assault/abuse allegation against a man and support is found for her allegations, then I have no problems with him being personally and professionally raked over the coals in every way imaginable - in my mind, such treatment would be just. To suggest, though, that a man should be punished solely on the basis of accusation - with zero investigation and/or validation of the allegations - simply because other men have assaulted/abused other women in the past...?  That’s revenge, not justice, and it’s the height of disingenuousness to pretend it’s anything but.

 

8 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Since turnabout is fair play, I will respond like the people who intended to boycott Yvette Nicole Brown and won't be watching TD with Hardwick. 

Go for it; some people, when they get an extra hour every week of their life returned to them, can do wonders with it.  :)

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

One thing to keep in mind, though: AMC spent two months (and god know how much money) on an investigation, interviewing “numerous individuals” in the process - which, considering the nature of the charges, probably means every woman Hardwick had ANY contact with - and at the end of it, CH was reinstated.  

Given the current #metoo environment, think AMC would have taken a chance on reinstating Hardwick if there had been even so much as a whisper of support for Dykstra’s allegations?

Edited by Nashville · Reason: Typo, expansion
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:45 AM, Nashville said:

CH got this one job back; that’s a far cry from saying his career and reputation has been restored

Yep. There will always be an asterisk after his name (so to speak). Personally, I would be far more likely to watch Talking Dead with Yvette hosting, but I'm still glad he got the job back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did the Hardwick team ever seek to prosecute the Dykstra team for slander, defamation of character or any other charge?         The only people who know the truth are the two people involved, she made very specific accusations, of which none of his ex partners know the truth, and neither would the AMC lawyers who have spoken to ‘many people’ know the truth. His career should not be affected in any way by unproven accusations, I don’t consider him to be guilty of the accusations levelled at him because it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. Is she a fantasist? Only two know, and that’s the whole point, all but two DONT KNOW!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, OoohMaggie said:

Did the Hardwick team ever seek to prosecute the Dykstra team for slander, defamation of character or any other charge?         The only people who know the truth are the two people involved, she made very specific accusations, of which none of his ex partners know the truth, and neither would the AMC lawyers who have spoken to ‘many people’ know the truth. His career should not be affected in any way by unproven accusations, I don’t consider him to be guilty of the accusations levelled at him because it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. Is she a fantasist? Only two know, and that’s the whole point, all but two DONT KNOW!

Since Dykstra herself did not name Hardwick, he might have difficulty suing her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Since Dykstra herself did not name Hardwick, he might have difficulty suing her.

That would certainly be a reason, I’m glad that his career has not been destroyed by unproven allegations, as it should be,  as someone mentioned, a certain amount of doubt will remain whether aimed at one party or the other, so do we just say put up or shut up to the parties involved? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have never watched his show. I watched in shock as he was dismissed as a result of an x-girlfriend. It was insane. I am glad common sense prevailed. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/28/2018 at 3:53 PM, OoohMaggie said:

Did the Hardwick team ever seek to prosecute the Dykstra team for slander, defamation of character or any other charge?         The only people who know the truth are the two people involved, she made very specific accusations, of which none of his ex partners know the truth, and neither would the AMC lawyers who have spoken to ‘many people’ know the truth. His career should not be affected in any way by unproven accusations, I don’t consider him to be guilty of the accusations levelled at him because it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. Is she a fantasist? Only two know, and that’s the whole point, all but two DONT KNOW!

 

On 7/28/2018 at 4:01 PM, Gobi said:

Since Dykstra herself did not name Hardwick, he might have difficulty suing her.

 

On 7/28/2018 at 4:25 PM, Pindrop said:

I have never watched his show. I watched in shock as he was dismissed as a result of an x-girlfriend. It was insane. I am glad common sense prevailed. 

The #MeToo were mostly about women who were taken advantage of in the workplace. Women do get into abusive relationships. It is usually were they are beaten, or threatened with death if they try to leave. She stated in her c/o that he had certain rules, and while she didn't like them, she agreed to live by them. It was all so weird right from the beginning. Sounded like she really had low self esteem. After she blew his life up she appeared in an article on Daily Mail with a flippant attitude and states well I'm out of here now. CH stated he ended the relationship because she cheated on him. He didn't want to have children with someone he couldn't trust. He had emails were she begged to get back with him. That does not sound like someone who was used, and abused. Sounds like she was jealous of his career, and recent marriage. As for lawsuits she didn't name him, but everyone knows it was him by her description. So much so, he was pulled off of AMC, NBC. He got his AMC job back, but not the NBC so far. I think he could sue. But, he married into an old money family. Old money usually have certain standards they abide by, like not airing their personal lives. So, I doubt if he will sue. It  would only get tawdry in the press. Even new money would want to avoid that type of press. I'm glad he got his job back. I hope NBC gives him his job back too. He worked hard to get to  where he is right now. I hope she gets the help she needs for her low-self esteem, jealousy. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I still believe her. Emotional abuse is a thing, and I don't think she lied about anything. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WalkerTalker said:

 

 

The #MeToo were mostly about women who were taken advantage of in the workplace. Women do get into abusive relationships. It is usually were they are beaten, or threatened with death if they try to leave. She stated in her c/o that he had certain rules, and while she didn't like them, she agreed to live by them. It was all so weird right from the beginning. Sounded like she really had low self esteem. After she blew his life up she appeared in an article on Daily Mail with a flippant attitude and states well I'm out of here now. CH stated he ended the relationship because she cheated on him. He didn't want to have children with someone he couldn't trust. He had emails were she begged to get back with him. That does not sound like someone who was used, and abused. Sounds like she was jealous of his career, and recent marriage. As for lawsuits she didn't name him, but everyone knows it was him by her description. So much so, he was pulled off of AMC, NBC. He got his AMC job back, but not the NBC so far. I think he could sue. But, he married into an old money family. Old money usually have certain standards they abide by, like not airing their personal lives. So, I doubt if he will sue. It  would only get tawdry in the press. Even new money would want to avoid that type of press. I'm glad he got his job back. I hope NBC gives him his job back too. He worked hard to get to  where he is right now. I hope she gets the help she needs for her low-self esteem, jealousy. 

I want to respond to this, but there's no point. I don't think she was jealous at all. God, that's always the way: someone finally talks about something, and everything bad is put on her. She's sick in the head, jealous, insecure, vengeful, etc. 

I mentioned stuff here before, that I've been through. Even though I was beaten up by my sister (over her boyfriend/husband, because I didn't want to be around him, after his sexual harassment, and causing trouble for me with her, and then more members of my family, after they became engaged). Even though I was beaten up and harassed almost every day, I miss my sister. I miss who she used to be, and who she became again for a while after we lost our mother. I was talking to my dad the other day, and he was talking about trying to make some kind of contact with her again. I had mentioned that I miss her, but then I said that I don't want to be around her again, if she's going to hurt me. But when you're dehumanized like that, you can flip between knowing that it's stupid to expect anything good from them, to expect to have a good healthy relationship, let alone for them to ever admit to any wrongdoing. She admitted, two years ago, that she didn't want anyone to hate her or her husband. It was better for them to have everyone disbelieving and hating me. Beaten down, and then being lied about: you want to set the record straight with those who were lied to. You still hope that this person will realize that they were wrong, although an apology will never give you that time back that you lost. But some acknowledgement from them, and to other people, that you were not crazy - it can drive you around the bend. When my sister and I stopped talking again, the first thing she said to me with that last contact was, "Everyone is on my side!" what are we, five? 

I went through this sort of thing just once, with a man. After doing my damnedest to avoid anyone like him, it happened accidentally, although I should have seen it. When I realized that I was becoming a shell of myself, every bit of contact with him left me feeling even worse about myself (and he would never admit to wrongdoing - he would use buddhist stuff to say that I shouldn't have trusted him, 100% responsibility, only he never took it). I finally realized that he was going to keep contacting me as long as he was lonely, and throwing me crumbs, so I got angry enough that I scared him off. I made sure that he would never want to contact me again. But before that, there's a sense of needing to see something there that was worth the time, the energy, the emotion, whatever, because you wonder how you got under the thumb of such a shit. It's fucking insidious. 

#metoo was about sexual harassment in general, and assault, not just the workplace. and Hardwick would have to have low self-esteem too, right? At the very least. Or be screwed up in some other way. So I still don't understand why that is being put on her. 

Women are trained to not lose favour with people, or not to want to, usually. Not anymore, I hope, but you're supposed to be sweet, nice, and likable. After my sister pushed me down the stairs, I invited her to come out with the rest of us for my birthday. After my mother was raped, she remained engaged for a while. She called a hotline to get herself through another relationship, when she was suicidal (and I was six/seven). She didn't leave right away, and she was the strongest, most independent woman that I knew. I learned then that if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone. 

Edited by Anela
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Anela said:

I want to respond to this, but there's no point. I don't think she was jealous at all. God, that's always the way: someone finally talks about something, and everything bad is put on her. She's sick in the head, jealous, insecure, vengeful, etc. 

I mentioned stuff here before, that I've been through. Even though I was beaten up by my sister (over her boyfriend/husband, because I didn't want to be around him, after his sexual harassment, and causing trouble for me with her, and then more members of my family, after they became engaged). Even though I was beaten up and harassed almost every day, I miss my sister. I miss who she used to be, and who she became again for a while after we lost our mother. I was talking to my dad the other day, and he was talking about trying to make some kind of contact with her again. I had mentioned that I miss her, but then I said that I don't want to be around her again, if she's going to hurt me. But when you're dehumanized like that, you can flip between knowing that it's stupid to expect anything good from them, to expect to have a good healthy relationship, let alone for them to ever admit to any wrongdoing. She admitted, two years ago, that she didn't want anyone to hate her or her husband. It was better for them to have everyone disbelieving and hating me. Beaten down, and then being lied about: you want to set the record straight with those who were lied to. You still hope that this person will realize that they were wrong, although an apology will never give you that time back that you lost. But some acknowledgement from them, and to other people, that you were not crazy - it can drive you around the bend. When my sister and I stopped talking again, the first thing she said to me with that last contact was, "Everyone is on my side!" what are we, five? 

I went through this sort of thing just once, with a man. After doing my damnedest to avoid anyone like him, it happened accidentally, although I should have seen it. When I realized that I was becoming a shell of myself, every bit of contact with him left me feeling even worse about myself (and he would never admit to wrongdoing - he would use buddhist stuff to say that I shouldn't have trusted him, 100% responsibility, only he never took it). I finally realized that he was going to keep contacting me as long as he was lonely, and throwing me crumbs, so I got angry enough that I scared him off. I made sure that he would never want to contact me again. But before that, there's a sense of needing to see something there that was worth the time, the energy, the emotion, whatever, because you wonder how you got under the thumb of such a shit. It's fucking insidious. 

#metoo was about sexual harassment in general, and assault, not just the workplace. and Hardwick would have to have low self-esteem too, right? At the very least. Or be screwed up in some other way. So I still don't understand why that is being put on her. 

Women are trained to not lose favour with people, or not to want to, usually. Not anymore, I hope, but you're supposed to be sweet, nice, and likable. After my sister pushed me down the stairs, I invited her to come out with the rest of us for my birthday. After my mother was raped, she remained engaged for a while. She called a hotline to get herself through another relationship, when she was suicidal (and I was six/seven). She didn't leave right away, and she was the strongest, most independent woman that I knew. I learned then that if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Anela said:

I still believe her. Emotional abuse is a thing, and I don't think she lied about anything. 

 

1 hour ago, Anela said:

I want to respond to this, but there's no point. I don't think she was jealous at all. God, that's always the way: someone finally talks about something, and everything bad is put on her. She's sick in the head, jealous, insecure, vengeful, etc. 

I mentioned stuff here before, that I've been through. Even though I was beaten up by my sister (over her boyfriend/husband, because I didn't want to be around him, after his sexual harassment, and causing trouble for me with her, and then more members of my family, after they became engaged). Even though I was beaten up and harassed almost every day, I miss my sister. I miss who she used to be, and who she became again for a while after we lost our mother. I was talking to my dad the other day, and he was talking about trying to make some kind of contact with her again. I had mentioned that I miss her, but then I said that I don't want to be around her again, if she's going to hurt me. But when you're dehumanized like that, you can flip between knowing that it's stupid to expect anything good from them, to expect to have a good healthy relationship, let alone for them to ever admit to any wrongdoing. She admitted, two years ago, that she didn't want anyone to hate her or her husband. It was better for them to have everyone disbelieving and hating me. Beaten down, and then being lied about: you want to set the record straight with those who were lied to. You still hope that this person will realize that they were wrong, although an apology will never give you that time back that you lost. But some acknowledgement from them, and to other people, that you were not crazy - it can drive you around the bend. When my sister and I stopped talking again, the first thing she said to me with that last contact was, "Everyone is on my side!" what are we, five? 

I went through this sort of thing just once, with a man. After doing my damnedest to avoid anyone like him, it happened accidentally, although I should have seen it. When I realized that I was becoming a shell of myself, every bit of contact with him left me feeling even worse about myself (and he would never admit to wrongdoing - he would use buddhist stuff to say that I shouldn't have trusted him, 100% responsibility, only he never took it). I finally realized that he was going to keep contacting me as long as he was lonely, and throwing me crumbs, so I got angry enough that I scared him off. I made sure that he would never want to contact me again. But before that, there's a sense of needing to see something there that was worth the time, the energy, the emotion, whatever, because you wonder how you got under the thumb of such a shit. It's fucking insidious. 

#metoo was about sexual harassment in general, and assault, not just the workplace. and Hardwick would have to have low self-esteem too, right? At the very least. Or be screwed up in some other way. So I still don't understand why that is being put on her. 

Women are trained to not lose favour with people, or not to want to, usually. Not anymore, I hope, but you're supposed to be sweet, nice, and likable. After my sister pushed me down the stairs, I invited her to come out with the rest of us for my birthday. After my mother was raped, she remained engaged for a while. She called a hotline to get herself through another relationship, when she was suicidal (and I was six/seven). She didn't leave right away, and she was the strongest, most independent woman that I knew. I learned then that if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone. 

 

I don't know you. But, I'm saddened  to hear what has happened to you, and your family members.  The first I heard of the @MeToo was with the HW incidents. I mentioned in my statement that there are other abuses outside of work. Abusive relationships beatings, death threats. While I did not mention emotional abuse, that in itself is emotional abuse too. Of course there is emotional abuse. I don't think there is a women( or some men, topic is women) in this world who has not endured some sort of abuse. I think everyone probably has a story they could tell. In other post I write I support women, and @MeToo. For the most part I have believed the stories I have read, or heard about. Initially, I was prone to believe her. I do believe he did have rules, as she called them. She agreed to those rules.  But she made all sorts of  contradicting statements. Even in the entry above her  statements sound contradictory. Never set out to ruin his career. Yet everyone who has been  told on has lost their careers. She doesn't live under a rock, so she knew what was going to happen. She could have offered more info, but chose not to, why.  She chose not to participate in the investigation, why not.If she truly believes this guy is a bad person why not put everything out there. She has opened the door and let the world in already. She only wanted certain people to know her narrative to gain back her allegedly damaged career. She let the whole world know her narrative. If she only wanted certain people in Hollywood to know I'm sure through an agent/friends she could have done just that  Now that the circus has come to town she is moving on. But will continue to help. I heard all the other stuff and her getting out of town. I haven't heard of her helping out groups that support battered (physical/emotional etc.)women. So, she has managed to keep that narrative quite. She states he took her emails out of narrative,chopped them up. The emails I saw posted did not look chopped up,or fake. I'm not an expert though. But, I believe AMC would not have hired him back if they found things taken out of context/fake emails. They would not risk their bottom line, the almighty dollar.  That is the one thing about these complaints, they get investigated.I think she has low-self esteem and needs to get help with that. The reason I state that is because she herself stated he has all these rules she had to follow. She didn't like them but followed them. She didn't like that he got her a job where he worked and didn't initially want to take money, but the place encouraged her to take a check. So, it doesn't sound like she was with him for the money, or the fame. So, it sounds like she may have low-self esteem. If that is the case, she really needs to get help so she can avoid people with rules she doesn't like in the future. I'm not trying to discount you, or anyone else. I was just replying to the other post on this thread.  This  is my opinion that I'm entitled to. Just like you are entitled to your opinion of my opinion.  I wish you, and your family all the best. 

Edited by WalkerTalker · Reason: Misspelling
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2018 at 8:52 PM, WalkerTalker said:

 

 

The #MeToo were mostly about women who were taken advantage of in the workplace. Women do get into abusive relationships. It is usually were they are beaten, or threatened with death if they try to leave. She stated in her c/o that he had certain rules, and while she didn't like them, she agreed to live by them. It was all so weird right from the beginning. Sounded like she really had low self esteem. After she blew his life up she appeared in an article on Daily Mail with a flippant attitude and states well I'm out of here now. CH stated he ended the relationship because she cheated on him. He didn't want to have children with someone he couldn't trust. He had emails were she begged to get back with him. That does not sound like someone who was used, and abused. Sounds like she was jealous of his career, and recent marriage. As for lawsuits she didn't name him, but everyone knows it was him by her description. So much so, he was pulled off of AMC, NBC. He got his AMC job back, but not the NBC so far. I think he could sue. But, he married into an old money family. Old money usually have certain standards they abide by, like not airing their personal lives. So, I doubt if he will sue. It  would only get tawdry in the press. Even new money would want to avoid that type of press. I'm glad he got his job back. I hope NBC gives him his job back too. He worked hard to get to  where he is right now. I hope she gets the help she needs for her low-self esteem, jealousy. 

He got the NBC gig back too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hadn't watched The Wall and don't know how it was doing (I thought it was reeeeeeally lame) and I didn't wonder if they didn't use this just as a way to cancel it and be done with it. but I guess not. I would hope maybe they go back to the shorter format for Talking Dead, less polls and nonsense. The mood has got to be weird for that first show back.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, nachomama said:

The mood has got to be weird for that first show back.

I was thinking that too.  Might be a good idea to still have YNB on as a guest to help ease the way.  I think CH had her support?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Iguessnot said:

He got the NBC gig back too.

My computer has been down since Monday. I did not hear about this on the news. I have not had time to read online news. I'm just getting through my email, and notifications here. I didn't even know he was on AGT.  Thank you for the update. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well. Chris might have gotten his job back, but staffers are quitting the Talking Dead in response to it. Here’s the article talking about people quitting, including an excutive producer. To be a fly on the wall at AMC....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the original Wrap report...

‘Talking Dead’ Loses Female Executive Producer, ‘Handful’ of Staffers After Chris Hardwick’s Return (Exclusive)
Reid Nakamura | August 10, 2018 
https://www.thewrap.com/talking-dead-loses-female-executive-producer-chris-hardwick-walking-dead/

Quote

When Chris Hardwick returns to “Talking Dead” on Sunday, the AMC talk show will be down one executive producer and several other staffers who left as a result of the network’s decision to allow him back on the “Walking Dead” wrap-up show.

The female executive producer and a “handful” of the approximately 25 people who work on the talk show show left after Hardwick was reinstated last month, according to multiple individuals with knowledge of the situation. He was allowed to return after an investigation by AMC into accusations of sexual and emotional abuse.

AMC declined to comment on the departures.
*  *  *
“We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step,” AMC said in a statement last month announcing that Hardwick had been reinstated.

According to one of the individuals, Hardwick gathered “Talking Dead” staffers in what was described as a “very emotional” meeting on Wednesday to apologize for the recent turmoil, and his demeanor was described as “apologetic and contrite.” The individual said Hardwick also invited crew members to one-on-one meetings to address any further concerns.

After Dykstra’s allegations were first published in June, multiple current and former colleagues of Hardwick described him to TheWrap as a mercurial boss prone to temperamental outbursts and loud confrontations similar to those described in Dykstra’s essay.

One former employee who worked for Hardwick during his time at Nerdist said he also witnessed incidents in which Hardwick or those in his circle would make it difficult for those who crossed him to find work in the future.
*  *  *
However, shortly after AMC decided Hardwick should return to “Talking Dead,” NBC confirmed that it had also restored Hardwick on its programs, including “The Wall.” He also appeared as a guest judge on “America’s Got Talent” last week.

Hardwick’s name was also restored on the Nerdist website as a co-founder.

Edited by tv echo

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that none of these people quit before the accusations if working with Mr Hardwick was so horrible and he was such a terrible boss and/or coworker.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

It's one thing to work for a bad boss, it's a whole other to work for a sexual/emotional abuser. 

Let us not mistake an internal investigation in a work place with an actual criminal investigation. Just because they hired him back does not mean he's not guilty - it means the show won't get sued to having him there and they're willing to continue with him until an actual criminal investigation takes place. 

Everything that has been thrown at Chloe in the last few months is exactly why women don't bother coming forward. Men continue in their jobs, women get called liars, golddiggers, attention whores. Before people start to question why she cheated, why she didn't leave, why she asked to get back together, I encourage people to actually do research into abusive relationships. 

Regardless of that, Talking Dead shouldn't even exist as a show anymore - I was an avid watcher in the early years when there were things to discuss and speculate on. But when people on the couch are just there to sing praises and make excuses for the terrible writing of the show, it's beyond its expiration date. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

 Dykstra wrote on Twitter today, "Hey dudes. Just a reminder: I 100% stand by every single word of my essay. I made sure it was unembellished, factual, and that I had evidence to back it up in order to protect myself in case of ACTUAL litigation (not a network investigation, where I’m not protected). That is all."

Hardwick appearing in front of the cameras again could well mean that AMC believe him innocent of the allegations, it could equally mean that they don’t have what is legally required to terminate his contract, without his lawyer taking them to the cleaners for a vast amount of money.

Are the people leaving purely because they believe the allegations or do they have personal experience of such things in relation to working with Hardwick? The former is entirely their right, if the latter then I hope they will speak up. I don’t condone trial by media, I don’t believe that a person’s career should be ruined by unsubstantiated allegations, but if enough people come forward with the same complaints then it should at least start raising concerns.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't kept up with the whole controversy and I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing. I always got a kick out of Hardwick's enthusiasm (whether it was genuine or well-acted). He seems genuinely grateful to be back for what that's worth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 So I still don't understand why that is being put on her.

For me, it's because she keeps claiming she has evidence, but she didn't participate in the investigation and isn't releasing anything publicly even though TMZ released stuff that contradicts her Medium essay. I believed her account at first, and I definitely know all of the reasons why people can stay in abusive relationships. Some of the comments that have been made about her on this thread are very upsetting to me with the way they seem to shift responsibility to the victim to not be hurt rather than the victimizer to not hurt. 

But at the same time, these things are almost never really he-said/she-said... there's almost always corroborating evidence of some kind or another. And right now, the corroborating evidence that's out there is not great for Dykstra. She claimed she left him when the TMZ texts show him as the one pulling the final plug on the lreationship (which she claimed was taken out of context, but she didn't provide the missing context so kind of hard to know). She implied he had a whirlwind rebound engagement, when he didn't get engaged to Hearst until a year after his breakup with Dkystra (not slow, but not a whirlwind by most definitions!). She claims she knows factually that he blackballed her and her career was toppled, but no one has come forward to verify that, and her career seems to have gone just as strong. (Supposedly, it's documented on her social media that her eating disorder proceeded her relationship with Hardwick as well, but I don't know if that one is true.)

If she ever does release her evidence and it totally backs her up, I definitely wouldn't be shocked. But at this point, I feel she has to release at least whatever she's got that counters what TMZ had, or she has to accept that it is reasonable for networks to employ him and for people to want explanations for the contradictions in her account.

 

Also, emotional abuse is can be a nebulous concept, and I've  seen the other side where one person's attempt to hold very reasonable boundaries was seen by another person as aggressive behavior. It's not hard for me to imagine a framing where some of the rules she describes as coercive were an attempt by Hardwick to protect his own sobriety and mental health. Even the sex discussion that she portrays as coercive could have been Hardwick communicating his frustrating and wishes and her misunderstanding this as a threat. Miscommunications and misunderstandings do happen. She can 100% believe in the truth of what she wrote without it being 100% true.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

"Appreciative” Chris Hardwick Returns To ‘Talking Dead’; Co-EP + Others Quit
by Dominic Patten  August 12, 2018
https://deadline.com/2018/08/chris-hardwick-returns-talking-dead-ep-quits-in-protest-sexual-assault-claims-fear-the-walking-dead-amc-1202444383/

Quote

Despite that shout out and hug with Brown and his mention of “producers,” Hardwick tonight did not mention the exit of co-EP Jen Patton and other staffers from Talking Dead in protest over his reinstatement late last month. Also once an exec on the other AMC chat shows Talking with Chris Hardwick, Talking Preacher, and Talking Saul, Patton worked with Hardwick for nearly five years.

“They felt they couldn’t stay after Chloe was not part of the investigation,” an insider told Deadline of Patton and the departure of the others after Ivy Kagan Bierman of law firm Loeb & Loeb probed into the claims and gave Hardwick a “back to work” pass. AMC had no comment on the co-EP and the others who have left Talking Dead as Hardwick came back.

No title changes of yet but fellow co-EP Brandon Monk remains on Talking Dead with Hardwick’s return and is essentially running things.
*  *  *
However, as Hardwick was stepping back in front of the camera this week, Dykstra reiterated her claims online on Friday and her assertion that she has “evidence” to back those allegations up:

From Loeb & Loeb website...

Quote

COUNSEL TO AMC ON EXISTING TV SERIES, NEW SERIES DEVELOPMENT DEALS
Provided business and legal affairs assistance to AMC in connection with the television series Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels and Low Winter Sun, as well as series development deals with U.S. studios, independent production companies, and individual writers, directors and producers.

https://www.loeb.com/experience-counseltoamc

Quote

CHRIS HARDWICK TO RETURN TO AMC AFTER INVESTIGATION
July 25, 2018
*  *  *
Loeb & Loeb partner Ivy Kagan Bierman is highlighted as counsel to AMC in connection with the network’s investigation into Chris Hardwick, host of “Talking Dead” and “Talking With Chris Hardwick.” Versions of this story have appeared in many outlets, including The Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, CNN and USA Today, among others.

Click here to read the article on The New York Times’ website.

https://www.loeb.com/news-mediamentions-20180725-chrishardwicktoreturntoamcafterinvestigation

Edited by tv echo

Share this post


Link to post
On 11.8.2018 at 4:58 PM, weightyghost said:

Everything that has been thrown at Chloe in the last few months is exactly why women don't bother coming forward. Men continue in their jobs, women get called liars, golddiggers, attention whores. Before people start to question why she cheated, why she didn't leave, why she asked to get back together, I encourage people to actually do research into abusive relationships.

But no one here called her that. Did people do that elsewhere on the internet? Yes. But the thing is that in this climate of #metoo there will be just as many false accusations as there will be true ones. Because the court of public opinion matters more than actual law. It's not 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore. It's 'big social media buzz' has become the law. For the record, I would have been just as skeptical if Chris was a woman and Chloe a man. Because things just don't add up in her account. All 'evidence' that has been presented so far is just Chloe's say so. I would love to believe her just like any other woman or man who was wronged by their partner. But her story just doesn't add up.

The first big, red flag for me was her not even naming him in the accusations. She did it in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge way. If he is 100% guilty of any of the crimes she accused him of (abuse, blacklisting etc.) and she has the proof to back it up (as she says), there is absolutely no reason not to drop his name. The only reason that I can see is that she is protecting herself from defamation charges. And that she would only do if she didn't actually have any proof. Hell she made it a point to threaten him with proof if HE got the authorities involved. How in the world does that make sense? Because following her public accusations, the authorities would have to get anyway to investigate him and she would have to hand over the proof anyway.

And lets not forget that if she has proof, it's her obligation to prevent future victims. If he is such an abuser, then give the evidence to the police so he can be charged and convicted. If that doesn't work due to the power Hardwick is married into, you can still make it public that he was found guilty but old money saved him. Get the media involved. Something. Instead it's all a lot of blah-blah-blah on social media.

And it should be mentioned that Chloe has refused to aid in the investigation.

Edited by Smad
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Smad said:

If he is 100% guilty of any of the crimes she accused him of (abuse, blacklisting etc.) and she has the proof to back it up (as she says), there is absolutely no reason not to drop his name.

I haven't read much about this, but what exactly are the "crimes" of which she accuses him? Blacklisting is a nasty, hateful, spiteful thing to do. Being an asshole, possessive or verbally abusive boyfriend is pretty crappy too, (although personally I wouldn't stay for three years with such an asshole as she's made him out to be) but assholer-y and blacklisting are not crimes. What exactly did he do that is a crime and punishable under the law? Did he beat her up? Did she have to call the police? It seems nothing he did made her leave him when she was free to go at any time.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

but what exactly are the "crimes" of which she accuses him?

The only one that is criminal is sexual assault, and her account of it probably doesn't fit into most state's legal definitions. However, actions can be clearly morally wrong without being legal crimes, and it is very unlikely Hardwick's contract prevents him from being fired for anything other than a legal crime. People can be and are fired for all sorts of reasons. Whether Hardwick's actions meet the legal standard of an actual crime is irrelevant since Dykstra is not trying to have him criminally charged (and per her words, not trying to have him fired either).

People stay with abusive partners because part of what the abuse does is rob the victim of the confidence in themselves to believe they can leave or even that they deserve better. The fear of leaving is a rational fear, which is so important for people to understand. Abusers retaliate, exactly as Dykstra alleges Hardwick did. Abuse also causes people to lose their sense of normal, healthy behavior.  

Now, as said above, I think there are inconsistencies in Dykstra's account and the current available corroborating evidence that, for me, raise too much doubt to support Hardwick being fired in the absence of her addressing them or showing her evidence. But I don't think those inconsistencies are so strong that they couldn't be explained. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

So that would be 2 independent investigations that cleared him

Which doesn't make him innocent of what Chloe said he did. 

She mentioned in her post it was something she had to get off her chest and express. There was no intention of getting him fired or arrested. It was something that was weighing on her for years and wanted to express in order to prevent similar things from happening to other people. That is her right with her own experiences. She owes no one anything. She doesn't care if he keeps his job or not so why bother going through his work investigation. 

I am not saying with 100% that the accusations are true. However, it is inhumane to write it off just because it doesn't fit in the nice box of "he held me down and forced himself on me" rape or "he punched me every night" abuse. We're living in 2018. We can do better than that. 

On 8/13/2018 at 3:21 PM, Smad said:

But the thing is that in this climate of #metoo there will be just as many false accusations as there will be true ones.

This is so categorical untrue and a very dangerous belief to have and again why people never come forward. It has been proven that less than 5% of rape accusations are untrue. I'll take the 5% if that means the 95% are comfortable coming forward.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, weightyghost said:

Which doesn't make him innocent of what Chloe said he did. 

Doesn’t make him guilty either.

 

13 minutes ago, weightyghost said:

She mentioned in her post it was something she had to get off her chest and express. There was no intention of getting him fired or arrested.

With all due respect - and without reflecting one way or the other on the veracity of Dykstra’s other allegations -  THAT particular claim of Dykstra’s is 100% grade-A bullshit.  If ALL you want to do is “get something off your chest”, you tell it to your close friends or your therapist.  Dykstra published her essay in an open-access blog, and deliberately framed her essay’s initial allegations in the context of sexual assault.  Regardless of the truth or falsehood of her claims - to pretend retaliation wasn’t at least a significant part of her intention is disingenuous in the extreme.

As I have said before - repeatedly - I don’t know if Dykstra’s claims are genuine or not; I’ve previously cited specific examples of issues with her account which give me pause to accepting her version of events as gospel, but that doesn’t mean I dismiss everything she says out-of-hand.  But I sincerely hope our discussion on this forum, at least, can be as conducted in as solid a base of mutual truthfulness as is possible.

 

13 minutes ago, weightyghost said:

It has been proven that less than 5% of rape accusations are untrue. I'll take the 5% if that means the 95% are comfortable coming forward.

And I’m sure 95% of the general public may agree with you, because they’re NOT the 5% who have to deal with the consequences of complacency.  The 5% who have their lives, their marriages and their careers destroyed over such unjust allegations, though, might have a slightly different take on the subject.  

Me, I’d rather have 100% of claims properly and objectively investigated - and then 100% prosecution of verified claims.  What’s wrong with that?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nashville said:

Me, I’d rather have 100% of claims properly and objectively investigated - and then 100% prosecution of verified claims.  What’s wrong with that?

Nothing, but in a lot of cases this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do.  Maybe to Chloe Dykstra, the relationship was exactly as she described and to Chris Hardwick it was not.  I see nothing wrong with her blogging to get it off her chest, help her move on, if what she said is what she truly believes/feels happened.  I am sure she is aware that any sexual assault allegations would be he said/she said - they happened years ago, it was probably just the two of them, how can anything be proved?  Most likely this isn't why she named him in her essay - it would open them both up to more scrutiny.  I know she said she had "tapes" or whatever but who knows - they could just be him yelling at her, something like that.

9 minutes ago, Nashville said:

 If ALL you want to do is “get something off your chest”, you tell it to your close friends or your therapist.  

I don't agree - maybe he is a grade A asshole and she wants the whole world to know it.  People can handle their recovery how ever they want, unless they are lying and making things up.  If her version is true - and let's face it, none of use know whether or not it is - if this is the best she can do to help herself move on and she gets some retaliation, well, he's a big boy and will have to stand up for himself.

I don't believe she should keep her mouth shut because nothing can be definitively proved, UNLESS she is making everything up, which I don't believe she did.  I think because of their age difference and different professional standings, they probably had very different views on how the relationship was being conducted. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, raven said:

I don't agree - maybe he is a grade A asshole and she wants the whole world to know it.  People can handle their recovery how ever they want, unless they are lying and making things up.  If her version is true - and let's face it, none of use know whether or not it is - if this is the best she can do to help herself move on and she gets some retaliation, well, he's a big boy and will have to stand up for himself.

No argument here - but if Dykstra is going to make her allegations publicly and allude to having evidence to back them up, what’s wrong with her being a big girl and standing behind HER claims?  Doesn’t giving her a pass on this reinforce the notion of a double standard?

 

6 minutes ago, raven said:

I don't believe she should keep her mouth shut because nothing can be definitively proved, UNLESS she is making everything up, which I don't believe she did.  I think because of their age difference and different professional standings, they probably had very different views on how the relationship was being conducted. 

Agree - but disagreement and abuse are nowhere near automatically equivalent states.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Nashville said:

No argument here - but if Dykstra is going to make her allegations publicly and allude to having evidence to back them up, what’s wrong with her being a big girl and standing behind HER claims?  Doesn’t giving her a pass on this reinforce the notion of a double standard?

No, it doesn't - according to her, she is not trying to change people's minds and she is aware she is opening herself up to a bunch of accusations.  She is telling her own story for her own reasons in her own way and is standing behind her claims, knowing there will be fallout to her.  On the flip side, CH is free to refute her claims in whatever way he sees fit - which he did.   Maybe this "evidence" is just in case he instigates some kind of legal activity - and let's remember, she doesn't name him.  I wouldn't be surprised if she did talk with a lawyer first, sort of "I really want to get this out there but I don't want to make MY own life worse legally".  In her essay, she seemed pretty aware that there is no legal claim to make against him.   She doesn't seem horrified or surprised that people react negatively towards what she said.

21 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Agree - but disagreement and abuse are nowhere near automatically equivalent states.

No they're not - but it's not up to me to tell someone which state their relationship is in.   Now of course we're all going to judge and make up our own minds, but, though I might think it, it's not up to me to give my unsolicited opinion to someone who feels they have been abused and tell them "no you weren't really".   It's that kind of scoffing that keeps people from stepping forward who really need to get help.*

*Not saying this is what you do @Nashville, just that this is how I feel about it.  I may throw out "well it could be x y z" but I don't know enough to make a definitive statement.

To expound on the above a little (sorry for being long winded) I do honestly believe that in relationships, interactions can be like multiple witnesses to a crime - one person is 100% sure they saw X and the other is 100% sure it was Y.  I believe it is rarer in relationships but does happen.

So if Chloe believes there was a crime does it make it one?  I have to say no, barring further proof but that is a much different standard then publicly outing a bad relationship; which she also remarks about how she wasn't at her best with him (it's been a while since I read it).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 7/28/2018 at 4:01 PM, Gobi said:

Since Dykstra herself did not name Hardwick, he might have difficulty suing her.

I think that's why she refused to cooperate in the AMC investigation. She knew she would actually have to name him. If she was lying, she must have been shaking in her boots at the prospect of having to do that because as soon as she did it would be open season on her as far as a lawsuit goes.  

Even now, he's got access to a team of lawyers and quite a bit of funds. She made it obvious who she was talking about, and it would be fairly easy to establish that she knew it would go viral. 

She continues to say and do stupid things on Twitter. His attorneys might just be biding their time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, CoachWristletJen said:

I think that's why she refused to cooperate in the AMC investigation. She knew she would actually have to name him. If she was lying, she must have been shaking in her boots at the prospect of having to do that because as soon as she did it would be open season on her as far as a lawsuit goes.  

Even now, he's got access to a team of lawyers and quite a bit of funds. She made it obvious who she was talking about, and it would be fairly easy to establish that she knew it would go viral. 

She continues to say and do stupid things on Twitter. His attorneys might just be biding their time.

I haven't seen her say anything stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anela said:

Generally that's how it works for women who lie, yes.

I suppose she made up this flow chart herself?

1 hour ago, Anela said:

I haven't seen her say anything stupid.

Actually the flow chart she made up is a pretty good example.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anela said:

What exactly is the purpose of this?  

To state unconditional 100% embrace of every facet of an accuser’s account, without attempt at verification or investigation, is the ONLY course of action which is just?

To state anybody who questions or attempts to verify ANY part of the accuser’s account is, in effect, calling the accuser a liar?

Sorry, my mind doesn’t work like that.  I was educated to believe there is NO question, disagreement or issue so sacrosanct as to be immune from the application of logic and critical thinking - and any question which claimed such executive privilege from critique was automatically suspect, for that very reason.  Simple truth is adamant and unassailable; it doesn’t need protection from investigation, because objective critique only validates truth further.  Truth welcomes validation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Nashville said:

What exactly is the purpose of this?  

To state unconditional 100% embrace of every facet of an accuser’s account, without attempt at verification or investigation, is the ONLY course of action which is just?

To state anybody who questions or attempts to verify ANY part of the accuser’s account is, in effect, calling the accuser a liar?

Sorry, my mind doesn’t work like that.  I was educated to believe there is NO question, disagreement or issue so sacrosanct as to be immune from the application of logic and critical thinking - and any question which claimed such executive privilege from critique was automatically suspect, for that very reason.  Simple truth is adamant and unassailable; it doesn’t need protection from investigation, because objective critique only validates truth further.  Truth welcomes validation.

Exactly, Nashville! And, Chloe's account didn't even line up with the chronology of actual events.

When I look at the outpouring of empathy and support for women who have come forward in other cases... Bill Cosby's accusers for example... I realize that we are indeed living in a new era where women are supported and believed. I'm not sure where Chloe was doing her 'research' but what she presented, once again, simply isn't factual. She's basically saying that 100% of accusers are not believed, no matter what they do. And, that's simply not the case at all. 

She seems to be asking for blind faith in the accusations which would be ludicrous. 

Many people still believe Chloe because all they've ever seen is her essay with her version of events. Once they are presented with more information, they start giving her the side-eye, and they back away.

Of course, there will always be those guys online telling her what she wants to hear with the hopes that she will post more nude photos of herself. That's a given.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CoachWristletJen said:

She seems to be asking for blind faith in the accusations which would be ludicrous. 

Many people still believe Chloe because all they've ever seen is her essay with her version of events. Once they are presented with more information, they start giving her the side-eye, and they back away.

Isn't it really ironic then that those who come out in defense of the accused (especially women) are smeared by everyone because they are lying to protect him? These people are only speaking from their personal experience with the accused but of course, they are lying. In the case of Hardwick it was his exes and actors he was friends with but they lied, lied, lied.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Smad said:

Isn't it really ironic then that those who come out in defense of the accused (especially women) are smeared by everyone because they are lying to protect him? These people are only speaking from their personal experience with the accused but of course, they are lying. In the case of Hardwick it was his exes and actors he was friends with but they lied, lied, lied.

Good point! Patricia Hearst was one of the first people who spoke up in defense of her son-in-law, and immediately, people started slamming her because she had been a kidnapping victim over forty years ago. (And, she was definitely kidnapped.) Seems to me someone who has been a victim herself (as in intruders forced their way into their home, bound her and dragged her out) would have seriously evaluated the data before coming forward, which, in fact, I think she did. However, for whatever reason, Twitter was bashing her about "Stockholm Syndrome" and other crude jokes. 

Also, I figure, she's a mother-in-law, so mothers-in-law always give the side-eye, first, right? For her to come forward, she had to have given it some critical thought.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to 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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size