Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Bullpen

Wilowy

By Wilowy
in Criminal Minds

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Droogie
Droogie

I adored Hotch.  I think he was stoic and honorable and felt as though the weight of the world was on his shoulders.  And as Reid is my favorite character, it was always dear to me, how Hotch never le

Danielg342
Danielg342

They're called "normal clothes", and, yeah, I miss that too.

JMO
JMO

The discussion about the upcoming 'Derek', and the promo for that episode brought me back to our prior two agent kidnappings.  It seems like this current set of writers has become progressively more v

secnarf

secnarf

19 hours ago, zannej said:

I respectfully disagree that social media interactions are an accurate portrayal of who people are. People may show a side of themselves there, or they may even put on fronts. I know someone who never mentions religion, doesn't go to church, does not act like a Christian, is violent with her own children, verbally and physically abusive with significant others, and violent with animals-- yet her Facebook page is almost nothing but re-posts about Jesus, angels, religion, etc. There are some cute kitten and puppy things thrown in, but for the most part, she presents herself as this ultra-religious nice person when she is not. Meanwhile, I know someone who is very sweet in person but she re-posts memes about how she's going to "cut a bitch" if they try to take her man. I know that is not quite the same as Twitter, but I don't think a person's character can be judged entirely by their Twitter feed. I would hate to think what people would think of me just from my twitter feed.

Some people on social media are pretty much the opposite of the way they are in real life because they can choose to present themselves a certain way to create an image and they often don't have to worry as much about repercussions (or feel they don't have to) because it is not face-to-face interaction.

....

I saw someone elsewhere saying that if Virgil followed it justified him being kicked-- but Erica Messer was apparently there. If TG really felt that something needed to be done about Virgil's attitude, he could have said something to her. He could have asked her to mediate. But he didn't-- he kicked instead.

First - that's a really good point about people using social media to portray a persona. I think re-posting memes and whatnot is a bit different from things people actually write - but ostensibly as a professional writer, VW should know how to write using a persona! However, I am still more inclined to believe that his statements and actions reflect his true views/personality. I think that's inevitable when it's really all I have to base my opinion on. I suppose that's similar to how we tend to have trouble separating the actor from the character. The character is sometimes all we see and all we have to base our opinions on.

As to your second point - I had mentioned something along those lines and I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not. If so, I don't think that if VW followed, then it justifies being kicked, and I also don't think EM being there means that it could not have happened this way. To me, EM's presence implies that this was more based on instinct than rational thought. Of course, this is all supposition and conjecture, but I think that if VW was following after TG and TG kicked out as self-defense because he felt threatened, then there would not have been a chance for anyone to ask EM to intervene (or for her to intervene on her own). If this was the case, then I also don't feel being fired is justified - and I would hope that since TG actually was fired, this is not actually how it played out.

  • Love 1
Danielg342

Danielg342

21 hours ago, zannej said:

Once the story was released to the public as to why TG was absent from set for two weeks, they had to do some damage control. To outsiders, it would be another case of a white man using violence against a black man. If CBS didn't take strict enough action, they could be accused of racism. Firing TG would make the public appearance that they care and are not tolerating that behavior and would basically only hurt Criminal Minds. If they didn't take strong enough action to satisfy the right people, it could wind up costing them more in advertising revenue. The accusation of racism (as with sexism) could hurt more than just CM, but CBS as a whole. It was pretty much a political and monetary decision. Sometimes, the companies don't care what the truth is, they have to worry about the public perception. They can't afford to be perceived as racist-- even though siding with a black man over a white man just because of race *is* racist. That said, we don't know what really happened.

A few years ago, I might have agreed that race played a factor, but in the Age of Donald Trump, I'm not sure it's so ironclad anymore. It still holds, but Trump and the rise of "anti-SJWs" gives people the "confidence" (for a lack of a better term) to challenge an accusation of racism.

I mean, yeah, it's probably true that CBS thought about "the race factor" in making the decision, because an accusation of racism still stings today (as it should). However, if this was simply about race, I'm sure Gibson's people would have brought it up- the fact that they haven't tells me it didn't play that much of a part, if at all.

  • Love 1
secnarf

secnarf

1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

A few years ago, I might have agreed that race played a factor, but in the Age of Donald Trump, I'm not sure it's so ironclad anymore. It still holds, but Trump and the rise of "anti-SJWs" gives people the "confidence" (for a lack of a better term) to challenge an accusation of racism.

I mean, yeah, it's probably true that CBS thought about "the race factor" in making the decision, because an accusation of racism still stings today (as it should). However, if this was simply about race, I'm sure Gibson's people would have brought it up- the fact that they haven't tells me it didn't play that much of a part, if at all.

I don't understand what you mean here - how does the rise of Trump make race less likely to have been a factor in the decision to fire TG?

I'm not at all convinced that race is a factor in this situation, I just don't see what Trump has to do with it.

Danielg342

Danielg342

Without trying to bring politics into this...

I'm not denying that racism exists- subtly or not subtly- or that it isn't wrong, because it is. I also know that quite a bit of the things levied at Williams surely does fall into the "racist" side, especially the talk of him as a "thug".

What I'm trying to say is this- a few years ago, if, say, Gibson or his people were to say that he was fired because "CBS didn't want to look like they preferred whites to blacks" they'd likely be labelled as racists and no one would defend him. This year, if Gibson or his people said the same thing, he'd likely still be labelled as a racist- but he'd have a few defenders, and CBS might take some heat for "playing identity politics".

Basically what I mean is that Gibson could have said he was fired because of "reverse discrimination" and he could get away with it to a certain degree this year whereas a few years ago he wouldn't be able to do that. So I would expect that if Gibson actually felt like reverse discrimination played a role, he would say so- because he could feel a little more comfortable doing so. I'm not saying it's right- just that Gibson could.

  • Love 1
Danielg342

Danielg342

20 minutes ago, secnarf said:

I don't understand what you mean here - how does the rise of Trump make race less likely to have been a factor in the decision to fire TG?

I'm not at all convinced that race is a factor in this situation, I just don't see what Trump has to do with it.

I guess what I'm trying to say (now that I've collected my thoughts) is what you're saying in a roundabout kind of way. A few years ago- and I'm speaking hypothetically here, I'm not denying what Gibson did or that what he did was wrong- if the whole situation could be boiled down to "Thomas Gibson was fired because CBS was worried about the optics", CBS could get away with it, because if Gibson countered with "reverse discrimination" there wouldn't be a soul who'd side with. This year, I'm not convinced that optics alone would be reason enough to fire Gibson, because this year he or his people could shout "reverse discrimination" and someone would side with him on it.

So that's my roundabout, very awkward reason why race didn't apply in this situation.

zannej

zannej

secnarf, the comment I made about someone saying Virgil deserved to be kicked if he followed Thomas was not about you. I was thinking about some of the IMDB posts I saw. I had to put at least one person on ignore over there. The racism was sickening.

I've heard rumors that CBS was NOT going to fire Thomas and that it was actually ABC that pushed to fire him. Supposedly there is someone new running ABC. Perhaps they wanted to make an example of him.

My gut feeling is that Thomas lost his temper and screwed up. I think everyone involved was shocked that it happened but that they never expected it to go very far. If the news hadn't broken, they might not have felt the need to fire him. Suspension and maybe a fine or something might have been what they planned.

While I don't for a moment think that Erica is above lying to get someone fired, I don't think she wanted Thomas to be fired. Especially not at this point in the show. It creates a PR nightmare and all sorts of trouble they wouldn't want. If anything, if she wanted him out, she would wait until his contract was up.

  • Love 3
Cobalt Stargazer

Cobalt Stargazer

On 8/14/2016 at 0:31 AM, WendyCR72 said:

I won't convict or acquit Gibson, but objectively, this is not his first time, there was a prior incident, so in that regard, wouldn't that qualify as "history"?

I have no doubt networks are about the money and loyalty is far down the totem pole, if it's there at all. In the end, though, I doubt they'd fire the man if they didn't have just cause. Especially since I'm sure they're aware of the popularity of the character he played and the risk of firing him with such an old show now in a precarious position.

Virgil Williams could be the biggest asshole known to man, and maybe he isn't "innocent" even if he is a victim. But...he's still employed. Gibson is not. So perhaps there is far more to the story than we'll ever be privy to.

Off-topic, but related, @WendyCR72 - Shannen Doherty* called from 1994. She says don't believe everything you hear. ;-)

I do think there's a bunch to the story that we'll never know, but what I'm really wondering is why a network that's been content to sit on its collective thumb for four years while Messer does whatever the hell she wants has elected to get involved now. The suits were the ones who insisted that Jeanne Tripplehorn be hired, but apparently they forgot to stipulate that she was actually supposed to be given something to do. Then they tried to replace JT (or Paget Brewster, take your pick) with Jennifer Love Hewitt, and JLH was in the door at the beginning of one season and out the door at the end of it. Meanwhile, EM is handing out writing jobs like they're prizes in a Cracker Jack box, giving them to people who have little to no experience as professional writers - including Virgil Williams. Quite frankly, some of them don't even have the chops to make it as fanfic writers, and I say that from experience.

So, fine, the big bosses have decided to yank the leash, but....why? Because if we extrapolate from them being willing to let what I see as Messer's professional incompetence slide, it isn't the integrity of the network or even the show they're protecting. I wonder if Williams didn't threaten to sue if Gibson wasn't fired, and the suits decided that it was less of a risk to let the actor go than to let him take them to court. If we've learned nothing else from the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard** divorce, its that any amount of money is worth it to stay out of legal proceedings. If what I'm gleaning about Williams here is anything to go by, it doesn't seem that far out of bounds.

* I'm aware that Shannen Doherty wasn't well-liked back in the day, but in the intervening years I've seen a lot of stuff about BTS goings-on with both Beverly Hills 90210 and Charmed that leads me to believe she was never the whole problem. I just hope it doesn't take twenty some years to disprove that TG's screwed in the head.

** I'm not going to touch most of the Depp/Heard situation, but I do think seven million dollars is a tidy enough hunk of change for her to decide that she can go sit down and be quiet now. I'm thinking the bean counters just did the math and decided that it'd cost less to fire TG and stay out of court. The squeaky wheel and all.

  • Love 3
FormerMod-a1

FormerMod-a1

Being a crap writer or show-runner, being incompetent is nowhere near the same thing as getting violent in the workplace.  I don't see how those 2 are comparable.  That they "let" Messer be bad at her job is not the same as letting someone kick others at their job.  That's not even an apples and oranges comparison, that's more of an apples and carpet* comparison, imo.

 

* trying to come up with something very different than a fruit. 

  • Love 4
smoker

smoker

(edited)

I agree, they aren't comparable. Althoung being an incompetent is a motive to be fired in a lot of places too. Entertainment business has a strange envioroment and rules without any doubt.

Nobody says TG didn't deserve a punishment, but there are others ways to penalize and get him out later in the season without ruining the show and his public reputation. And I'm saying public because he is been for a long time inside the business, so I guess many people knows about his no so recent behavior.

And if VW was in some way an instigator or took an accidental physical contact to another level because they were in the middle of a heated situation. He should be penalized too. Now, if he is right and TG hit him to hurt him then he should have filed a lawsuit himself.

Just my thoughts

Edited by smoker
  • Love 2
Willowy

Willowy

Just popping in to say, even if Virgil's writing isn't our favorite, one really can't question his resume. He wrote for both ER and 24 (both heavy-hitters in TV land) before coming to CM, and he's been there for what now? Five years. His qualifications aren't in question, nor should they even be part of determining anything in this situation. 

  • Love 6
smoker

smoker

(edited)

And they are not. I've made 2 comments about this industry behavior.

In the first one, I was clearly talking about VW as a writer because the writing for CM has been a crap lately and that's his job. Obviously, that's not only on VW. The writing room needs better writers and that's long before this incident.

As for my second comment, VW could have been the cinemtograher and the discusion about the light. This is about their atittudes.

Edited by smoker
  • Love 1
smoker

smoker

7 minutes ago, Franky said:

I wasn't referring to your comments, smoker. 

ok, sorry @Franky, sometimes I don't know if I am explaining myself right, grammatically I mean.

So I try to reexplain myself. I do apologize if it seems that I am trying to change someone else mind, not my intent. Especially, in a non-fictional and serious question like this one.

  • Love 2
secnarf

secnarf

20 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I guess what I'm trying to say (now that I've collected my thoughts) is what you're saying in a roundabout kind of way. A few years ago- and I'm speaking hypothetically here, I'm not denying what Gibson did or that what he did was wrong- if the whole situation could be boiled down to "Thomas Gibson was fired because CBS was worried about the optics", CBS could get away with it, because if Gibson countered with "reverse discrimination" there wouldn't be a soul who'd side with. This year, I'm not convinced that optics alone would be reason enough to fire Gibson, because this year he or his people could shout "reverse discrimination" and someone would side with him on it.

So that's my roundabout, very awkward reason why race didn't apply in this situation.

Thanks!!
I'm not sure I agree, but I do think I get what you're trying to say :)

  • Love 2
smoker

smoker

(edited)

I have a problem with the reply box, I don't know if I did something, there is this note:

[[template core/global/forms/editorattachments is throwing an error. this theme may be out of date. run the support tool in the admincp to restore the default theme.]]

I have tried to remove it but I can't. Could someone help me, please?

Edited by smoker
thewhiteowl

thewhiteowl

5 minutes ago, smoker said:

I have a problem with the reply box, I don't know if I did something, there is this note:

[[template core/global/forms/editorattachments is throwing an error. this theme may be out of date. run the support tool in the admincp to restore the default theme.]]

I have tried to remove it but I can't. Could someone help me, please?

They are looking at it now. Happened to me, too. 

  • Love 2
Bookish Jen

Bookish Jen

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:39 PM, normasm said:

I can't even with the crazy over there, Riff

I decided to dip my tippy-toes over at the CM IMDB message board pond and here is my reaction.

tumblr_m0773keTQc1rocgzbo1_250.gif

And to cleanse the palate of the past week of CM turmoil (not to mention other assorted craziness whether it is our political landscape, massive fires in California, flooding in Louisiana, unrest here in Milwaukee), I thought I would share this story to show there is true goodness in the world if you look for it. I found this via my blog's FB feed.

Love What Matters

August 16 at 6:24pm ·

"I work in a decent sized, local, indie bookstore. It’s a great job 99% of the time and a lot of our customers are pretty neat people. Any who, middle of the da...y this little old lady comes up. She’s lovably kooky. She effuses how much she loves the store and how she wishes she could spend more time in it but her husband is waiting in the car 'OH! I BETTER BUY HIM SOME CHOCOLATE!' She piles a bunch of art supplies on the counter and then stops and tells me how my bangs are beautiful and remind her of the ocean ('Wooooosh' she says, making a wave gesture with her hand.
Ok. I think to myself. Awesomely happy, weird little old ladies are my favorite kind of customer. They’re thrilled about everything and they’re comfortably bananas. I can have a good time with this one. So we chat and it’s nice.

Then this kid, who’s been up my counter a few times to gather his school textbooks, comes up in line behind her (we’re connected to a major university in the city so we have a lot of harried students pass through). She turns around to him and, out of nowhere, demands that he put his textbooks on the counter. He’s confused but she explains that she’s going to buy his textbooks.

He goes sheetrock white. He refuses and adamantly insists that she can’t do that. It’s like, $400 worth of textbooks. She, this tiny old woman, boldly takes them out of his hands, throws them on the counter and turns to me with an intense stare and tells me to put them on her bill. The kid at this point is practically in tears. He’s confused and shocked and grateful. Then she turns to him and says 'you need chocolate.' She starts grabbing handfuls of chocolates and putting them in her pile.

He keeps asking her 'why are you doing this?' She responds 'Do you like Harry Potter?' and throws a copy of the new Cursed Child on the pile too.

Finally she’s done and I ring her up for a crazy amount of money. She pays and asks me to please give the kid a few bags for his stuff. While I’m bagging up her merchandise the kid hugs her. We’re both telling her how amazing she is and what an awesome thing she’s done. She turns to both of us and says probably one of the most profound, unscripted things I’ve ever had someone say:

'It’s important to be kind. You can’t know all the times that you’ve hurt people in tiny, significant ways. It’s easy to be cruel without meaning to be. There’s nothing you can do about that. But you can choose to be kind. Be kind.'

The kid thanks her again and leaves. I tell her again how awesome she is. She’s staring out the door after him and says to me: 'My son is a homeless meth addict. I don’t know what I did. I see that boy and I see the man my son could have been if someone had chosen to be kind to him at just the right time.'

I’ve bagged up all her stuff and at this point am super awkward and feel like I should say something but I don’t know what. Then she turns to me and says: 'I wish I could have bangs like that but my darn hair is just too curly.' And leaves. And that is the story of the best customer I’ve ever had. Be kind to somebody today."

‪#‎LoveWhatMatters
https://www.facebook.com/lovewhatreallymatters/?fref=nf&pnref=story‬

Credit: Christine Turel


 

  • Love 7
Clemgo3165

Clemgo3165

On 8/16/2016 at 9:27 PM, Mysteyman said:

Any company that ignores violence in the workplace leaves themselves vulnerable to legal action.

They HAD to fire Gibson.

 If he had not kicked Virgil, He would probably still have his job.

And CBS probably was not too happy  that this  all happened while Gibson was directing an episode.

My guess is CBS is probably happy to see him go. He's costly to a series that is expensive already and that has been around for now 12 seasons. And if TG has had serious anger issues that required remediation and created a difficult working environment, they were likely delighted to show him the door.

I don't know TG or anything about his recent past history on CM. I'd like to know more about what went down because a kick if one feels threatened seems fairly Innocuous to me, but a kick if one is just ticked off does not.

MCatry

MCatry

Hi.

My outdoors campaign is over for this year, and I came back here to see what had happened throughout this 2016. Long story short: I spent some time in the wilderness without tv and limited Internet connection. 

So: I was prepared to sit down, grab a glass of coca cola with ice cubes floating on it, and watch some CM episodes, but first I wanted to see what was your take on the second half of the season. Imagine my surprise when I first googled for 'criminal minds' to find this website and the first article popped up saying that TG was fired, and that SM quitted, and that that guy from CSI Miami was replacing him.

I immediately came here, and read several pages of this forum, trying to digest information at super speed, and I came up with an unclear picture of the current situation of the show.

Here is my take on what I read:

- I think it is a pity that both SM and TG are out. I always thought these two plus MG would be enough for he show, and they would have been my first choices for a real spin off. I used to whish for the CBS authorities to create a BAU for the west coast and sent this trio to California... (And I would read fanfiction about it, if available...)

- I think that unfortunately the people in charge of the show production fails to understand that the success of this show lays in two aspects: the fascination of the public with crime (and that's the reason why Investigation discovery actually exists), and the cast ensemble. And even though you can ruin the stories with bad writers (we have numerous examples for this), that wouldn't even matter, if you keep people hooked with the cast, frantically hoping for better episodes. The changes in the cast have been anything but smooth, and yet, they insist on that strategy...

- on the Gibson/ Williams incident: funny thing, but I don't quite understand most of your arguments. Probably because I am not American. On top of that, none of us know what really happened. Nevertheless, I am somehow stunned for what I read.  For me, violence comes in both sides: verbal and physical. Some arguments say that Gibson may have some mental issues that he has to sort out. If that's the situation, I couldn't agree more, but I also think that people with mental issues is ill, and hence they cannot help themselves most of the time. Stating that Gibson should have known better sounds to me as unfair as saying to an obese person that the should stop eating too many candies, or saying a smoker they are weak because they cannot quit. For some reason, issues that come from the mind and mind control are perceived as will failures, when in reality they are diseases that are not as easy to control. I remember hearing a psychiatrist on tv saying that occidental societies are used to make fun of the crazy, mocking or laughing at them, but not many would laugh at someone missing a limb of being unable to see, but both are ill. Of course it is not fun to be on the other side, being kicked on the job, and that episode surely disrupted the whole crew, and not only the ones directly involved. It was necessary to penalise thr incident, but what strikes me the most is the way things are weighted in America: if you kick someone on the job, you can get fired, but then I read a news about a promotion in Rochester, New Hampshire, in which if you buy them a vehicle you can get for free either a 9 mm gun or an AR15 rifle... as a gift, and that's perfectly legal and fine.  Is only violence when that gun kills someone? Same thing happens with other issues: for instance, a singer accidentally slips a breast out of the outfit, and she is condemned in every media, another socialite releases not pictures, and she is praised for it. They are basically showing the same stuff, but they are not treated the same.

Nevertheless, what's done, is done already. Only time will uncover the truth, and reveal the fate of CM as a tv show.

And sorry for the rant.

  • Love 4
FormerMod-a1

FormerMod-a1

13 hours ago, MCatry said:

or me, violence comes in both sides: verbal and physical. Some arguments say that Gibson may have some mental issues that he has to sort out. If that's the situation, I couldn't agree more, but I also think that people with mental issues is ill, and hence they cannot help themselves most of the time. Stating that Gibson should have known better sounds to me as unfair as saying to an obese person that the should stop eating too many candies, or saying a smoker they are weak because they cannot quit.

There is no evidence or statements from anyone that would actually know that he has mental issues.    And I'll say it again, if someone is yelling in my face, that would not give me the right to shove or kick them or do anything physical.  I can leave, I can go to HR, I can yell back - many other things.  But I can tell you from experience that getting physical or violent never even crosses my mind.  Because it's wrong and ineffectual.  I usually just walk away or ignore, actually, because I find that when people get to yelling they are not in a mindset to actually listen to what anyone else has to say.  It's just pointless.  And in walking away, I would not turn around and kick someone, even if they were walking behind me still yelling.

Moving on...

I used to watching this show obsessively, then dropped it off the DVR around season 7, but would watch if I was home for it, or had time via DVR.  For another season I still watched almost all eps.  Then I'd miss more and more and not care.  I haven't watched the past couple of seasons at all, not one single ep.  But I'm going to tune in now to see how all these changes look and work out.  I miss how great this show used to be, and when those earlier seasons are shown in syndication, the direct comparison is almost appalling, imo.  

  • Love 5
zannej

zannej

Welcome back, McCatry.

I think Aquarian already answered one point that I was going to address: There is no proof that Thomas has been diagnosed with any mental illness. There is a difference between someone smoking or eating candy when they know it is bad for them-- those things affect them. It is self-harm. It is an entirely different thing to physically assault another person. If someone is a smoker, it may be hard for them to quit, but they can still choose to not stick cigarettes in other people's faces and burn them or to smoke around people with asthma or copd.

Now, if someone is mentally ill and they get violent with other people-- they are then a danger to others and need to be dealt with.

As for the gun thing: owning a gun does not make a person violent and does not always lead to violence. A good portion of the gun violence in the US is perpetuated by people who have guns illegally. A lot of law-abiding citizens use guns to shoot targets, hunt food, or defend themselves from dangerous animals. Other times, just having a gun can deter criminals. Nobody has to get hurt. Responsible gun owners are careful with their guns.

Personally, I don't think that TG is mentally ill. I think he may have been stressed out and made a bad decision. Since I don't know exactly what happened, I'm not going to pass judgment.

  • Love 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...