Joss Whedon Allegations: The Undoing of the "Buffy" Creator

[CleverNickName]

He should still get whatever his contract says.

Yeah, I figured. But what does a typical contract like this usually contain? What could we expect someone like Joss Whedon to be contracted for, regarding a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer...a show that has been long-completed, but is still available for purchase/syndication/streaming? How much money would Joss receive each time an episode of Buffy is streamed? Or would he receive a cut from Warner Brothers when/if Hulu or Netflix purchases the permissions to stream Buffy? And if so, how much? Do other actors have similar contracts as well?

The contracts I'm accustomed to seeing are all on a per-show or a per-run basis (limited theater background). I've never had to deal with anything like syndication or royalties.

 

[Gradine]

Is he getting work at all?

Here's the thing. He'll disappear for a few years, and then he'll be back to making movies and nobody will act like anything is weird about that. It happens all the time, and it's going to keep happening, because eventually enough people will be like "it's in the past and he's changed!" and maybe that will be true but it very very rarely works out that way, and it really really sucks, and I'm not sure what anybody can actually do about that other than to continue to demand real accountability.

 

[MGibster]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but Hollywood isn't a normal place. Apparently when Ethel Mermen sang "There's No Business Like Show Business" she wasn't just whistling Dixie. For all the money it generates, the industry is small and insular. Just take a look at any given actor, writer, and producer and see how many of them got into showbusiness because of family connections. In a place like that, I can see how abusive behavior gets ignored. People are afraid of speaking up because everyone knows each other. If you get branded a trouble maker you might legitimately have a hard time finding meaningful work.

 

[Gradine]

I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are still willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' sex criminal*. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.

*that we're aware of, in any case

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are still willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' sex criminal*. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.

*that we're aware of, in any case

Man, I knew about Weinstein 20 years ago, and I was just a teenager posting on movie forums: everyone knew that.

Whedon had a long career before he broke our as an uncredited script doctor. He .ighr never be a front man again, but I bet he starts getting that sort of work again soon if he hasn't already. :/

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't disagree with holding creators accountable. But in my mind, holding people accountable means a black bag, van ride, and an isolated location. Extreme if taken literally, but a direct action aimed directly at the perpetrator.

Boycotts are drone strikes as hitmen with rifles are to assassination. Explosions take out bystanders. A good rifle takes out the man. So it is with accountability actions. Joss ain't hurting. At best he's sidelined, living comfy in his rich man's house.

Surely you prefer to hurt Joss while sparing the gaffer. Accept that some folks don't like using explosives to take out targets.

I don't think most folks who choose to boycott or avoid work by certain artists are doing it to punish the artist. It's more like, "This artist makes me uncomfortable or angry, so I no longer enjoy their art, so I will no longer purchase or consume it." The fact that the artist may lose out on some bucks is incidental.

Likewise, I'm not going to go purchase something I'm not interested in because the gaffer needs a paycheck. He got paid, he likely isn't getting any royalties on the product. The other actors and creatives involved might lose out on some royalties, but . . . that's the business. There are all sorts of reasons why a TV show or movie might tank, the lead creative on the project being revealed as a jerk is only one of them. Similar situations for other collaborative art forms.

 

[Ryujin]

I mean, how many people in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein before his reckoning came? Also, people are still willingly and happily working with people like Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen, and as bad as Whedon has been, he's at least not a freakin' sex criminal*. I have my doubts Whedon will be gone for long. I'd be shocked if the ousting sticks. Pleasantly surprised, but shocked nonetheless.

*that we're aware of, in any case

Polanski was the first name I thought of. In high school my English class was "treated to" his 1971 version of MacBeth. Just watching that, at the age of 15 (I think). I could tell he was a walking ad for chemical castration. Hell, he's got a few movies set to come out soon!

 

[CleverNickName]

The other actors and creatives involved might lose out on some royalties, but . . . that's the business.

It just seems short-sighted (and unnecessarily cruel) to boycott Angel and hand Charisma Carpenter the same punishment we're handing Joss Whedon because "that's the business."

Not that I have a better idea in mind. Just food for thought, I guess.

 

[Dire Bare]

In that case you might want to avoid reading anything written more a couple hundred years ago. Especially the works of classical antiquity.

Meh. There are plenty of historical artists who weren't terrible people. I don't buy into the fallacy that everyone who lived in a certain time or culture is inherently racist, misogynist, or something else terrible. Certainly those attitudes were more prevalent in different times and places, but there are always those who push the boundaries in a positive way.

And most historical works are . . . . not really consumed by the general public anyway. To the average person, they can be appreciated both artistically and for historical value, but . . . we're not diving deep into those older genres or the lives of the artists. And that's okay.

And yes, if you do learn about an artist who was an awful person when they lived centuries ago . . . it's okay to gain a different perspective on their work and decide it's not for you. The artist doesn't get a pass because they're dead or lived in a time when racism or misogyny was more prevalent than today. It's also okay to feel the distance between the artist and the present day, and not have a problem with their art . . . or even become fascinated with their art due to the terrible nature of the artist.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hey, for some reason Mel Gibson is getting work again, and I have no honest idea why. It's not like he reformed or apologized. So who knows what will happen with Joss.