So here's my problem. At the same time this Fisher thing is going on, WB actually has a lot bigger problems with Tsugihara. And that's what's got me puzzled about Fisher and Mamoa. To be sure the latter seems to be more going along with his buddy rather than having some beef he's personally passionate about. Regardless though, the Tsugihara thing has actually specific allegations. Which are terrible ones, the Weinstein package. But neither Fisher nor Aquaman have offered even a hint as to what they're even suggesting, other than they don't like the three men they've accused.
And that sort of messes with me, since I'm hardly Johns' biggest fan. As anyone who's seen a lot of my other posts will know, especially why I don't like him. Which puts me in the odd position of defending him, a position I find unpleasant. I'm also not a huge Whedon fan, going back to how he treated female characters on Buffy. However, I'm not a big fan of either anonymous accusations, or accusations which in themselves are completely unclear as to their nature. I mean how can any of these men defend themselves from an attack when they don't even know what the attack is? It seems rather unfair to me on a fundamental level.
It's Fisher's perfect right to accuse them of something, but it doesn't seem right to me that he can do it without ever specifying what he's accusing them of. At least the actress in the Tsugihara thing had the guts to actually say what she's accusing him off. And the decency.
Last edited by achilles; 09-26-2020 at 05:20 AM.
The only person who's been accused of being abusive is Whedon as far as I know. Johns has only been accused of enabling him and being petty. Kevin Tsujihara also hasn't been accused of abuse as far as I know. He was just cheating on his wife and promised roles to the comically untalented actress he was sleeping with.
Were these men guilty of making poor creative and managerial decisions? Certainly, but only Whedon's been called out for abuse, unless I missed something
The problem, and I say this as someone who has perhaps gone over the line in their dislike of Johns before, is that A) Fisher’s claim that Johns was responsible for Whedon’s behaviour was immediately followed up by the accusation about DMing a 17 year old and B) the Snyder cut conspiracies had curdled into a white hot ball of hate years ago (eg the accusation that he leaked all of Snyder’s vision to Feige in 2013, anything to come out of Grace Randolph etc), C) contempt for Doomsday Clock and D) a belief that he poisoned DC, E) Prev. closeness to EVS, F) being originally hired by Berganza etc etc
I don’t like Johns, and if there’s a hint of B being true I’d advocate scrubbing all trace of him or his works from DC; but I can’t help but notice that Fisher seems to rely on the Snyder Cut legions to do his signal boosting. Given the circumstances I would want to believe Fisher, but there’s something off here
Last edited by king of hybrids; 09-26-2020 at 09:47 AM.
This is my problem too. I really don't like Johns, and under other circumstances I would believe something like that. But...what is Fisher doing? It just seems so off. And the article on the front page gives a new, interesting and believable spin to it with respect to Whedon. Fisher won't even give unbacked up examples of whatever he considers abuse. It's also weird timing.
I certainly believe that everyone, especially Joss was under an incredible amount of pressure and that film set just became a $h!tshow where they weren't able to get together as a team. (ironic considering the theme of the movie) It's sounding like a Roshomon situation where everyone experienced something differently from their point of view because they were all so fragmented and the shoot was so chaotic.
No doubt that everyone was under a lot of pressure to both "fix" the movie and get it out on time.
But that still doesn't excuse acting like ****, especially for the director and the producers. Part of their job is to make the work situation safe and bearable for everyone.
«Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])
It's the Dynamic Duo! Batman and Robin!... and Red Robin and Red Hood and Nightwing and Batwoman and Batgirl and Orphan and Spoiler and Bluebird and Lark and Gotham Girl and Talon and Batwing and Huntress and Azreal and Flamebird and Batcow?
Since when could just anybody do what we trained to do? It makes it all dumb instead of special. Like it doesn't matter anymore.
-Dick Grayson (Batman Inc.)
Which is probably why it was deleted. Calling a public figure an abuser without evidence can be considered libel.
That's a deflection, because it is not the job of the actors to shape and form the workplace environment. It is the job of the director and the producers. Actors play a part in that, as members of the workplace, but they are not responsible for it in the way directors and producers are.
«Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])