Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

I think my mass effect is broken


Fart City posted:

Let me kind of do a follow-up in this responsibility deal: as I mentioned in a previous post, celebrity gives you a platform. Ideally you would use that platform for good, by forwarding good social change and giving voice to people who don't have it. Wil Wheaton, beyond the Hardwick thing, has an issue with being an Internet Celebrity who seems to walk into an infinite amount of rakes in public discourse.



Fart City posted:

Him being noncommittal in the Hardwick thing is gross.

Or perhaps he decided not to make a big public show of whatever he decided, which he is also entitled to.


Fart City posted:

His transphobia-by-association is equally gross.

Sorry, but this is stupid. He's not responsible for the opinions held by people who may be vaguely within his orbit, and where do you draw the line with this? It reads like:

Deadguy2322 posted:

But it's not enough to be responsible for your own actions! You have to be responsible for everyone you know!




Fart City posted:

I don't talk about it much (why would I, who the gently caress cares?) but I'm trans. I'm older, too. I grew up with Wil Wheaton. He was an early Known Quantity in internet culture. He coasted for a longtime by being an innocuous "good guy," but every time he's been called into the spotlight for his opinions or associations he's buckled.

Seems like this is more about you, than it is him.


Fart City posted:

He tweeted about it. Maybe he doesn't owe anyone poo poo, but if that's true he shouldn't expect poo poo from anyone. Celebrity is a social contract.
The fact that you're still ragging on the fact that he didn't follow up that tweet seems to be more about you feeling like you have an entitlement to him rather than him expecting anything of anyone.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Vagabundo posted:

Seems like this is more about you, than it is him.

Nah. It's about social responsibility. But feel free to cape for whoever you want to. That's your right.

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

I think my mass effect is broken


Fart City posted:

Nah. It's about social responsibility. But feel free to cape for whoever you want to. That's your right.

And feel free to continue putting famous people on pedestals, as is your right to do so.

Snowglobe of Doom
Mar 30, 2012

If you see me in the COVID thread, ignore me.

I photoshop charts to fit my narrative. I happily cherry-pick only the worst information to share and, lacking that, just make up lies.


FWIW I don't think that Wheaton should be forced to make a statement, I was just pointing out that he inserted himself into the discussion with a super wishy washy non-statement that didn't achieve anything except drawing attention to himself.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Vagabundo posted:

And feel free to continue putting famous people on pedestals, as is your right to do so.

I donít. I simply recognize that platform is privilege.

Irregardless, you and I are not going to convince the other to change their viewpoint. This thread shouldnít be derailed with a two-person back-and-forth. So Iím calling it good on my end, no beef towards you.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 11, 2015

by Cyrano4747


i think the fact that it's Wil fuckin' Wheaton we're talking about here makes this sort of a silly argument, like, dude is very charitably a C-list celebrity

like i agree with regards to people who actually have a meaningful platform that people will listen to. like, there's no reason actual celebrities shouldn't be somewhat obligated to be vocal about these issues; people actually listen to them. Wil Wheaton, meanwhile, is a former TNG actor who did guest spots on Big Bang Theory on the basis of "being a former TNG actor," and he was also funny on twitter for a little while; that is the complete entirety of his fame, to the best of my knowledge, and i don't think anyone other than very sad hardcore Trekkies is actually going to be meaningfully influenced by him saying "gently caress Hardwick."

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Anthony Rapp was a largely under-the-radar actor who was best known for broadway and a supporting actor gig in a steaming-only Star Trek show when he exposed Kevin Spacey. Every voice matters.

Pirate Jet
May 2, 2010


I donít think you have a responsibility to use your fame to champion major social causes. Fame is fleeting and most of the time uncontrollable.

I do, however, think itís worth poo poo-talking someone when they speak frequently about a certain issue while dancing around the part of the issue thatís inconvenient to them.

I donít hate Wheaton so much as I think heís just a dumbass, but he inserted himself into this, so this is the bed he made.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


The idea that "celebrities should use their platform for good" hews too close to the idea that celebrities should be considered any kind of moral arbitrators to begin with. They shouldn't. They're not. The concept is ridiculous. Sure, if someone has a platform of hundreds of thousands or millions of people they should actively try not to be a shithead or a bully, but the idea that they're in any sort of position to be an arbiter for moral change merely because they're famous is dumb.

Fart City posted:

Anthony Rapp was a largely under-the-radar actor who was best known for broadway and a supporting actor gig in a steaming-only Star Trek show when he exposed Kevin Spacey. Every voice matters.

Anthony Rapp was relevant because he had direct experience with Kevin Spacey being a pervert, not because he's a C list actor with a platform. Unfortunately, our society tends to give more weight to the words of accusers when they are well-known and/or are wealthy and can't be dismissed with "oh he/she's probably just out for money". That's the way it is but it shouldn't be that way.

Sucrose fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jan 28, 2019

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.


Every voice matters, but not every voice needs to be heard, all the time. More precisely, we really should disabuse some voices in particular of their apparent significance in a broader strategy of advancing values countervailing to dominant ideology. Sometimes conscientious silence matters more. This is especially true when we're talking about problems of entrenched social inequality that are intrinsically hierarchal in nature, and thus getting people to think outside of that hierarchy is essential to achieving justice.

No matter their station, celebrities do not, I believe, have social responsibilities. These social responsibilities themselves are an ideological fantasy. A celebrity is nothing except a brand in order to manufacture desire and motivate consumption. A 'socially responsible' brand is merely the most advanced mask of status quo values. We have seen this most overtly with Bill Cosby, though it's also demonstrated in the whole Aziz Ansari event and his consequent pivoting against political correctness and campus liberalism in his stand-up. The only distinction between 'celebrity' and just, like, a Nike logo, is that a celebrity is a 'real person,' ostensibly. But as 'real people,' they are also inextricable from a hierarchy. Their social responsibility is, thus, always implicitly 'trickle-down.' It doesn't work because the problem is not that our tyrants aren't enlightened enough.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Are not celebrities by nature just a product of demand, and by extension their value based upon social worth?

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


K. Waste posted:

Every voice matters, but not every voice needs to be heard, all the time. More precisely, we really should disabuse some voices in particular of their apparent significance in a broader strategy of advancing values countervailing to dominant ideology. Sometimes conscientious silence matters more. This is especially true when we're talking about problems of entrenched social inequality that are intrinsically hierarchal in nature, and thus getting people to think outside of that hierarchy is essential to achieving justice.

No matter their station, celebrities do not, I believe, have social responsibilities. These social responsibilities themselves are an ideological fantasy. A celebrity is nothing except a brand in order to manufacture desire and motivate consumption. A 'socially responsible' brand is merely the most advanced mask of status quo values. We have seen this most overtly with Bill Cosby, though it's also demonstrated in the whole Aziz Ansari event and his consequent pivoting against political correctness and campus liberalism in his stand-up. The only distinction between 'celebrity' and just, like, a Nike logo, is that a celebrity is a 'real person,' ostensibly. But as 'real people,' they are also inextricable from a hierarchy. Their social responsibility is, thus, always implicitly 'trickle-down.' It doesn't work because the problem is not that our tyrants aren't enlightened enough.

Yes. Looking at celebrities to be beacons for moral guidance has the double problem of them both being members of the wealthy class, and them having no more special insight into social issues than your average plumber. They are of course entitled to broadcast their opinions if they so wish, but nobody should be giving those opinions any special weight, and in fact they should be taken with a healthy grain of salt, given that it's coming to you from somebody who a) is a member of a different social class than you, and b) is ultimately just trying to market themselves.

Fart City posted:

Are not celebrities by nature just a product of demand, and by extension their value based upon social worth?

Some people are wonderful and talented actors, directors, etc. That doesn't mean that they know jack poo poo about anything other than acting or directing, and if I'm following them on twitter it's probably because I want to hear their insights on acting or directing (the areas where they are actual experts) and not anything else.

Sucrose fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jan 28, 2019

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.


Fart City posted:

Are not celebrities by nature just a product of demand, and by extension their value based upon social worth?

Well, no. Supply and demand is a rationalization of capitalism as stemming from some natural desire of society. But these desires themselves are wholly unnatural, dictated not by the demands of society, but by the demands of capital. The supplying of this demand mitigates crises produced by capitalism, primarily by offering society a form of catharsis. But supply is not of intrinsic worth to society. What is socially worthwhile is that which supercedes catharsis and instead treats society as an entity distinct from markets, with needs that can not simply be supplied to them through a hierarchal arrangement.

Again, we can use the example of the enlightened tyrant: A ruler may very well respond to the spontaneous developing of values in the society that they govern, but a ruler's value is an extension of their ability to rule, not whether this rule actually represents the best interests of society.

Sodomy Hussein
Oct 9, 2005



K. Waste posted:

Well, no. Supply and demand is a rationalization of capitalism as stemming from some natural desire of society. But these desires themselves are wholly unnatural, dictated not by the demands of society, but by the demands of capital. The supplying of this demand mitigates crises produced by capitalism, primarily by offering society a form of catharsis. But supply is not of intrinsic worth to society. What is socially worthwhile is that which supercedes catharsis and instead treats society as an entity distinct from markets, with needs that can not simply be supplied to them through a hierarchal arrangement.

Again, we can use the example of the enlightened tyrant: A ruler may very well respond to the spontaneous developing of values in the society that they govern, but a ruler's value is an extension of their ability to rule, not whether this rule actually represents the best interests of society.

None of this PoliSci 101 poo poo leaking out of D&D has anything to do with the topic of the thread at this point. We've determined that Wil Wheaton is not very good at social media. To make a social media faux pas is counterrevolutionary; the sentence is death.

LionArcher
Mar 29, 2010




Tuxedo Catfish posted:

I don't think that's true at all. It's definitely complicated, but the conversation about the weird difficult space where you have social ties to a bad person and care about their well-being but don't want to condone their actions is a valuable one to have, there are good and bad ways to go about doing that, and little to gain from sweeping it under the rug. If someone doesn't want to talk about it with a microphone in their face, fine, but there's no reason for the rest of us to completely avoid the conversation.

I know somebody who works at sky dance. They signed a contact to Work there just before Lassiter was hired. Now people are giving them poo poo that they are working with a monster, but itís like... they didnít ask for this? And they have a mortgage to pay? Itís not their freaking fault.

LionArcher fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jan 28, 2019

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Seems as though Singer has scrubbed all of the BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY stuff from his instagram account, so I'm guessing someone at Fox has told him to back off so that the movie doesn't get its chances spoiled at the Oscars.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


DrVenkman posted:

Seems as though Singer has scrubbed all of the BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY stuff from his instagram account, so I'm guessing someone at Fox has told him to back off so that the movie doesn't get its chances spoiled at the Oscars.

Too late for that. Also, lol that Bryan Singer has an instagram account.

teacup
Dec 20, 2006

= M I L K E R S =


Re: celeb chat.

Actors used to be the big ones, youíd see a movie with that actor. If you found out that actor hit his wife then you wouldnít see the movie because he is bad not because the movie is bad.

These days actors, writers, producers, directors etc are all part of the celebrity. They give interviews, they do specials for the DVD, they are active on social media. They are in some cases big parts of the product so to speak.

And more than ever this product is not just the movie or show or CD. You arenít buying Taylor if Arianaís latest album, youíre buying part of their life drama. You arenít just watching avengers, youíre seeing the culmination of all those fun wacky actors and crew and others talking about making the movie, about writing it, youíre seeing Tom Hollande joking with Benedict cumberbatch oh now they are together in the movie for real how exciting!

Actors and writers and directors all get a pass for using their life stories (see any semi autobiographical story but also like Robert Downey jr and iron man for example) and their friendships (oceans series, the various frat/rat/SNL style ďcrewsĒ) and other things as big reasons to buy their tickets or what have you. They also now use social media. And also use their association with good causes (either outside the movie if the actor is charitable like Jolie or a big political activist like Clooney , or promoting black panther so heavily in the ďhistoricĒ black film kinda way) to promote the film.


So I ask you- in this day and age when people and studios use so much to connect us to their product in terms of personality, social media, etc can we not also go ďhang on- you want us to love you as a person and what you do in your personal life... but also now youíve said it was unfair to ask you about your friend who sexually assaulted women?Ē

I donít buy that for a second. Bullshit. They want us to love them so unconditionally but then ignore it when they gently caress up? You canít have it both ways.

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.


Thing is with Wil Wheaton in particular he build his internet brand about being woke and progressive (he somehow pivoted from Bernie supporter in 2016 to #StillWithHer last I checked) and things like refusing to disavow raging TERFs and not speaking up about abuse are a much bigger deal given he does not have the excuse of ignorance or vulnerability.

King Vidiot
Feb 17, 2007

The video arcade made me what I am today!



Ghost Leviathan posted:

he somehow pivoted from Bernie supporter in 2016 to #StillWithHer last I checked

Given this bit of information, I think a picture is starting to form as to why he's wishy-washy about certain things like the TERF banlist and his friend Chris Hardwick. I think Wil Wheaton is the sort of guy who's terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing so on certain issues he just chooses to say or do nothing in hopes that that's good enough. But of course as we know, not taking a stance is in itself a stance for the status quo.

Anybody who shifted to Hillary post-2016 is probably afraid of being called a Bernie Bro, which is pretty loving weak. "Oh no, don't think I'm not a feminist please!"

chitoryu12
Apr 23, 2014



King Vidiot posted:

Given this bit of information, I think a picture is starting to form as to why he's wishy-washy about certain things like the TERF banlist and his friend Chris Hardwick. I think Wil Wheaton is the sort of guy who's terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing so on certain issues he just chooses to say or do nothing in hopes that that's good enough. But of course as we know, not taking a stance is in itself a stance for the status quo.

Anybody who shifted to Hillary post-2016 is probably afraid of being called a Bernie Bro, which is pretty loving weak. "Oh no, don't think I'm not a feminist please!"

Yeah, I don't think Wil is a piece of poo poo or a TERF or anything like that, but he's a big coward who struggles to take any real action beyond a few Twitter and Tumblr platitudes in regards to any of his stances.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


Canít we just accept entertainers as just...........entertainers? They are generally stupid about things not in their area of expertise. They have bad takes. It just further backs up my opinion that absolutely nobody should be looking to these people for moral guidance.

chitoryu12
Apr 23, 2014



Sucrose posted:

Canít we just accept entertainers as just...........entertainers? They are generally stupid about things not in their area of expertise. They have bad takes. It just further backs up my opinion that absolutely nobody should be looking to these people for moral guidance.

The chances of us getting people to treat celebrities appropriately when they do lovely stuff is infinitely higher than the chances of us getting people to view celebrities as unimportant in the world and never listening to them about anything.

the escape goat
Apr 16, 2008

What a week it's been.
So much to talk about.
And so many things we can't talk about.



Sucrose posted:

Canít we just accept entertainers as just...........entertainers? They are generally stupid about things not in their area of expertise. They have bad takes. It just further backs up my opinion that absolutely nobody should be looking to these people for moral guidance.

Wheaton would need to be entertaining to be called an entertainer tbh

Metis of the Hallways
Aug 1, 2014




https://slate.com/culture/2019/01/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-documentary-sundance-abuse.html

quote:

When the Sundance premiere of Leaving Neverland hit its intermission, it was difficult to imagine what could possibly be left. In the first two hours of Dan Reedís documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck had already recounted in exacting detail their memories of how Michael Jackson sexually abused them when they were children: how, they said, he groomed them and their parents until the boys were allowed to sleep over in his bedroom alone;(spoiler bars for explicit description of sexual abuse) how he began with a touch on the thigh and moved on to their crotches, reaching inside their pajamas to fondle their genitals and telling them to follow suit on his own body; how he instructed them to spread their buttocks so he could see their anuses as he masturbated to completion. If that was only half the story, what horrors could the movieís second half hold?

Metis of the Hallways fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jan 28, 2019

Chris James 2
Aug 9, 2012



Sucrose posted:

Canít we just accept entertainers as just...........entertainers? They are generally stupid about things not in their area of expertise. They have bad takes. It just further backs up my opinion that absolutely nobody should be looking to these people for moral guidance.

For better or for worse, if you're famous you have a platform, and you have the ability to either positively or negatively influence others while on that platform. If they decide to open their mouths about a subject and negatively influence others, they should be taken to task and called out for that behavior

For a non-sexual assault example: was it dumb as gently caress Jenny McCarthy opened her mouth and spewed antivaccination garbage publicly? Absolutely. Did she deserve to be called out? 100%, and I wish it happened more effectively and quickly. But the fact is, people listened, and still are listening, to what she said. Just this month:
WHO named vaccine hesitancy one of the top 10 health perils they pledge to prioritize in 2019 due to measles' 30% increase globally since 2016
A North Carolina school where a high concentration of families claim religious exemption from vaccines is facing the stateís worst chickenpox outbreak in more than 20 years, affecting 36 students so far
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1087504130929762305

Nobody's arguing celebs should be listened to. But they are. So we need ones who say less harmful poo poo, and even more than that we need to keep calling out the ones who say very harmful poo poo

NotJustANumber99
Feb 15, 2012



Sucrose posted:

Canít we just accept entertainers as just...........entertainers? They are generally stupid about things not in their area of expertise. They have bad takes. It just further backs up my opinion that absolutely nobody should be looking to these people for moral guidance.

I don't look to my plumber, my dentist or my trash collector for moral guidance either and i still think and say they're twatbags when they do dumb stuff. Its not my fault when a celebrity has a lovely opinion everyone winds up knowing about it, twitter travels a little further than a back yard conversation or whatever.

Sodomy Hussein
Oct 9, 2005



It's disappointing that E-list celebrity Wil Wheaton used the wrong twitter block list and didn't follow up to give a statement that no one was asking for and no one would care about if it existed (unless it confirmed our worst fears that Wil Wheaton is not sufficiently woke). Now that I've joined the Twitter commentariat I'm shifting the Overton Window and I need his help now more than ever.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.



I've been pretty dubious about this documentary, mainly because Wade Robson is...somewhat of a character. He spent years telling people how innocent Jackson was before he had a breakdown (which he says was due to being obsessed with being successful) then when his career fell apart he tried shopping a book about being abused which went nowhere. Then when that didn't work he filed a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit which got dismissed. Then he appeared in the documentary.

Even the director of the documentary admitted he didn't interview anyone else, which seems odd given the accusitory nature of it.

Pirate Jet
May 2, 2010


Cross-post from the awards show thread: Despite being fired for not showing up to set and having multiple accusations of assault and pedophilia against him, Bryan Singer will probably make about $40 million from Bohemian Rhapsody. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/bryan-singer-stands-make-40-million-bohemian-rhapsody-1181130

chitoryu12
Apr 23, 2014



Pirate Jet posted:

Cross-post from the awards show thread: Despite being fired for not showing up to set and having multiple accusations of assault and pedophilia against him, Bryan Singer will probably make about $40 million from Bohemian Rhapsody. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/bryan-singer-stands-make-40-million-bohemian-rhapsody-1181130

I wouldn't be surprised if his contract was written in such a way that he was guaranteed money as long as the film was complete and he managed to avoid triggering any clause that would result in his credit being removed and payment revoked.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


chitoryu12 posted:

I wouldn't be surprised if his contract was written in such a way that he was guaranteed money as long as the film was complete and he managed to avoid triggering any clause that would result in his credit being removed and payment revoked.

Almost certainly. It's bullshit anyway because even when Singer was in charge be could barely be bothered actually shooting it, this is why the editing is also so hosed. Fletcher was only on set for a week, and the rumour has been that they brought Singer into the editing room.

He also did the same thing on the last X-MEN movie, which is why that's similarly screwed. Both movies are borderline inept at times.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Anybody who joins Red Sonja at this point is complicit in his gross douchefuckery. Like I donít want to hear word one of ďwell I hadnít really heard about it.Ē Just say you thought the payday was more important. Call it down the middle.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


DrVenkman posted:

Almost certainly. It's bullshit anyway because even when Singer was in charge be could barely be bothered actually shooting it, this is why the editing is also so hosed. Fletcher was only on set for a week, and the rumour has been that they brought Singer into the editing room.

He also did the same thing on the last X-MEN movie, which is why that's similarly screwed. Both movies are borderline inept at times.

Anecdotally, he also vanished during the shooting of Superman Returns, according to a friend of mine who worked on it. He went on a multi-day bender during the Sydney Mardi Gras, because he's trying to check every box in a terrified conservative's strawman of a gay person.

Davros1
Jul 19, 2007

You've got to admit, you are kind of implausible





Fart City posted:

Anybody who joins Red Sonja at this point is complicit in his gross douchefuckery. Like I donít want to hear word one of ďwell I hadnít really heard about it.Ē Just say you thought the payday was more important. Call it down the middle.

People knew the poo poo Roman Polanski and Woody Allen did, but it never stopped them.

Sodomy Hussein
Oct 9, 2005



Davros1 posted:

People knew the poo poo Roman Polanski and Woody Allen did, but it never stopped them.

Unfortunately there is sometimes also some decision-making to do as to whether you want to please complicit studio heads and producers, or watch helplessly as your career flounders.

Remulak
Jun 8, 2001

The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics. Oh, and that stupid children's book 'The Little Prince,' ugh.
:krad:


Yams Fan

We're kidding ourselves thinking that these tradeoffs between complicity and failure is limited to Hollywood.

Sodomy Hussein
Oct 9, 2005



Remulak posted:

We're kidding ourselves thinking that these tradeoffs between complicity and failure is limited to Hollywood.

True, but at every level of entertainment, all the power is clustered around a small number of mostly unaccountable figures who all know each other. When fraudulent accounting by movie studios is an open secret, it's not difficult to imagine how quickly they'll close ranks to protect secrets.

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003



Snowman_McK posted:

Anecdotally, he also vanished during the shooting of Superman Returns, according to a friend of mine who worked on it. He went on a multi-day bender during the Sydney Mardi Gras, because he's trying to check every box in a terrified conservative's strawman of a gay person.

He went to help Peter Jackson on King Kong or something. There's a video snippet of him directing a scene while Jackson is literally sleeping in a chair next to him. Singer got a ton of ahit because Returns was behind schedule and over budget.

He might have also gone on a bender at some point but the major instance of him bailing on SR was to go work with PJ.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Rhyno posted:

He went to help Peter Jackson on King Kong or something. There's a video snippet of him directing a scene while Jackson is literally sleeping in a chair next to him. Singer got a ton of ahit because Returns was behind schedule and over budget.

He might have also gone on a bender at some point but the major instance of him bailing on SR was to go work with PJ.

So we can blame him for two lovely movies as well as being a creep.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply