Charisma Opens Up About Whedon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyanka Bunny Slayer said:
Michelle is jumping on the bandwagon for attention. I hate attention seekers.
Click to expand...

That is what it seems like, sad to say. She's employing the Ray Fisher technique "Whedon is a terrible person and did these terrible things but I'm not going to say what those things are, I'm just going to be really vague about it and let people jump to their own conclusions. I'm not going to give specific examples (unlike CC), people should just automatically believe me without asking any further questions".
 
It's a very weird time to be alive when potentially hugely damaging accusations are drip fed onto social media so ambiguously. Feels like an agent or someone close should be saying make a full statement or leave it.
 
The Bronze said:
It's a very weird time to be alive when potentially hugely damaging accusations are drip fed onto social media so ambiguously. Feels like an agent or someone close should be saying make a full statement or leave it.
Click to expand...

This is cancel culture in full swing. Facts don't matter in the court of public opinion, it's all about destroying a person you don't like.
 
Spanky said:
The flip side is that it's possible if she did say what happened he would honestly be destroyed versus just his reputation hurt on accusations. At least now he still has some plausible deniability.
Click to expand...

He's basically being labelled a paedophile based on her vague comments. He will get destroyed on that alone regardless of whether it's true or not. In the court of public opinion, facts don't matter. Why do you think Amber Heard got away with what she did to Johnny Depp for so long? She played victim in the court of public opinion. It's only because Depp has fought back that evidence has come to light that paints a very different picture to what Heard was claiming was going on. His reputation has still suffered badly as a result. It's only because he's got hard evidence that Heard repeatedly lied that has shifted public opinion in his favour and Heard is scrabbling in desperation for anything she can find to throw at him.

Reputation is currency in Hollywood, if you destroy that, you make someone basically unemployable. Nobody will employ them because of the backlash it will bring.

What MT is doing is she's baiting people to jump to a certain conclusion with "man", "teenage girl" and "inappropriate behaviour". Factually, she hasn't said that Whedon was sexually inappropriate with her, and if it turns out that the inappropriate behaviour was not of a sexual nature, then she can claim that she never said it was. However she is allowing people to think that about Whedon because she's not clarifying or elaborating on what she means by her vague comments.
 
Look, I get that M.T. Doesn’t want to talk about “this,” but she’s making extremely serious charges at this point. If she's really saying the Studio or the Network had enough cause for concern to ban Joss from being alone with an underage female talent, let alone what he is actually supposed to have done to her, that’s call the police territory, not write a memo territory. She’s basically alleging a criminal conspiracy at this point, if she means to or not. Which is why I am not commenting on this. Charisma is calling him a jerk or a bad boss, so are The others, but this is serious.

P.S. I vaguely recall Joss having strong words for Mike Pence regarding the Billy Graham rule debate. But I could be wrong.

P.P.S. Boy, does this make that song James wrote about her seem adorably old fashioned. Granted, all the vulgar mating displays a teenage girl endures, having Spike write a song about you, creating art because of you, has to be downright wholesome compared to how the rest of Hollywood works.
 
Icarium said:
Do you know the facts?
Click to expand...

Do you?

AlphaFoxtrot said:
Look, I get that M.T. Doesn’t want to talk about “this,” but she’s making extremely serious charges at this point. If she's really saying the Studio or the Network had enough cause for concern to ban Joss from being alone with an underage female talent, let alone what he is actually supposed to have done to her, that’s call the police territory, not write a memo territory. She’s basically alleging a criminal conspiracy at this point, if she means to or not. Which is why I am not commenting on this. Charisma is calling him a jerk or a bad boss, so are The others, but this is serious.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
I’m sorry but again I’m going to say that Michelle really needs to clarify her comment. Yesterday she was evasive and now she adds « there was a rules about not being alone with Whedon » and this phrase of course goes in the direction of what people are thinking, meaning that Joss is potentially a paedophile. I’m sorry but at this point Michelle must be really explicit and careful with the words she chooses to express herself.
 
Icarium said:
I do not which is why I haven't branded Whedon as a sexual predator, nor Michelle as an attention seeker. No need to jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

I've not branded her an attention seeker, I just said that is what it is starting to seem like given the vagueness of the comments. She made a comment that was vague then she made another comment that claimed that people "now know what Joss did" but is just as vague as the first comment and tells people nothing factual. It leads people to a certain conclusion without factually stating whether that conclusion is true or not. However that conclusion is serious, it's not just about Joss being a major dickhead, pretentious, self-important egomaniac etc, he is being labelled a paedophile. That has serious consequences. Nobody deserves to be labelled that if they are innocent of such a crime, but she is baiting people into jumping to that conclusion.
 
Antho said:
this phrase of course goes in the direction of what people are thinking, meaning that Joss is potentially a paedophile.
Click to expand...
Either that or he was as abusive to her as he supposedly was to James Marsters. Doesn't have to be sexual. He may have just spoken to a teenage girl the same way he spoke to a grown man. Thus, don't leave him alone with her.
 
Spanky said:
Either that or he was as abusive to her as he supposedly was to James Marsters. Doesn't have to be sexual. He may have just spoken to a teenage girl the same way he spoke to a grown man. Thus, don't leave him alone with her.
Click to expand...

That's the point. She is baiting people to jump to a certain conclusion when the facts may not be of that conclusion. This is why she needs to elaborate rather than being vague. Factually she can claim she never accused Whedon of being sexually inappropriate, however what her comments are insinuating is something of a very serious nature.
 
Spanky said:
Either that or he was as abusive to her as he supposedly was to James Marsters. Doesn't have to be sexual. He may have just spoken to a teenage girl the same way he spoke to a grown man. Thus, don't leave him alone with her.
Click to expand...
I agree with you of course. It can have many explanations. The problem is that the majority of people are going to believe the more terrible one of course. I don’t want to defend Whedon, but if he didn’t sexually abused her, she is doing him a reputation of paedophile and if that’s not the case it isn’t correct to let people thinking that.
 
Antho said:
The problem is that the majority of people are going to believe the more terrible one of course.
Click to expand...
People can believe whatever they want to believe. You can't blame the victim for that. She was merely stating she too had problems and that wasn't good enough, so she gave more explanations. She doesn't have to tell everything that may have been traumatic to her for the whole world to know. Sometimes just speaking out can lead to you saying more about it later. Look at what happened with Eliza on the set of True Lies. She first said she had problems and it felt unsafe and it was years later before she felt comfortable enough to expand on it. A victim should be allowed to say what they want, when they want.

Now you can debate if she is a victim or not, but saying she needs to tell more than she wants to tell just because some people might get the wrong idea is wrong.
 
I remember once reading an interview with Amber Benson in the Buffy magazine - she was talking about the Shakespeare reads at Joss' house. They were doing Romeo and Juliet and MT was reading Juliet and JM was supposed to be Romeo. But then - in the article - Amber laughed and said "but everyone said no let Amber do it (read as Romeo), she's more sexually benign."

The phrase 'sexually benign' struck me as so weird in this context that it's stayed with me for nearly twenty years.

But it seems like protecting MT was something that people on set were proactive about doing - even if they didn't make it obvious that's what they were doing.
 
DeadlyDuo said:
I've not branded her an attention seeker, I just said that is what it is starting to seem like given the vagueness of the comments. She made a comment that was vague then she made another comment that claimed that people "now know what Joss did" but is just as vague as the first comment and tells people nothing factual. It leads people to a certain conclusion without factually stating whether that conclusion is true or not. However that conclusion is serious, it's not just about Joss being a major dickhead, pretentious, self-important egomaniac etc, he is being labelled a paedophile. That has serious consequences. Nobody deserves to be labelled that if they are innocent of such a crime, but she is baiting people into jumping to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

We can just wait and see, if there was actually a "Don't leave Joss alone with Michelle" rule some other cast member will probably confirm it soon enough. If not, people will deny it adamantly. No need to pick a side right this second.
 
Spanky said:
People can believe whatever they want to believe. You can't blame the victim for that.
Click to expand...
It’s not that I blame her. I dislike this word I’m not against her. But she isn’t doing things in a right way for me. Seriously what Is the point of saying ambiguous phrases here and there ? You tell nothing or you tell enough to at least prevent people to imagine things that can be wrong. Like I said before if she didn’t want to talk, fine, that’s her choice and her right, but if Whedon didn’t sexually abused her, then just a phrase like : I’m not talking about sexual harassment ! And that’s it. She doesn’t say too much and people can stop to imagine things. Because AGAIN it’s one thing to accuse whedon to have inappropriate behavior and to accuse him to be a paedophile. I’m sorry I can’t be clearer that I am right now. You are I are disagreeing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom