Former Celebrities

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
And in the vein of "people never really go crazy, they ARE crazy, they just lose the ability to hide it" I wonder how many people he victimized way back in the day, like 60's and 70's, because he didn't just pick up that kind of behavior overnight.

And how frustrating must it have been in the 80's and 90's when he was all over tv, had a hit sitcom, commercials, movies, HBO stand up specials, animated shows, you couldn't escape him, just turning on the tube and having to see the face of the guy who victimized you, and got away with it because nobody would ever believe you....... wow.......
 
At some point we're just going to have to accept the fact that if you ever become famous, there's going to be something wrong with you.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
Let's not forget Bill Cosby who fooled the world with his lovable characters and persona until he got older (with some rather controversial comments) and now has more concrete evidence against him for the rape charges.
Click to expand...
It really is incredible just how all encompassing the lie was. It might just be the most successful emotional con job by a celebrity ever conducted. Even comparable stories like those involving Savile, R. Kelly, and Terry Richardson can't touch Cosby. Those three guys are just as bad as him, but they never even attempted to present themselves as wholesome. Bill Cosby probably could've been Governor of Pennsylvania if he chose to pull a Schwarzenegger.

The worst part about all of this? I'm certain there are many celebrities other than Cosby who've done unspeakably awful things that -- for whatever reason -- nobody talks about, and nothing will ever change that. Bob Barker and Larry King are just two examples that spring to mind at the moment.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
Let's not forget Bill Cosby who fooled the world with his lovable characters and persona until he got older (with some rather controversial comments) and now has more concrete evidence against him for the rape charges.
Click to expand...
He apparently made really suspicious rape jokes during his stand-up routine back in the day. People just ignored all of it until very recently.
 
Woody Allen, too. Dumped his wife for her adopted daughter (while she was never his legal child, he'd still known her since she was SEVEN), and was accused of being a flat-out pedophile last year. In films where he plays the lead he's known for casting women much younger than himself as his character's love interest; this is more common than you'd think in film in general but with the new accusation takes on a much darker context.

The accusations against Allen and the ones against Cosby happened within a few months of each other, and because of them I've seen serious discussion that it may be time to discard the principle of "Separate the artist from the art" (i.e. I still think this person is a good actor/director/whatever even if they've done bad things).
 
Pinball Lizard said:
The accusations against Allen and the ones against Cosby happened within a few months of each other, and because of them I've seen serious discussion that it may be time to discard the principle of "Separate the artist from the art" (i.e. I still think this person is a good actor/director/whatever even if they've done bad things).
Click to expand...
I don't know about Woody Allen, but the Cosby ones are nothing new. They came up sometime last decade and were largely dismissed. And I still don't think it's the first time they came up! The greater public just unfortunately ignored them. And the diehard fans, unfortunately, still ignored them.
 
Pinball Lizard said:
The accusations against Allen and the ones against Cosby happened within a few months of each other, and because of them I've seen serious discussion that it may be time to discard the principle of "Separate the artist from the art" (i.e. I still think this person is a good actor/director/whatever even if they've done bad things).
Click to expand...

The thing with "separate the artist from the art" is that it's: a) A lot easier to do when the artist is dead and you don't have to worry about providing them financial support, and; b) Easier still when the artist's reprehensible behavior is less far removed from what they represent.

I can still -- to a degree -- enjoy Chris Benoit matches because monstrous violence in real life isn't too far removed from a cutting people open by slapping their chests and almost deliberately working to cause concussions, and he's dead so I never have to worry about any attention I pay his way actually supporting a family annihilator who's safely in hell away from all of us. With Cosby and Allen, things are very different. Their artistic work is so tied to them being relatable to the everyman, and they're both still alive and still profiting off their art.

Maybe things will change once they're dead and in hell, but the bonds their evil broke are deep. Cosby was once compared to God in terms of beloved American figures.
 
Pinball Lizard said:
The accusations against Allen and the ones against Cosby happened within a few months of each other, and because of them I've seen serious discussion that it may be time to discard the principle of "Separate the artist from the art" (i.e. I still think this person is a good actor/director/whatever even if they've done bad things).
Click to expand...

If we seriously discarded that principle, we wouldn't be able to enjoy anything at all. Practically every major Hollywood film, TV series, what have you, has someone who's done awful stuff.

If anyone were to genuinely discard that principle, their life would wind up like this: http://www.larknews.com/archives/320
 
Last edited:
Steamboat_Bill said:
If we seriously discarded that principle, we wouldn't be able to enjoy anything at all. Practically every major Hollywood film, TV series, what have you, has someone who's done awful stuff.
Click to expand...

Woody Allen is a good example of an exception, though, because he directly injects himself into his work in such a way that knowledge of his "extracurricular" behavior is obtrusive. It's really impossible to watch Manhattan now without his personal conduct basically ruining the movie.

Same with Bill Cosby in Cosby Show, where he was basically playing a fictionalized version of himself.

This is usually the exception, though. Chinatown is still a great movie no matter how despicable Polanski may have been. However, if you actually watch Chinatown, it is a movie only a person with serious issues could have made.
 
AnOminous said:
Woody Allen is a good example of an exception, though, because he directly injects himself into his work in such a way that knowledge of his "extracurricular" behavior is obtrusive. It's really impossible to watch Manhattan now without his personal conduct basically ruining the movie.

Same with Bill Cosby in Cosby Show, where he was basically playing a fictionalized version of himself.

This is usually the exception, though. Chinatown is still a great movie no matter how despicable Polanski may have been. However, if you actually watch Chinatown, it is a movie only a person with serious issues could have made.
Click to expand...

So it's OK to watch Sleeper or Fat Albert (or even What's Up, Tiger Lily or Leonard Part 6)?

There are many, many artists who put themselves into their work. Their work is an expression of them and the things that they want to say. And way too many of them have been horrible, horrible people. At some point, as I said, we have to accept that.
 
Steamboat_Bill said:
So it's OK to watch Sleeper or Fat Albert (or even What's Up, Tiger Lily or Leonard Part 6)?

So many artists put themselves into their work that I feel if you're going to boycott one person for being a rapist/pedophile/what have you, go all the way and boycott everybody else for doing so.
Click to expand...

It's never okay to watch Leonard Part 6.

It's weird seeing all this stuff go down over the other side of the pond. Since Jimmy Saville got exposed as some sort of MegaPaedo there's just been a near constant string of accusations and convictions against formerly beloved British entertainers from around the same time period.
 
iceman2kuk said:
It's never okay to watch Leonard Part 6.

It's weird seeing all this stuff go down over the other side of the pond. Since Jimmy Saville got exposed as some sort of MegaPaedo there's just been a near constant string of accusations and convictions against formerly beloved British entertainers from around the same time period.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a masochist.

I guess it was only a matter of time before that came here. I have a feeling that we're going to be having a lot more convictions and accusations against our own celebrities coming soon.

(By the by, as someone who's heard of all that, but hasn't followed it, how much of it is true and how much of it isn't? Is every British entertainer from the 70s secretly a kiddy-fiddler?)
 
Steamboat_Bill said:
Unless you're a masochist.

I guess it was only a matter of time before that came here. I have a feeling that we're going to be having a lot more convictions and accusations against our own celebrities coming soon.

(By the by, as someone who's heard of all that, but hasn't followed it, how much of it is true and how much of it isn't? Is every British entertainer from the 70s secretly a kiddy-fiddler?)
Click to expand...

It feels that way sometimes aye, but a fairly shocking number are. Been at least 2 pretty high profile convictions (Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris), but the Interesting/Worrying/Good (your mileage may vary) result of the whole controversy with Saville is the police are now taking accusations about high profile figures pretty seriously. The most recent alleged ones are about Ted Heath, a former Prime Minister
 
iceman2kuk said:
It feels that way sometimes aye, but a fairly shocking number are. Been at least 2 pretty high profile convictions (Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris), but the Interesting/Worrying/Good (your mileage may vary) result of the whole controversy with Saville is the police are now taking accusations about high profile figures pretty seriously. The most recent alleged ones are about Ted Heath, a former Prime Minister
Click to expand...

I guess we'll never be able to listen to "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" the same way again...

If the whole controversy goes up to prime ministers, I have a feeling that the whole pedo-conspiracy runs deeper than we thought. Maybe everybody in the 70s was a pedophile.
 
Steamboat_Bill said:
I guess we'll never be able to listen to "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" the same way again...

If the whole controversy goes up to prime ministers, I have a feeling that the whole pedo-conspiracy runs deeper than we thought. Maybe everybody in the 70s was a pedophile.
Click to expand...
I know for a fact that many big music stars from that era had sex with very, very, very, very, very, very young girls on a regular basis. Sure, a lot of it was "consensual", but put yourself in these girls place and think what it would be like if you were their age and maturity level and making that same decision. Just because you figured out the joys of pocket pool at 13 doesn't mean you were ready to play doubles with someone twice your age no matter how badly you wanted it.

It's still not as bad as Saville -- who was never remotely concerned with consent -- or Fogle -- who filmed and prostituted the girls he preyed upon. But it was still awful and not once have I seen these 60s and 70s rock stars apologize for what they did.
 
*Asterisk* said:
I know for a fact that many big music stars from that era had sex with very, very, very, very, very, very young girls on a regular basis. Sure, a lot of it was "consensual", but put yourself in these girls place and think what it would be like if you were their age and maturity level and making that same decision. Just because you figured out the joys of pocket pool at 13 doesn't mean you were ready to play doubles with someone twice your age no matter how badly you wanted it.

It's still not as bad as Saville -- who was never remotely concerned with consent -- or Fogle -- who filmed and prostituted the girls he preyed upon. But it was still awful and not once have I seen these 60s and 70s rock stars apologize for what they did.
Click to expand...

What'd I tell ya?

Even if they apologized, though, that wouldn't be enough. They still did what they did and the public is never going to forget that. If a rapist apologizes for what he did, well, he still raped somebody, so he's pretty much a pariah.
 
Steamboat_Bill said:
What'd I tell ya?

Even if they apologized, though, that wouldn't be enough. They still did what they did and the public is never going to forget that. If a rapist apologizes for what he did, well, he still raped somebody, so he's pretty much a pariah.
Click to expand...
That's not what apologies should be about.

You can never really know if someone's truly repented, and there are many who commit crimes which warrant death even if they show remorse. What the apology's about is showing some humanity and humility in the face of your sins and working towards being a better person even if you won't succeed. Even an attempt at that puts you above the Saddam Hussein's of the world who walk to the gallows showing no remorse whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom