Charisma Opens Up About Whedon

[gwenogjones]

I don't get it - the fans liked her but Joss didn't so she was relegated to the scrap heap.

I think Joss did like Amber and Tara. I think he liked her to the point it made her quite uncomfortable. Amber wasn't what he had first envisaged for the role (surprise surprise he wanted someone that looked like Fred) but once he was over that I think she was one of the actresses that he was 'friendly' with. He let her film 'Chance' on the Buffy sets... and now I've just thought 'maybe he thought she owed him for that' and really wish I hadn't.
I think her dislike for how 'friendly' he was is why she refused to come back. I've always thought she didn't come back in s7 because she didn't like him - even back when s7 was current.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Only the US acts as though Ossie and Harriet is a thing.

Ozzie and Harriet was a thing because there was a time where one person's salary could afford to raise a family and allow another to stay at home and not have to work unless they wanted to do so.

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

Medium and big businesses do have protections and provisions. But the fact that 99% of all businesses in the US are small businesses most of them cannot afford to have provisions in place. The government should not (unless they want to pay for leave) be allowed to dictate how a small business runs. If you are concerned about getting a paid 12 week maternity or paternity leave, then don't accept a position that doesn't offer it.

I've had people not accept a job because we don't offer enough holiday time, or don't offer overtime. I don't see where maternity or paternity leave should be any different.

you say most business is small business and yet demand women to not take jobs that dont offer needed benefits. What jobs should they do then? Half our population is female. Most business is small. What options do they really have? This is counter-logical.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Serious accusations, but nothing really new here.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

you say most business is small business and yet demand women to not take jobs that dont offer needed benefits. What jobs should they do then? Half our population is female. Most business is small. What options do they really have? This is counter-logical.

There are many small businesses that do offer leave. They are just not required to do so. Hell, one small business I worked at gave every woman a paid day off a month for their biological needs. It all depends on the business and the owner's desire.

 

[gwenogjones]

Ozzie and Harriet was a thing because there was a time where one person's salary could afford to raise a family and allow another to stay at home and not have to work unless they wanted to do so.

You say 'person's' salary - but it was always supposed to be one way round. An unemployed man and a woman working to support the family would have been treated to raised eyebrows, pity, judgement and condemnation.
Women were emancipated during the world wars in a way they had never been before - allowed to work in industries they'd never been allowed to enter, encouraged to go out and work, suddenly having their own wage (though of course not being paid as much as a man would be for doing the same job in peace time).
And then the war finished and the soldiers came home and there weren't jobs for them so it was 'thanks for your efforts girls now back to the kitchen'. Women were made to give up their jobs and their financial independence in order to make room for the returning men. The 50s glorification of the family unit and the housewife was a propaganda campaign to get women to go back to their homes, their lack of freedom and their economic dependency willingly.

Yes prices have risen and not in line with wages and now having one working partner and one stay at home partner is out of reach for most families (though employers still act as if this is the case) but those were not halcyon days where women 'chose' to stay home. They were made to.

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

Ozzie and Harriet was a thing because there was a time where one person's salary could afford to raise a family and allow another to stay at home and not have to work unless they wanted to do so.

It was a middle class white US thing. It was NEVER a thing for most non white Americans and not for most of the world. It was a creation of Madison Avenue to encourage women to leave "men's" jobs and become "housewives". Men then worked insane hours, never saw their families and died of early heart attacks or lung cancer. Women "loved" it so much, they had to go on Valium and Librium - sedatives. Then within 20 years of WWII those happy housewives were burning their bras and becoming women's libbers. I grew up surrounded by those women.

Ossie and Harriet was mostly a lie. But the fact one salary could support a family? That was UNIONS. Which got killed off in the 80s - and slowly the benefits that unions had worked for have also gone. But that is a different discussion.

Post war Europe figured out fast that building economic strength required good health and family supports. This is part of why America is rapidly becoming a country where a handful of elites have "everything" and most of the rest is one illness (or pregnancy) away from financial peril. Europe is not.

Treating family as important, childbearing as natural and women as humans should not be optional.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But the fact one salary could support a family? That was UNIONS. Which got killed off in the 80s - and slowly the benefits that unions had worked for have also gone. But that is a different discussion.

Yes it was. And not just the benefits but the job security. You didn't have a mass exodus of jobs to other countries that could pay their employees a fraction of what they were paying American workers.

This is part of why America is rapidly becoming a country where a handful of elites have "everything" and most of the rest is one illness (or pregnancy) away from financial peril.

I wouldn't say becoming, more like became. But yeah, it's off topic for this thread.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Whedon's behaviour was terrible and nasty but if it wasn't criminal then he can't really be punished for something he did 20 years ago.

This information will affect how people view Whedon from this point on, however he shouldn't be "cancelled" over the CC incidents.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but if you start opening the door to retractive retribution then you start down a slippery slope where any past bad behaviour can be used to destroy someone's life. To clarify, I'm not talking about criminal behaviour, if someone commits a crime then they should be punished for it no matter how much time has passed, but Whedon being a bad boss 20 years ago on a show he was in charge of shouldn't be used to destroy his opportunity of running a show in the future. If people decide they don't want to watch a Whedon show, or an actor/actress decides they don't want to work on a Whedon project, that is up to them as an individual. However to decide that he should never work again because he was extremely mean to CC 20 years ago is wrong.

CC's experience should be treated as separate from Fisher's allegations. Just because Whedon is guilty of one doesn't automatically make him guilty of the other. Fisher's narrative was one of racism, the article with CC's story tried to change the Fisher narrative to one of unprofessionalism and abusive behaviour which was not the original narrative.

You are also saying that a pregnant woman should not be free to share her condition at her own pace and when she is comfortable but rather to do so at the convenience of her employer. That her right to knowledge about her own body is subordinate to the demands her boss might make of her. That is an anti-woman position to take.

I think what @The Bronze means is that in the tv industry, there are a lot of moving parts and the whole system has to work in synch, when something gets thrown off, it creates a ripple effect which affects all those moving parts. For example, you have script, costume, and stunts. The script writers create the script, the costume department create the costumes required in that script and the stunt people train and co-ordinate their stunts for that script. Those people are investing their time and effort in bringing that particular script to life and the studio are paying them to do so. That script is created under certain assumptions eg nobody is pregnant, everybody is available. They have a set amount of time to film that script, so whilst they might be able to move the schedule around such as someone was supposed to film on the Monday but is sick so those scenes have been pushed back to Wednesday and Tuesday's scenes have been brought forward etc, there are no major changes to that. Also several episodes are prepped ahead of time, so episode 1 might be being filmed but scripts have already been written up to episode 5, costumes prepared etc. Pregnancy throws a spanner in the works. Scripts have to be rewritten because the character can't be as physical due to the actress' condition eg they can't be throwing her around the place, costumes will have to be altered to accommodate the actress' change of size, stunts will have to be redone because they can no longer use the choreography they had prepared and all those changes will need to be paid for as well as there now being a smaller time window to actually film them. If the pregnancy is announced well ahead of time, then those changes can be incorporated within the initial script process before prep work takes place on stunts and costumes, meaning there is little to no disruption. However, if the pregnancy isn't announced until much later after all that prep work is done then it creates a lot of extra work for people who are now under a time pressure.

The story of when CC announced her pregnancy varies from she tried to do it as early as possible to she left it last minute. Also it's possible that the timing was bad and it was always going to cause issues because it was slap bang in the middle of the production process. Joss threw a tantrum and got petty and decided to "punish" CC via the character assassination of Cordy via the script rewrites. Alfred Hitchcock is considered a great filmmaker but was an absolute nightmare to work for. The actress in The Birds suffered under him, as did the actress in The Shining under Kubrick, yet the kid in that film had a whale of a time and didn't even realise he was making a horror movie.

 

[LeeJones41]

Apparently, Michelle Trachtenberg has expressed support for Charisma Carpenter and Amber Benson as well.

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

Whedon's behaviour was terrible and nasty but if it wasn't criminal then he can't really be punished for something he did 20 years ago.

This information will affect how people view Whedon from this point on, however he shouldn't be "cancelled" over the CC incidents.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but if you start opening the door to retractive retribution then you start down a slippery slope where any past bad behaviour can be used to destroy someone's life. To clarify, I'm not talking about criminal behaviour, if someone commits a crime then they should be punished for it no matter how much time has passed, but Whedon being a bad boss 20 years ago on a show he was in charge of shouldn't be used to destroy his opportunity of running a show in the future. If people decide they don't want to watch a Whedon show, or an actor/actress decides they don't want to work on a Whedon project, that is up to them as an individual. However to decide that he should never work again because he was extremely mean to CC 20 years ago is wrong.

CC's experience should be treated as separate from Fisher's allegations. Just because Whedon is guilty of one doesn't automatically make him guilty of the other. Fisher's narrative was one of racism, the article with CC's story tried to change the Fisher narrative to one of unprofessionalism and abusive behaviour which was not the original narrative.



I think what @The Bronze means is that in the tv industry, there are a lot of moving parts and the whole system has to work in synch, when something gets thrown off, it creates a ripple effect which affects all those moving parts. For example, you have script, costume, and stunts. The script writers create the script, the costume department create the costumes required in that script and the stunt people train and co-ordinate their stunts for that script. Those people are investing their time and effort in bringing that particular script to life and the studio are paying them to do so. That script is created under certain assumptions eg nobody is pregnant, everybody is available. They have a set amount of time to film that script, so whilst they might be able to move the schedule around such as someone was supposed to film on the Monday but is sick so those scenes have been pushed back to Wednesday and Tuesday's scenes have been brought forward etc, there are no major changes to that. Also several episodes are prepped ahead of time, so episode 1 might be being filmed but scripts have already been written up to episode 5, costumes prepared etc. Pregnancy throws a spanner in the works. Scripts have to be rewritten because the character can't be as physical due to the actress' condition eg they can't be throwing her around the place, costumes will have to be altered to accommodate the actress' change of size, stunts will have to be redone because they can no longer use the choreography they had prepared and all those changes will need to be paid for as well as there now being a smaller time window to actually film them. If the pregnancy is announced well ahead of time, then those changes can be incorporated within the initial script process before prep work takes place on stunts and costumes, meaning there is little to no disruption. However, if the pregnancy isn't announced until much later after all that prep work is done then it creates a lot of extra work for people who are now under a time pressure.

The story of when CC announced her pregnancy varies from she tried to do it as early as possible to she left it last minute. Also it's possible that the timing was bad and it was always going to cause issues because it was slap bang in the middle of the production process. Joss threw a tantrum and got petty and decided to "punish" CC via the character assassination of Cordy via the script rewrites. Alfred Hitchcock is considered a great filmmaker but was an absolute nightmare to work for. The actress in The Birds suffered under him, as did the actress in The Shining under Kubrick, yet the kid in that film had a whale of a time and didn't even realise he was making a horror movie.

Since his past behavior is a strong indicator of his present behavior, and since people of present times also have complaints about his horrendous behavior, I think it is important that the past not be swept under the rug. "one incident" does not make a history, but a pattern of abuses over decades is a history and it's therefore germane to any job he may have in future and anyone who will be subject to his behavior. I would not hire him to run my show, though I might hire him to rewrite a script if he was not going to be in touch with my writing staff or ANY other staff, frankly. I would not hire him, personally, but I could see someone in need of a writer hiring him because he is a competent, talented writer.

 

[The Ferg]

Am I the only one that finds it incredibly strange that the "abuse" allegations are only coming from Buffy and Justice League (and CC on Angel)? The dude has worked with probably hundreds of people during his career.

 

[Cheese Slices]

Am I the only one that finds it incredibly strange that the "abuse" allegations are only coming from Buffy and Justice League (and CC on Angel)? The dude has worked with probably hundreds of people during his career.

The thing is I don't think he was an asshole to every single person he's ever worked with. I'm quite sure a lot of people never saw that side of him and are reluctant to comment one way or another.

 

[Btvs fan]

The thing is I don't think he was an asshole to every single person he's ever worked with. I'm quite sure a lot of people never saw that side of him and are reluctant to comment one way or another.

Thats how abusers operate. They aren't stupid. They can be both charming and vicious depending on who they speak too.
Besides which many of those other people are probably still working and scared for there careers. Its easy to say hash tag Me Too but when it comes to actual consequences to you then its more tricky.

Mere Smith a writer on Angel is liking the posts by Amber Benson etc though she's not actually saying anything.

 

[3feetoffun]

Indeed separating the art from the artist is always important. Really though Joss' image as a great guy was gone long ago. Anyone who associates with Anita Sarkeesian is dodgy.

This post was cringy as **** in 2015, now it's cringy as **** and hilarious.

And even she came out and said Joss needs to be held accountable for this. It has been news for years.

" Years ago Joss' ex-wife bravely came forward with her story about being gaslight by her husband for years. Recently Ray Fisher exposed the toxic environments Joss creates on sets. Today Charisma is bravely sharing her trauma with us. Abusers have to be held accountable. "

 

[katmobile]

Indeed separating the art from the artist is always important. Really though Joss' image as a great guy was gone long ago. Anyone who associates with Anita Sarkeesian is dodgy.

This post was cringy as **** in 2015, now it's cringy as **** and hilarious.

No it isn't .....Anita Sarkesian is not the devil nor is she a saint. She's just a woman with an opinion now to some people that does make her the devil but they're dicks and should be treated as such.

 

[The Bronze]

You say you don't know the timings, but considering that Charisma has repeatedly spoken about this (and been backed up by others) what you mean is you're not taking her word on the timings.

I can't find a source for the delay story. Either from Charisma or anyone else involved. Seems like a rumour started and repeated as fact. Happy to take her word for it and won't bring it up again.

General point about sharing information that has big effects on others stands but is off topic.

 

[burrunjor]

No it isn't .....Anita Sarkesian is not the devil nor is she a saint. She's just a woman with an opinion now to some people that does make her the devil but they're dicks and should be treated as such.

Sorry but I think Sarkeesian is a shiester who has done more to undermine feminism in the modern age than any internet shit lord.

Still not to get side tracked onto an Anita Sarkeesian conversation, I am glad that Charisma is finally being honest about this as it always pissed me off the way that her career was basically torpedoed compared to Amy Acker after Angel by Joss, and worse people would always use that as proof that Charisma was a terrible actress and laugh at "well Amy Ackers career didn't sink like Charisma's".

Even worse she still had to be diplomatic about the hypocrite who had sunk her career. IMO he deserves all the shit that is coming his way for it.

Am I the only one that finds it incredibly strange that the "abuse" allegations are only coming from Buffy and Justice League (and CC on Angel)? The dude has worked with probably hundreds of people during his career.

He's obviously not a dick to everyone he has ever worked with or he really wouldn't have had a career until now.

However this does confirm a lot of what we always thought about Joss. He is very cliquey, he forces his actors to do things that they are not comfortable with, like the entire Spuffy relationship in S6, Cordelia and Connor, and if they disagree he gets angry and childish (tv is always a group effort, and whilst no one says dance to your actors every whim you have to take their opinions in too.)

Then there is also the fact that Sarah Michelle Gellar never once said anything nice about working with him. For two people to have shared such a close working relationship, yet never comment on each other in any real meaningful way is very, very odd.

He's also always come over as smug, arrogant, and hollow in regards to his feminism, labelling others sexist, jumping on bandwagons etc.

He has had a big backlash coming his way for a long while. The only thing I am shocked about are Michelle Trachtenberg's allegations. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but that is a totally new side to Joss I've not heard before.

 

[darkspook]

I have seen some people talk about the lack of male actors speaking up but one thing I think needs to happen is other writers and producers on the show need to speak up. The writers are the ones who for me in my view would have spent the most time with Joss. Engaging with him in the writer's room where they plotted out the season, interacting with him over emails, face to face or just in passing where he would have given notes or direction on their episodes, sitting with him during the editing or filming of the episode. Actors and showrunner have very little interaction on a daily basis apart from perhaps if the showrunner is directing an episode or if you are called upon to have a meeting etc. So far we have not heard anything from Jane Espenson, David Fury, Drew Goddard or Rebecca Rand Kirshner who wrote episodes over seasons. Nor have we heard anything from his number 2s: Both David Greenwalt and Marti Noxon.

I think looking at the claims and accusations both from Charisma Carpenter and indeed Jeff Pruitt stunt coordinator made from last year there seems to be level of Whedon becoming drunk on power, believing one's hype and not able to stay humble. Pruitt mentions having a great relationship with Joss who would ask for advice but then became an egomaniac. This could be dismissed as sour grapes from an ex employee but then Carpenter's statement has several parallels with both talking about people being put against each other thus creating a difficult work environment. There is also a suggestions of a vindictive streak where he refused to accept change unless it was brought about by him.

Being a showrunner on a show must be a draining, difficult and not for the faint hearted experience. You are dealing with notes from the network, notes from the studio, you are dealing with casting a new recurring guest star, giving notes on a writer's script for episode 6, while in the studio the cast and crew are filming episode 3 you are trying to work out the issues of episode 8 and so on and so on. My point is I can understand Whedon being short with people but that does not excuse or defend his behaviour. Whedon would not be where he is or was had it not been for the support of his cast and crew. Example Whedon may have written the first episode but it was Charles Martin Smith who directed it thereby establishing the tone, look, and feel of Buffy. Those walking and talking scenes in the high school, the riffs to classic horror films in certain camera angles and music and the engaging performances from the cast.

I often excused what I felt were mistakes or issues that I had with the show as thinking 'well it is Whedon's first time showrunning' can't expect him to get it right. I do not think Whedon could have produced a firefly type series first without his years of managing Buffy & Angel. Indeed spreading himself over 3 series affected the quality of the shows in my view.

 

[Dora]

The original plan for the 100th episode was for SMG to do it. She said no so they got CC back.
Tbh the MT comments have moved it way beyond that now

Read recently somewhere ? that that report was rubbish and Sarah was never properly asked to appear in the 100th episode of Angel