6 ms·

This article has more details: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-lasseters-pattern-alleged-misconduct-detailed-by-disney-pixar-insiders-1059594 https:

• andrepd 9y ago
  It's just so sad to read this. I don't care much for any of the other names that have come up lately, but John Lasseter is my hero :(
  • rayiner 9y ago
    I sincerely don’t understand the idea of having heros. What’s the point of bundling someone’s actions together in the person herself?
  • nodesocket 9y ago
    Food for thought, every single day we see more accusations and finger pointing. It's crossing political, but somehow not weath lines. I'm not saying these things did not happen or that they are not horrible. I'm just saying the frenzy of outrage has reached witch hunt territory. I'm making a point that innocent until proven guilty does not hold true anymore. Once the media or social media writes a story, in the eyes of the "general" public... You're done.
    • openasocket 9y ago
      > I'm making a point that innocent until proven guilty does not hold true anymore. Once the media or social media writes a story, in the eyes of the "general" public... You're done. You make it sound like this is a recent phenomenon. When, in history, has public opinion been subject to a legal standard like 'innocent until proven guilty'?
    • s73ver_ 9y ago
      "I'm making a point that innocent until proven guilty does not hold true anymore." I'm not seeing anyone thrown in jail just because of these accusations.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I'm making a point that innocent until proven guilty does not hold true anymore. Once the media or social media writes a story, in the eyes of the "general" public... You're done. That's been true forever. Innocent until proven guilty has only ever been a legal standard.
    • sergiotapia 9y ago
      OR all these high level hollywood types just keep raping people.
    • jim-greer 9y ago
      The fact that there are a lot of things coming out doesn't necessarily mean it's a witch hunt. Are you thinking of any accusations in particular?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • pwinnski 9y ago
      The term "witch hunt" doesn't apply just because there are many bad actors being exposed. It applies when innocent people are caught up in a frenzy of accusations. Sometimes a frenzy of outrage is earned and deserved.
      • cjsawyer 9y ago
        I absolutely agree in this case, but remember that every other “frenzy of outrage” was also thought to be earned and deserved.
      • kobeya 9y ago
        Convicted in the court of public opinion does not mean guilty.
      • standupstandup 9y ago
        Lasseter's crime is apparently hugging people. That's not a "bad actor". This is far beyond witchhunt territory. Damn I'm glad I don't work in Hollywood. The entire industry appears to be disappearing up its own backside.
        • aaron-lebo 9y ago
          You didn't actually read what he did, did you?
          • standupstandup 9y ago
            I read both linked articles. Instead of asking me belittling questions why not describe Lasseter's crime, as it's not exactly obvious.
            • aaron-lebo 9y ago
              Just hugging? Sources say some women at Pixar knew to turn their heads quickly when encountering him to avoid his kisses. Some used a move they called “the Lasseter” to prevent their boss from putting his hands on their legs. A longtime insider says he saw a woman seated next to Lasseter in a meeting that occurred more than 15 years ago. “She was bent over and [had her arm] across her thigh,” he says. “The best I can describe it is as a defensive posture ... John had his hand on her knee, though, moving around.” After that encounter, this person asked the woman about what he had seen. “She said it was unfortunate for her to wear a skirt that day and if she didn’t have her hand on her own right leg, his hand would have travelled.”
    • eroccatlun 9y ago
      I hope you are not implying that poorer people do not get in trouble for sexual harassment or worse. This recent uptick in wealthy people being brought down by it is only newsworthy because they were previously seemingly immune to the normal rules everyone else lives by.
    • oliyoung 9y ago
      It's not a witch hunt when you actually find people who have done wrong, then it's just “laundry day”
      • CydeWeys 9y ago
        Haha, "laundry day". I love it. Or housecleaning day.
    • jandrese 9y ago
      We are witnessing cultural norms shift right before our eyes. The line went past a lot of powerful people in the shift and now they're scurrying like roaches. In the old days this was borderline behavior, but not something that would typically get them in trouble. A little butt slap here or innuendo laced comment there was tolerated and sometimes even expected, but those days suddenly ended when even the powerful and influential Harvey Weinstein could fall. One can argue that it might even be blowback from the election of a man who boasted on camera about showing dominance through sexual assault. I'm actually excited about what the housecleaning of the old guard means for the future. Many of the men implicated in these cases should have retired years ago to give the fresh faces some breathing room. The message is coming out loud and clear now: If you sexually harassed your coworkers/secretary/etc... back in the 60s or 70s as was the custom your day of reckoning is coming. Get out now before the scandal hits.
      • Alex3917 9y ago
        > We are witnessing cultural norms shift right before our eyes. I wonder how long until we see folks like Mick Jagger getting forced to resign their jobs due to using their status as rockstars to pick up women. Especially since most rockstars are also producers or executive producers, i.e. the same job that Harvey Weinstein or VCs have.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          There's a critical difference between using your status as a public celebrity to pick up partners (which is fairly noncontroversial) and using your power as someone who can open and shut career doors to pressure people to accede to or keep quiet about your sexual advances. Someone like Jagger or Weinstein may have both kinds of status, but there is still a difference.
        • CydeWeys 9y ago
          You're eliding the critical issue of consent. There are plenty of people who want to have sex with rockstars. There's no issue with that.
    • godshatter 9y ago
      A witch hunt is a definite possibility, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I think we're seeing a lot of people who had to bottle up their experiences because the climate wasn't right for trying to bring them out in public. The climate has definitely shifted, so a lot of people who faced possible retaliation before can now safely air their grievances. This is a good thing. It will be overplayed when people start using it as an excuse to take down people they don't like or to make a quick buck. I don't think we're there yet, but if you have seen instances of that, please let me know.
  • ghostcluster 9y ago
    Charlie Rose had the best interview show on TV for decades, and is now just gone.
    • exit 9y ago
      charlie rose was awful at interviewing people. he constantly interrupted interesting thoughts. he just had to get a word in at a set rate. yet somehow they consistently booked very interesting guests. i'll give you that, but that's what the show had going for it, not the eponymous interviewer.
      • covercash 9y ago
        Send that booking agent to Hot Ones and get those guests in front of Sean Evans. He digs deep and does wonderful interviews.
        • sincerely 9y ago
          I generally agree with you, but his interview with the Chicken Connoisseur was embarrassingly bad, starting with the choice of setting and the small talk he opened with...
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • ghostcluster 9y ago
        nah, he was really good at interviewing people and directing interesting longform discussion on a huge variety of topics. better than pretty much anyone else.
        • jacobolus 9y ago
          No, he was really good at getting great guests onto his show, with a long-enough format to have some time for conversation. He was absolutely atrocious at the actual interviewing part. He would constantly make stupid paragraph-long statements and then at the end ask “don’t you agree?”, then when the guest started to explain that no the statement was wrong or oversimplified, he would interrupt them and repeat his point again. He was constantly shitting all over guests who he disagreed with or didn’t think were cool enough, telling them they were wrong and trying to get them to repeat whatever he happened to think, even if they were world-class experts on some topic he didn’t know anything about. He was constantly kissing up like crazy to anyone he thought was rich or famous or powerful, in a way that was really uncomfortable to watch (his numerous sycophantic interviews with Tom Friedman make my skin crawl). He never seemed to listen very closely to what anyone was saying: I don’t think I ever heard a poignant or insightful follow-up question in the hundreds of his interviews I have seen. Instead he would often interrupt right in the middle of some complicated interesting thought, and throw in a non-sequitur, jolting the conversation to a new (often stupid) topic. My favorite Charlie Rose moment was sometime like 15 years ago when he had on (if I recall correctly) Bill Joy. Charlie made some incredibly banal and obvious paragraph-long statement with a question mark at the end, and then looked at the guest, who was just staring at him. There was a long uncomfortable pause, after which the response was, “well, duh.” If you want to see a stark comparison, find any week where the same guest was interviewed by both Charlie Rose and Terry Gross, and listen to the two interviews back to back.
  • macrael 9y ago
    Build your heroes out of pieces of many people.
    • Apocryphon 9y ago
      And kill your darlings.
    • racl101 9y ago
      i.e. Don't idolize people. Love their ideas and their ideals.
  • racl101 9y ago
    Prepared to be let down. Everyone's legacy is up for review. Nobody is safe. Not even Tom Hanks. Time to stop idolizing celebrities.
    • arjunrc 9y ago
      I'm holding on to this single strand of hope that Tom Hanks is above these recent allegations. If it comes out that he was also a sleaze bag along with Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Jeffrey Tambor, (along with an incredible family movie director in the rumor circles) I don't know what to think of Hollywood and my childhood heroes anymore. Tom Hanks, if you have to say anything, do so now rather than later!
• paganel 9y ago
  > One longtime Pixar employee says Lasseter, who is well-known for hugging employees and others in the entertainment community, was also known by insiders for "grabbing, kissing, making comments about physical attributes." Multiple sources say Lasseter is known to drink heavily at company social events such as premiere parties, but this source says the behavior was not always confined to such settings. Seems like it doesn't. It may be that I'm from Eastern Europe, where the social aspects are a little bit more pronounced compared to more puritan countries like the United States, but wtf is wrong with hugging? Honest question. Also, I know I used to drink heavily at "company social events" and thank God I was not let go because of that. Well, to be honest almost all of my co-workers should have been let go if I were to judge them based on their drinking outside of working hours.
  • VeejayRampay 9y ago
    I'm French (and we're not exactly puritan about sexual undertones in the social context) and I guess it all boils down to whether or not the huggee actually wants to be hugged by the hugger. Hugging by itself is harmless, but when you're physically embracing someone and forcing a hug on them (especially if you're in a position of power) you're basically robbing them from their chance to exercise free will, which is of course problematic.