- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dan Schneider Sues ‘Quiet On Set’ Producers For Defamation
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:06 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:06 pm to Indefatigable
See I interpreted the documentary as an expose of Dan being the head of a toxic work culture that employed pedophiles.
They never accused him of anything except being a fricking weirdo, which he obviously is.
Of course I may be biased because I think he should be in prison just for the hot tub scenes alone, so maybe I'm not the best guy to ask
They never accused him of anything except being a fricking weirdo, which he obviously is.
Of course I may be biased because I think he should be in prison just for the hot tub scenes alone, so maybe I'm not the best guy to ask
1
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:10 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
See I interpreted the documentary as an expose of Dan being the head of a toxic work culture that employed pedophiles.
I see that too. But the show showed that he fired those guys pretty quickly as well when it was brought to him.
Sure, he could be lying and I’m sure to some degree he is lying about the extent he knew bad shite was happening.
But I’m not the only person who thinks WB failed to connect those dots in the actual show.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:11 pm to L S Usetheforce
quote:
Dan is the lead pedo. This story hasn’t just come to light.
Imagine if this it true but the story never comes to light. Without witnesses coming forward, it’s difficult to prove.
If this dude molests a bunch of underage girls then gets rich off it due to a defamation suit, that would be one of the more fricked up things I’ve ever heard.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:13 pm to Bench McElroy
muh editing
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:14 pm to Indefatigable
I guess I'm just wondering how he's going to prove defamation when he was never actually accused of anything.
The "implication" is moreso that he was running a workplace culture that left a lot of traumatized kids in its wake, which is 100% true no matter what his involvement was.
I get your point, though. I'll definitely be interested to see where it goes.
The "implication" is moreso that he was running a workplace culture that left a lot of traumatized kids in its wake, which is 100% true no matter what his involvement was.
I get your point, though. I'll definitely be interested to see where it goes.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:16 pm to MrJimBeam
Do your homework. Penn State was a cash grab. Nobody got molested.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:16 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
I guess I'm just wondering how he's going to prove defamation when he was never actually accused of anything.
A good point. Defamation, particularly for public people, is an incredibly high burden.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:17 pm to Porpus
quote:
Do your homework. Penn State was a cash grab. Nobody got molested.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:17 pm to Porpus
quote:
Penn State was a cash grab. Nobody got molested.
Wait what? Wasn’t there first-person witnesses to some of that stuff in the showers, etc?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:22 pm to Indefatigable
right, someone should let Sandusky know that it was all a cash grab since he's in jail for 45 counts of sexual abuse
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then they forgot to include any of that in the documentary. Putting thinly veiled adult jokes into kids shows is weird, but its not pedophilia or abuse.
Again, he's a complete a-hole, but nothing in the show indicates that he harmed any of those kids physically.
He never would have been fired by Nickelodeon if there weren't more to this. He was way too valuable to them for them to fire him for being an a-hole and putting adult jokes in kids shows
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:31 pm to Bench McElroy
No recent documentaries have been subtle, and they all seem like infomercials.
Max had one a couple months prior about fast fashion. It was framed to show the exploitative business practices of Brandy Melville. At the end of the series the producers disclaim the company operates like every other clothing brand…The only difference was they only hired skinny blonde girls and sold a single size. By the time they cut to credits you realize it was a bait and switch and just think WTF just happened?
Max had one a couple months prior about fast fashion. It was framed to show the exploitative business practices of Brandy Melville. At the end of the series the producers disclaim the company operates like every other clothing brand…The only difference was they only hired skinny blonde girls and sold a single size. By the time they cut to credits you realize it was a bait and switch and just think WTF just happened?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:31 pm to Porpus
quote:
Penn State was a cash grab.
Same as the Catholics
Everybody these days thinks they can do a little work as a kid get that lottery ticket and never have to work again
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wait what? Wasn’t there first-person witnesses to some of that stuff in the showers, etc?
There was one guy with a shower story - Mike McQueary - and he never consistently asserted he saw sexual contact. His lukewarm assertions did firm up a little at trial, after the media was out for blood. For a weak man like McQueary, that was too much inertia to fight.
McQueary claimed he was inspired by watching Rudy to go to the Penn State field house and pick up some film. There, he heard "slapping sounds" coming from a shower and later he saw Sandusky and an adolescent in there.
The timing of McQueary's story doesn't line up. The day he claims this happens (a day when Rudy was in fact on), the field house was crawling with people. There was, like, a concert and a hockey game in the immediate vicinity. I'd frankly question whether McQueary would have been able to find a parking spot that day, much less witness molestation.
The actual timing has been pieced together by others, and it indicates that the day when McQueary went to the field house was weeks prior to the date he claimed.
McQueary did not run to Paterno the next morning. He spoke with Paterno much later about a job opening, and he felt obligated to mention the shower scene because word that "McQueary saw something weird" had filtered to Paterno through the grapevine.
From the time of the shower incident to the advent of the public accusations against Sandusky, McQueary continued to fraternize with Sandusky, playing golf at a charity tournament he organized.
If you toss out McQueary's very flawed recollections, you are left with basically nothing. A lot of the accusers claimed repressed memories had been recovered. That's total hogwash.
No pornography of any sort was ever associated with Sandusky. That's unheard of among child molesters.
Sandusky's medical records indicate he had extremely low testosterone, even hypogonadism, throughout the relevant time period. And yet we have people claiming he forced them to engage in multiple sex acts per day (and not as the receptive partner).
This is just what I remember from a podcast about all of this, by a guy named John Ziegler. I highly recommend it- "With the Benefit of Hindsight."
I took from that podcast the strong impression that Sandusky is exactly what he portrayed himself to be: a perpetual adolescent who devoted his life to a sport and to troubled youths. He was the genuine article. It's really sad.
Oh, and his wife never left him. Where's McQueary's wife? Nowhere near Mike fricking McQueary, I assure you.
And where's McQueary's coaching job? What is he even doing?
What is Sarah Ganim, the young journalist who won a Pulitzer for exposing all of this, doing? Last time I checked, this latter-day Carl Bernstein was a stay-at-home mom. Hmm. Where's her book? You'd think a book would be a no-brainer... assuming it's not all a house of cards. But that's exactly what it is.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:41 pm to jchamil
quote:
He never would have been fired by Nickelodeon if there weren't more to this. He was way too valuable to them for them to fire him for being an a-hole and putting adult jokes in kids shows
I thought that initially. But, there’s no way he survives me too. His saga also took place at the same time Shari Redstone was fighting to merge CBS with Viacom. Les Moonves was more valuable than Dan Schneider, and he shared a similar fate. Redstone went scorched earth on every prominent position she thought might threaten her merger.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:45 pm to L S Usetheforce
quote:
According to my wife…all you have to do is read the book from the chick who is glad her mother is dead
She said Dan was an A hole, but her mom is the one who ruined her life and urged her to calorie count.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 5:50 pm to Bench McElroy
I feel like this will be a tough suit. While the doc spent a lot of time discussing Dan, they never actually called him a pedophile. At the worst, they said he was misogynist creep who was obsessed with feet, loved to order female staff members to give him back massages on set. They kind of alluded to him maybe being a pedo, but there was never any direct allegations.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:12 pm to QJenk
quote:
While the doc spent a lot of time discussing Dan, they never actually called him a pedophile.
There was apparently a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes before it was published. Similar to Rebel Wilson’s recent book citing ill will towards Sasha Boren Cohen, a lot of stuff was removed from the final version to avoid lawsuits.
Supposedly, one of the reasons QOS doesn’t make much sense in its final form was because of everything that was cut after the fact. The project would’ve probably been scrapped except WB was determined to air it to establish their linear broadcast to Max on demand strategy, and to throw shade a Paramount.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:16 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That whole series was odd. Schneider is a weirdo and an a-hole no doubt, but the way the documentary tried to lump him in with actual child abusers was odd and over the top.
I’m sorry, but if Dan Schneider was simply an a-hole, he would still be at Nickelodeon making shows for them. All they would do is hire another producer to keep Dan’s worst impulses in line. He’s far from the first sexist a-hole hired in Hollywood.
Dan was a fricking piggy bank for Paramount and Viacom and was really, really good at his job. Dan knew what kids wanted before they did and really didn’t have a miss (outside of that adult sitcom he tried to do, but stick with what you know). He’s one of the most successful producers in the history of Hollywood, so he would not have been fired lightly. And since he’s been fired he’s proven his worth with Nick not having a major smash hit since then.
And the reason for the implication of him being a child molester is because he is. There’s so much smoke around this man that there’s fire, and it wasn’t the fire the documentary uncovered. He’s the single most nefarious rumored pedophile probably in the country outside of Jerry Sandusky and Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes he’s accused of committing are around Sandusky levels of disgusting, and the studio covered it up. Sure he’s never been accused of molesting a boy, but pedophiles surround themselves with other pedophiles for protection.
Something that Dan has in common with Sandusky but not Harvey or Cosby is that Dan had bosses. Sure everyone in town knew what Harvey and Cosby were doing, but they weren’t legally liable for it since they did it in their own time (Harvey infamously at the Four Seasons). Viacom and Paramount would be legally liable for what Dan has been accused of though, and if even half of the rumors are true about Dan, it’s enough to take down the entire company.
They didn’t have a smoking gun on him though. I’m sure they were hoping that Jennette McCurdy would oblige them since she’s pretty much come out and said that he sexually molested her, but I’m guessing she just wasn’t going to play ball.
So the documentary is wrapped up in a nice little bow making Dan the fall guy and him not being directly accused of being a child molester, when in reality Dan’s boss and his boss’ boss knew exactly what he was doing. Sorry, they clearly imply it which is what Dan is suing over, but if it goes beyond Dan and his subordinates then everyone at Viacom is fricked and they’re probably going to have to sell to another company.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:22 pm to LouisianaLady
quote:
I thought the exact same thing when I watched it. They really went in on him hard, and he wasn't even the molester.
Because he is the molester and everyone in that town knows it. He was so good at his job that there is no way they’d fire him for the stuff shown about him in the documentary. He made them hundreds of millions of dollars every single year. All they’d do is tell him to cut it off with the foot fetish crap and sexualizing the teenagers (really that’s not pedophile behavior) and hire another producer with veto power to keep Dan in line.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News