Started By
Message

re: Quiet On Set: Nickelodeon Documentary

Posted on 3/21/24 at 8:01 am to
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 8:01 am to
Posted by lsufan9193969700
3 miles from B.R.
Member since Sep 2003
55122 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 8:09 am to
Dan agrees to an interview and discusses many of the issues.


This was weird. Dude seems way too calm after everything that was recently aired.
This post was edited on 3/21/24 at 9:11 am
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 8:28 am to
There's a lot of discussion online about this doc, and folks go "Well, people like Ariana Grande and other signed NDAs so they'll never talk about this."

NDAs can't be enforced to cover for illegal activity. The catch is that you have to disclose in legal proceedings for said alleged crimes. You can't break the allegations on something like this documentary first."

Drake Bell had been through the legal process for the Brian Peck abuse prosecution, so if there was ever any sort of NDA, it wouldn't be able to be enforced.

Anyone else who signed one and took a payoff to keep quiet would need to seek to file charges in order to avoid any penalties for breaking the NDA.

Seeing that people like James Marsden and Tarran Killam were rushing to Peck's defense in his sentencing is sickening. Makes me wonder if they were victims themselves, but now that they're established names then they can just get along to go along with it all.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:23 am to
quote:

Telling a female writer to say a joke for a kids show while acting like they are getting sodomized probably falls under some form of sexual harassment.


Telling a an adult female writer to tell a joke while acting like she is getting sodomized in the writers room is definitely sexual harassment.

BUT

It is in no way in the ball park of raping kids and should not be lumped together like it is.

Thats the issue. My wife and I watched the same documentary and at the end we talked about it and I expressed my confusion as to why they focused on Dan Schneider so much and her response was "because he was a child predator". I corrected her and asked her to tell me where in the doc did they even insinuate he touched kids and she couldn't give me an answer.

My wife is not a dumb person (most of the time) but making the documentary like this was done purposefully. They are trying to make it seem like being an a-hole misogynist is the same as or worse than being a child rapist. Thats what the left wants. They want to be able to cancel whoever they want just because they aren't PC and nice. The best way to do that is to blur the lines between being a mean person and being an actual criminal.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:26 am to
quote:

Again, he was credibly accused and basically admitted it in a statement of asking a female writer to act like she was being sodomized while pitching a joke.


How is that the same as raping a child in your mind?

No one here is saying Dan Schneider is a great guy. We are saying that grouping him up with actual child molesters is disingenuous.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:30 am to
quote:

here is zero chance that Schneider hasn't had sex with at least one minor cast member.

ZERO.


If that was true then why didn't a single cast member accuse him of such? It wasn't even insinuated.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:35 am to
quote:

Why in the world are you guys coming out of the woodwork to defend a pedophile?


This right here is the issue of how they set up this documentary. In no way shape or form did they accuse or even insinuate that Dan Schneider did anything sexual with a minor. They made a stretch of an argument that maybe he had a foot fetish and included sexual innuendos in his sketches. Guess what? Almost every kids movie has some jokes for the adults that go over the kids heads.

Again, I am not saying Schneider is a stand up guy. I am saying that this documentary was very disingenuous in lumping together a shitty boss with actual child rapists as if they were equal.
Posted by ILurkThereforeIAm
In the Shadows, Behind Hedges
Member since Aug 2020
484 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:41 am to
quote:

"because he was a child predator".


Isn't he, though?

He wrote and produced scenes, to be acted out by kids, that were sexual in nature. The sexual nature of those scenes went over the heads of young kids, so what audience was he writing to? Who was he trying to entertain with showing a teenaged girl getting sticky stuff squirted on her face? Even though he hasn't been accused (yet) of raping a kid, I think he can stil be called a predator.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 9:49 am to
quote:

He wrote and produced scenes, to be acted out by kids, that were sexual in nature. The sexual nature of those scenes went over the heads of young kids, so what audience was he writing to? Who was he trying to entertain with showing a teenaged girl getting sticky stuff squirted on her face? Even though he hasn't been accused (yet) of raping a kid, I think he can stil be called a predator.



He had multiple shows that spanned decades. The fact that they pulled a few scenes where it could be surmised that it was to mimic a sexual situation is speculation. Even the female writer that hated Dan said the scenes were never pitched as a sexual innuendo but just as something funny. Kids like slap stick comedy. Sticky stuff being sprayed in someone's face is funny. You know what else kids think is funny? Feet. My 4 year old daughter loves to joke about her stinky toes. Does that mean that someone in my family has a foot fetish? Should someone have said "hey this looks to explicit and should be cut"? Sure. But to say because they sprayed stuff in a kids faces and made feet jokes to get laughs means he molests children is disingenuous.

If Dan was a child predator, then they would have accused him of actually touching kids. They didn't. Hell Drake Bell said that Dan was the only one on his side once they arrested Peck. I would think a child molester would try to protect the other child molester in fear of a wider investigation.

I hate that yall are making me defend this guy. He was a shitty person. He just wasn't in the same league of shitty people as a guy who fricked Drake Bell in the arse repeatedly. But this doc lumped them all together like it was equal offenses.
This post was edited on 3/21/24 at 10:00 am
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36061 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:03 am to
I doubt we'll watch this because it sounds painful and infuriating. From previous threads in here I'd assumed that Schneider had gone far past the innuendo and foot fetish stage into being a full fledged predator.
This post was edited on 3/21/24 at 10:04 am
Posted by Dire Wolf
bawcomville
Member since Sep 2008
36660 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:17 am to
quote:

I hate that yall are making me defend this guy. He was a shitty person. He just wasn't in the same league of shitty people as a guy who fricked Drake Bell in the arse repeatedly. But this doc lumped them all together like it was equal offenses.



he employed a guy who proudly displays his John Wayne Gacy penpal collection.

Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:20 am to
quote:

he employed a guy who proudly displays his John Wayne Gacy penpal collection.


He sure didn't. The studio that employed Dan schneider hired and employed the child rapist. Another disingenuous aspect of this doc is they acted like Schneider was in charge of everything. He was only in charge of the writers room. He had a say in casting and in some other areas but he did not hire and employ anyone. Nor did he get final call on which sketches made it to air. The studio execs did.
This post was edited on 3/21/24 at 10:21 am
Posted by Dire Wolf
bawcomville
Member since Sep 2008
36660 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:35 am to
quote:

He sure didn't. The studio that employed Dan schneider hired and employed the child rapist. Another disingenuous aspect of this doc is they acted like Schneider was in charge of everything. He was only in charge of the writers room. He had a say in casting and in some other areas but he did not hire and employ anyone. Nor did he get final call on which sketches made it to air. The studio execs did.



he was a producer on pretty much everything he worked on, one of which had a guy proudly displaying his JWG artwork and penpals to children.

I haven't watched the whole doc and I will concede the Fearfactor stuff was a stretch, to me that is more an issue with documentaries trying to fill 4 episodes.

i will also concede that from what i have seen of the doc the network isn't catching enough shite. After all the Ren & Stimpy guy was banging teenagers too


Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:42 am to
quote:

making the documentary like this was done purposefully. They are trying to make it seem like being an a-hole misogynist is the same as or worse than being a child rapist. Thats what the left wants. They want to be able to cancel whoever they want just because they aren't PC and nice. The best way to do that is to blur the lines between being a mean person and being an actual criminal.

I disagree. I believe they didn't press hard enough on Schneider, and let him get away with what was likely worse than those who were charged because they pulled back when they got to "hostile work environment" and "a-hole boss producer with a God complex."

The Dan Schneider story hasn't by any means been told to its full depth.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 10:44 am to
quote:

The fact that they pulled a few scenes where it could be surmised that it was to mimic a sexual situation is speculation.


Okay, groomer.
Posted by Bert Macklin FBI
Quantico
Member since May 2013
8975 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 11:39 am to
quote:

I disagree. I believe they didn't press hard enough on Schneider, and let him get away with what was likely worse than those who were charged because they pulled back when they got to "hostile work environment" and "a-hole boss producer with a God complex."

The Dan Schneider story hasn't by any means been told to its full depth.



You seem to just want to label Dan Schneider a pedophile despite the hit piece documentary providing zero evidence or even insinuation of it. Your whole argument is "Yeah but I bet he did." Zero substance to it at all.

This documentary was mostly directed at Dan Schneider. If they had evidence of him being worse than a misogynistic a-hole boss then they would have definitely put it in the doc. They held no punches when it came to the Peck raping Drake Bell, why do you think they "went soft" on Schneider? That makes zero sense. They interviewed multiple cast member in the doc and not one even slightly suggested that Schneider was inappropriate with them in a sexual manner.

Knowing Business insiders tactics, they went all in trying to get evidence that Schneider molested kids and found nothing so they pivoted to the toxic white male misogynist angle and lumped him in with the actual pedophiles.
This post was edited on 3/21/24 at 11:44 am
Posted by 3nOut
Central Texas, TX
Member since Jan 2013
28922 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 11:47 am to
quote:

This documentary was mostly directed at Dan Schneider. If they had evidence of him being worse than a misogynistic a-hole boss then they would have definitely put it in the doc. They held no punches when it came to the Peck raping Drake Bell, why do you think they "went soft" on Schneider? That makes zero sense. They interviewed multiple cast member in the doc and not one even slightly suggested that Schneider was inappropriate with them in a sexual manner.

Knowing Business insiders tactics, they went all in trying to get evidence that Schneider molested kids and found nothing so they pivoted to the toxic white male misogynist angle and lumped him in with the actual pedophiles.



i haven't watched this, but it seems to be trying to do the same thing Christianity Today did with Mark Driscoll and the media does with Trump.

Guilt by being an a-hole.

Driscoll was literally noted for making sex jokes regularly and being a dick, but also for taking in women abused by their spouses and taking men to task for looking at porn or not being a strong leader in their family.


Not defending anything or anybody.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 12:11 pm to
quote:

i will also concede that from what i have seen of the doc the network isn't catching enough shite. After all the Ren & Stimpy guy was banging teenagers too

Yeah, I'm not buying that of all of Nick's operations in LA, only 3 guys got busted for diddling kids.

If they do a companion piece on Disney, they'll need 20 episodes.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
60049 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 12:36 pm to
We're approaching this from two entirely different perspectives, so it's only logical that we're going to reach wildly varying conclusions.

Where you see Business Insider failing in an attempt to assassinate Schneider's character as they seek to lump him in with convicted child molesters, I see BI doing what they've done for the better part of a decade as I've been aware of their practices: Working as controlled opposition. This time it's to limit exposure of Schneider to what has been publicly known since around 2017-18.

While their portrayal of him is unflattering, it's nothing that wasn't already discussed in the open. The only new information to my knowledge was that Drake Bell was Brian Peck's victim.

They deliberately avoided the fact that Alexa Nikolas (Zoey 101 co-star featured in doc) was married to one of Schneider's buddies who was almost 30 when he started dating Nikolas when she was just 16. She claimed various levels of abuse when they divorced years later, but that seems to put more in the Business Insider is being might selective with the info they chose to expose column, from where I'm sitting.
Posted by oogabooga68
Member since Nov 2018
27194 posts
Posted on 3/21/24 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

People like Ariana Grande maintaining silence in situations like this coming to light only tell me that whenever happened to her was an acceptable price of admission to get wherever she is now. You saw the same thing with folks who defended Weinstein, because they punched their tickets already.


Which makes them complicit.

They have blood on their hands.
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram