• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

"Joker" paying royalties to convicted pedophile Gary Glitter because it features one of his songs (UPDATE: Nope)

Cranster

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,587
There is no way they didn't know about his history. He was one of the most popular Glam Rock artists in the 1970's in England and between his charges in the ate 90's, 2005 and recently after Jimmy Saville was outed there is no possibility they didn't know about him being a pedophile.

 

amanset

Member
Oct 28, 2017
887
I mean Thor Ragnarok is more popular than Joker is, but we didn't have a thread about Jimmy page. Who is not in jail and is cashing checks. So I don't think this thread was made in good faith, other than a means to be another strike against the film. As well, you just need to look at all the threads recently. Even with the director being an ass.
To be honest, I think Glitter is far, far worse. He is a serial paedophile with several documented cases of 10-11 year old girls and at least one attempt at seducing a girl under ten years old. In comparison, Jimmy Page had sex with a fourteen year old girl, which is just one year away from the age of consent here (where I live now, Sweden). Is it still wrong and a crime? Yes. But does it somehow feel less bad due to the age and number of girls? Yes.
 

Pandora012

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,712
To be honest, I think Glitter is far, far worse. He is a serial paedophile with several documented cases of 10-11 year old girls and at least one attempt at seducing a girl under ten years old. In comparison, Jimmy Page had sex with a fourteen year old girl, which is just one year away from the age of consent here. Is it still wrong and a crime? Yes. But does it somehow feel less bad due to the age and number of girls? Yes.
Ummm that's certainly a take. We are ranking pedophilia now? Additionally, age of concent is 18 in cali, where i believe it all started.
 
Jul 19, 2018
522
The premise of this thread is less about denouncing Gary Glitter and more about denouncing Joker, to be fair.
Utter bollocks. Pretty clear you've not read it if you're choosing to believe this. Myself and most if not all of the people bringing this up as a point of contention couldn't give a shit about the film one way or another. If you want to handwave the fact that it's troubling that they used a song by a notorious serial child rapist, that's up to you, but it's not a good look. If you want to play the whataboutery game, start a thread about whatever film or show you want to compare it to, and I'll happily post in support. Can I suggest you look up glitter's crimes before you respond?
 

MrBadger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,112
The premise of this thread is less about denouncing Gary Glitter and more about denouncing Joker, to be fair.
It’s mental how many takes like these are in this thread.

A media-led fear mongering campaign about your movie does not make it okay for you to pay and endorse a man who is famously in jail for having sex with numerous children, whose music is never played in his country of origin.

I don’t give a shit that Americans still love the song, or that other problematic artists also get celebrated. Or that this movie has been unfairly criticised for things outside its promotion of pedophiles. I just don’t get why the fact that this is a problem needs spelling out.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
London
It’s mental how many takes like these are in this thread.

A media-led fear mongering campaign about your movie does not make it okay for you to pay and endorse a man who is famously in jail for having sex with numerous children, whose music is never played in his country of origin.

I don’t give a shit that Americans still love the song, or that other problematic artists also get celebrated. Or that this movie has been unfairly criticised for things outside its promotion of pedophiles. I just don’t get why the fact that this is a problem needs spelling out.
I don't think he's getting out of prison until he's almost 90, he's in his mid seventies already, the money is in his bank account but he's only going to be spending it on a funeral or nursing care at this rate. i can see why people who don't really know about his old persona would care much about it, he's getting punished belatedly which is more than a lot of others do.
 

Gundam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,088
Utter bollocks. Pretty clear you've not read it if you're choosing to believe this. Myself and most if not all of the people bringing this up as a point of contention couldn't give a shit about the film one way or another. If you want to handwave the fact that it's troubling that they used a song by a notorious serial child rapist, that's up to you, but it's not a good look. If you want to play the whataboutery game, start a thread about whatever film or show you want to compare it to, and I'll happily post in support. Can I suggest you look up glitter's crimes before you respond?
It’s mental how many takes like these are in this thread.

A media-led fear mongering campaign about your movie does not make it okay for you to pay and endorse a man who is famously in jail for having sex with numerous children, whose music is never played in his country of origin.

I don’t give a shit that Americans still love the song, or that other problematic artists also get celebrated. Or that this movie has been unfairly criticised for things outside its promotion of pedophiles. I just don’t get why the fact that this is a problem needs spelling out.

I don't care about this movie, but I'm talking about the OP and responding to the idea that no one was upset about Jimmy Page in Thor.


Based off of this:

I don't think we should be paying artists that are shit bags, but it's clear to me that this thread exists because of the current conversation about Joker, not because of any current conversation about Glitter. That's not a defense, just an observation. This movie is already under a lot of scrutiny for stuff like this, so that's why this is getting more visibility than your normal "Bad person's music in a new popular movie" concerns.
 

Beefy

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,552
I don't care about this movie, but I'm talking about the OP and responding to the idea that no one was upset about Jimmy Page in Thor.


Based off of this:



I don't think we should be paying artists that are shit bags, but it's clear to me that this thread exists because of the current conversation about Joker, not because of any current conversation about Glitter. That's not a defense, just an observation. This movie is already under a lot of scrutiny for stuff like this, so that's why this is getting more visibility than your normal "Bad person's music in a new popular movie" concerns.
Nah, it's about a guy who some say raped 100s of kids getting paid. His song shouldn't be in the film at all.

Seriously the amount of whataboutism and defending of a film no one is attacking in this thread is disgusting.

I wrongly thought people on Era were better than this, but I was wrong.
 

Gundam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,088
Seriously the amount of whataboutism and defending of a film no one is attacking in this thread is disgusting.
I see you read my post. Even if you disagree with why I think this thread exists it's pretty clear I'm not defending a movie or complaining about "what about [other movie]". Don't be obtuse for the sake of dunking on a vague portion of the whole forum.
 

Beefy

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,552
I see you read my post. Even if you disagree with why I think this thread exists it's pretty clear I'm not defending a movie or complaining about "what about [other movie]". Don't be obtuse for the sake of dunking on a vague portion of the whole forum.
I didn't say you were or I would have said it.... am saying this thread is disgusting.
 

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,418
Considering how many times I read people posting their thoughts in the Joker OT and on reddit after seeing the movie mention Gary Glitter as being fucked up and out of place I do not think the people saying this is a conspiracy hit job against a comic book movie are very convincing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,357
Las Vegas
I heard there's a scene where Joker tosses plastic in the trash instead of recycling it. I tipped the FBI about it.
Was the make-up they used in Joker animal tested? I'd like to know this. I tipped the Hollywood Reporter about this.

Real talk though, Gary was charged in 2015. They should have done a better job of vetting this and considered using another song. But no, I don't think we should boycott Warner Bros. now.
 

amanset

Member
Oct 28, 2017
887
Real talk though, Gary was charged in 2015. They should have done a better job of vetting this and considered using another song. But no, I don't think we should boycott Warner Bros. now.
His convictions are way older than that.

His child abuse imagery conviction was in 1999.
He was found guilty of having sex with ten and eleven year olds in 2006.
In 2008 he returned to the UK.
In 2012 there were further allegations.
He was found guilty in 2015.

This has been going on for two decades. It is very much not a recent thing.
 

Donald Draper

Member
Feb 2, 2019
1,842
Considering how many times I read people posting their thoughts in the Joker OT and on reddit after seeing the movie mention Gary Glitter as being fucked up and out of place I do not think the people saying this is a conspiracy hit job against a comic book movie are very convincing.
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
 

MrBadger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,112
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
I can absolutely blame people for rolling their eyes
 

amanset

Member
Oct 28, 2017
887
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
So things are only allowed to have one issue with it, otherwise all issues should be ignored?
 

Donald Draper

Member
Feb 2, 2019
1,842
So things are only allowed to have one issue with it, otherwise all issues should be ignored?
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.

No, I am saying when you foster hytersia and fear mongering over what turned out to be nothing than any possible real issues brought up are going to fall by the way side because you've already spent your good faith and people are going to assume it is just more nonsense and it looks like an agenda.
 

MrBadger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,112
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.

No, I am saying when you foster hytersia and fear mongering over what turned out to be nothing than any possible real issues brought up are going to fall by the way side because you've already spent your good faith and people are going to assume it is just more nonsense and it looks like an agenda.
pedophiles are bad no matter the agenda you think is being pushed
 

Just_a_Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,918
Well that information ensures I won't be watching, unless it gets changed for the home release. Why in the hell would they choose one of his songs? His rapes and assaults spanned decades, he never fucking stopped, even after being caught. Ughhhh this is making me so sick.
 

Shugga

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,109
Well that information ensures I won't be watching, unless it gets changed for the home release. Why in the hell would they choose one of his songs? His rapes and assaults spanned decades, he never fucking stopped, even after being caught. Ughhhh this is making me so sick.
Wouldn't be surprised if the director put it on purpose for shits and giggles.
 

amanset

Member
Oct 28, 2017
887
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.

No, I am saying when you foster hytersia and fear mongering over what turned out to be nothing than any possible real issues brought up are going to fall by the way side because you've already spent your good faith and people are going to assume it is just more nonsense and it looks like an agenda.
I was reacting to your "If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously".

Maybe you should have worded that better, because as it stands what you wrote is incredibly eyeroll-worthy.
 

LewieP

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
8,223
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
Please point out any of the prior times I cried wolf on this topic.
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,909
I can believe that they didn't know. Gary Glitter is not a big name in the US and they probably don't google artist names for rape allegations (although maybe they should?). Are there an English people in this production though? They'd have known.

But it should be removed from the home release.
 

Donald Draper

Member
Feb 2, 2019
1,842
I was reacting to your "If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously".

Maybe you should have worded that better, because as it stands what you wrote is incredibly eyeroll-worthy.
Kind of strange to isolate a single sentence and ignore the rest of what I wrote that put the sentence into the context of a boy who cried wolf situation.
 

LewieP

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
8,223
I dont know who you are or how you are at all relevant to the current conversation.
So who are you suggesting was crying wolf? Because it seems like you're suggesting that that's all anyone criticising the inclusion of this song are doing.

If you read this thread you can see all my posts in it.

I saw the film and am judging it based on the content of the film, not on the nonsense media circus surrounding the film.
 

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,418
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
Depends on if you think there was a "manufactured media backlash" I guess. Some people want to feel persecuted for enjoying a movie for some reason.
 

Lundren

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,308
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.

The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.

It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
Here's the thing. You are currently looking at a wolf and saying "well since there haven't been wolves before, this must not be one." You came into this thread ready to shoot the premise of the thread down because that's been the conditioned response. Your mistake was that after seeing that it is a credible and understandable gripe with the situation, you doubled down, and downplayed the fact that it is something worth caring about.

Nobody is asking you to not like the movie. The more people who understand what a scumbag Gary Glitter is, the less often we will hear this mediocre song. Whether Todd Phillips knew about and wanted to stir the pot with this choice is another conversation.
 

amanset

Member
Oct 28, 2017
887
So who are you suggesting was crying wolf? Because it seems like you're suggesting that that's all anyone criticising the inclusion of this song are doing.

If you read this thread you can see all my posts in it.

I saw the film and am judging it based on the content of the film, not on the nonsense media circus surrounding the film.
And as I stated I was planning on seeing it and have changed my mind purely because of this issue. I don't think I have posted in a single other thread about it.

Several people from work are going, but I posted in the Slack thread why I wouldn't be going. I think they are going tomorrow.
 

Lundren

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,308
And as I stated I was planning on seeing it and have changed my mind purely because of this issue. I don't think I have posted in a single other thread about it.

Several people from work are going, but I posted in the Slack thread why I wouldn't be going. I think they are going tomorrow.
An interesting thing to think about is whether the people who claim that people only care about this issue because it's in this particular movie would also be saying it doesn't matter and defending the choice to include this song, if it were in a different movie.
 

Floex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
274
TIL that American is fine with playing a song (everywhere going by here) and giving royalties to a convicted pedophile.

It's not even about this movie, I'm amazed that people are fine with it.

Resetera gonna Resetera.
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,833
He isn't getting any royalties for this apparently:

Yeah, I was just coming here to post this. Apparently he sold off the rights more than 20 years ago. Of course, you can still object to using his music, but at least the specific concern of royalties going into his pocket appears to be a non-issue.

For “Joker,” much of the criticism is centered on assumptions that Glitter was personally profiting from its use in the film, but Glitter sold away all his rights to the recording and publishing of “Rock and Roll Part 2,” co-written by the late Mike Leander, as well as his other songs more than two decades ago, according to Snapper Music, the London-based label that now owns Glitter’s master recordings.

“Gary Glitter does not get paid,” said a spokesman for Snapper in London who asked to remain anonymous. “We’ve had no contact with him.” The song consistently attracted filmmakers and TV showrunners long before “Joker,” landing in “Meet the Fockers,” “Boyhood,” “South Park” and “The Office.” “People generally come to us,” added the spokesman. “We don’t promote it at all.”

Snapper purchased the masters to Glitter’s catalog in January 1997, several months before the singer’s legal problems began with the discovery of child pornography on his laptop and in his home. His new label’s plans for a retrospective album were quickly canceled. Unlike other legacy artists on the label, Snapper does not sell physical copies of Glitter’s records, which are available only as digital streams and downloads.

In the U.S., rights to the songwriting on “Rock and Roll Part 2" belong to Universal Music Publishing Group, which represents Glitter, and BMG, which represents Leander. A representative for Universal’s publishing group stated: “Gary Glitter’s publishing interest in the copyright of his songs is owned by UMPG and other parties, therefore UMPG does not pay him any royalties or other considerations.”