• 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)

ShaunB

Member
Oct 25, 2017
365
I wish they would've used the Guess Who's "Laughing" in this scene. It was in the first teaser for this movie and was what originally got me excited for it. Was bummed it wasn't in the final film (unless I missed it?) and feels like it could've been a better fit.
 

Ramjag

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,963
Look, I liked the film, and STILL didn't like Glitter 'pedo sitter' being involved.

The song outright didn't fit, and I felt another song could have been a suitable replacement.

But nope! Must be a Marvel shill and a hater because I hate the man. Fucking hell
You’re completely free to feel how you like, but this seems like a bit of feigned outrage considering that there’s maybe one other mention of marvel in the thread outside of your post.
 

muteKi

Member
Oct 22, 2018
9,332
a sunken pirate ship
I see I missed the "sexualizing a child against their parent's wishes is OK and you all are drumming up controversy over nothing" part of the discussion. Although I guess I figured we wouldn't be there until like post 500
 

Mona

Member
Oct 30, 2017
15,358
They should definitely replace the song with something else for the dvd sales so that fuck doesn’t get any royalties.
im not going to disagree with this happening or anything, but to the people saying this kind of thing, Pheonix literally had the music on set and was choreographing his movements to the song specifically, so i just want to point out that its not simply a song they threw on there, its alot more intertwined to the creation of the film than people might think

that being said, its possible i suppose for another song to fit as well or even better in the end, im just throwing this out there for people who might not have known, the scene and character choreography was literally shot to this specific music

sometimes in movies the song is thrown on there for tone and you can find a similar song that matches the tone, sometimes its a montage where the editing and pacing is built around a song (rocky 4 does this for sure), thats a little harder to alter, but then you have something like this which is presumably much harder than that because its infused into the DNA of the scene footage itself

now granted i haven't seen the movie, so i dunno how intertwined it is exactly
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,102
im not going to disagree with this happening or anything, but to the people saying this kind of thing, Pheonix literally had the music on set and was choreographing his movements to the song specifically, so i just want to point out that its not simply a song they threw on there, its alot more intertwined to the creation of the film than people might think

that being said, its possible i suppose for another song to fit as well or even better in the end, im just throwing this out there for people who might not have known, the scene and character choreography was literally shot to this specific music
Yeah and if you see the movie it is definitely intentional and on purpose.
 

Beefy

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,552
Lot of sus ass posts in this thread. Too many people trying to defend a film they liked, instead of criticising it's use of a paedos tune.

The nonce abused loads of kids, mainly poor as hell ones. He doesn't deserve royalties.
 

sappyday

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,025
Didn't know this. That's my favorite scene of the movie. I hope Phillips didn't know about this, even then I'm a still enjoy the scene. I thought it fit well and an in the context of watching it I won't be able to remember it. Then again I still listen to MJ music so I guess I might be terrible.
 

Gravy Boat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,917
It's a good song to be fair. Shame that he's getting paid for the usage of it, but we're still allowed to enjoy the music of people who did bad things.
 

Arkestry

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,084
London
Ignorance isn't an excuse, ffs. This is a multi-million dollar tent-pole production. They can get a fucking intern to research the artists that they lisence music from. Just because it didn't make news in the US doesn't mean that it's hard to find out that Gary Glitter is a disgusting manipulative paedo fuck. He doesn't deserve a single penny from his music for the rest of his life.

And as has been pointed out in this thread, the use of the song in the film has given the song, and Glitter's music, attention, which means even more money to him.

It's a good song to be fair. Shame that he's getting paid for the usage of it, but we're still allowed to enjoy the music of people who did bad things.
Sure you're allowed to, just like everyone else is allowed to make sure everyone knows the musician is a convicted paedophile who's in jail for his crimes, and by listening to the music you are lining his pockets.
 

BobbeMalle

Member
Dec 5, 2017
634
I'm sorry, but i don't see how this two situations are connected
He's a hideous human being, but they still used his work and i imagine they are legally binded to pay him
I don't see anything unreasonable here
 

Fevaweva

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,055
It's a good song to be fair. Shame that he's getting paid for the usage of it, but we're still allowed to enjoy the music of people who did bad things.
Perhaps. But I'd rather paedophiles not get paid for their work.

Its why, although I own and enjoy both The Pianist and Chinatown, I bought those films second hand so none of my money went to Polanski.
 

BobbeMalle

Member
Dec 5, 2017
634
If only there was a way that they could have, y'know, not used the music at all. Inconceivable, I know, but it would be nice.
Do you think there was no meeting? no discussion about what kind of song would fit in the scene? They knew what they were doing of course, but they still chose that song for artistic reasons, i imagine.
Seeing pedophiles getting paid is not ideal, that's quite clear.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
London
I'm sorry, but i don't see how this two situations are connected
He's a hideous human being, but they still used his work and i imagine they are legally binded to pay him
I don't see anything unreasonable here
The main thing is that the Gary Glitter character is dead he just gets the money, he can't celebrate the music and fame as he's finished, he can only skulk around the far East or wherever in the shadows as Paul Gadd the aging nonce.

He was never short of money, so being locked up and washed up is a pretty good result looking at the rest of the world in the justice department.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,104
I'm sorry, but i don't see how this two situations are connected
He's a hideous human being, but they still used his work and i imagine they are legally binded to pay him
I don't see anything unreasonable here
but they still used his work
You know they had the option of not doing this, right? No one was forcing them to do that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they use his music and then not pay him as some sort of weird, overly specific stand. They could have just picked a different song.
 

jaymzi

Member
Jul 22, 2019
410
Movie would actually be improved if they changed the song.

Joker haters doing the film a favor by trying to get it changed.
 

Kewlmyc

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
12,764
Not to be glib, but if you don't know the answer to the above, how can you say anything to counter the assertion below?



Seems to me that if Glitter is getting royalties from this, that people who see it are quite literally aiding a pedophile.

Maybe he doesn't get royalties from it... I don't know either way. I just don't get the rhetorical point you're trying to make .


edit: Glitter does get royalties from it:



Despite being behind bars, Gadd still earns royalties from his music. Though his work is blackballed from UK radio, it occasionally pops up in US movies — including Todd PhillipsJoker. His song “Rock and Roll Part 2”, which used to be a sporting events staple thanks to its chant-able “hey” chorus, memorable chord progression, and stomping drums, features prominently in the Warner Bros. picture. For nearly two minutes, it soundtracks Joaquin Phoenix’s title character dancing down a Gotham staircase.

CNBC reports that because of this use, Gadd stands to receive a large lump sum of money on top of royalties from future DVD and potential soundtrack sales.
I just find it annoying that people are using this to shame others for watching a movie. Like I said before, if you just want to get word out about it, or shit on Warner Bros for using the song to begin with, then sure go ahead. Those who are getting on a high horse and saying shit like "those who support a movie about a comic book clown support pedophila" or whatever stupid shit are a bunch of jackasses. Just smells of "if you don't boycott this, then you're supporting them" nonsense I see on this forum sometimes. You're either all in, or all out with some people and it's ridiculous.
 

Kuma Bear

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,716
Japan
I'm sorry, but i don't see how this two situations are connected
He's a hideous human being, but they still used his work and i imagine they are legally binded to pay him
I don't see anything unreasonable here
I think for some people it's a question not about money (because as others have said, he will die before he can use that money) but whether or not someone convicted of a serious crime still deserves fame and success. That's my issue with it, he should be reflecting on what he's done and not continuing a career while in jail.
 
Last edited:

Fatoy

Member
Mar 13, 2019
866
Lot of sus ass posts in this thread. Too many people trying to defend a film they liked, instead of criticising it's use of a paedos tune.

The nonce abused loads of kids, mainly poor as hell ones. He doesn't deserve royalties.
I haven't seen Joker so I don't have a horse in this race. I'm also from the UK, so I know full-well Gary Glitter is a monster.

That being said, If people convicted of crimes don't deserve to profit from their previous works, then that's a situation for the justice system to sort out - not filmmakers. As it stands, I'm pretty sure people convicted of crimes (however heinous) can still own and earn money from intellectual and physical property.

There might be an argument to be made that being convicted of a certain severity of crime should come with a forfeit of those rights, but again, that would be a world-changing judgment that would need to be made at the highest echelons of judicial review.
 

Hoo-doo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,472
The Netherlands
Soon we’re at the point that having watched and enjoyed this movie means you’re an irredeemable pedophile sympathizer. It’s just the way of things on the internet and Era _always_ gets swept up in these shitstorms, spawning anger and infighting.

I haven’t seen the movie and aren’t even interested in watching comicbook schlock, but that’s just my observation.
 

T002 Tyrant

Member
Nov 8, 2018
930
I have no moral issues with the film itself, however as a British person I did cringe at the use of this song, and I'm surprised that Americans don't know about Glitter.

I'll have to put it down to cultural ignorance and just feel sad that glitter lives of the royalties of people being oblivious overseas.

Then again I purchased Rosemary's Baby so I can't really criticise.
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,649
People are being so blasé, they could have gone with any number of songs for that scene but they go with one that pays a convicted paedophile.

"I didn't know Gary Glitter" - well that's your ignorance card played, now what?
"it's a conspiracy" - you're an idiot, getting told who Gary Glitter is and blaming it on film backlash
"it's for art" - feeling comfortable paying a paedo for art

I'm still going to see the film but I might just wait and pirate a copy.
 

Jegriva

Member
Sep 23, 2019
402
I'm sure they'll fix this in the Blu-Ray release... by switching the song to Bad by Michael Jackson.
Lostprophets are probably out-of-tone with the movie.

I'm still going to see the film but I might just wait and pirate a copy.
So," FUCK EVERYONE WHO WORKED ON THIS MOVIE" is the better answer?

I don't think they knew who Gary Glitter is, like everyone out of UK, and I think they should change the song for the home video release. But It's not like the only istance where this guy gets money from.
 

Shugga

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,109
Soon we’re at the point that having watched and enjoyed this movie means you’re an irredeemable pedophile sympathizer. It’s just the way of things on the internet and Era _always_ gets swept up in these shitstorms, spawning anger and infighting.

I haven’t seen the movie and aren’t even interested in watching comicbook schlock, but that’s just my observation.
Or maybe you don't have to defend everything about a movie because you liked it idk
Todd phillips is a fucking cretin, doesn't mean I think you're not allowed to enjoy this movie
 

BobbeMalle

Member
Dec 5, 2017
634
I think for some people it's a question not about money but whether or not someone convicted of a serious crime still deserves fame and success. That's my issue with it, he should be reflecting on what he's done and not continuing a career while in jail.
I already answered above, the silver lining is that he's never gonna spend that money and hopefully his children can use it for something meaningful
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,278
What the heck? This song? I'd say there's no way people won't use this ever again, it's too popular and too tied with sports or comeback montage arks. Should have just got this guy, locked him up, and threw away the key. Unfortunate if he got away with everything.
 

CampFreddie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,020
This thread is reaching.
Nah... It might be different in America but in the UK you just don't play Gary Glitter songs. He has been scrubbed from music channels and even edited out of reruns of old music shows. You don't license his songs because he's a fucking paedophile. This is a huge movie. They know what Glitter did. It wasn't made by some backwater hillbillies who consider international affairs to be anything outside their state and just think it's a good theme for a local baseball game or whatever.
People even get embarrassed if his songs appear in a re-run of a movie from decades ago (the Full Monty has a couple of his songs and they can't be edited out because they are important scenes).
He was literally a paedophile sex tourist who raped countless young girls, some of his accusers being pre-pubescent at the time. This is not a "technically it's ephebophilia" story of someone who got mixed up between ages of consent being 16 here and 18 in America. Nor is it a "he said/she said" story. He was convicted on multiple counts for a crime that is exceptionally hard to prove, so god knows how many other crimes he got away with.

But I guess it's all good in America because it makes a really cool sports intro or something and we have to think of the hockey fans.
 

JigglesBunny

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
7,176
Chicago
I promise you, this film is so unworthy of all of this discussion.

They shouldn’t support a pedophile by including this song. Unfortunately, they did it regardless. It’s a shitty fucking thing to do. That doesn’t make the film itself guilty of anything by association, it only brings into question the diligence of the creative team behind it. Hold them accountable, don’t frame this as another controversy about the film. The film itself is so utterly inconsequential and undeserving of the absurd borderline “satanic panic” level nonsense everyone is so insistent on drumming up about it. Let it go already, folks.
 
Last edited:

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,921
Sydney
I think for some people it's a question not about money (because as others have said, he will die before he can use that money) but whether or not someone convicted of a serious crime still deserves fame and success. That's my issue with it, he should be reflecting on what he's done and not continuing a career while in jail.
I think at some point we kind of have to make our piece with the fact a huge amount of people involved in the entertainment industry are monsters, and circumventing their influence and impact is almost impossible.

Denying a pedophile material support is fine, but it’s probably not going to be the case anyone implicated in sexual crimes can have their legacy erased, purely as a practical matter.
 

SlickShoes

Member
Oct 27, 2017
759
Gary Glitters crimes were horrific and that's only the ones he got caught for too, he moved to SE Asia specifically to engage in these activities and avoid the authorities. He is one of the most famous paedophiles to come out of the UK and someone who is soundtracking a movie has a responsibility to research the artists they are using.