-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"Joker" paying royalties to convicted pedophile Gary Glitter because it features one of his songs (UPDATE: Nope)
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
should countries like japan and the netherlands that don't have a history of minstrel shows get a pass for using blackface? even after being told why it's really incredibly offensive elsewhere?
of course not. ignorance is not an excuse. the correct response to finding out that a movie includes music from a paedophile is "wow, that's fucked up, they should have done their research."
That's a big can of worms. Can USA demand other countries to change their traditions? I mean, the moment there are black residents in Japan that find blackface offensive, my argument is null (I know Dutch people of african descent find offensive the blackface during Christmas, and in fact they are phasing it out). But generally, it's very jingoistic to demand other countries to stop being offensive to people on the other side of the planets.
Otherwise, I could point out to all the people getting killed by Camorra every day in Italy and ask Hollywood to stop glamorizing the Mafia.
i know it's a can of worms, and it's a can that this forum has historically fallen on the side of opening in the face of countries that might inadvertently offend americans. should we condemn people for accidentally causing offense without understanding the context? no. should we expect them to go "okay, my bad" and learn from it when it's explained to them what's wrong? yes.
that's the problem with this thread. it's people handwaving shit away by arguing "no-one in america even knows who the guy is" rather than showing willingness to accept that a director of a movie they like kind of indisputably fucked up.
IMO theres a big difference between wearing blackface and playing the hey song, but you do you.
if you're american, i'm sure there is!
everything is different to everyone. that is the point.
IMO it is hard to argue that it is a good idea to put music written by paedophiles in a movie in 2019.
I kinda do as somebody from the UK. We literally never hear Gary Glitter on the radio or any piece of media in the UK. I cannot stress how much he is hated in the UK. He is universally known as a pedophile. Literally every single person in the UK knows. Ask somebody to name a pedophile in the UK and Gary Glitter will be the first to come up along with Savile. An absolutely awful pedophile who never stopped. A pedophile who got caught, got out of prison and immediately went over to Vietnam to start molesting children again over a period of many years.
Gary Glitter is synonymous with the word pedophile in the UK.
People who think the work of absolute monsters shouldn't be platformed and that they should be getting royalties?
The counter argument seems to be that it's impossible because it's used so much in sports (you know, despite him being deplatformed in the UK where he was a bigger celeb).
That people really don't give a fuck about the victims who were raped at the age of 10 (you know, because clearly they'd love hearing Glitters shit still being played because... sports?)
Plus throwing out a bunch of other abusers without conviction who didn't get threads (you know, despite the fact everybody was free to post the articles if they existed and odds are all the people with issues about using the art of abusers would likely have the same stance if the topics existed?) Whilst ignoring the fact they wouldn't dream of posting this type of shitty defence in a Roman Polanski.
Of course their lack of concern about deplatforming one of the worst celeb paedophiles, who was actually proven guilty in multiple countries multiple times, and claiming deplatforming is impossible in the face of evidence that shows it clearly is, is in no way people supporting a paedophile and his legacy all because they're upset a movie they like's getting criticised for it.
I mean yeah, bad song choice for sure. The selective outrage is what makes this seem really forced and disingenuous though. Looking at IMDB and counting movies that use Gary Glitter songs and I lost count after 100, and there was way more.
Hell, this isn't even the first time a Batman property used a Gary Glitter song, one of his songs is featured in S3 E13 of Gotham.
And this thread is about the latest use. The comic book movie which is selling well was certain to have more eyes on it.
This thread, once again, is about informing people of this fact.
Yeah, Hollywood should do that. They should stop glamourizing Cartels and gang life in general. This thread isn't about that, however. Create a thread about the things important to you. Like how this thread was made to spread awareness that a known, convicted pedophile is given a platform in the United States, where people may be ignorant of that fact, but should 100% know. Now people do know. What you do with that information is up to you, I personally wouldn't pick defending a comic book movie from mean people online, but everyone is different.
I haven't seen the movie, but basically everybody agrees that the song fits perfectly in the scene it's featured in. If true, that is ample justification, in my opinion.
Also, that song is still used all the time.
Well as a Brit I am well aware of Glitter's crimes and this has made a decision for me. I was actually interested in seeing the film, despite some of the very poor reviews it has got, but I am now going to give it a miss. I just can't accept any of my money going to that man.
And before anyone asks, I have previous with doing this. As an example, I haven't seen a single Tom Cruise film since Vanilla Sky due to his involvement with Scientology.
As other Brits in this thread have noticed, I too find it unusual that so many Americans in this thread don't feel the need to reciprocate the "we find it offensive, you should too" that we are told so often (but I guess I should have expected that, I still remember all the Americans on the internet justifying Bush's use of "Paki"), as well as being genuinely surprised that "but it is popular" trumps "he's a paedophile" in so many people's minds.
For those that answered "but I didn't know" or "I didn't know who Gary Glitter was", now you do. Maybe the next time you hear it you can question whether it is acceptable. Maybe you can question whether you think it is ethical for him to earn money from your patronage.
Finally, I don't really accept the "separate the art from the artist" argument as this isn't about whether something is a valid form of art, it is about whether I feel my money should go to someone I find morally reprehensible.
And before anyone asks, I have previous with doing this. As an example, I haven't seen a single Tom Cruise film since Vanilla Sky due to his involvement with Scientology.
As other Brits in this thread have noticed, I too find it unusual that so many Americans in this thread don't feel the need to reciprocate the "we find it offensive, you should too" that we are told so often (but I guess I should have expected that, I still remember all the Americans on the internet justifying Bush's use of "Paki"), as well as being genuinely surprised that "but it is popular" trumps "he's a paedophile" in so many people's minds.
For those that answered "but I didn't know" or "I didn't know who Gary Glitter was", now you do. Maybe the next time you hear it you can question whether it is acceptable. Maybe you can question whether you think it is ethical for him to earn money from your patronage.
Finally, I don't really accept the "separate the art from the artist" argument as this isn't about whether something is a valid form of art, it is about whether I feel my money should go to someone I find morally reprehensible.
But what about Thriller man!?...THRILLER.
No, but in all seriousness...they should just cut the song for digital/dvd release. It was such a jarring moment for me in the movie. It's this incredible moment, shot really well, then that shit starts playing. It totally took me out of it. What the hell were they thinking? Especially with having such an incredible score.
I mean, aren't royalties for songs featured in movies paid for use before the movie is released? So technically...if you have seen any WB movie beforehand, you already gave the scumbag money.
Yes and no.
People having been but when it comes to this particular example, the directors and producers should have known better.
I mean this guy IS getting royalties all the way in jail....
UK here. I have seen the movie, and "basically everybody" in the screening I was in looked at each other with a raised eyebrow when that music started playing. It fits fine but pulling an entire country out of a key moment of your film doesn't sound like a great artistic decision whichever way you slice it.
Honestly, never heard of this guy before today, but I'm from the USA. The way I see it is you can look at any movie, TV show, album, sports team, etc. and find someone attached to the work in some way who is a vile person. I fully understand not wanting to support these people, but if you were to look into every one who has worked on any movie or received any kind of compensation from it, you would never watch anything. Same goes for everything in life. Think of every store, bank, bar, restaurant, etc. that we visit in life. If we were to research every person working for those companies we'd find people we don't want to give our money to. It's a sad reality of life.
That may be the case for a lot of companies. You would have to put them under a microscope to find these terrible people.
In this particular case it is flagrant. This is a convicted pedophile, and this is his most well known work. People didn't have to search, they were slapped in the face with it.
Area man says an honest day's work is an honest day's work, even if that work involved fucking kids.
Going out of your way to convince one parent to lie to the other to get away with something you know you wouldn't get the parental consent you need to legally film what you want isn't nothing. It doesn't make him some monster to be cancelled but it absolutely means he's the kind of immoral that's pretty common in filmmaking where people have a tendency to forget actors of any age are people and not props.
You can acknowledge someone's gross behavior without implying they or their film immediately need to be cancelled. But nuance, who's she?
At least in the U.K., Gary Glitter is a household name. Everyone knows what he did. This isn't "one of the VFX guys said something racist on Twitter", this is promoting and celebrating the work of someone who was thrown in jail for being a serial pedophile.
Sorry I meant using the song.
Are we going to go after everyone who uses a Michael Jackson song?
Person 106 throwing around some whataboutery in this thread. It's funny, wonder how many of those same people get annoyed when trumpers etc do the same thing.
May not have heard about him, but certainly heard the song played at every sports venue or youth game. Hell, I heard it being played at a child's soccer practice just a few days ago on my walk.
The generally accepted idea is that you don't fucking play Glitter's songs, circumventing this whole argument about whether or not to pay the paedophile, convicted of paedophilia.
Fucking yikes. I'd bring this up as a slightly contentious issue. I'd imagine the frequency of this song in the US probably has something to do with double standards for exploitation and race. Glitter is white and the kids he abused invariably weren't.
This is such a fucking reach dude... come on
Like at this point people are looking for ANYTHING to make this movie controversial..
Like at this point people are looking for ANYTHING to make this movie controversial..
thaaaaaaat reaaaaaaaaaachh, god damn...
nobody knows who john glitter is man.
never in my life i had listen to that song until this movie neither knew who the fuck that guy is.
Having a convicted child rapists tune in your film is pretty well umm controversial...
The amount of dudes in this thread all trying to defend a movie.... When people aren't even attacking it, they are saying using a nonces tune is fucked up.
I thought some people on Era would handle it better and not be all defensive over just a film. But guessing I was wrong
So his expansive, cultural influencing discography should never be used again? I think using a song to invoke the cultural influence it had can divorce itself from the artist themselves.
I'm now borderline derailing though
You mean not many Americans know who Gary Glitter is. The US isn't the world. Even if you don't know who Glitter was you do now... but you are still doing the dumb reach shit.
I get that, and I fully support trying to avoid supporting people like this. My point is there is scum that benefit from every piece of entertainment. They shouldn't have used the song, but apparently it's played pretty prominently at sporting events here. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not even sure what the song is. It feels like people really want to hate this movie and are looking for any way to do so. If we go over the actors, directors, and producers from blockbuster movies, you'll find people you don't want to support. And those big shots are making significantly more money than this guy is from a jail cell for one song in one scene of a movie.
I think this thread shows a lot of people from the US didn't even know who this guy was and I would guess 95%+ of the moviegoers didn't either. I agree with you that they shouldn't be using his works, but I wouldn't say people were slapped in the face with it if they didn't even know who the guy was.
Probably. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure of the song and I'm at work so listening to it isn't an option right now.
i mean, it is bad that they used the song, but to say that people dont care about this, because the kids werent white, is bullshit, and you fucking know it
The United Kingdom is just this tiny island with no internet or technology and it's impossible to learn who lives there and what they think because there is so little written about their history and culture online. What crimes were committed there? Occasionally a piece of music written there finds its way into movies and sporting events overseas, but what was the person who wrote this song like? It's a total mystery
Keep justifying this weird paedophilia apologism because of the comic book movie.
What do you think this thread is about? You know who and what he is now. Downplaying it at this point is fucked.
You are definitely derailing with your whataboutism. No borderline about it.
im not downplaying anything, they shouldnt have used the song, but to say that people dont care because the kids werent white is bullshit.
the fucking song doesn't even do something for the scene, there was a plethora of song they could have chose that would be better than this nothing song, i dont know why the fuck would they dig this hole.
People in this thread? No idea. Some people in general? It is definitely true. Sadly poc aren't cared about as much as white people.
It's ok to like pedophile music if the pedophile musician lives in a different country to you. Them's the rules
Gotcha. I can't speak to why people don't care about things, so I won't argue for or against that. I thought you were making the argument that it is ok for this song to be used because nobody knows about him. Too many people have said that in this thread.
I agree with your second point wholeheartedly.
It feels to me like people are really defensive about this movie and aren't willing to admit that it's a bit of a bad call to use a song written by a notorious paedophile. I liked the movie, but the film makers could have found a different song that worked just as well, there's nothing specific to the song that ties it to the narrative.
that may be true, but i would never make that jump, i dont like to assume the worst of people, and i know im wrong for doing that, because most truly dont care about a lot of things they should.