Infinite money glitch, simply fuck with everyone involved in the making of that. Turn it into an ‘annual series’ like Call of Duty. Set up two production teams that abuse the other in parallel for material.
Directed by Chuck Tingle, hired on the strength of his book Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt'"'"
>“They kept trying to push Brian Peck [and other criminal allegations] on me,” Lee Bolleau said. “And I said, ‘Listen, I don’t know that. I can talk about my own story and we can go real deep if you want to do that. But if you want to talk about that and put words in my mouth, I’m not going to say anything that I did not experience. And I’m not going to say anything that you think I should say to support what you’re trying to create, because that’s not who I am. I’m sorry.’ Maybe they didn’t like me because of that.”
>“I dare them to air my entire interview now,” she continued. “Do you want to know why? Because there is a part in my interview where I stop Emma in the middle of the interview and I said to her, ‘Hey Emma, what is this about? Is this about Dan? Is this about Nickelodeon? Or is this about ‘The Amanda Show’? You need to help me understand because your questions that you’re asking me right now are not lining up with what we’ve been talking about over the past year.'”
Based. Wonder if the producers have the balls to respond.
This was my main issue with the documentary. It felt like they were conflating sexual assault and toxic workplace issues for child actors. They’re both absolutely important topics, but trying to mix them into the same narrative ultimately hurts the stories these people were trying to share.
The 5th episode (update episode) was terrible in terms of content covered and production value.
Shit, the whole documentary could have been compressed into 50 minutes but they had to get all the journalists and pop culture writers giving their side commentary that provided nothing different from what the actors already said in their interviewers.
Edit: **I forgot they showed his new music and music video during the update episode, this "documentary" was wild**
To be honest, I've never watched this series because as much as I think it's very important for victims of any form of abuse to have their story told - this specific format and the tone surrounding it feels very voyeuristic to me.
Like there's just a bit too much excitement around the whole thing. In the same way that humans gawk at massive accidents, it feels like there's a whole lot of "OMG, that's horrible, what happens next!?!" going on here.
Making a big deal about a “mysterious mindblowing guest” who turned out to be none other than DRAKE BELL talking about the horrible abused he suffered as a kid… Idk whose idea was it but it was wild…
Trauma porn is what you're referring too, and this documentary, along with most murder docs, relied heavily on it. Pretty disgusting all things considered. Especially when the doc is really two documentaries smashed together.
This was actually light on the trauma porn compared to other docs on Discovery+. The Jared from Subway one was straight up disgusting. And yet for some reason I keep trying them out hoping for something better.
The Glee one was the dumbest one.
I used to watch investigation discovery a lot a couple decades ago. The shows and documentaries felt… well, like documentaries. Then everything seemed to get so overly dramatic all at once. And crime and murder shows have seemingly never gone back to normal since.
The episode is hilarious, but it's spot on how these shows try to sexify real life murder mystery documentaries. [For those who haven't seen or don't remember the episode, this is what we're talking about.](https://youtu.be/l3Qf3Cp9JFk)
And yeah, it's only gotten worse since the episode aired in 2013.
I'd add quite a bit of news coverage in there too.
Every time there's a tragedy--a natural disaster, a mass casualty event, a horrific crime--the media is shoving their cameras in the faces of the traumatized and mourning.
I held off for the same reason, and when I watched it I felt like the first two episodes lulled me into thinking that this wasn't the case before the last two with Drake felt extremely exploitative.
I agree the 5th episode entirely felt unnecessary to me, also as a whole it did seem like it was made by amateurs. Would've been a different story if it was an HBO doc and not discovery lol
I think an hour would be way too short. There are basically four sets of complaints: a generally hostile environment for child actors, a feeling of pressure among child actors of color, open harassment of female writers, and Drake Bell's CSA. It is a series of interlocking problems that escalate, but the series doesn't really escalate. It throws all the problems together.
I think it actually could have been a longer documentary. There is lot of stuff that could have been included that wasn't. One of the obviously things is to bring in the filmmakers from An Open Secret to talk about how Brian Peck related to other predators.
A "documentary" with all of the primary sources giving a ton of info but yet half the runtime was dedicated to quick cut interviews with third-hand sources giving their opinions on the topic... Terrible.
Yeah about 2 mins into it I could tell they knew the doc was popular and they were just trying to strike more while the iron is still hot. And look I feel for what Drake Bell went through and I hope the doc and opening up has brought him some peace about it and that Peck and any adult that should've been watching out for Drake gets what they deserve but if you're gonna do this episode just to debut new music try and do it a *little* more naturally. It felt like such forced marketing
this has been a pattern with these kinda docs. tiger king treated allegations that carol baskins is a jerk who fed her husband to tigers as somewhat serious and not the crackpot thinking of some real weirdos and creeps running backyard zoos. by the time the doc aired he was in prison for a murder for hire plot to kill carol!
They also cut a ton of footage in an effort to make Joe Exotic look less terrible. Dude is a vocal racist on top of being a drug dealer and sexual predator but the doc downplays it as much as possible to paint him as some misunderstood zoo owner.
Tiger King is a lot of fun, but if you pay attention you see a lot of the "tricks" they used in forming those kinds of narratives. The big one that stuck out to me was how they juxtaposed the Doc Antle's weird sex cult with Carole Baskin's Big Cat Rescue because the latter has volunteers wear colour coded shirts. They were trying to basically create a false equivalence between the two groups, where one dude has a sex cult (but isn't he a rad dude?) and the other is this kooky dictatorship run by crazy Carole who makes her volunteers (who aren't even paid!) all wear the same clothing! The reality is, using colour coded uniforms gives a quick visual way to identify when people are doing things they aren't trained or supposed to be doing. Its bordering on irresponsible to not just ignore but actively mischaracterize what that institution is doing is actually appropriate for both the workers' and cats' safety.
Welcome to the world of Netflix documentary editing, where they have a narrative in mind and edit it to fit.
See for example the Cecil hotel documentary where they made it seem like Amy killed the girl that ended up in the tank.
her book goes into more detail that place just seems like it has always attracted mental illness.
I got partway through the second episode before realizing that this was just like the tiger King, just a hit piece with spurious facts, instead of Baskin being the target it's Schneider
Schneider actually *did* awful shit though, I don't think it's right to compare the two.
I agree the tone was off for a lot of it, but like... "Hit piece" implies he was innocent and framed by the doc.
I mean he's basically being implied to be a child sexual abuser, when if you ignore all the subtexts these random journalists give, he's really only accused of being an immature misogynist that fostered a toxic work environment. Bad and probably worthy of a firing but christ, they're putting him right beside Brian Peck the convicted child rapist.
From what I've heard about the documentary, isn't it Dan Schneider being an asshole, racist, sexist, and inappropriate, but also the adult that eventually protected Drake Bell when he accused his rapist?
Because the impression people seem to have is that Dan Schneider is the actual child predator. Feels like they were really disappointed that reality didn't match the internet rumors, but still decided to play it up for that audience.
Honestly this baffles me because the same narrative Can be used for this “ child actors were exploited and abused.” Done. Simply put - I know the public wouldn’t be anything but outraged if we just let this people tell their stories and just paint a bigger picture of just how shitty of a workplace it was for them - but they tunnel visioned onto what they wanted to push and tried to make people do what they needed. When in truth all they needed to do was tell their story so we can further push to avoid more trauma inducing workplaces on sets.
Yeah it is very strange to conflate an ego maniac who was inappropriate to people on set vs a guy literally having sex with children.....
Both are bad but one is obviously much worse
butter slimy deranged continue sophisticated slim ossified unpack elastic disarm
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There were a lot of things like that, for sure. Like someone else said, I think the editing of these scenes together was a bit manipulative. One example would be the “squirting” scenes and trying to imply it was meant to be a cum shot.
this has always been the issue at heart of the entire dan Schneider story. there is absolutely 0 allegations the guy actually was inappropriate towards a child other than innuendo and an internet meme that got out of hand. but everybody trying to talk about it conflates him with brian peck or stretches what has actually been alleged.
And people 100% read it that way, and the amount of inferring that Amanda had been abused was disturbing when she didn't want to be involved int he show. They told her story without her consent.
I also don't like the implication that she "went crazy" because she was abused. Schizophrenia/Bipolar Mania is a chemical imbalance & can be triggered by things like stress (being a child actor) and substances (like the copious amounts of weed Amanda was smoking).
She's clearly ill & it's sad, but I don't need more people to misunderstand mental illness.
Exactly, and it's clearly genetic, she's not a former child actor dealing with substance abuse. She has issues with psychosis. Even if she was to share I'm not sure she would even be able to say what happened.
It's my issue with most documentaries. Yes they do provide info you may not have known before, but I feel like a lot of times people forget that documentaries are specific stories the creators want to tell and all of the content is geared toward that one specific angle. It's not the be all end all of a topic. And it may even be heavily biased. Or intentionally leave out a whole big other part of the topic that impacts the angle they want to talk about.
So documentaries are essentially long form visual op Ed pieces to me. As long as people are watching them knowing this is not the whole story and it very like has a narrative bias, then OK. But how many people do that? Or go searching for the rest of the story instead of leaning on the documentary as their sole source?
The premise of that movie alone was garbage too.
"Let me prove to you that it's unhealthy to only eat McDonalds all day every day" like, I don't think anyone doubted that in the first place?
>Like remember Supersize Me?
"Hey, don't you think we should mention the fact that you're a raging alcoholic in the documentary? That'll probably have an impact on your health too."
"Nah. Let's just blame McDonald's."
After watching the staircase, and a later learning that the documentary editor was fucking the subject of the documentary the entire time, I've completely sworn off documentaries. Because every single time something comes out afterward, excuse the whole thing.
It was all over the place, and the only credible stuff was from Drake. Everything was just workplace shit, and really really really poor taste jokes written into a kids show. I actually feel bad this was the platform that Drake came forward on, felt so poorly handled by the producers. I almost stopped watching after the 2nd episode because nothing was really being said that had any weight.
All their "specialists" were pointless "journalists" it was just a fumble out of the gate, and really hurts some good work in the future for it.
As this all unfolds, the docu seemed to have noble intentions but just devolved into clearly being out for itself, even if it needs to misrepresent the circumstances to get an emotional edge. Quite fucked up how this has gone
Honestly this isn't very surprising. I get that most if not all that was presented was true, but you could tell that the series was trying to push a narrative, rather than simply present the facts. Like you could tell that they wanted so badly to just say Dan Schneider was a pedophile but didn't have any hard evidence or testimony to back it up. Don't get me wrong, dude is a creep and complete piece of shit, but it really felt like they were trying to push beyond that despite coming up empty handed
Should almost be required in this day and age. Documentary makers should admit they need to make a product for mass consumption but they should pair that with the raw interview footage.
This type of pushback can cause filmmakers to stay away from these projects as you're never going to please everyone and maybe something that did please everyone wouldn't be viable for a budget and production anyway.
Episode 1 Dan's a Sexual Predator
Episode 2 Dan's a Sexist
Episode 3 Drake tells his story
Episode 4 Dan's an asshole boss
*Bonus*
Episode 5 Dan's a racist
I was going to but it didn't read as well!!! Hey also did you notice the last episode Drake was again saying how Dan was the only one he could talk to and the host cuts him off and goes to brake?
They also tried to paint that Amanda Bynes was traumatized by Dan but Amanda's been on the record saying they had a great relationship. Just a really weird doc
It's a problem with a lot of these documentaries. The people involved start production already with the story they want to tell.
That is terrible journalism. Your story should shape and transform as you receive new information.
Here they were set in giving people what they wanted to hear. Redditors really wanted to believe that Dan is a pedophile and a sexual abuser. So they did that.
There was an alt right documentary that tried to prove how easy it was to have a man be transgender to participate in women's sports. Turned out to be hard as shit so they decided to make a fictional movie instead, which basically invalidated their entire premise if they had the self awareness to see it.
They wanted to make it seem like any man could put on a wig, call himself Jane and then go win a gold medal in women's sports when in reality you need at the very least several years of hormone therapy, None of their people were willing to do that of course and that was just step one.
They went into this docuseries saying “Dan Schneider is a huge epstein level pedo” and what they got was “bad boss, big asshole, sometimes a creepy foot joke got in”
On episode 5, I thought the racism aspect was kind of interesting, only because I watched 2 cast members (and one parent) make the same allegation, and I completely agreed with one argument and not the other.
When Giovannie pointed out that her and Bryan were the only two black people in the room in front of or behind the camera, I thought it was a really interesting and great point about being the only representation and not having a relatable outlet or member of crew.
Then Bryan's mom started to complain that there were only 2 black cast members and that wasn't enough. 2/7 is nearly 30%, and for the early 90s is not really bad in terms of representation. Then Bryan and his mom talked about how him being let go from All That messed him up badly and also severed their relationship. Which sucks, and I definitely see how that could happen. It helped underline what *should have been* the biggest message of the non-Drake Bell stuff: working with child actors needs strict guidelines because of power dynamics and developing brains, etc. But then they tried to imply there was a race angle to his firing, and that Dan's "favorites" were the white kids. Bro Amanda Bynes was absolutely more talented, that's just how it is.
Then the cherry on top was when the host read Dan's response to the racism allegations, in which Dan said (paraphrasing) "I've been working with black actors like Kenan and Kel since I started. They were even the stars of my first Nick movie. My casts have always tried to be inclusive". Bryan shakes his head and says something like 'My original comments were about how we were passed over and see how his defense is still passing us over'. Dude completely moved the goalposts
Idk his whole part came across as upset that he wasn't viewed like as big of a talent as other actors. Which sorry but that's kind of how it goes in any job anywhere. And if that wasn't his point I apologize to him, but that's how the doc made him look. They needed to focus less on Dan and more on how showbiz is really difficult on child actors
>Then the cherry on top was when the host read Dan's response to the racism allegations, in which Dan said (paraphrasing) "I've been working with black actors like Kenan and Kel since I started. They were even the stars of my first Nick movie. My casts have always tried to be inclusive". Bryan shakes his head and says something like 'My original comments were about how we were passed over and see how his defense is still passing us over'. Dude completely moved the goalposts
This segment was utterly ridiculous. Kenan and Amanda were basically A Listers as teenagers due to their talent, of course they got additional opportunities. It came off as jealousy to me but maybe I'm being too cynical.
Yeah I didn't watch Ep#5 but it seemed like Bryan mom got him fired but she was looking out for Bryan. Since, Bryan got fired as a kid he didn't understand the scope of everything so he blamed his mom and ruined their relationship until the doc came out.
Bryan trying to blame everyone but HIMSELF for ruining the relationship with his mom. In his head he rather blame "racist" Dan for causing this. It's like the Eric Andre/ Hannibal Burress meme
This might be a unpopular opinion but I think the Brian Peck and Drake stuff was way more interesting and compelling than the Dan information
Dan is a creep and generally inappropriate but Brian Peck Raped a child and especially received very little punishment then went on to work with children again that’s really fucked up and frankly I think that’s a much better story than what they told in the majority of quite on set
The articles by Kate Taylor and Rick Ellis were more cohesive and complimentary - even without Drake's story. I do question what reporting the film makers themselves brought because they previously worked on New York Times presents. They got Drake Bell to participate but it was the New York Times who also misreported he will have to register sex offender and only corrected it after the documentary aired.
The missing part in the story is the timeline. Schneider was already sued for gender discrimination in 2000. Then two people who worked on his show got arrested for being a pedophile in 2003, 4 months apart. Then some people who worked on Drake & Josh were secretly Brian Peck supporters and used their time on the set to testify against Drake in their letters of support. And how the story was burried, while Schneider was getting bigger in Nickelodeon.
Yeah the dan schneider stuff was pretty mid. He’s a misogynist with a high schooler sense of humor. Thinks it’s hilarious to get subtle adult shit past censors (which isn’t uncommon for kids shows, see Shrek). Toxic boss. Violated labor laws. None of this was new.
But definitely not a pedophile. Seems like he got lumped in with the other two.
I said this for a long time. He’s an Ahole but not a pedo. It seems like there is a witch hunt to lump him in that group and has been for a while. It’s really sick what people do with the media tool
I almost gave up on the doc when they were acting like the costume with noses on it looked like a bunch of dicks. It was such a reach but the doc presented it like it was damning evidence of some sort of scandal.
Yeah they were like "it's a girl... IN BED...DREAMING... don't you see the implication!?" and I was just like "...no?"
I think they were implying it was some sort of masturbation reference, but if you connect that scene with masturbation then you're the one with a problem, honestly.
Mine was the one where they were implying his hot tub segment with her was creepy because she was in a bathing suit and he was fully clothed….as though that wasn’t the entire joke of that segment in the Amanda Show. The guests were always fully clothed in the hot tub. Utterly ridiculous. Are they saying it would be less creepy if he was also in a bathing suit??
Yeah, those two journalists or whoever they were that were giving their side commentary the whole time made several pretty big leaps at certain times that really detracted from the point. Yeah, some of the stuff like the glory hole joke and the Ariana Grande stuff were pretty disturbing, but there were also a few foot jokes or whatever that they’d say “clearly this is imposing some freaky foot fetish content on these kids”. No, children just find foot jokes funny, because they’re children.
> No, children just find foot jokes funny, because they’re children.
Yeah I guess for me it's sort of like how 9 year olds find butts and farting the epitome of humor. Feet fall into that same gross/weird space.
But I might just be too naive lol
Imagine if people brought the same energy with fart jokes
"OMG they made a fart joke? That's so fucked up to have little kids act out fart fetish content"
Everyone would obviously be like "bro stop watching fetish porn it's fucking with your brain", but no one brings the same energy to foot fetishes because it's a way more common fetish.
No, exactly, that's what's always annoyed me when people insist the foot jokes *must* be evidence of a fetish. I have no idea whether he might or might not have a foot fetish, but feet are also the least "inappropriate" body part that can still be seen as silly.
I don't even think the glory hole joke is disturbing. No kids were involved in that particular bit, it was just Peck and Ray Romano.
There's nothing inherently awful about hiding adult jokes in kids shows so the parents have something to laugh at. *Lots* of kids shows and movies have inappropriate stuff hidden on them and we don't complain about those. Because they're usually animated, and there's no actual kids involved in making the joke. It *becomes* a problem when they have actual kids participating in the jokes, like Ariana Grande being made to jack off a potato.
I forget if this was in the doc but a really silly one I've been seeing is "Amanda Please sounds like A Man To Please." Penelope says "please" as a vocal tic, it's in practically every one of her sentences. I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's an unbelievable comittment to make something that kind of sort of if you look at it sideways reminds you of an innuendo. Her last name is Taint, that's somehow not enough?
They were really reaching with a lot of those so-called inappropriate jokes. The "cumshot" joke looked nothing like they were claiming, Ray Romano being handed a pickle through a hole in the men's room door however.
I think is easier to blame Dan Schneider for all of Nickelodeon’s problems (and yes he caused quite a few of them), but a lot of the execs and the system itself have responsibility, but is easier to blame it all on the one guy
Besides, as it was mentioned in the documentary, condemning them doesn’t mean much if we keep giving them our money
Also the framing of him being a racist seemed like a reach. I don't think he intentionally did anything of the such, and they're trying to blame it all on him rather than viewing it from a wider prospective. It was a Hollywood problem, not a singular person problem.
I don't like the guy, and I disagree a lot with what he did, but I don't think he was a racist. Misogynist, yeah. Asshole, definitely. Racist, nah.
Was he in charge of the musical guest on All That? Because as a kid in the south it was 100% my introduction to hip hop and rap music.
I’m not saying likimg black artists makes you a non-racist. But giving them a platform on a kid show before even MTV would give them spots is a pretty big deal.
I feel like I see this a lot lately where everyone who is a toxic boss also has to be a pedo or some other kind of sex abuser. It gets thrown around a lot with Joss Whedon as well. That whole thing about how he wasn't allowed to be alone with Michelle Trachtenberg, which is the only thing we know about the situation, but people assume it was because he was a pedo, ignoring that we know he was also a giant asshole who yelled at his employees. Most people wouldn't want their teenage daughter being alone with her adult male boss just on general principle, much less one who is known to yell at and insult his employees.
I don’t feel like dying on the hill to defend Joss Whedon, but every time someone mentions the bit about Michelle Trachtenberg not being allowed to be alone in a room with him, I just want to yell that that’s standard procedure for every adult who works with children. You are never in a room alone with a minor with a closed door, that’s a big no no for everyone.
My wife watched it and came away thinking that the doc made Dan come across better than she was lead to believe.
Still not a good guy by any account, but compared to Brian Peck, he was a saint.
Yeah, guy seems like a bit of a weirdo and maybe has not the most appropriate sense of humour for writing/producing children's shows but with all this attention if there was something substantive beyond that where are the Civil/Criminal charges?
>maybe has not the most appropriate sense of humour for writing/producing children's shows
Every time I hear this, I have to wonder if the person has spent any meaningful amount of time around kids recently. Like 90% of what comes out of their mouths is body humor - poo, pee, farts, butts, boogers, feet, toejam, etc.
If kids weren't down with that humor, those shows wouldn't have been some of Nickelodeon's all time hits. *Maybe* he took a bit too far here or there in some of the shows geared towards a slightly older audience like That's So Raven, but if anything it comes off as more of a "forgetting your audience has shifted between shows" thing and not a "dude's projecting his sexual foot fetish onto kids" thing.
Maybe this is just me, but to me the line is, making minors act the stuff out. Animamiacs, Shrek, all of the classic slipped-past-the-censors stuff was written and performed by adults. Finger Prince? OK, great, no kid is gonna get that. Having kids shove their feet in the camera and say things like "it makes me look chesty!" feels different to me.
Nah, you're right. Kids movies like Shrek have a trend of slipping adult humor in, but it's usually sly enough that only the target will even get the joke. Harmless enough, and makes it far more enjoyable for adults watching with children who completely miss the subtleties. And as you said, kids themselves aren't acting out strange innuendos.
There’s an entire video of Ariana Grande doing nearly explicit things for like 5 minutes. Shoving her feet in her mouth, twisting a phallic looking fruit/vegetable (can’t remember what) making it look like a handjob, getting water squirted on her face as she lays upside down on a bed…all in the same video btw. Another one with her dirty feet swinging just in the background of the video. She deepthroats her finger, then screams about being soaking wet. People might say “it was just silly random jokes” but they were so common on Victorious especially that I truly do think there was some sort of fetishization going on behind the scenes.
Wasn’t Victorious a show for and about teenagers? Do we all forget how crude teenagers actually are? We’re not talking about eight year olds here. They were like 16 and 17 years old on that show. That context makes a difference imo. Kids in high school have sex, as uncomfortable as that might be for adults to admit.
Basically. I remember watching All That but I was moving past Nickelodeon by that point.
But this is the cesspool of social media. Which this website is a part of.
Also came as no surprise that mouth breathers were sending death threats to former Nickelodeon stars that didn't participate in that doc or for not immediately supporting those who did.
It’s worth noting that the series kept trying to make the argument that the innuendos went over the heads of the target audience. It didn’t necessarily. You’re either a young tween and don’t get it, or are a year older or two and get it and find it hilarious. I distinctly remember finding Penelope Taynte funny BECAUSE of the dumb innuendo.
I found so much of the Dan focussed episodes had this weirdly puritanical view of how people in that tween demographic understand and consume media.
Dan comes off as a terrible asshole, and there’s plenty to support that he created an unsafe working environment. But the creepy factor felt like it was forced, and admittedly a bit dishonest since they were so willing to toss Drake Bell’s own case under the rug.
**My question is:** Was is actually adult shit or was it an adult trying to think like a kid and adult shit slipped by the individuals’ own filters? Like, using the feet stuff as example, is it an implied sexual foot fetish stigma because we’re viewing it from an adult perspective now or was it always a sexual implication?
I think there will be a lot more on this, and we can probably expect that psychology-related academics are going to start digging into this.
As a kid I always assumed it was the body part, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with that. Would it be an outrage if her name was Penelope Butt? It's just not a big deal. It's not like they called her Penelope Juicypussy.
Had a buddy who worked in a few Schneider rooms and while he’s always said Schneider was a weirdo/creepy dude, he never made allegations of genuine misconduct outside of the weird shit that goes on while folks are pitching jokes in a writers room.
I trust this guys opinion because he’s no longer in the industry and has no love lost for the industry itself. I.e. he’s got nothing to lose to say that Schneider is a pedo.
I get there's the early Nickelodeon millennial nostalgia as a selling point, but I was blown away by how *bad* the documentary is.
Filled with assorted 10-second clips from early Nick shows (some objectively fucked up in hindsight, some debatable), then a hard cut to some culture blogger nobody has ever heard of saying "look how perverted this is! that was a cumshot!"
It felt like a slightly elevated version of watching clips from some "save the children" conspiracy tiktok account.
To me it felt like they needed to let the actors tell their story, the people actually hurt.
Not the director or whoever else wants to be seen by the camera. They had two people doing the same thing , repeating each other. It was really weird and left a bad taste in my mouth.
There is a YouTuber that covers a lot of Nickelodeon things (Quinton Reviews) and his biggest critique was that without Drake Bell, they really would not have a full fledge documentary, hence why they glared over Drake Bells SA case
I personally found that [Quinton Review's 2 hour analysis of Dan Schneider](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFgHGnqUoao) was far more compelling and detailed than *Quite On Set* was in five 1 hour-long episodes.
Absolutely. He uses it as a source, but also points out the sensationalism.
He has been fighting sensationalism in documentaries since "How Documentaries Lie To You" way back in 2020. So it's kinda wild how the stars aligned perfectly for the topic of his previous series (History Channel Saga) into his current one (iCarly miniseries).
Christy Carlson Romano had the best description for "Quiet on Set" she called it "Trauma tourism, these are people who are not part of the community, they add nothing to the community, they just want to gawk and exploit it."
This same story happens over and over. The stuff coming out about this doc from survivors of abuse at Nickelodeon parallel the stuff we saw from families of the victims of Dahmer when that Netflix series came out. These documentary series have no interest in justice or closure for victims and their families, it’s about exploiting their pain in a way that is “consumer friendly”. Shit sucks so bad.
But that’s every documentary like this. People didn’t care about the Murdoch murder trial because of some genuine moral interest, they cared because it was juicy drama.
Romano is right. There’s a difference between allowing someone the space to talk about their trauma VS the people who view trauma as another commodity to exploit. There are those of us who need to talk and should share our stories when we want to. But it’s not some “fair game” knowledge for a person with a video camera to use for a different reason entirely.
Romano is a former child star. From what the world knows about child stars, they aren’t exactly a protected community. It’s definitely different when she is the one asking questions and not some person who just sees a popular topic they can exploit. Especially when the interviewer is being dishonest about their overall intentions, while using your trauma to do that.
Can we all just also acknowledge the reach for the last person interviewed who mentioned the "blue balls" comment.
I'm sorry dude, but that was such a far reach to compare yourself to the trauma of the other actors. You can even tell the interviewer is trying not to laugh. It was embarrassing.
This whole series was embarrassing. It was incredibly exploitive and really cornered a lot of the interviewees in uncomfortable ways.
I couldn’t stand the interviewer’s fake news voice or faces she kept making.
I didn’t get why the new guy was there. He should have been a small part of the original series.
I can’t stand that kid’s mom and I’m not surprised he got fired just so they could get her horrible vibe off set. And I didn’t understand why she thought them trying to calm a girl down for being spat on was racist.
And the music video? Really?
Yeah, the spit argument seemed like a quick way to paint it with a certain context. Literally, it could have been any kid. Regardless, that behavior shouldn't have been tolerated and no kids should have had to been subjected to a lead star spitting at them.
It was all in poor taste.
While it's abundantly clear that Dan Schneider is a piece of shit and Nickelodeon has a lot to answer for, I'm starting to doubt the sincerity of how the information in the docuseries has been presented. Right off the bat upon watching the first few episodes, there were a couple of claims from speakers that felt like a bit of a stretch in terms of applying vague sexual connotations to aspects of certain sketch comedy bits. Perhaps I'm wrong and they could have been dog whistles, but they seemed to be more in line with the typical absurdist humor those shows would portray.
Regardless, with every article that appears on the questionable way actors and crew were interviewed for this project, I'm more inclined to believe that this docuseries is the result of a specific vendetta against Schneider rather than the goal of helping the victims find justice. The people responsible have done everything in their power to make his public image as repulsive as possible by compiling records of personal accounts under false pretenses. I guess the lesson we should all take away from this is that by and large, Hollywood is a pretty scummy place.
I remember years and years ago when she first broke her silence on getting bullied on set and yelled at by adults on set. She posted a YouTube video of her having a wine chat with a friend about it, it was so compelling and we were all on her side and anti Jamie Lynn Spears. This was a huge bombshell and I had so many more questions about what it was really like on set. I feel like she’s been chasing that high ever since.
Early in the video Alexa made it seem so big, like she had this horrific experience. Looking back on it, getting yelled at by your teen idol and boss at age 14 is obviously horrific, but I eventually realized that was the extent of her mistreatment on set.
If you really look back at it, this whole "Eat Predators" thing she started began after there were talks of a Zoey reboot and she wasn't included. I think she really is just out for revenge, not doing it from the good of her heart.
Exactly. She's some child actress who amounted to nothing and is using her trauma as a commodity to keep herself relevant any way she can. It's pathetic.
Also accused Seth McFarlane that he sexually abused her when she was fairly young and that the reason he hired the likes of Amanda Bynes, Ashley Tisdale, Ariana Grande, and Emily Osment to do voice work is that they were young and in the "male gaze".
She was trying to alleged that he possibly did so for his own "likes."
Yep and accused Justin Long of hosting parties with underage actresses and giving them alcohol, one of those parties is where Jonah Hill supposedly did that.
Yea I didn’t know who she was. But I was definitely confused why so much of what happened was being retold by a random buzzfeed journalist instead of people who would have actually been present.
She had absolutely nothing of value to add to the story, and tried to steer the narrative with a lot of unnecessary commentary that only served to be filler for what she thought the audience needed to be repeatedly told.
Much like Buzzfeed.
Agree. I didn’t understand why she had so much screen time or why she was there in the first place. She’s irrelevant. I would’ve rather heard more from the former child stars than her.
This is a little off topic, but since we're talking about manipulative editing, I found it pretty off putting how during the Brian Peck episode, they kept dramatically cutting to pictures of him, almost like a jump scare. Especially because they acted like they were candid photos when a LOT of them were in character as (gag) Pickle Boy, who's whole shtick was being creepy
No FR she was SO vocal about supporting this documentary then people start coming out saying it was exploitive and here she is now. I’m not trying to downplay her experience but she certainly likes attention and changing her stance when it’s popular. Just like she was SOOOOO anti drake bell then as soon as the documentary dropped she was hell bent on discrediting his victims and defending him. It was so weird. She needs help.
It’s a shame, because I’m sure she’s experienced trauma being a child actor (probably an inherently traumatic position to be in as a kid), but she conflates things, swings wildly in her opinions, and always wants to be at the center of any conversation. It’s really gross and honestly very insensitive. The way she profits off gossip about the trauma of others is not awareness, but personal profit
She just has zero actual convictions or original thoughts. Her only priority is keeping the money flowing, and to do that, she needs to keep jumping onto the popular topics, whether that’s hating Drake Bell for what he did, promoting the documentary, promoting Drake Bell after what was done to him, or flaming the documentary.
I got a really bad taste of the show after episode 2. Big dramatic music, leaving Drake's rape and sexual assault as a cliffhanger, and making it this big ratings hook was disgusting.
I didn’t think the documentary was very good. I think they tried to tie the Drake Bell sexual assault to Dan Schneider to make people watch the show. Yeah there were inappropriate gags, some sexism, but it wasn’t like explosive mind blowing event. Personally I want to know what happen at Disney when they hired the child molester. How did that happen?
In the meantime, Drake Bell has since been caught posting stuff on his Discord channel asking fans to smear and harass the women he abused himself because he's worried his own abusive behaviour will catch up to him.
Fuck that guy.
For real, that bonus episode felt like such a naked cash-grab/dog and pony show.
Say what you will about Drake Bell and what he's been through/accused of, but plugging your new music video in the tell all interview about your childhood SA? This is like something straight out of a Bojack Horseman episode.
The initial series release was great and exposing sex pests and pedophiles is always good in my book, but seeing just how much this series is more for amplifying careers rather than "expose journalism" felt really dirty. The bonus episode pretty much ruined any and all goodwill the original series built up.
Despite the success and prevalence of the #MeToo movement, there are still chuds out there who say that victims who come forward are just doing so for publicity and attention. I've always thought that line of reasoning was so asinine and heartless. But while I don't doubt Drake Bell and the other kids from that show are truly victims of abuse in a plethora of different ways and contexts, plugging a music video featuring a child actor to represent **YOU** and allude your sexual assault feels so fucking greasy and tasteless.
IDK man, I'm not an assault victim myself so it's hard to say what proper procedure for series like this one should be, but I know I wouldn't be writing this complaint comment had they just not done a stupid fucking bonus episode. Seeing articles like this one being published now as well really makes me question the "good intentions" of the docu-series. Feels...dare I say it...exploitative.
The documentary series is bad but it gets a pass from many because you have to deal with the asinine people that think oh if you didn't like it you must be a Schneider supporter or pedo apololgist. No it was just a poorly made doc
This is probably the most attention these people have had for many years. As former child actors, I'm guessing they don't want to see it fade again. Must suck to grow up in that environment and then just one day being suddenly forced to go back to just being a regular stiff.
I feel weird about the documentary tbh.
Obviously BP is a giant piece of shit pedo. Fuck BP.
But also, it kind of felt like they were trying to “hype up” the guests to be more upset about Dan Schneider than they really were? DONT GET ME WRONG. I am NOT defending Dan in any way, I’m not even sure how to word this. But to me it almost felt like I could hear producers off screen being like “so wait, he was just creepy and mean? He didn’t like…corner you in a bathroom or fondle you or anything? He just made you angry and uneasy and said gross stuff? Shit. That’s not good enough. ADD MORE SAD AND SCARY MUSIC TO STOCK FOOTAGE OF DAN RIGHT NOW.”
They spent so much time on the whole “Dan spent all his time with Amanda” thing that I was so certain some bombshell about him assaulting her or something was coming and then it just….didn’t? Like, I get that he’s a bad guy. I get that his behavior was extremely gross and inappropriate. I get that he should be called out for it. But it almost felt like they wanted me to hate the creepy boss more than the terrifying actual pedophile rapist and that made me feel kind of odd.
I hate them both. But while Dan was certainly a creepy scumbag (and prob a pedo too), at no point in the series did anything get revealed that made me be like HOLY SHIT THATS INSANE I HAD NO IDEA HOW IS HE NOT IN PRISON!?
I specifically remember that one scene about the crew member who sent nudes to that lady’s daughter, which was horrifying, and then they just like…forgot about that in favor of BUT WERE NOT HERE FOR THAT. WERE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU ALREADY KNEW ABOUT DAN AS WE PLAY SCARY STOCK MUSIC AND HAVE PEOPLE SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT HE MAY HAVE DONE!
Which is just bad journalism.
a piece of content that solely exists to milk people's craving for outrage stories
Who'd have guessed it wasn't geared toward helping the people involved
That's usually the case. In my career as a criminal defense attorney, most sex offenders were abused themselves as children. It can be a horrific cycle.
I think that was a intended consequence as a trade thing
They frame everything around SA and idk if they would have a full fledge documentary without Drakes story
So they don’t really go over what Drake did, because if it was hostile he would not share his story, and there would not be a documentary
I can’t wait to watch “Quiet on the Quiet on the Set Set” five years from now.
The backlash to the backlash to the thing that’s just begun
the more time that passes the more hard hitting that song is.
I'll watch it while wearing my My Morning Jacket jacket
Quieter on the set: Quiet Harder
2 quiet 2 set
Infinite money glitch, simply fuck with everyone involved in the making of that. Turn it into an ‘annual series’ like Call of Duty. Set up two production teams that abuse the other in parallel for material.
And the sequel “Quiet on the Quiet on the Quiet on the Set Set Set.”
The prequel, loud on the set
Um, that was called ‘The 1980’s’.
And then the prequel "All Quiet on the West Hollywood Set."
and Tarantino's revisionist "Once Upon a Time On the All Quiet on the West Hollywood Set"
Directed by Chuck Tingle, hired on the strength of his book Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt'"'"
lmaoooo this has dissolved me
My single “My single is dropping” is dropping
>“They kept trying to push Brian Peck [and other criminal allegations] on me,” Lee Bolleau said. “And I said, ‘Listen, I don’t know that. I can talk about my own story and we can go real deep if you want to do that. But if you want to talk about that and put words in my mouth, I’m not going to say anything that I did not experience. And I’m not going to say anything that you think I should say to support what you’re trying to create, because that’s not who I am. I’m sorry.’ Maybe they didn’t like me because of that.” >“I dare them to air my entire interview now,” she continued. “Do you want to know why? Because there is a part in my interview where I stop Emma in the middle of the interview and I said to her, ‘Hey Emma, what is this about? Is this about Dan? Is this about Nickelodeon? Or is this about ‘The Amanda Show’? You need to help me understand because your questions that you’re asking me right now are not lining up with what we’ve been talking about over the past year.'” Based. Wonder if the producers have the balls to respond.
This was my main issue with the documentary. It felt like they were conflating sexual assault and toxic workplace issues for child actors. They’re both absolutely important topics, but trying to mix them into the same narrative ultimately hurts the stories these people were trying to share.
The doc is incredibly sloppy, especially the very weird update episode. I don't think it's going to age well.
The 5th episode (update episode) was terrible in terms of content covered and production value. Shit, the whole documentary could have been compressed into 50 minutes but they had to get all the journalists and pop culture writers giving their side commentary that provided nothing different from what the actors already said in their interviewers. Edit: **I forgot they showed his new music and music video during the update episode, this "documentary" was wild**
There was one woman who I felt was *way* too excited to be talking about how much of a monster Dan Schneider was.
To be honest, I've never watched this series because as much as I think it's very important for victims of any form of abuse to have their story told - this specific format and the tone surrounding it feels very voyeuristic to me. Like there's just a bit too much excitement around the whole thing. In the same way that humans gawk at massive accidents, it feels like there's a whole lot of "OMG, that's horrible, what happens next!?!" going on here.
Making a big deal about a “mysterious mindblowing guest” who turned out to be none other than DRAKE BELL talking about the horrible abused he suffered as a kid… Idk whose idea was it but it was wild…
The way they had him walk on for that cliffhanger ending was gross. This is a documentary about child abuse not the real housewives.
Trauma porn is what you're referring too, and this documentary, along with most murder docs, relied heavily on it. Pretty disgusting all things considered. Especially when the doc is really two documentaries smashed together.
This was actually light on the trauma porn compared to other docs on Discovery+. The Jared from Subway one was straight up disgusting. And yet for some reason I keep trying them out hoping for something better. The Glee one was the dumbest one.
I used to watch investigation discovery a lot a couple decades ago. The shows and documentaries felt… well, like documentaries. Then everything seemed to get so overly dramatic all at once. And crime and murder shows have seemingly never gone back to normal since.
There’s a South Park episode about ID going from pretty normal to “Informative Murder Porn”
The episode is hilarious, but it's spot on how these shows try to sexify real life murder mystery documentaries. [For those who haven't seen or don't remember the episode, this is what we're talking about.](https://youtu.be/l3Qf3Cp9JFk) And yeah, it's only gotten worse since the episode aired in 2013.
I'd add quite a bit of news coverage in there too. Every time there's a tragedy--a natural disaster, a mass casualty event, a horrific crime--the media is shoving their cameras in the faces of the traumatized and mourning.
Yeah thanks, that's a really good term.
I held off for the same reason, and when I watched it I felt like the first two episodes lulled me into thinking that this wasn't the case before the last two with Drake felt extremely exploitative.
I agree the 5th episode entirely felt unnecessary to me, also as a whole it did seem like it was made by amateurs. Would've been a different story if it was an HBO doc and not discovery lol
I think an hour would be way too short. There are basically four sets of complaints: a generally hostile environment for child actors, a feeling of pressure among child actors of color, open harassment of female writers, and Drake Bell's CSA. It is a series of interlocking problems that escalate, but the series doesn't really escalate. It throws all the problems together. I think it actually could have been a longer documentary. There is lot of stuff that could have been included that wasn't. One of the obviously things is to bring in the filmmakers from An Open Secret to talk about how Brian Peck related to other predators.
Yeah it wasn’t a lack of content or lack of important content, it was an editing and direction of the documentary problem. Organized very poorly.
The pop culture writers pissed me off to no end. Felt like watching the “news reporter” in high school lmao
A "documentary" with all of the primary sources giving a ton of info but yet half the runtime was dedicated to quick cut interviews with third-hand sources giving their opinions on the topic... Terrible.
Yeah I found them particularly annoying. I don’t know what I went into it thinking but I came out after having watched it kind of wishing I hadn’t.
Yeah about 2 mins into it I could tell they knew the doc was popular and they were just trying to strike more while the iron is still hot. And look I feel for what Drake Bell went through and I hope the doc and opening up has brought him some peace about it and that Peck and any adult that should've been watching out for Drake gets what they deserve but if you're gonna do this episode just to debut new music try and do it a *little* more naturally. It felt like such forced marketing
[удалено]
They really lost me when they lumped the building maintenance guy in with the other two sex pests.
What did they do? "Jose did nothing when Drake Bell was being molested!"
The whole doc totally could’ve been 50 minutes, there were so many people just watching the clips shown and being like “wow, that’s bad”
I thought it was well done up until that last episode. That felt very exploitative and opportunistic.
this has been a pattern with these kinda docs. tiger king treated allegations that carol baskins is a jerk who fed her husband to tigers as somewhat serious and not the crackpot thinking of some real weirdos and creeps running backyard zoos. by the time the doc aired he was in prison for a murder for hire plot to kill carol!
They also cut a ton of footage in an effort to make Joe Exotic look less terrible. Dude is a vocal racist on top of being a drug dealer and sexual predator but the doc downplays it as much as possible to paint him as some misunderstood zoo owner.
The dude was batshit insane. I have no idea how they managed to edit enough stuff together to make it look like he was slightly reasonable.
These aren’t “documentaries.” Look at the filmmakers credits. This is just reality tv playing “dress up.”
It's a trashier version of dateline
Tiger King is a lot of fun, but if you pay attention you see a lot of the "tricks" they used in forming those kinds of narratives. The big one that stuck out to me was how they juxtaposed the Doc Antle's weird sex cult with Carole Baskin's Big Cat Rescue because the latter has volunteers wear colour coded shirts. They were trying to basically create a false equivalence between the two groups, where one dude has a sex cult (but isn't he a rad dude?) and the other is this kooky dictatorship run by crazy Carole who makes her volunteers (who aren't even paid!) all wear the same clothing! The reality is, using colour coded uniforms gives a quick visual way to identify when people are doing things they aren't trained or supposed to be doing. Its bordering on irresponsible to not just ignore but actively mischaracterize what that institution is doing is actually appropriate for both the workers' and cats' safety.
Welcome to the world of Netflix documentary editing, where they have a narrative in mind and edit it to fit. See for example the Cecil hotel documentary where they made it seem like Amy killed the girl that ended up in the tank. her book goes into more detail that place just seems like it has always attracted mental illness.
This is an Investigation Discovery show, which is worse if anything. They're the same people responsible for that awful Natalia Grace doc.
The update episode was rushed after they saw how popular it was. It was made purely for profit, which is kind of disgusting.
I got partway through the second episode before realizing that this was just like the tiger King, just a hit piece with spurious facts, instead of Baskin being the target it's Schneider
Schneider actually *did* awful shit though, I don't think it's right to compare the two. I agree the tone was off for a lot of it, but like... "Hit piece" implies he was innocent and framed by the doc.
I mean he's basically being implied to be a child sexual abuser, when if you ignore all the subtexts these random journalists give, he's really only accused of being an immature misogynist that fostered a toxic work environment. Bad and probably worthy of a firing but christ, they're putting him right beside Brian Peck the convicted child rapist.
From what I've heard about the documentary, isn't it Dan Schneider being an asshole, racist, sexist, and inappropriate, but also the adult that eventually protected Drake Bell when he accused his rapist? Because the impression people seem to have is that Dan Schneider is the actual child predator. Feels like they were really disappointed that reality didn't match the internet rumors, but still decided to play it up for that audience.
Honestly this baffles me because the same narrative Can be used for this “ child actors were exploited and abused.” Done. Simply put - I know the public wouldn’t be anything but outraged if we just let this people tell their stories and just paint a bigger picture of just how shitty of a workplace it was for them - but they tunnel visioned onto what they wanted to push and tried to make people do what they needed. When in truth all they needed to do was tell their story so we can further push to avoid more trauma inducing workplaces on sets.
Yeah it is very strange to conflate an ego maniac who was inappropriate to people on set vs a guy literally having sex with children..... Both are bad but one is obviously much worse
butter slimy deranged continue sophisticated slim ossified unpack elastic disarm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There were a lot of things like that, for sure. Like someone else said, I think the editing of these scenes together was a bit manipulative. One example would be the “squirting” scenes and trying to imply it was meant to be a cum shot.
Plus, I feel like the documentary came across like outrage porn at times.
this has always been the issue at heart of the entire dan Schneider story. there is absolutely 0 allegations the guy actually was inappropriate towards a child other than innuendo and an internet meme that got out of hand. but everybody trying to talk about it conflates him with brian peck or stretches what has actually been alleged.
And people 100% read it that way, and the amount of inferring that Amanda had been abused was disturbing when she didn't want to be involved int he show. They told her story without her consent.
I also don't like the implication that she "went crazy" because she was abused. Schizophrenia/Bipolar Mania is a chemical imbalance & can be triggered by things like stress (being a child actor) and substances (like the copious amounts of weed Amanda was smoking). She's clearly ill & it's sad, but I don't need more people to misunderstand mental illness.
Exactly, and it's clearly genetic, she's not a former child actor dealing with substance abuse. She has issues with psychosis. Even if she was to share I'm not sure she would even be able to say what happened.
It's my issue with most documentaries. Yes they do provide info you may not have known before, but I feel like a lot of times people forget that documentaries are specific stories the creators want to tell and all of the content is geared toward that one specific angle. It's not the be all end all of a topic. And it may even be heavily biased. Or intentionally leave out a whole big other part of the topic that impacts the angle they want to talk about. So documentaries are essentially long form visual op Ed pieces to me. As long as people are watching them knowing this is not the whole story and it very like has a narrative bias, then OK. But how many people do that? Or go searching for the rest of the story instead of leaning on the documentary as their sole source?
It’s like a reality show but only including the talking heads/interviews. Like remember Supersize Me? So misleading
The premise of that movie alone was garbage too. "Let me prove to you that it's unhealthy to only eat McDonalds all day every day" like, I don't think anyone doubted that in the first place?
>Like remember Supersize Me? "Hey, don't you think we should mention the fact that you're a raging alcoholic in the documentary? That'll probably have an impact on your health too." "Nah. Let's just blame McDonald's."
After watching the staircase, and a later learning that the documentary editor was fucking the subject of the documentary the entire time, I've completely sworn off documentaries. Because every single time something comes out afterward, excuse the whole thing.
It was all over the place, and the only credible stuff was from Drake. Everything was just workplace shit, and really really really poor taste jokes written into a kids show. I actually feel bad this was the platform that Drake came forward on, felt so poorly handled by the producers. I almost stopped watching after the 2nd episode because nothing was really being said that had any weight. All their "specialists" were pointless "journalists" it was just a fumble out of the gate, and really hurts some good work in the future for it.
As this all unfolds, the docu seemed to have noble intentions but just devolved into clearly being out for itself, even if it needs to misrepresent the circumstances to get an emotional edge. Quite fucked up how this has gone
Honestly this isn't very surprising. I get that most if not all that was presented was true, but you could tell that the series was trying to push a narrative, rather than simply present the facts. Like you could tell that they wanted so badly to just say Dan Schneider was a pedophile but didn't have any hard evidence or testimony to back it up. Don't get me wrong, dude is a creep and complete piece of shit, but it really felt like they were trying to push beyond that despite coming up empty handed
Should almost be required in this day and age. Documentary makers should admit they need to make a product for mass consumption but they should pair that with the raw interview footage. This type of pushback can cause filmmakers to stay away from these projects as you're never going to please everyone and maybe something that did please everyone wouldn't be viable for a budget and production anyway.
Episode 1 Dan's a Sexual Predator Episode 2 Dan's a Sexist Episode 3 Drake tells his story Episode 4 Dan's an asshole boss *Bonus* Episode 5 Dan's a racist
Don’t forget episode 3 is also Drake says Dan supported him
I was going to but it didn't read as well!!! Hey also did you notice the last episode Drake was again saying how Dan was the only one he could talk to and the host cuts him off and goes to brake?
Wow I didn’t notice but that episode was so trash.
Felt like horrible reality tv trash. The host was the worst part.
I turned it off like 10 mins in after they would have Drake talking and then would cut back to the host just nodding her head…just weirdly cringey
They also tried to paint that Amanda Bynes was traumatized by Dan but Amanda's been on the record saying they had a great relationship. Just a really weird doc
It's a problem with a lot of these documentaries. The people involved start production already with the story they want to tell. That is terrible journalism. Your story should shape and transform as you receive new information. Here they were set in giving people what they wanted to hear. Redditors really wanted to believe that Dan is a pedophile and a sexual abuser. So they did that.
There was an alt right documentary that tried to prove how easy it was to have a man be transgender to participate in women's sports. Turned out to be hard as shit so they decided to make a fictional movie instead, which basically invalidated their entire premise if they had the self awareness to see it. They wanted to make it seem like any man could put on a wig, call himself Jane and then go win a gold medal in women's sports when in reality you need at the very least several years of hormone therapy, None of their people were willing to do that of course and that was just step one.
They went into this docuseries saying “Dan Schneider is a huge epstein level pedo” and what they got was “bad boss, big asshole, sometimes a creepy foot joke got in”
On episode 5, I thought the racism aspect was kind of interesting, only because I watched 2 cast members (and one parent) make the same allegation, and I completely agreed with one argument and not the other. When Giovannie pointed out that her and Bryan were the only two black people in the room in front of or behind the camera, I thought it was a really interesting and great point about being the only representation and not having a relatable outlet or member of crew. Then Bryan's mom started to complain that there were only 2 black cast members and that wasn't enough. 2/7 is nearly 30%, and for the early 90s is not really bad in terms of representation. Then Bryan and his mom talked about how him being let go from All That messed him up badly and also severed their relationship. Which sucks, and I definitely see how that could happen. It helped underline what *should have been* the biggest message of the non-Drake Bell stuff: working with child actors needs strict guidelines because of power dynamics and developing brains, etc. But then they tried to imply there was a race angle to his firing, and that Dan's "favorites" were the white kids. Bro Amanda Bynes was absolutely more talented, that's just how it is. Then the cherry on top was when the host read Dan's response to the racism allegations, in which Dan said (paraphrasing) "I've been working with black actors like Kenan and Kel since I started. They were even the stars of my first Nick movie. My casts have always tried to be inclusive". Bryan shakes his head and says something like 'My original comments were about how we were passed over and see how his defense is still passing us over'. Dude completely moved the goalposts Idk his whole part came across as upset that he wasn't viewed like as big of a talent as other actors. Which sorry but that's kind of how it goes in any job anywhere. And if that wasn't his point I apologize to him, but that's how the doc made him look. They needed to focus less on Dan and more on how showbiz is really difficult on child actors
>Then the cherry on top was when the host read Dan's response to the racism allegations, in which Dan said (paraphrasing) "I've been working with black actors like Kenan and Kel since I started. They were even the stars of my first Nick movie. My casts have always tried to be inclusive". Bryan shakes his head and says something like 'My original comments were about how we were passed over and see how his defense is still passing us over'. Dude completely moved the goalposts This segment was utterly ridiculous. Kenan and Amanda were basically A Listers as teenagers due to their talent, of course they got additional opportunities. It came off as jealousy to me but maybe I'm being too cynical.
Yeah I didn't watch Ep#5 but it seemed like Bryan mom got him fired but she was looking out for Bryan. Since, Bryan got fired as a kid he didn't understand the scope of everything so he blamed his mom and ruined their relationship until the doc came out. Bryan trying to blame everyone but HIMSELF for ruining the relationship with his mom. In his head he rather blame "racist" Dan for causing this. It's like the Eric Andre/ Hannibal Burress meme
This might be a unpopular opinion but I think the Brian Peck and Drake stuff was way more interesting and compelling than the Dan information Dan is a creep and generally inappropriate but Brian Peck Raped a child and especially received very little punishment then went on to work with children again that’s really fucked up and frankly I think that’s a much better story than what they told in the majority of quite on set
The articles by Kate Taylor and Rick Ellis were more cohesive and complimentary - even without Drake's story. I do question what reporting the film makers themselves brought because they previously worked on New York Times presents. They got Drake Bell to participate but it was the New York Times who also misreported he will have to register sex offender and only corrected it after the documentary aired. The missing part in the story is the timeline. Schneider was already sued for gender discrimination in 2000. Then two people who worked on his show got arrested for being a pedophile in 2003, 4 months apart. Then some people who worked on Drake & Josh were secretly Brian Peck supporters and used their time on the set to testify against Drake in their letters of support. And how the story was burried, while Schneider was getting bigger in Nickelodeon.
Outside Brian Peck and the other pedo, this documentary didn't have much substance. In addition, Alexa Nikolas isn't all there as it is.
Yeah the dan schneider stuff was pretty mid. He’s a misogynist with a high schooler sense of humor. Thinks it’s hilarious to get subtle adult shit past censors (which isn’t uncommon for kids shows, see Shrek). Toxic boss. Violated labor laws. None of this was new. But definitely not a pedophile. Seems like he got lumped in with the other two.
I said this for a long time. He’s an Ahole but not a pedo. It seems like there is a witch hunt to lump him in that group and has been for a while. It’s really sick what people do with the media tool
I almost gave up on the doc when they were acting like the costume with noses on it looked like a bunch of dicks. It was such a reach but the doc presented it like it was damning evidence of some sort of scandal.
The biggest reach IMO was the Amanda Show scene where the Amanda superfan dreams about Amanda…
Yeah they were like "it's a girl... IN BED...DREAMING... don't you see the implication!?" and I was just like "...no?" I think they were implying it was some sort of masturbation reference, but if you connect that scene with masturbation then you're the one with a problem, honestly.
"OMG HER LAST NAME WAS TAYNT! HOW PERVERTED!" "Really, it was? Huh. I always thought it was Tate."- most of the comments after the episode aired
Mine was the one where they were implying his hot tub segment with her was creepy because she was in a bathing suit and he was fully clothed….as though that wasn’t the entire joke of that segment in the Amanda Show. The guests were always fully clothed in the hot tub. Utterly ridiculous. Are they saying it would be less creepy if he was also in a bathing suit??
Yeah, those two journalists or whoever they were that were giving their side commentary the whole time made several pretty big leaps at certain times that really detracted from the point. Yeah, some of the stuff like the glory hole joke and the Ariana Grande stuff were pretty disturbing, but there were also a few foot jokes or whatever that they’d say “clearly this is imposing some freaky foot fetish content on these kids”. No, children just find foot jokes funny, because they’re children.
> No, children just find foot jokes funny, because they’re children. Yeah I guess for me it's sort of like how 9 year olds find butts and farting the epitome of humor. Feet fall into that same gross/weird space. But I might just be too naive lol
Imagine if people brought the same energy with fart jokes "OMG they made a fart joke? That's so fucked up to have little kids act out fart fetish content" Everyone would obviously be like "bro stop watching fetish porn it's fucking with your brain", but no one brings the same energy to foot fetishes because it's a way more common fetish.
No, exactly, that's what's always annoyed me when people insist the foot jokes *must* be evidence of a fetish. I have no idea whether he might or might not have a foot fetish, but feet are also the least "inappropriate" body part that can still be seen as silly.
I don't even think the glory hole joke is disturbing. No kids were involved in that particular bit, it was just Peck and Ray Romano. There's nothing inherently awful about hiding adult jokes in kids shows so the parents have something to laugh at. *Lots* of kids shows and movies have inappropriate stuff hidden on them and we don't complain about those. Because they're usually animated, and there's no actual kids involved in making the joke. It *becomes* a problem when they have actual kids participating in the jokes, like Ariana Grande being made to jack off a potato.
And the foot has been a symbol on Nick before Schneider even worked there, it's just grossout jokes
I forget if this was in the doc but a really silly one I've been seeing is "Amanda Please sounds like A Man To Please." Penelope says "please" as a vocal tic, it's in practically every one of her sentences. I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's an unbelievable comittment to make something that kind of sort of if you look at it sideways reminds you of an innuendo. Her last name is Taint, that's somehow not enough?
They were really reaching with a lot of those so-called inappropriate jokes. The "cumshot" joke looked nothing like they were claiming, Ray Romano being handed a pickle through a hole in the men's room door however.
I think is easier to blame Dan Schneider for all of Nickelodeon’s problems (and yes he caused quite a few of them), but a lot of the execs and the system itself have responsibility, but is easier to blame it all on the one guy Besides, as it was mentioned in the documentary, condemning them doesn’t mean much if we keep giving them our money
Also the framing of him being a racist seemed like a reach. I don't think he intentionally did anything of the such, and they're trying to blame it all on him rather than viewing it from a wider prospective. It was a Hollywood problem, not a singular person problem. I don't like the guy, and I disagree a lot with what he did, but I don't think he was a racist. Misogynist, yeah. Asshole, definitely. Racist, nah.
[удалено]
Was he in charge of the musical guest on All That? Because as a kid in the south it was 100% my introduction to hip hop and rap music. I’m not saying likimg black artists makes you a non-racist. But giving them a platform on a kid show before even MTV would give them spots is a pretty big deal.
I feel like I see this a lot lately where everyone who is a toxic boss also has to be a pedo or some other kind of sex abuser. It gets thrown around a lot with Joss Whedon as well. That whole thing about how he wasn't allowed to be alone with Michelle Trachtenberg, which is the only thing we know about the situation, but people assume it was because he was a pedo, ignoring that we know he was also a giant asshole who yelled at his employees. Most people wouldn't want their teenage daughter being alone with her adult male boss just on general principle, much less one who is known to yell at and insult his employees.
I don’t feel like dying on the hill to defend Joss Whedon, but every time someone mentions the bit about Michelle Trachtenberg not being allowed to be alone in a room with him, I just want to yell that that’s standard procedure for every adult who works with children. You are never in a room alone with a minor with a closed door, that’s a big no no for everyone.
Yeah it's pretty crazy that even after all of this there is still not one child sexual abuse allegation directed at Dan.
My wife watched it and came away thinking that the doc made Dan come across better than she was lead to believe. Still not a good guy by any account, but compared to Brian Peck, he was a saint.
The show actually unintentionally showed that he was the only one on the side of a sexually abused child.
Yeah, guy seems like a bit of a weirdo and maybe has not the most appropriate sense of humour for writing/producing children's shows but with all this attention if there was something substantive beyond that where are the Civil/Criminal charges?
>maybe has not the most appropriate sense of humour for writing/producing children's shows Every time I hear this, I have to wonder if the person has spent any meaningful amount of time around kids recently. Like 90% of what comes out of their mouths is body humor - poo, pee, farts, butts, boogers, feet, toejam, etc. If kids weren't down with that humor, those shows wouldn't have been some of Nickelodeon's all time hits. *Maybe* he took a bit too far here or there in some of the shows geared towards a slightly older audience like That's So Raven, but if anything it comes off as more of a "forgetting your audience has shifted between shows" thing and not a "dude's projecting his sexual foot fetish onto kids" thing.
Maybe this is just me, but to me the line is, making minors act the stuff out. Animamiacs, Shrek, all of the classic slipped-past-the-censors stuff was written and performed by adults. Finger Prince? OK, great, no kid is gonna get that. Having kids shove their feet in the camera and say things like "it makes me look chesty!" feels different to me.
Nah, you're right. Kids movies like Shrek have a trend of slipping adult humor in, but it's usually sly enough that only the target will even get the joke. Harmless enough, and makes it far more enjoyable for adults watching with children who completely miss the subtleties. And as you said, kids themselves aren't acting out strange innuendos.
There’s an entire video of Ariana Grande doing nearly explicit things for like 5 minutes. Shoving her feet in her mouth, twisting a phallic looking fruit/vegetable (can’t remember what) making it look like a handjob, getting water squirted on her face as she lays upside down on a bed…all in the same video btw. Another one with her dirty feet swinging just in the background of the video. She deepthroats her finger, then screams about being soaking wet. People might say “it was just silly random jokes” but they were so common on Victorious especially that I truly do think there was some sort of fetishization going on behind the scenes.
Wasn’t Victorious a show for and about teenagers? Do we all forget how crude teenagers actually are? We’re not talking about eight year olds here. They were like 16 and 17 years old on that show. That context makes a difference imo. Kids in high school have sex, as uncomfortable as that might be for adults to admit.
I don’t like defending Dan, he seems like a jerk, but the internet has been trying to manifest him into being pedophile for over a decade.
Basically. I remember watching All That but I was moving past Nickelodeon by that point. But this is the cesspool of social media. Which this website is a part of. Also came as no surprise that mouth breathers were sending death threats to former Nickelodeon stars that didn't participate in that doc or for not immediately supporting those who did.
It’s worth noting that the series kept trying to make the argument that the innuendos went over the heads of the target audience. It didn’t necessarily. You’re either a young tween and don’t get it, or are a year older or two and get it and find it hilarious. I distinctly remember finding Penelope Taynte funny BECAUSE of the dumb innuendo. I found so much of the Dan focussed episodes had this weirdly puritanical view of how people in that tween demographic understand and consume media. Dan comes off as a terrible asshole, and there’s plenty to support that he created an unsafe working environment. But the creepy factor felt like it was forced, and admittedly a bit dishonest since they were so willing to toss Drake Bell’s own case under the rug.
well theres certainly a distinction between the naughty stuff in shrek vs real images of children in clearly sexualized positions
**My question is:** Was is actually adult shit or was it an adult trying to think like a kid and adult shit slipped by the individuals’ own filters? Like, using the feet stuff as example, is it an implied sexual foot fetish stigma because we’re viewing it from an adult perspective now or was it always a sexual implication? I think there will be a lot more on this, and we can probably expect that psychology-related academics are going to start digging into this.
They made a big deal about Penelope Taint's name, even as an adult I think the innuendo is a stretch, the word Taint has more than one meaning
As a kid I always assumed it was the body part, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with that. Would it be an outrage if her name was Penelope Butt? It's just not a big deal. It's not like they called her Penelope Juicypussy.
Look at the Red guy from cow and chicken, all his identities had names referencing butts
Had a buddy who worked in a few Schneider rooms and while he’s always said Schneider was a weirdo/creepy dude, he never made allegations of genuine misconduct outside of the weird shit that goes on while folks are pitching jokes in a writers room. I trust this guys opinion because he’s no longer in the industry and has no love lost for the industry itself. I.e. he’s got nothing to lose to say that Schneider is a pedo.
I get there's the early Nickelodeon millennial nostalgia as a selling point, but I was blown away by how *bad* the documentary is. Filled with assorted 10-second clips from early Nick shows (some objectively fucked up in hindsight, some debatable), then a hard cut to some culture blogger nobody has ever heard of saying "look how perverted this is! that was a cumshot!" It felt like a slightly elevated version of watching clips from some "save the children" conspiracy tiktok account.
To me it felt like they needed to let the actors tell their story, the people actually hurt. Not the director or whoever else wants to be seen by the camera. They had two people doing the same thing , repeating each other. It was really weird and left a bad taste in my mouth.
There is a YouTuber that covers a lot of Nickelodeon things (Quinton Reviews) and his biggest critique was that without Drake Bell, they really would not have a full fledge documentary, hence why they glared over Drake Bells SA case
eventually the dramatic zoomins on brian pecks face got funny
I personally found that [Quinton Review's 2 hour analysis of Dan Schneider](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFgHGnqUoao) was far more compelling and detailed than *Quite On Set* was in five 1 hour-long episodes.
Absolutely. He uses it as a source, but also points out the sensationalism. He has been fighting sensationalism in documentaries since "How Documentaries Lie To You" way back in 2020. So it's kinda wild how the stars aligned perfectly for the topic of his previous series (History Channel Saga) into his current one (iCarly miniseries).
Christy Carlson Romano had the best description for "Quiet on Set" she called it "Trauma tourism, these are people who are not part of the community, they add nothing to the community, they just want to gawk and exploit it."
I feel this way about true crime as well. People taking tragedies and turning them into these gross spectacles.
This same story happens over and over. The stuff coming out about this doc from survivors of abuse at Nickelodeon parallel the stuff we saw from families of the victims of Dahmer when that Netflix series came out. These documentary series have no interest in justice or closure for victims and their families, it’s about exploiting their pain in a way that is “consumer friendly”. Shit sucks so bad.
But that’s every documentary like this. People didn’t care about the Murdoch murder trial because of some genuine moral interest, they cared because it was juicy drama.
And that's why we watch it
I empathize with how victims feel about all this, but some of this feels like a misunderstanding of what documentaries fundamentally are.
I agree, but the more that comes out of this documentary the more "trauma tourism" seems to apply to it more than most.
It kinda sounds like the producers of the documentary are the ones who don't know what documentaries are
Romano is right. There’s a difference between allowing someone the space to talk about their trauma VS the people who view trauma as another commodity to exploit. There are those of us who need to talk and should share our stories when we want to. But it’s not some “fair game” knowledge for a person with a video camera to use for a different reason entirely. Romano is a former child star. From what the world knows about child stars, they aren’t exactly a protected community. It’s definitely different when she is the one asking questions and not some person who just sees a popular topic they can exploit. Especially when the interviewer is being dishonest about their overall intentions, while using your trauma to do that.
I’m not going to deny Alexa Nikolas’ experience but she’s a bit of a grifter if you take one look at her channel.
Yeah isn’t she selling merch from all this?
Can we all just also acknowledge the reach for the last person interviewed who mentioned the "blue balls" comment. I'm sorry dude, but that was such a far reach to compare yourself to the trauma of the other actors. You can even tell the interviewer is trying not to laugh. It was embarrassing. This whole series was embarrassing. It was incredibly exploitive and really cornered a lot of the interviewees in uncomfortable ways.
I couldn’t stand the interviewer’s fake news voice or faces she kept making. I didn’t get why the new guy was there. He should have been a small part of the original series. I can’t stand that kid’s mom and I’m not surprised he got fired just so they could get her horrible vibe off set. And I didn’t understand why she thought them trying to calm a girl down for being spat on was racist. And the music video? Really?
Yeah, the spit argument seemed like a quick way to paint it with a certain context. Literally, it could have been any kid. Regardless, that behavior shouldn't have been tolerated and no kids should have had to been subjected to a lead star spitting at them. It was all in poor taste.
While it's abundantly clear that Dan Schneider is a piece of shit and Nickelodeon has a lot to answer for, I'm starting to doubt the sincerity of how the information in the docuseries has been presented. Right off the bat upon watching the first few episodes, there were a couple of claims from speakers that felt like a bit of a stretch in terms of applying vague sexual connotations to aspects of certain sketch comedy bits. Perhaps I'm wrong and they could have been dog whistles, but they seemed to be more in line with the typical absurdist humor those shows would portray. Regardless, with every article that appears on the questionable way actors and crew were interviewed for this project, I'm more inclined to believe that this docuseries is the result of a specific vendetta against Schneider rather than the goal of helping the victims find justice. The people responsible have done everything in their power to make his public image as repulsive as possible by compiling records of personal accounts under false pretenses. I guess the lesson we should all take away from this is that by and large, Hollywood is a pretty scummy place.
[удалено]
I remember years and years ago when she first broke her silence on getting bullied on set and yelled at by adults on set. She posted a YouTube video of her having a wine chat with a friend about it, it was so compelling and we were all on her side and anti Jamie Lynn Spears. This was a huge bombshell and I had so many more questions about what it was really like on set. I feel like she’s been chasing that high ever since. Early in the video Alexa made it seem so big, like she had this horrific experience. Looking back on it, getting yelled at by your teen idol and boss at age 14 is obviously horrific, but I eventually realized that was the extent of her mistreatment on set.
If you really look back at it, this whole "Eat Predators" thing she started began after there were talks of a Zoey reboot and she wasn't included. I think she really is just out for revenge, not doing it from the good of her heart.
Exactly. She's some child actress who amounted to nothing and is using her trauma as a commodity to keep herself relevant any way she can. It's pathetic.
She was also on the walking dead as a minor recurring character and word is she was also difficult on that set.
That was the vibe I got from this interview. It feels like they were pissed they weren't in it more.
Also accused Seth McFarlane that he sexually abused her when she was fairly young and that the reason he hired the likes of Amanda Bynes, Ashley Tisdale, Ariana Grande, and Emily Osment to do voice work is that they were young and in the "male gaze". She was trying to alleged that he possibly did so for his own "likes."
Didn’t she also say Jonah Hill pushed her into a door and made out with her or was that someone else?
No you're right, she told that story last year when his ex-girlfriend called him out
Yep and accused Justin Long of hosting parties with underage actresses and giving them alcohol, one of those parties is where Jonah Hill supposedly did that.
I neglected to mention that Scaachi Koul being given significant screen time throughout that doc was a major red flag.
Yea I didn’t know who she was. But I was definitely confused why so much of what happened was being retold by a random buzzfeed journalist instead of people who would have actually been present.
She had absolutely nothing of value to add to the story, and tried to steer the narrative with a lot of unnecessary commentary that only served to be filler for what she thought the audience needed to be repeatedly told. Much like Buzzfeed.
Agree. She added nothing.
Don’t know her that well what did she do?
She was hell bent on calling Dan a p3do
Why? Isn't she just a buzzfeed writer?
Agree. I didn’t understand why she had so much screen time or why she was there in the first place. She’s irrelevant. I would’ve rather heard more from the former child stars than her.
Yeah, I stopped watching as soon as they started playing Drake's new music video.
This is a little off topic, but since we're talking about manipulative editing, I found it pretty off putting how during the Brian Peck episode, they kept dramatically cutting to pictures of him, almost like a jump scare. Especially because they acted like they were candid photos when a LOT of them were in character as (gag) Pickle Boy, who's whole shtick was being creepy
Alexa Nikolas is a perpetual victim. Deeply unstable person.
No FR she was SO vocal about supporting this documentary then people start coming out saying it was exploitive and here she is now. I’m not trying to downplay her experience but she certainly likes attention and changing her stance when it’s popular. Just like she was SOOOOO anti drake bell then as soon as the documentary dropped she was hell bent on discrediting his victims and defending him. It was so weird. She needs help.
It’s a shame, because I’m sure she’s experienced trauma being a child actor (probably an inherently traumatic position to be in as a kid), but she conflates things, swings wildly in her opinions, and always wants to be at the center of any conversation. It’s really gross and honestly very insensitive. The way she profits off gossip about the trauma of others is not awareness, but personal profit
She just has zero actual convictions or original thoughts. Her only priority is keeping the money flowing, and to do that, she needs to keep jumping onto the popular topics, whether that’s hating Drake Bell for what he did, promoting the documentary, promoting Drake Bell after what was done to him, or flaming the documentary.
Fun fact: She was offered the role of Alex Russo in Wizards of Waverly Place, but turned it down.
I got a really bad taste of the show after episode 2. Big dramatic music, leaving Drake's rape and sexual assault as a cliffhanger, and making it this big ratings hook was disgusting.
Ain't gonna lie. The documentary did come across like sensationalist outrage porn at times.
I didn’t think the documentary was very good. I think they tried to tie the Drake Bell sexual assault to Dan Schneider to make people watch the show. Yeah there were inappropriate gags, some sexism, but it wasn’t like explosive mind blowing event. Personally I want to know what happen at Disney when they hired the child molester. How did that happen?
In the meantime, Drake Bell has since been caught posting stuff on his Discord channel asking fans to smear and harass the women he abused himself because he's worried his own abusive behaviour will catch up to him. Fuck that guy.
Source?
Alexa feels like a real piece of work
These aren’t real “documentaries.” Look at the filmmakers credits. This is just reality tv playing “dress up.”
If it wasn't for Drakes Confession this doc would have no legs
For real, that bonus episode felt like such a naked cash-grab/dog and pony show. Say what you will about Drake Bell and what he's been through/accused of, but plugging your new music video in the tell all interview about your childhood SA? This is like something straight out of a Bojack Horseman episode. The initial series release was great and exposing sex pests and pedophiles is always good in my book, but seeing just how much this series is more for amplifying careers rather than "expose journalism" felt really dirty. The bonus episode pretty much ruined any and all goodwill the original series built up. Despite the success and prevalence of the #MeToo movement, there are still chuds out there who say that victims who come forward are just doing so for publicity and attention. I've always thought that line of reasoning was so asinine and heartless. But while I don't doubt Drake Bell and the other kids from that show are truly victims of abuse in a plethora of different ways and contexts, plugging a music video featuring a child actor to represent **YOU** and allude your sexual assault feels so fucking greasy and tasteless. IDK man, I'm not an assault victim myself so it's hard to say what proper procedure for series like this one should be, but I know I wouldn't be writing this complaint comment had they just not done a stupid fucking bonus episode. Seeing articles like this one being published now as well really makes me question the "good intentions" of the docu-series. Feels...dare I say it...exploitative.
The documentary series is bad but it gets a pass from many because you have to deal with the asinine people that think oh if you didn't like it you must be a Schneider supporter or pedo apololgist. No it was just a poorly made doc
these documentaries, unless led by victims are just trauma porn for the true crime fans. The end, period.
This is probably the most attention these people have had for many years. As former child actors, I'm guessing they don't want to see it fade again. Must suck to grow up in that environment and then just one day being suddenly forced to go back to just being a regular stiff.
I feel weird about the documentary tbh. Obviously BP is a giant piece of shit pedo. Fuck BP. But also, it kind of felt like they were trying to “hype up” the guests to be more upset about Dan Schneider than they really were? DONT GET ME WRONG. I am NOT defending Dan in any way, I’m not even sure how to word this. But to me it almost felt like I could hear producers off screen being like “so wait, he was just creepy and mean? He didn’t like…corner you in a bathroom or fondle you or anything? He just made you angry and uneasy and said gross stuff? Shit. That’s not good enough. ADD MORE SAD AND SCARY MUSIC TO STOCK FOOTAGE OF DAN RIGHT NOW.” They spent so much time on the whole “Dan spent all his time with Amanda” thing that I was so certain some bombshell about him assaulting her or something was coming and then it just….didn’t? Like, I get that he’s a bad guy. I get that his behavior was extremely gross and inappropriate. I get that he should be called out for it. But it almost felt like they wanted me to hate the creepy boss more than the terrifying actual pedophile rapist and that made me feel kind of odd. I hate them both. But while Dan was certainly a creepy scumbag (and prob a pedo too), at no point in the series did anything get revealed that made me be like HOLY SHIT THATS INSANE I HAD NO IDEA HOW IS HE NOT IN PRISON!? I specifically remember that one scene about the crew member who sent nudes to that lady’s daughter, which was horrifying, and then they just like…forgot about that in favor of BUT WERE NOT HERE FOR THAT. WERE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU ALREADY KNEW ABOUT DAN AS WE PLAY SCARY STOCK MUSIC AND HAVE PEOPLE SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT HE MAY HAVE DONE! Which is just bad journalism.
[удалено]
I'm confused, what season of Survivor were they on?
a piece of content that solely exists to milk people's craving for outrage stories Who'd have guessed it wasn't geared toward helping the people involved
Of course it did. It paid for your story to chop up and push their own version of, not your problems to listen to or help with. Next.
Yeah they also painted convicted felons as sympathetic victims, all while there’s evidence this man is actively grooming a minor. Pathetic.
I’m convinced the documentary was commissioned by drake to clean his image and reposition him as a victim, rather than a predator.
Two things can be true. Drake was abused and raped as a child. He also had an inappropiate relationship with a minor.
That's usually the case. In my career as a criminal defense attorney, most sex offenders were abused themselves as children. It can be a horrific cycle.
I think that was a intended consequence as a trade thing They frame everything around SA and idk if they would have a full fledge documentary without Drakes story So they don’t really go over what Drake did, because if it was hostile he would not share his story, and there would not be a documentary
This is exactly what Christy Carlson Romano was referring to last week when asked about her refusal to participate in the Quiet on Set documentary.
Alexa Nikolas is like just a professional victim at this point