IIUC, that’s something he said in the context of a comedy set. So you might be taking it too seriously.
All true.
Nah, I’ll join you in that sentiment.
Even in that context, it’s plain what it says. He’s saying, “It’s all about meeeeeeee. Don’t pay any attention to those women I was creepy and gross in front of, they don’t count. Life was unfair to meeeeeeeeee.”
To be honest, even watching stuff with straight-up criminals like Mark Wahlberg or Mike Tyson doesn’t really bother me too much.
Eh, then he’s not, I stand corrected. My point is simply that he doesn’t have to satisfy my desires, or iiandyiiiii’s desires to “make a comeback,” he’s just got to be able to sell enough tickets to make it worth his while (and, have venues believe in his ability to draw a crowd and think that any associated negative press won’t hurt them in the long run).
Not only that, he had his management team threaten his victims with professional retaliation if they came forward with what he did. He didn’t just make women who were new in the industry and vulnerable watch him jerk off, he also made sure that they knew that if they said anything their careers were dead before they started. Poor Louis, there were consequences for his actions, how unfair for him.
Louis C.K needs to make a living. He’s got bills just like anyone else.
I assume some fans will buy tickets. It’ll take a few lean years to get past his past behavior.
I’m not interested in throwing rocks at glass houses. It’s up to the audiences to decide if he’s worth seeing.
Pretty sure he could retire if he wanted to. He’s worth 25mill according to Google.
That actually makes things worse, not better.
First, if he had actually said that, in so many words, as part of a comedy routine, I would have laughed.
Second, I went back and read the linked article again, and I didn’t see anything to indicate that he was claiming life as unfair to him or that he didn’t deserve the consequences he got.
On the other hand, someone who was present said, “Sounds to me he is owning up, acknowledging, and trying to figure it out.” I didn’t get that sense from what was written in the article, but I might well have gotten a different impression if I had actually been there and heard everything he had to say. Or not.
Bottom line, for me: There wasn’t anything reported in that article to make me raise or lower my estimation of CK.
It’s like Roseanne saying she, ‘Lost everything!’ As she retreats to her sprawling ranch in Hawaii. Clearly a new interpretation of ‘everything’!
And neither ‘lost’ anything. They both gave away their celebrity ‘capital’ by choosing despicable actions. Actions that fully warrant public approbation.
They both come off as sorry…about the consequences they face, and not much else, in my opinion.
Those net worth sites are notoriously inaccurate. I’ve heard one celebrity say it maybe came close to their gross pay without any expenses. Add up your paper salary over your lifetime. Is that what you have in the bank? I would be a millionaire. I’m not.
He has a management team so depending on how many layers of management and agents he pays 10-30%. He got a divorce after he became famous so cut by a third to a half. He self finances and produces his products. There is no guarantee those made money. He made a movie that’s paid for but now permenantly on the shelf so it’s a total loss. It’s possible he has enough to live off for the rest of his life. Not extravagantly but well. It’s also possible he doesn’t have millions.
Is your company hiring? Maybe drop him a line.
He probably should have taken that in to consideration before sexually harassing and then intimidating women. Especially since his career is based on the public’s good will towards him.
I was a pretty big fan. I thought his show Louis was great and I thought Baskets was brilliant, but he’s lost me. He’s also lost a lot of other fans. Sure, he’ll be able to cobble together a fan base of bros who all probably have their own sex crimes in the closet, but he put a ceiling on his success. He wanted to be the next Woody Allen, but he skipped over the decades when everyone ignored the creepiness and went straight to Woody at the end of his career.
Ewww… :o
This. If he need to earn more money, he’ll just have to come up with a way to do so that doesn’t involve the spotlight. Telemarketing?
Which is why I’ve continually been astonished at Roman Polanski’s decades long success. Legally and morally what he did was 100 times worse. I guess it’s easier to ignore when it’s someone behind the camera. Or maybe the world really has drastically changed in attitude over just the last couple of years.
I can’t see any other way to read it. He lost $35M in an hour. What did he do in that hour - what *could *he have done in an hour - that should have cost him $35M?
He lost whatever he lost because he chose to expose himself to and masturbate in front of a slew of women, and then threaten to destroy their careers if they said anything.
That took a lot more than any hour.
And just saying he lost $35M is a pretty straightforward way of saying that what HE lost was HUGE, but the women? Awww, they had to watch him beat off for a few minutes. So fucking what, right? Hardly anything at all.
Despicable.
-
Attitudes have changed over the past forty years.
-
The reporting of the incident has changed considerably as well during that time.
Back in the 1970s, sex between adults and willing teenagers was considered mildly scandalous but really not much more than that unless the parents got upset about it. Hell, even outright child molestation wasn’t really taken seriously in this country until the McMartin preschool case in the early 1980s. (I know the charges in that case were almost certainly bogus, I’m just citing it as a turning point with respect to attitudes.) Over the next several years, we got to the point as a society of deciding that teens under 18 weren’t fair game for adults.
And the news at the time suggested that the girl might have been a willing participant. And per Wikipedia, "The 28-page probation report submitted to the court…concluded by saying that there was evidence ‘that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.’ " Scandalous, to be sure, but not the stuff of societal outrage back then. More the subject of jokes, like: “You heard about Polanski’s new film? It’s gonna be called Close Encounters with the Third Grade.”
That was where we were back then. We did not take this shit seriously.
We take sex between adults and 13 year olds a LOT more seriously now, thank goodness, and it’s generally recognized now that it wasn’t just statutory rape, that Polanski drugged and raped the girl.
And this isn’t just a consequence of the #MeToo movement. When he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009, Polanski had plenty of supporters in Hollywood, but public opinion in the rest of the country ran heavily against him. And the U.S. had requested in 2005 the Interpol red notice that led to his arrest.
Looks like Hollywood finally caught up with the rest of the country this year; I expect that might’ve been due to #MeToo.
I find it pretty weird that people take that one line, how the scandal affected his finances, as if that proves he doesn’t recognize that what he did affected other people as well. Like if his entire comedy set wasn’t all apologies then he’s an unrepentant jackhole.
Michael Richards was brought up but I don’t see mention that he did go the groveling apology tour route. What did that get him? Zip. I find it hard to swallow some people’s comments that if CK would be more contrite then they might forgive him. I understand that some people will just never forgive certain transgressions and I don’t really quarrel with that position. But if he is going to make a comeback, there’s no way he can do that if he just completely changes his act to some crying for forgiveness shtick.