Jump to content

Michael Jackson Episode of The Simpsons Being Pulled From All Platforms


Recommended Posts

Quote

“The Simpsons” team is pulling a classic episode from all platforms that carry the show because it features the voice of Michael Jackson.


The Season 3 episode “Stark Raving Dad” will be removed from circulation because of the sexual assault accusations made in HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary, The Times confirmed on Thursday.


Speaking with the Wall Street Journal, “Simpsons” executive producer James L. Brooks said it was “clearly the choice to make” after he, creator Matt Groening and executive producer Al Jean saw the documentary.


Brooks said that because “the documentary gave evidence of [Jackson’s] monstrous behavior,” it was important to pull the episodes despite it being one of his favorites.

 

The episode will be removed from streaming services, TV stations and Blu-ray/DVD box sets and all other forms the show is available.

 

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-simpsons-michael-jackson-removed-20190307-story.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

I'd say that pretty credibly dismantles the accusations.

 

2 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

I'd say that pretty credibly dismantles the accusations.

How does it dismantle anything? Victims, especially males, deny abuse for decades, often praising their predators, out of pure embarrassment. Not wanting anyone know they "let it" happen to them. Not wanting to publicly admit it, or even not wanting to think about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a cord cutter for the past 5 years and I don't think The Simpsons even plays on basic antenna tv anymore (at least old episodes). Is removing this episode from wherever it syndicates even all that important to people? I have Hulu, but I can only watch the last 3 seasons of the show there, anyways. So, is this more of a statement from the show runners than an actual fix like they tried to demand when removing Apu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

 

How does it dismantle anything? Victims, especially males, deny abuse for decades, often praising their predators, out of pure embarrassment. Not wanting anyone know they "let it" happen to them. Not wanting to publicly admit it, or even not wanting to think about it. 

 

It doesn't necessarily dismantle them but it does cast doubt them somewhat. This was particularly interesting to me

 

Quote

The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.

 

I didn't know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I think it casts doubt on Robson, not Safechuck. 

Robson definitely seems sketchy... but the FBI investigated Jackson period and found no evidence of molestation.  I go back and forth to be honest. One thing is for sure, that "documentary" is very one sided (by design) and should be viewed at least somewhat skeptically since the director couldn't be bothered to scrutinize his own charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Robson definitely seems sketchy... but the FBI investigated Jackson period and found no evidence of molestation.  I go back and forth to be honest. One thing is for sure, that "documentary" is very one sided (by design) and should be viewed at least somewhat skeptically since the director couldn't be bothered to scrutinize his own charges.

Yeah, the doc is problematic. I just think theres been too much smoke around jackson. I believe he's a molester, but I certainly don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the Michel Jackson shit. Like, I've never known what to believe. He was super guilty when it started. Then people were saying that it was all bullshit and lies/a ploy to get money. Now it seems like people are saying he is super guilty again. WTF gives? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

In what way?

 

Because it’s the same basic stuff that always comes up. The victim is after money, attention, fame. The victim remained close to the accuser. The victim vouched for years. Other people around the abuser weren’t abused. The victim didn’t come forward for years. Etc. 

 

Even the FBI stuff... there’s rarely physical evidence of child abuse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Because it’s the same basic stuff that always comes up. The victim is after money, attention, fame. The victim remained close to the accuser. The victim vouched for years. Other people around the abuser weren’t abused. The victim didn’t come forward for years. Etc. 

 

 

The victim actively sought to have a significant part in a production celebrating the man who abused him and then changed his whole tune once the estate turned him down. Etc. Pretty standard stuff, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IdeaOfEvil said:

I've been a cord cutter for the past 5 years and I don't think The Simpsons even plays on basic antenna tv anymore (at least old episodes). Is removing this episode from wherever it syndicates even all that important to people?

 

They show it on local channels here twice a day in syndication (which would be on antenna)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

 

How does it dismantle anything? Victims, especially males, deny abuse for decades, often praising their predators, out of pure embarrassment. Not wanting anyone know they "let it" happen to them. Not wanting to publicly admit it, or even not wanting to think about it. 

 

I literally have no reason to believe his account given his testimony in court and the surrounding circumstances. People publish books making accusations against famous people FREQUENTLY just to gain success from the controversy. See Bing Crosby's son Gary as a famous example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already been covered in this thread but yeah, give the circumstances surrounding the creation of the documentary and the FBI investigation I give absolutely no credibility to that doc.  Plus, ya know all the other attempts over the years to prove wrong doing have come up empty.  Was he a creepy guy who was probably a bit messed up in the head? yeah probably.  Did he actually molest kids? At this point I really doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been through a long series of courses to be a state certified chaperone for guys convicted of sex crimes against kids, everything in the documentary rang very true. I think a lot of you guys have some misunderstandings of how predators groom and how victims can respond. Getting child sex abuse victims to turn against their abusers is incredibly difficult because the abusers spend sometimes *years* setting the stage for the abuse, creating false realities of care for the child by the abuser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...