Vic Mignogna has lost his appeal and must pay out more and the appeals opinion is that he is a sexual predator

[JulieYBM]

I know this is a double post but I think it's worth it: Mignogna is attending Star Trek Las Vegas today and tomorrow apparently. He's there as an attendee so if you or anyone you know is there please be careful.

[DiloVortexx]

like every character in CLAMP stories are at least bi-sexual, what a moron.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was the type to think that bisexual people don't exist.

i mean yea considering how he defends his homophobia and other actions that wouldnt be a shocker at all at him being a bi/panphobe lmao

anyways, good fucking riddance lol
i hope all of the victims are healing well and that things are getting better bc yeah.. he can respectfully eat shit as someone whos been through some.. not great situations of similar proportions to the original callouts!!

[8000 Saiyan]

like every character in CLAMP stories are at least bi-sexual, what a moron.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was the type to think that bisexual people don't exist.

To be fair, he is one of those evangelical crazy Christians.

[Soppa Saia People]

I'm a little bit on Adamant's side here, in that if you're going to take on the pressure and responsibility of starting a thread, you should be providing as much context as possible. You're not shouting into the void; you're starting a discussion.

That said, I find it particularly hilarious that one of the agitated responses literally concludes with the phrase "a C tier voice actor." That rebuttal wasn't quite the response you thought it was! Do you expect every international fan to immediately recognize the names of "C tier" English voice actors...? "Who?" is a pretty valid question here in the community for a site whose mission is aligned with the original Japanese version of the franchise.

is this passive aggressiveness really necessary ? like, yeah i have a weird way of typing and my posts just trail off a lot, but you could just quote it or actually refer to me by name then belittle me like that. or not even refer to it given the point of the post!

anyway, i obv agree that most OPs on here should be a lot more then just "here, look at this article, isn't that crazy", but given the fact that there was a like 200 page+ mega thread about the situation, and it was like, kind of a big deal as far as anime went, i don't think just going "who?" in a thread about it really accomplishes anything, and kinda of came off as weirdly dismissive of a serious thing.

however i also recognize i was and have been in a rather major bipolar episode, so i was probably overtly aggressive and probably shouldn't have been posting.

[Big Black Sayian]

Oh, my gosh--I thought this Greg Doucette:

<SNIP>

Same lol

[8000 Saiyan]

ISWV never cared about Vic's career or his well-being. They just wanted to confirm their bias in whatever imaginary crusade they think they are on (see SJWs are taking over the world, ahh feminism, etc). Had they cared for Vic, ISWV would have given him a useful advice: hire a PR agency, apologize and do what they say, including laying low for 6 months or so. Best "public shaming to redemption arc" I can think of is Dan Harmon of Rick and Morty -- he owned up to his shitty behavior, apologized to his victim and publicly discussed about it in detail. His victim even called it a "Masterclass in How to Apologize."

Nailed it. There are two "factions" of ISWV. The first are actual fans who, in spite of all the allegations against him, continue to support him because they're a fan of him and his work. The second is people who never cared about him at all, and supported him purely because they thought his trial--which never even happened due to an enormous amount of evidence of misconduct on his part combined with him having no case and a legal team that made Charlie Kelly look like a competent attorney--would be a "symbolic victory" of sorts against "libs," "social justice warriors," and the #MeToo movement. I'm of the belief that Nick Rekeita is an excellent example of the latter faction. I also think of Kiwi Farms as being part of this faction too, and can vaguely recall some posts referring to the ongoing Vic saga as "the Weeb Wars."

I'm never gonna understand people who stir s*** up purely for the sake of stirring s*** up. This whole "I troll for the lols and don't care who I hurt"-mentality. It's so...I dunno, weird to me. I just can't wrap my mind around expending any amount of my daily energy towards something like that.

If anything, most 90% actors and voice actors are shitheads in real life.

Ohhh, I must respectfully but heartily disagree. Especially when it comes to the VO community, they are by and large one of the nicest and most supportive communities I've ever encountered. Sure, there are jerks in it--jerks are an ever-present truth in every occupation--and there are certainly some instances of jerkery in the VO community that I can think of. On the whole, though, the VO community has very few jerks, especially compared to the on-camera community.

Sure, but more or less what I was trying to get across with my post is that people shouldn't really be surprised that actors tend to be shitheads. If anything, I wouldn't be saddened over the fact that talented people tend to be in their personal lives to not be very likable as people.

For example, Walter Brennan and Charles Coburn were great character actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, but as people, they were not exactly affable from most accounts. And considering that they were born in the 19th century, you'd expect them to be a little racist. Despite being responsible for the desegregation of the military, President Truman was also racist as well, being an opponent of interracial marriage.

Even if people tend to be shitty in their personal views, I wouldn't want to stop watching or reading their work.

[JulieYBM]

Sure, but more or less what I was trying to get across with my post is that people shouldn't really be surprised that actors tend to be shitheads. If anything, I wouldn't be saddened over the fact that talented people tend to be in their personal lives to not be very likable as people.

For example, Walter Brennan and Charles Coburn were great character actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, but as people, they were not exactly affable from most accounts. And considering that they were born in the 19th century, you'd expect them to be a little racist. Despite being responsible for the desegregation of the military, President Truman was also racist as well, being an opponent of interracial marriage.

Even if people tend to be shitty in their personal views, I wouldn't want to stop watching or reading their work.

So they can dehumanize and cause harm with their attitudes and actions and that's okay by you?

[TheBlackPaladin]

So they can dehumanize and cause harm with their attitudes and actions and that's okay by you?

I don't mean to speak for 8000 Saiyan, so they should feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting them wrong, but I think what they're saying is that it's OK to separate the art from the artist. I'm inclined to agree, honestly. It's not OK at all that they dehumanize and cause harm with their views, it just doesn't (necessarily and automatically) invalidate their contributions in other fields. Financially contributing to their contributions is where things get murkier, but even then, it's possible to appraise their contributions as works in and of themselves without paying a penny for them.

[VegettoEX]

"Separating the art from the artist" is High School Art Critique 101 like "Death of the Author"... and you're all presumably adults.

They're interesting possibilities to consider at first glance, but have real-world consequences and limit your ability to actually engage with and critique the art you're supposed to be critiquing.

(But yeah, I agree, it's not necessarily worthwhile to rampage around going "welp all artists/actors are terrible people".)

[MasenkoHA]

There's also a difference between "this person is an asshole in real life" and "holy shit this person is a monster or using their platform to harm others." I'm not gonna stop watching The Shining because Kubrick's a dick. But I'm not going to feel comfortable watching Jeepers Creepers.

[TheBlackPaladin]

"Separating the art from the artist" is High School Art Critique 101 like "Death of the Author"... and you're all presumably adults.

They're interesting possibilities to consider at first glance, but have real-world consequences and limit your ability to actually engage with and critique the art you're supposed to be critiquing.

Eh, respectfully agree to disagree. *shrug*

I know the views on this vary greatly, so I don't expect everybody to agree with me. The way I see it, though, if we were to ignore art because of the moral infractions of the artist, the overwhelming majority of art ever produced would have to be thrown out. Especially in cases where multiple artists are involved, because then it becomes impossible as a practical matter to differentiate which artists you're supporting and not supporting. I mean, I still enjoyed the dub of Dragon Ball Super: Broly despite Mignogna's involvement. Not his performance (screw any tip-toeing or dancing around my feelings on that matter), but I thought the principal cast--and especially the late, great Chris Ayres as Freeza--did a phenomenal job, and I would never refuse to watch the dub again because of Mignogna being in it.

Plenty of other examples come to mind, but I'll stop there in the interest of not going too off-topic.

That's not to say the art and the artist can be completely separated. Where things get trickier with me is when it comes to financially contributing to an artist. I definitely wouldn't want to financially contribute directly to an artist whose views I found morally repugnant, and I try to find ways around that when possible. Assuming that's an issue, of course, which it isn't always. To use the DBS Broly movie as an example again, the dub was a non-union production in which the actors were paid via one-time buyout fees, so no ticket sales from that movie were going to result in residuals of any kind going to Mignogna. So, no moral qualms on my end with buying a ticket.

So, I guess I don't believe in complete separation of the art and the artist, but I don't see it as realistic to take a one-side-or-the-other approach on that issue, because there are too many complications when it comes to the practical realities of enjoying and supporting art.

[JulieYBM]

There's also a difference between this person is an asshole in real life and Holy Shit this person is a monster or using their platform to harm others. I'm not gonna stop watching The Shining because Kubrick's a dick.

After hearing about—and seeing in the behind-the-scenes footage—what Kubrick did to Shelley Duvall I couldn't sit through another one of his films. Her behavior in those on-set interviews screamed traumatized. Which, having lived with abusive men most of my life, just really fucked me up for a while after I saw those interviews. Ugh.

So, I guess I don't believe in complete separation of the art and the artist, but I don't see it as realistic to take a one-side-or-the-other approach on that issue, because there are too many complications when it comes to the practical realities of enjoying and supporting art.

I don't think there's anything complicated about enjoying the art of someone who has within our lifetimes harmed someone or a group of people. The Harry Potter franchise is tainted with a bigot for a creator and figurehead and the second Fantastic Beasts film had an abusive biphobe playing its main antagonist. The Crunchyroll dub of Dragon Ball Super: Broli had an abuser with a decades-long track record as its title character. These are real people causing real harm and using these works of art to prop themselves up and that can't be ignored. This is entirely not the time to take some sort of pseudo-clinical approach to analyzing art.

[TheBlackPaladin]

I don't think there's anything complicated about enjoying the art of someone who has within our lifetimes harmed someone or a group of people...The Crunchyroll dub of Dragon Ball Super: Broli had an abuser with a decades-long track record as its title character. These are real people causing real harm and using these works of art to prop themselves up and that can't be ignored. This is entirely not the time to take some sort of pseudo-clinical approach to analyzing art.

I don't view it as pseudo-clinical, I view it as practical. As a practical matter, I didn't enjoy his art, and felt he was woefully miscast as Broly from the beginning. Rather, I enjoyed an art work that he just happened to be in (along with many other artists who were exceptionally wonderful as both actors and people). As a practical matter, I didn't financially contribute to him, I financially contributed to Crunchyroll (and, by extention, Toei), who continue to dub (and, by extension in the case of Toei, make) a cartoon that still holds a very deep place in my heart. If Mignogna himself made the Broly movie, or heck, was even getting residuals from it, it'd be a different story.

And as far as him using it to prop himself up, well, from what I've seen...he's still doing that. Despite not having the role anymore. That alt-right anime convention he was at, Anime Matsuri, advertised him as having voiced Broly. Heck, that Star Trek series he made has been over for a while, and he nevertheless felt he was justified in showing up to a Star Trek convention he wasn't even invited to and, from what I heard, stealing another guest's booth a few weeks ago. So do we continue to ignore any products with Broly in it even though Johnny Yong Bosch has taken over the role, or ignore Star Trek productions because Mignogna was in a fan series that he is (bizarrely) still proud of? I view these as practical questions to ask if we're to take the approach that the art and the artist can't be separated. I would never want to prop up an abuser, and certain consequences are definitely justifiable when it comes to supporting their art. However, at a certain point it becomes subjective what that really means.

As far as him being a decades-long abuser, it would only be fair if I mentioned that I honestly didn't know about his sex pest behaviors prior to the #KickVic floodgate being opened. I had heard plenty of rumors beforehand of him being a diva and a jerk--and being masterfully skilled and not appearing that way in front of fans--but the sexual stuff was new to me. It was easy for me to believe given the rumors I had heard years prior--and especially after so many people start coming forward with stories about his unwanted advances--but new to me nevertheless. From what I understand, there were some talks at Crunchyroll (then still FUNimation) about re-casting the role prior to the movie's recording specifically because of his unwanted advances, and somebody--I don't know who--made the decision to not re-cast. Whoever made that call, shame on them.

[MasenkoHA]

As far as him being a decades-long abuser, it would only be fair if I mentioned that I honestly didn't know about his sex pest behaviors prior to the #KickVic floodgate being opened. I had heard plenty of rumors beforehand of him being a diva and a jerk--and being masterfully skilled and not appearing that way in front of fans--but the sexual stuff was new to me. It was easy for me to believe given the rumors I had heard years prior--and especially after so many people start coming forward with stories about his unwanted advances--but new to me nevertheless. From what I understand, there were some talks at Crunchyroll (then still FUNimation) about re-casting the role prior to the movie's recording specifically because of his unwanted advances, and somebody--I don't know who--made the decision to not re-cast. Whoever made that call, shame on them.

For what it's worth, I do recall hearing about Dick Lasagna's questionable behavior (namely giving his phone number out to teenage girls at cons) well before the twitter thread. Like circa 2009ish? Him being homophobic and creepy toward underage girls was stuff I was aware of him before I even knew he had been voicing Broly since 2003.


As for your recasting bit, I do seem to remember hearing something about Michael B.Jordan being courted to voice Broly for the Super movie. Dude, is a big DBZ fan so it made some sense. But I don't know if there's any truth to that or if it was just some dumb internet rumor like rumors of Freddie Prinze Jr being in talks to voice Gohan for the Buu saga back around 2000

[Hellspawn28]

There's also a difference between "this person is an asshole in real life" and "holy shit this person is a monster or using their platform to harm others." I'm not gonna stop watching The Shining because Kubrick's a dick. But I'm not going to feel comfortable watching Jeepers Creepers.

Kubrick is dead, so he's not making money off his work. It's easier to seperate the art and artists when they are no longer alive. Charlie Chaplin and HP Lovecraft comes to mind. I don't support artists such as Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Bryan Singer, Victor Salva, Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Nobuhiro Watsuki, Dave Sim, Varg Vikernes, etc because those people are still alive and have actually hurt real people. Same with JK Rowling with her being this generation's L Ron Hubbard by having a cult personality.

[TheBlackPaladin]

As far as him being a decades-long abuser, it would only be fair if I mentioned that I honestly didn't know about his sex pest behaviors prior to the #KickVic floodgate being opened. I had heard plenty of rumors beforehand of him being a diva and a jerk--and being masterfully skilled and not appearing that way in front of fans--but the sexual stuff was new to me. It was easy for me to believe given the rumors I had heard years prior--and especially after so many people start coming forward with stories about his unwanted advances--but new to me nevertheless. From what I understand, there were some talks at Crunchyroll (then still FUNimation) about re-casting the role prior to the movie's recording specifically because of his unwanted advances, and somebody--I don't know who--made the decision to not re-cast. Whoever made that call, shame on them.

For what it's worth, I do recall hearing about Dick Lasagna's questionable behavior (namely giving his phone number out to teenage girls at cons) well before the twitter thread. Like circa 2009ish? Him being homophobic and creepy toward underage girls was stuff I was aware of him before I even knew he had been voicing Broly since 2003.


As for your recasting bit, I do seem to remember hearing something about Michael B.Jordan being courted to voice Broly for the Super movie. Dude, is a big DBZ fan so it made some sense. But I don't know if there's any truth to that or if it was just some dumb internet rumor like rumors of Freddie Prinze Jr being in talks to voice Gohan for the Buu saga back around 2000

Really, now? Interesting! My first instinct would have been to say that there's no way they'd get Michael B. Jordan to do something non-union for such little pay...but then again, they got James Marsters for Zamasu. So who knows. Certainly would have been interesting!

There's also a difference between "this person is an asshole in real life" and "holy shit this person is a monster or using their platform to harm others." I'm not gonna stop watching The Shining because Kubrick's a dick. But I'm not going to feel comfortable watching Jeepers Creepers.

Kubrick is dead, so he's not making money off his work. It's easier to seperate the art and artists when they are no longer alive. Charlie Chaplin and HP Lovecraft comes to mind. I don't support artists such as Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Bryan Singer, Victor Salva, Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Nobuhiro Watsuki, Varg Vikernes, etc because those people are still alive and have actually hurt real people. Same with JK Rowling with her being this generation's L Ron Hubbard by having a cult personality.

Lovecraft is a particularly interesting case, given that he's an an anti-semite whose properties would later be inherited by Jewish writers. As far as JK Rowling, I generally agree, but even that's complicated in some select cases like the games (where she doesn't profit off of royalties, just licensing fees), and in the case of "Hogwarts Legacy," the devs went out of their way to not include Rowling in the process, even fighting back against management to add the option of playing as a transgender character.

I certainly wouldn't begrudge anybody who decided they no longer wanted to support these brands, as their reasoning is completely understandable. For me, though, these are examples of why separating the art from the artist is both feasible and appreciable, even if it can't always be done.

[MasenkoHA]

Really, now? Interesting! My first instinct would have been to say that there's no way they'd get Michael B. Jordan to do something non-union for such little pay...but then again, they got James Marsters for Zamasu. So who knows. Certainly would have been interesting!

I will say there is quite a bit of difference from Marsters, who mainly does tv acting and Jordan, who one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. Marsters is definitely a bigger name than anyone at Funimation but he's still probably best known for Buffy.

If there's any truth to Funi trying to get Michael B.Jordan they were really banking on him being a Dragon Ball Z fan.

[8000 Saiyan]

I was in no way suggesting that people should get away with doing horrible things, I'm not one of those people.

I'm pretty sure that I agree with Kunzait when he said that Mel Gibson can go fuck himself. Even still, I wouldn't want to stop watching the Mad Max movies or Braveheart, much as I wouldn't want to stop watching Chinatown just because it's directed by a pedophile.

[Cursed Lemon]

I think that's up to the person. For example, I still occasionally watch a Jontron video here and there (with an adblocker FIRMLY in place), even though he's a douchenozzle.

By contrast, I like to sing karaoke and I used to do "I Wish" by R. Kelly a lot. I've permanently shelved that one because it feels way more intimate than watching a video, and I'm not trying to share a moment with a pedophile.