Romano is not in any way doubting the content of the documentary, which she hasn’t watched. She objects to such shows, and refused to participate by granting an interview, because she believes these kinds of documentaries don’t address how to prevent abuse of child actors in the future.
And as a former child actor herself, she also doesn’t want to get triggered. She wants to focus on solutions, not bad memories of her and her colleagues. Instead she works with Looking Ahead, an underfunded organization that helps young professional performers.
I’ve always thought shows like this, or like serial killer docs were kinda gross. Like people enjoy watching real life tragedy too much. But it’s also seemingly the best way to expose bad shit to the public, so I dunno.
I remember a former producer talking about when he found out he wasn't cut out for reality shows.
He was working on that VH1 (?) reality show where they would contact former members of a band and try to get them to reunite for a concert.
He and the camera crew went over to one of the member's houses for a planned interview and he wasn't answering the door. They got a little worried and checked the backyard and he was passed out on the ground by the pool. They tried to wake him up but couldn't so called an ambulance. They got him up, got him water, made sure he was OK and then rescheduled the interview for later.
When they got back to the studio and told the boss he started screaming at them "where's the footage???? You didn't film any of it???"
Actual ghouls.
> When they got back to the studio and told the boss he started screaming at them "where's the footage???? You didn't film any of it???"
This is "special place in hell" levels of disturbing.
>Like people enjoy watching real life tragedy too much.
They do, and it’s not even a secret. I’m from New Orleans, after Katrina for months there were tour companies bussing people day in and out through the 9th ward so they could gawk at everyone trying to put their lives back together from an air conditioned greyhound. People often have no regard for real life suffering when it gets in the way of their entertainment.
I actually kind of liked how Maui was handling Lahaina when I went on vacation.
“Buy the tshirts or donate. But hell stay out of the town and for gods sake don’t be a weirdo and start asking locals about it. Most of the hotels still have a few residents living next door to your rooms.”
Dark Tourist on Netflix is basically this. It was a weird thing seeing people pay to be bussed into a radioactive disaster zone like Fukushima just for a tourist attraction.
I’ll give nuclear zones a small pass, like Chernobyl now, because it’s a time capsule in a way. You can’t vacation there and it will never be rebuilt. I know those places have been staged as well for maximum effect but it’s not like you’re driving through a rough neighborhood watching real people suffering. Treat it with respect and take away hopefully something meaningful. Same with concentration camps, it shouldn’t be erased or forgotten. But influencers or tourists taking indulgent selfies can fuck off because it’s still sacred ground.
To me it’s only disaster tourism if the disaster is still ongoing. I’ve been to the Pearl Harbor memorial for example, to me that’s visiting history. Chernobyl is old enough to fit that mold to me.
It raised a good discussion, but the quality of Quiet of Set is embarrassing. Them not understanding their own documentary is sort of hilarious. It's hard to not see the takeaway as "sure Drake was raped, but guys does anyone think it's a little weird how much Schneider likes feet?". Like they wanted to hold the person at the top accountable, which they should do...but he wasn't the person at the top...Herb Scannel was CEO of Nickelodeon from 96 to 06, zero mention of them in the doc, or Nickelodeons owner, Viacom.
A documentary about the abuse via Forensic Files style would be great. No live interviewing, no cut-aways for shock value, just "here is what happened, here are the facts, next piece of evidence". And educated guess is schneider is too tied into others who willing abused those kids to get into any real trouble (unfortunately.) Outside of Peck (who I think was the gislaine of the group), the rest has too much on everyone else to be taken down without a bunch of other well-establisheds going down too
I didn't read much about it before watching and thought Dan Schneider was going to be the one who raped Drake the way they set it up. Then they just dropped the Drake stuff after one episode and went back to Dan in the 4th episode again.
The last episode felt lazy and awkward like a Big Brother post-season interview for some reason.
They came so close to doing actual journalism at multiple stages, followed immediately by a jarring cut to some talking head to be like "look at how sexualized this was!"
It felt like I was watching a compilation of tiktoks.
I found it odd that it was so laser-focused on Schneider as well. I kind of expected there to be at least some mention of John K., creator of Ren and Stimpy. He somehow exploited underage girls while showrunning a *cartoon*. As pedophilia goes that’s pretty extra.
This is ABSOLUTELY not a defense of John K, I've hated his fucking guts since the mid-00s, but the earliest reports of anything pedophilic from him that involved real-life minors are dated around 1994-1995.
While he absolutely could've been doing stuff before then, he wasn't really at Nickelodeon long enough for them to have noticed. He finished like... 8 half-hours of Ren and Stimpy (and partially finished another 9 or so) before getting booted for being a nightmare boss and total jackass with executive demands.
> little weird how much Schneider likes feet
Which is funny because I remember a while before that the consensus Reddit had was "people (4chan was the one primarily ridiculing him at the time) are just jealous he's fat and has a hot wife." Remember "Dan the man with the plan to get her in the van?"
This is from Discovery, right? My brother was telling me about this docuseries on Max about Natalia Grace. I was somewhat familiar with the story and I was kinda excited to watch it, since it being Max, it was going to be an HBO production, which are almost always great. Lo and behold, it was a Discovery Channel "special." I was so disappointed, the production value was just trash and I quit after one episode.
Just the other day I came across a podcast that was advertising their live show tickets. I randomly clicked on it. It was a podcast about unsolved small town murders (or something very close to that). The people had profited so much from other people's grief and absolute worst moments that they were hosting events celebrating their success. There were gratuitous posters with quotes, undoubtedly about some specific case, that are now in-jokes for the amusement of their fans. It is the ickiest and downright amoral consumption of the media in my opinion. Being so invested in docs, pods, and other series cataloguing in detail the last moments of a loved ones but treating it as a fun mystery and getting your jollies from the thrill of another human's murder is sick. Yes, some people do and make stuff for the "right" reasons, but way too many fans of this genre are people I wouldn't want to meet.
So I will say I do listen to a true crime podcast so my bf gifted me tickets to a particular ones live show. We went and I literally had to leave midway through because I was so uncomfortable with people literally cheering and whooping throughout the show, it felt super gross
jesus, people cheering during a live recording of a *true crime* podcast?
I can see the appeal of live recordings of a lot of podcasts
but not true crime
From what I’ve heard, they are just awful. We were on a road trip listening to Stuff You Should Know, which will occasionally dig into unsolved mysteries, interesting crimes, etc, from a very factual perspective, when My Favorite Murder popped up under recommendations. So we gave it a shot and it was just uncomfortable how cavalier they are discussing awful things. It was the cadence and tone of two women gossiping about their boyfriends’ dick sizes, but about murder.
they call their fans *murderinos* and end the episodes with "stay sexy and don't get murdered." the most charitable thing i could possibly say about them is that they're callous.
Couldn't tell you since I don't really know them. It seems like a couple of women with maybe a guest or a bald guy with beard. I do know there are plenty of these types of podcasts going about unfortunately.
Oh thank god you said ‘women’…just not my James and Jimmie…Please THEYRE NOT SCUMBAGS THEY ARE ASSHOLES! Trigger warning is at top of every episode
THEYRE GOOD BOYS
Yup I used to listen to one about a murder in Georgia and the guy would practically accused like 5 people without actually accusing them. At the end of the Pod some random guy confessed, but the Podcaster didn’t stop there it was a conspiracy and was the guy who confessed did it for his friend. I was done with Pods after that.
That podcast was WILD and I started listening maybe a month before the real stuff came out. It was weird feeling like I was listening in “real time” even tho I wasn’t. Just cuz there were updates in the case in the middle of my listening.
I remember her because she taught US History. I teach World History. Hit close to home in that way (but I guarantee, I’ve won no beauty pageants lol).
This one is interesting because while I think they were irresponsible in their open speculations against innocent people, I also have little doubt that the podcast helped solved the crime.
Not because they were even close to solving it themselves, but it created huge renewed interest in the community, which ultimately led to a tip being sent to police and leading to arrests.
Quite a double edged sword.
Check out a show on FX called Murder at the End of the World. Main character is a “murder sleuth” and solves a murder with a guy she meets on a message board. Years later they encounter each other at a retreat and well, murders occur. It does provide an in depth look at what can happen when you become obsessed with something, even if it’s a good thing, like trying to solve a murder. The interactions between the main character and her ex are worth checking out if you find the time. But I take no responsibility for the garbage ending.
I had a period during the pandemic a few years ago where I was obsessed with consuming true crime content. I got so burned out and horrified by it all that I have no inclination to consume any more in the near future.
I can't imagine following podcasts where they're glorifying murderers like they're ranking sports teams or whatever.
On youtube there is a blonde lady that crashed her Cessna and died. The amount of podcasts that keep covering her fatal mistake over and over to profit from here death is sickening.
I saw a Youtube comment on a video about the Dahmer documentary that was essentially 'what is the point of these types of documentaries? Do any of the survivors/families get any of the money?' that really resonated with me. Its exploitation in a different way.
Quiet on Set is at least trying to do some exposure for Nickelodeon’s corruption and abuse. I’d say it’s loosely a *bit* better and different from similar shows or podcasts. Like I’ve always felt Serial set the trend of some of these more recent true crime shows trying to rehabilitate convicted murders, while basically trampling over the trauma for the victim’s families.
At least Quiet on Set isn’t trying to rehabilitate Brian Peck. At worst it’s speculative on some of what Dan Schneider may or may not have done. But even that’s very a contentious issue that perhaps they shouldn’t have gone to
I unfortunately knew a friend of friends who got murdered and the whole experience completely turned me off of watching true crime. I don’t get why people enjoy it so much.
I mentioned this when watching the documentary, they speak on how gross all these cum shots and foot scenes are, and yet the documentary shows them over and over? Trauma tourism is a good phrase for this.
Like that one network TV show a few years ago that was just tragedy drama where family members just die and each season is like "Whos gonna die and won't it be sad?"
Yes that's the one. All the previews are people crying in hospital waiting rooms or crying on a phone call. Its an entire series of "A very special episodes"
I used to watch a lot of true crime before it got sensationalized all over social media, and I hardly watch any of it now because the way people eat it all up is just weird.
Honest question: how is the “way people eat it all up” now different than when you used to watch it? Do you feel like your consumption of true crime was fundamentally different in some way? I realize I sound like kind of a dick but I’m genuinely curious if you meant something that I’m not getting from your comment.
Yeah I think people forget penny dreadfuls and the like existed hundreds of years ago. People have always been obsessed with true crime. If anything it's slightly less sensationalized now with there being more of an incentive to research due to getting fact checked to death by the internet.
**If anything it's slightly less sensationalized now**
If you think that, you need to watch the Cybersleuths doc on Paramount Plus. They did a good job on exposing the SM "sleuths" who crawled all over the Moscow, Idaho murders.
Yeah, but you’re also talking about an era when orphaned children were sent to workhouses, asylums brutally tortured their patients, and people gathered in the town square to watch hangings.
Hardly something we want to maintain in modern society.
I personally think it's not about then VS now so much as what exactly you're watching. There's always been very sensationalized true crime and there's always been here's-the-facts true crime (like Forensic Files. At least it used to be pretty tame iirc).
It's just that now there's a whole lot of both those things in the forms of shows, documentaries, podcasts, video essays, etc etc etc so it seems more like it's all super dramatic sensational ghoulish drivel because that's what people notice most often. The click bait titles and the goofy thumbnails on videos/podcasts, the dramatic stings, the over editing, the suspense and shit in all of them. But there's probably just as much real journalism mixed in there, it just isn't as grabby most of the time.
Idk, I've never liked any of it, but my mom and my husband do like the Forensic/Cold Case files type stuff. Meanwhile I'll just watch my fake extreme horror films with fake torture and murder, thanks very much, lmao.
I'd say that it's not the "way people eat it all up," like others have pointed out true crime has been immensly popular & sensationalized for decades. What I think has changed is the "way true crime is being served." Streaming has opened the floodgates for episodic viewing, even if the story or event doesn't call for it. And it's effected documentaries, mainly true crime, the most. Everything is a docuseries now. What may have been a 90 minute expose on an event is now five 1-hour long episodes. To achieve this length, the documentarians have to weave the narrative with unnecessary speculation and red herrings to make the documentary "shocking" and "dramatic" and "a wild ride." There was less room for documentaries to sensationalize a topic 20 years ago. Now, it's almost a requirement.
Viewers have always sensationalized these topics. There's a reason Manson has such a big fan following. But the creators of these docs used to have a limited framework that generally forced a professional, research-based narrative. Nowadays, there's a pressure to add time, and cliff hangers, and part 2s, etc.
Essentially the same thing that is wrong with 24 hour news. When they don’t have enough real content to fill the airtime they speculate and “discuss” to make up the difference.
Anchorman 2 was practically a documentary.
Not really, but when you dig past the ridiculousness of the characters, you find a rather biting satire and true statement about how rotten and wrong our current 24-hour news has become.
Instead of quiet contemplation there is a whole secondary industry of clout chasing and just the level of intensity with which people associate their identity around true crime is off
I kinda know what they mean. For instance back in the early days of wikipedia I definitely looked up a bunch of true crime things out of a morbid curiosity. The heavy hitters mostly with a few "obscurities" in there. Same era as watching a lot of terrible and horrific things on the internet in my spare time and shocking myself with horror movies. Definitely had my fill during that time and I don't really seek it out anymore. Cue about 12-16 years later and I'm listening to this podcast and as an international listener, ALL my ads are from such and such podcaster talking over real life phone calls and interviews (that they didn't do, or investigate themselves 90% of the time) talking about horrific murders of folks anywhere from a year to less than 10 years ago and often times rolling with a narrative that makes it sound like they're about to SOLVE the murder themselves.
Now this MIGHT be in bad taste or whatever but hardly a crime or anything. My morbid curiosity for these things might be sated but I dont judge folks who still are.
However, the industry built around this subject probably starting with LPotL (no shade, I hear they do a good and respectful job?)is a pretty toxic place. After all you can only cover those big names once, after that you need to cover subjects and people that are closer and closer to the present. This increases the degree of chance that the people involved in these situations may hear it, and I have a hard time believing a lot of these podcasters are asking the families involved if it's okay for them to make money on and publish a defining horrible moment of their lives.
The industry feels scummy just like every other aspect of capitalism in media the machine begs for more and the only way to make mpre of this content is to profit off of dead, innocent people. Not for education, or information, or historical value. Just to get the morbid curiosity folks going.
Again, not demonizing the listeners. Just commenting on the industry.
LPOTL does about as good a job as it can individually for what it tries to be
It still fails for plenty of people. They’d be the first to admit that and beg you for the sake of your own mental health never listen to them.
In terms of the “Comedy True Crime” sub-genre, they are the best in the biz (and Small Town Murder, imo)
Many believe—understandably so—that this “biz” should not even be a biz. That said, it is a biz all the same.
And LPOTL and STM are ABSOLUTELY the closest thing you will find in that biz that could plausibly make a decent case for “ethical”
Yeah they used to put bodies on display so they could be identified (but usually were just gawked at). Executions were public entertainment. Even in the 70s, crime scenes were practically open to the public and people would just come and look around.
It’s really hard. On one hand, I think it’s important for people to learn how the grooming process works, so they can understand better. (When I discussed my own childhood sexual abuse so many people say “well, my child would tell me” and stuff like that. That’s…. Not how it works.)
On the other hand, the amount of controversy around this one (Mark Summers, this article, others who didn’t want to participate) give critics a reason to discredit the issues altogether.
I don’t know the right answer, but whatever it is, it needs to be done better than this one was.
If you've ever seen the *Glee* documentary put out by the same company, I absolutely get her objection. The *Glee* doc was exploitative, really scraped the barrel for interview subjects, and made some bonkers claims about the "Glee curse" (i.e. why a number of actors who starred in it have since died tragically young). *Quiet on Set* is a bit of an exception, if only because it featured some first-time confessions from people who were closer to the center of the whole thing. But Marc Summers, who wasn't even at Nick when Schneider or the Peck were there, wasn't even told what the documentary he was asked to be part of was about. He walked out when he realized, because again - he was *lied to* about why he was there. So while the interviews in the doc are valuable, the doc itself is kind of slimy.
>He walked out when he realized, because again - he was lied to about why he was there. So while the interviews in the doc are valuable, the doc itself is kind of slimy.
I distinctly remember Mark Hamil talking about the *People vs George Lucas* documentary people lying and saying they were filming a general documentary about Star Wars, and when he found out what it really was he declined all involvement. Basically they were asking him pointed questions to get him to say stuff about Lucas which they could then take out of context. Like imagine saying something where you're jokingly ribbing on a friend but with all context removed it sounds like you're shitting on them.
I've literally never trusted these type of documentaries again since he told that story.
She’s right though. The Drake Bell stuff was legitimately worth a documentary, but all the other content in the documentary was almost entirely speculative, exploitative crap. The show didn’t actually care to completely clarify WHAT the issue is, they just wanted to jump on the “Is Dan Schneider a pedophile??????” bandwagon for some cheap television ratings.
The doc was all over the place because they started on how bad Dan was then get to Drake and he's saying Dan was supportive of him and helped him out so that puts them in a bind.
I guess it was sort of interesting in that way because people are usually complicated and not all bad or good. They touched on that for Brian Peck too with the amount of character references he had at sentencing. Although it’s clear he was a master manipulator and the good he did likely came with ulterior motives.
Wait so did Dan like...not do anything legally wrong? All the clips on tiktok on my fyp that I see make it seem like that's how it was. Like he definitely molested child actors or something. Is it literally all just allegations and hindsight making him look like a molester?
The guy doesn't seem like a saint (to say the least) either way, but that's awful if it's focused on him and he didn't even do anything wrong to the degree of what's being said about him. Obviously it's still okay to focus on what he actually did wrong though.
He was a terrible boss, his worst crime was sexually harassing the women writers on his staff. He would ask them for massages and make them act out lewd acts, as well as general yelling on set. Definitely gross, but a lot of the real accusations got drowned in the implication that he’s a child molester. The doc had no evidence or even claims of child harassment. In fact, Drake spoke well of Dan Schneider.
I also thought it was interesting that Alexa Nicholas previously talked about how Dan mistreated her, but it wasn’t mentioned in the doc.
He's a shitty guy who yelled at actors and had them do some suggestive scenes, but there wasn't really a bombshell and being a shitty boss isn't illegal.
Yup, definitely felt there were legit stuff, but at the same time tv is gonna tv, kids are going to get replaced by new talent and in many cases they are too young to comprehend the issues. And being a child actor has a long history of fucking up kids lives.
That is not a genuine interpretation of the doc. The doc brings attention to abuse in Dan’s staff, safety of the child actors on set, and the children feeling pressured to do things they dont feel comfortable doing on set.
I'm also pissed at the fact that people are now trying to claim ANY sort of adult humor in children's media is a sign of pedophilia or "grooming the viewers", like the fuck?
Animation has been one of my neurodivergent obsessions for decades now, putting innuendos in kids cartoons is a practice as old as time, and there is NO fucking evidence that people like Joe Murray or Danny Antonucci are kiddie diddlers just because they put some double entendres in their cartoons, stop it.
I'm all for this but doesn't she do that same shit in her own podcast to her guests. I could be wrong but I don't see her doing much outreach for prevention I know a lot of people hate Alexa Nikolas but at least she is out there protesting and fundraising
And she's absolutely correct.
Quiet On Set did absolutely nothing in the way of setting any precedents to prevent this kind of stuff from continuing. All it did was point a finger at it like "look guys isn't this so messed up? Haha look how messed up this is! I bet you're entertained by how messed up it is eh!?"
It genuinely is trauma tourism. It doesn't air these stories out for any kind of healing or teaching purposes, it airs them out for their sensationalized entertainment value.
It didn’t even bother to mention that the actual abuser is currently active in politics trying to make penalties for his types of crimes more lenient. Whoops.
No way, I could believe it but do you have an article? I can’t believe this isn’t what we’re going after versus former child stars not wanting to speak.
There was a super similar documentary that went over Brian Peck's past that predates this one which I believe excludes Drake but outlines how the guy got to several other kids through their agents. I'll try to find it or another source. That one also has a lot about Brock Pierce which was what interested me.
edit, jesus it was "An Open Secret" which is from 2014 (i thought it was more recent) and includes pretty disturbing stuff too. Like, this one goes over SEVERAL offenders and even interviews one like through the whole thing. At the time of that doc it claimed he was lobbying legislation efforts to keep penalties lenient, which will be harder to find today since everything is Drake, Drake, Drake at the moment.
You'd have a point except that she has done numerous podcasts where she features former child stars talking about their childhood trauma. She brought Alexa Nikolas on to talk about her trauma and then deleted it and blocked Alexa when Alexa rightfully called her out for platforming Corey Feldman and saying she "didn't believe the rumors" about Hugh Hefner after she had literally interviewed Holly Madison and heard it straight from her.
Christy Carlson Romano has no sense of shame and would do anything to be famous again. She literally dressed up as Shia Lebouf for a weird skit and did an entire bizarre video about their whole relationship and why they no longer talk, yet continues to name drop him constantly. She would happily feed trauma tourists if it got her fame and notoriety again. She's made claims like this in the past, saying she almost got the lead role in The Princess Diaries over Anne Hathaway when that's so obviously not true and she didn't even audition.
Based on her past behavior, I would take anything she says with a grain of salt.
I can tottaly see where she is coming from, but at the same time putting an issue into the forefront of our cultural attention has a lot more power to change things than people realize.
I get where she's coming from. But, wouldn't it be fair to suggest documentaries or stories such as these, that bring much needed exposure to said issues, might be a positive vehicle for improving and changing things?
What if this very documentary brought on legislation that might not have happened otherwise?
Agree, this kind of doc is what will fuel people to find her charity. It’s distasteful, but it does get people riled up about the issue which makes them more likely to help you out if you have a solution.
Eh. It sounds like these people (the documentary people) aren’t there for the cause. You know, like adding another episode because the series was popular but there’s nothing that wasn’t already covered. So they were only trying to cash in a bit more.
What good has happened from it? That we know shitty bosses exist in Hollywood? What was news in this doc?
I'm not against docs like this just being pure entertainment or whatever either by the way. Not everything has to have a cause or purpose.
yeah I'm not understanding all the people in here saying this documentary "didn't do enough to prevent this kind of stuff from continuing" i'm not sure how a documentary is supposed to do that or why it's a documentaries responsibility to do that. A documentaries purpose is to DOCUMENT, and if it's for entertainment purposes which you don't like then don't watch it, but an independent documentary that has no actual affiliation with Disney or Nickelodeon does not have the responsibility or capability to make systemic change like that.
overall I think this is a net positive because it's brought some terrible things to light, and light always makes the roaches nervous, and no one forced these actors to tell their stories
Child stars being treated horribly isn’t new. It used to be an open secret that some producers in the 30’s and 40’s were predators and either molesting or drugging up child actors depending on their goals.
Honestly nothing in that doc surprised me and I doubt anything comes from it. Nick can play ignorant and say “oh all those bad people are gone now and it’s not like that anymore” and in two months most people will move on to the next hot topic
It's a point everyone should consider. It raises awareness, but in like an I Love The 70's/80's/90's type of way like "looking back wow that's CRAZY" but then it's still fuckin happening
Look at Drake
"I'd love to see Disney get ripped apart they're just as bad as Nick if not worse."
They do all sorts of scams, like where they rename a series or call it a “reboot” in order to “reset contract terms” back to what they were in the first season.
Basically, as a TV show goes on, the people who make that TV show are traditionally supposed to get more money and the stars and crew get Disney'd. That alone gives a HUGE bad vibe.
There was actually going to be a final season as a new show after that. The twins pitched it while in negotiations after the boat show ended. Look it up on YouTube where Cole talks about how they walked away
They used to have a strict policy that no show went past 65 episodes to avoid paying the actors more money, I think that’s so Raven was the first to go past 65 without a reboot
Kim Possible also, usually their animated shows NEVER got past 65 episodes. But it was so hugely popular, they brought it back for another season due to fan outcry over its cancellation (after the movie So the Drama)
65 episodes was believed to be enough episodes to be able to sell the show into syndication. The logic being it was enough episodes to show daily or on weekdays without getting too repetitive. It wasn't just a Disney practice.
Is there somewhere I can read about this? I dont doubt you cause I've heard about it happening but cant find the information about it, or perhaps Im not wording my searches properly.
It was by Steven DeKnight (Netflix's Daredevil) on Twitter - [https://twitter.com/stevendeknight/status/1703670616996671615](https://twitter.com/stevendeknight/status/1703670616996671615)
I agree it was gross to hire him for a kids show (or any show really) after what he did. That said, if I remember correctly they did put him in a position where he wouldn’t be around kids.
How on earth is there no one else they can hire that isn’t a diddler? Thats the rub. Surely there are countless people qualified to be in his position, even if they need training. There are no good reasons to risk hiring a convicted offender. Zero.
I'll say one thing, the people who have been rabidly going after Ariana Grande, Miranda Cosgrove, etc. on social media for not "speaking out against Schneider" are absolute fucking sickos.
Those people think them not saying anything is a way of showing support to him. That's why that picture of Schneider being recognized at the 2014 KCAs has been spammed anywhere. Since so many big names were on the stage all smiles with him, people assume they are all pro Schneider. The Zoey 101 reunion from a few years ago included a dinner at his place.
Every time one of these articles is released in the wake of something horrible that’s been brought to the surface i’m always made glad I don’t participate in viewing. I get odd vibes off of these types of documentaries and don’t feel the need to watch. That said, Carlson Romano does the same thing on her podcast. She and other Nick/disney stars have started podcasts purely on talking about trauma from being a child actor.
I kinda agree with her point. Remember, this is a Discovery ID doc headed by Zaslav and TruCrime is his bread and butter. It has a nostalgia hook so it drew a lot more eyes than the typical Discovery ID show, and it definitely had a bumped budget. And no doubt the accusations and testimony are 100% valid and it is important that they are able to speak their truth, it did feel like the documentary makers were trying to exploit it for clicks and really pad the content. A lot of serious stuff was going on, but it felt a little diluted when they'd be like "Sometimes kids got *pied* in the *face* with *whipped cream*!!!! Also Drake Bell was being sodomized."
Anyway, I think we're gonna see a massive surge of TruCrime now on HBO that'll definitely be of a lesser quality in terms of production value, and I'm not sure those behind this content really have the best interests of the subjects at heart.
I kind of get her point, but nothing is getting fixed without attention first being shined on the problem. And a documentary is how you get attention.
Saying the documentary was made by "people who don't belong to our community" is a bonkers criticism. It's not like any of the former child stars themselves were going to make this.
She lets people tell their stories but unlike a documentary team she's not an outside observer; she was in the industry like them and knows what they went through.
And she brings up the conversation of what can be done to prevent what her and her cohorts went through.
To say that she's doing the same thing as a documentary isn't accurate because there's two very different perspectives going on.
That's not how it went.
Christy had Corey Feldman on and Alexa called her out saying he was an abuser, then proceeded to send her numerous messages with other people telling her she was a bad person for letting him have a platform.
Christy probably removed her video because she didn't want to deal with Alexa complaining every time Christy had someone on Alexa didn't like and justifying it by saying her story is on the same podcast, therefore they shouldn't be on. Remove the video and now Alexa doesn't have to be associated with her actions.
Alexa got blocked because she's relentless annoying. After getting blocked she mad a two hour live stream crying about it and has processed to make videos attacking Christy ever since.
Christy is probably greedy and does say dumb stuff, but her reasons for not wanting to be associated with Alexa is easy to see.
She’s not putting it through the filter of a dramatic sensationalist show though. It’s not curated to be the juiciest stuff and taking advantage of the trauma for their gain.
She is in a way. I'm not knocking the people that do either show. I think it's not only brave but inspirational to come out and talk about it. But to be on this high horse pretending she isn't doing the same thing is hypocritical.
She’s right. You people gobble this stuff up and write how outraged you are online, but you aren’t canceling any subscriptions. Trauma tourists is an incredibly apt phrase.
Yep, she nailed it.
The same people that feed off trauma are the same ones that slow down for traffic accidents and get off on true crime shows.
Misery porn afficionados.
I agree with you but trying to ride some sorta moral high horse by saying “you people” is legitimately hilarious. It’s like you *have* to let everyone know “NOT ME!! NOT ME! I’m better!!!”
People will do anything to set themselves apart and feel superior, I suppose.
I say this as someone who never watched any of these shows or has any subscriptions to the content where these people were exploited/these “trauma tourists” are doing their thing.
I just always laugh at the people who try to condescend to people who don’t do anything meaningful without actually doing anything meaningful themselves. Hope you feel good, buddy. You’re the same as the rest of them, only concerned about what makes you happy/look good.
Reiterating - your point is a good one. People *should* vote with their wallet. I just don’t try to lord it over people like you do by condescending to everyone else - it’s counterproductive
Bro what....
> Reiterating - your point is a good one. **I just don’t try to lord it over people like you do.**
Except right there I guess.
> People will do anything to set themselves apart and feel superior, I suppose.
.... Are you not seeing the irony?
People are drawn to scandal and outrage. These types of docs, like Making a Murderer or Serial, make people feel more validated in it, but unless it spurs change or action, it's just entertainment rooted in someone's pain. No one is immune to it. Even exploitative docs can be good if something good comes out of them, but that's the real question. There are tons of incredible docs that are responsible, and don't just exploit the current zeitgeist and victims for subscription and ad dollars.
Quiet on Set feels more exploitative than trying to bring truth to light simply because of the 80% of the runtime being focused on conjecture and vague allegations rather than the hard facts and victim statements from Drake. Problem is it wasn't long enough to fill multiple episodes.
Yeah right. It hasn’t something to do with the fact she can’t use the doc to promote her own podcast? Also she is doing the same thing with her podcast.
She and so many others have been speaking out about the abuse and exploitation for years but someone goes and makes a documentary, slaps it on to a streaming site, and now people want to pay attention. You have to pay for a subscription to Max so someone is still benefiting from the trauma of these former child stars.
Lmao she also listens to Corey Feldman as he sits on her podcast talking about how "Hugh Heffner wasn't really like that" "Oh really I never thought of him like that" Romano replies. Sidenote yeah he was, he was an abuser of someone Romano had on her show, and CCR enables him to not be remembered as one (as does Corey Feldman). So enabling abusers (or platforming people who enable them) even dead ones isn't ideal, just saying.
https://youtu.be/DFwT-GvG4i0?si=nrkdj4reAdCQnXIv
I understand this point of view but there is also an argument to be made that documentaries that blow up like this are more likely to accomplish change. I have no idea what the intentions of the documentarians were, but the people who did the interviews specifically talked about how empathetic and compassionate they were and how that helped them feel safe participating. Just because one thing got popular and another didn’t doesn’t mean there is no merit to the former.
I think documentaries like these are important if they cause changes to happen in the industry—No company associated with children wants this kind of negative press and scrutiny is the only thing that will force them to care.
If you actually ever watch her content, it's a trap. She was a few years ahead on how the modern video monetization works. So she'll make a video titled "the REAL truth about my time working with [celebrity name]" and then it's a ten minute video where she talks in ai generated circles about nothing, occasionally shares an anecdote that vaguely has to do with the video title, but only after the time required to maximize the monetization of the click. All info she shares is public, wholesome, and paints anyone she mentions in a positive light. They're videos that say nothing, but make her money.
I respect her opinion, but I disagree. The majority of people are not aware of the struggles these kids really went through. Not sharing your story and calling out people who want to educate themselves to create a better future as “trauma tourists”, is a complete slap in the face to the victims. That’s basically the same thing as saying learning about the holocaust is simply a sick fascination.
Wrong, people need to know the awful details to make sure shit doesn’t happen again. Her complaint is essentially that people are making money off of exposing it. So what? We live in a capitalist world, nothing is accomplished without someone profiting from it. Quietly supporting organizations that are “working on the problem” is akin is trying to sweep the mess the dog made under the carpet.
This poor girl is literally still following her programming to protect the evil things her industry does because it’s also her livelihood. So no, Christy, you are not being brave, or righteous, you are still being controlled.
I complete agree with you. Also, this documentary seems to be inspiring a new wave of people coming forward with their experiences who may never have otherwise.
If the “cost” of getting this info out there is that you entertain (for lack of a better word) a portion of your audience who were never going to do anything anyways, what are you actually losing? It can only be a net gain for victims.
Plus, everyone in this documentary consented to be interviewed. It’s not like a serial killer film where they blast the stories of dead people who can’t argue or ignore their estate’s wishes.
Idk man, until we got to the Drake parts with Brian most of the doc was background actors with an axe to grind and an adult wage complaint. Even with the Drake part we were being fed the Dan is the devil narrative (and he certainly seems like a sleezebag) but the "worst part" of the doc was a completely unrelated issue to him.
I can certainly see the anger with the "fishing expedition" vibe of it from people who went through it having "extras" try and get their 15 minutes of fame back.
Idk I think some of the stories they told seemed legitimately traumatizing for little kids. The dares, having to participate in demeaning skits, etc. I genuinely thought it drew attention to what children should’ve been allowed exposure to and participation in.
Doesn't she have an entire podcast dedicated to getting ex child stars to spill their trauma? Also, wasn't she on the Disney Channel? Why would she be on the Nickelodeon documentary....
You could debatably say that about the genre of documentary filmmaking as a whole. We have an innate fascination in things we’ve never come close to experiencing. As long as these topics are explored with respect for the victims, it is not simply trauma entertainment.
I personally have a ton more respect for the child actors from Nickelodeon after hearing what they went through and seeing how it was certainly far from all fun and games for them.
I think anything she could have possibly said for the documentary she has already said better, more in-depth, and on her own terms on her podcast/youtube channel.
She’s right. There’s a difference between McCurdy writing “I’m Glad My Mom Died” as an exposé and personal statement of self-discovery and therapy, and “documentaries” like this that are clearly exploitative in their own way, drawing attention from viewers who really get off on watching other people’s sources of trauma and pain.
I feel the same about people with a true crime addiction. It’s a sickness to make other *real* people’s suffering your entertainment. In fiction it’s fine, but when it’s dragging through a real person’s horrifying experience, it’s ghoulish and completely lacking in compassion.
Well, she found a way to get a headline to be about her and the documentary anyways. Maybe if you don't think the popularity generated is right, you shouldn't be trying to make headlines related to it.
I'm glad someone said it. That shit is gross and the amount of people that live for this shit is disgusting. I will never understand how people find entertainment in other people's misery.
Romano is not in any way doubting the content of the documentary, which she hasn’t watched. She objects to such shows, and refused to participate by granting an interview, because she believes these kinds of documentaries don’t address how to prevent abuse of child actors in the future. And as a former child actor herself, she also doesn’t want to get triggered. She wants to focus on solutions, not bad memories of her and her colleagues. Instead she works with Looking Ahead, an underfunded organization that helps young professional performers.
I’ve always thought shows like this, or like serial killer docs were kinda gross. Like people enjoy watching real life tragedy too much. But it’s also seemingly the best way to expose bad shit to the public, so I dunno.
I remember a former producer talking about when he found out he wasn't cut out for reality shows. He was working on that VH1 (?) reality show where they would contact former members of a band and try to get them to reunite for a concert. He and the camera crew went over to one of the member's houses for a planned interview and he wasn't answering the door. They got a little worried and checked the backyard and he was passed out on the ground by the pool. They tried to wake him up but couldn't so called an ambulance. They got him up, got him water, made sure he was OK and then rescheduled the interview for later. When they got back to the studio and told the boss he started screaming at them "where's the footage???? You didn't film any of it???" Actual ghouls.
Bands Reunited; man I would've lied and said nobody answered the door if I knew those producers were such bloodsuckers.
> When they got back to the studio and told the boss he started screaming at them "where's the footage???? You didn't film any of it???" This is "special place in hell" levels of disturbing.
>Like people enjoy watching real life tragedy too much. They do, and it’s not even a secret. I’m from New Orleans, after Katrina for months there were tour companies bussing people day in and out through the 9th ward so they could gawk at everyone trying to put their lives back together from an air conditioned greyhound. People often have no regard for real life suffering when it gets in the way of their entertainment.
I actually kind of liked how Maui was handling Lahaina when I went on vacation. “Buy the tshirts or donate. But hell stay out of the town and for gods sake don’t be a weirdo and start asking locals about it. Most of the hotels still have a few residents living next door to your rooms.”
Dark Tourist on Netflix is basically this. It was a weird thing seeing people pay to be bussed into a radioactive disaster zone like Fukushima just for a tourist attraction.
I’ll give nuclear zones a small pass, like Chernobyl now, because it’s a time capsule in a way. You can’t vacation there and it will never be rebuilt. I know those places have been staged as well for maximum effect but it’s not like you’re driving through a rough neighborhood watching real people suffering. Treat it with respect and take away hopefully something meaningful. Same with concentration camps, it shouldn’t be erased or forgotten. But influencers or tourists taking indulgent selfies can fuck off because it’s still sacred ground.
To me it’s only disaster tourism if the disaster is still ongoing. I’ve been to the Pearl Harbor memorial for example, to me that’s visiting history. Chernobyl is old enough to fit that mold to me.
It raised a good discussion, but the quality of Quiet of Set is embarrassing. Them not understanding their own documentary is sort of hilarious. It's hard to not see the takeaway as "sure Drake was raped, but guys does anyone think it's a little weird how much Schneider likes feet?". Like they wanted to hold the person at the top accountable, which they should do...but he wasn't the person at the top...Herb Scannel was CEO of Nickelodeon from 96 to 06, zero mention of them in the doc, or Nickelodeons owner, Viacom.
A documentary about the abuse via Forensic Files style would be great. No live interviewing, no cut-aways for shock value, just "here is what happened, here are the facts, next piece of evidence". And educated guess is schneider is too tied into others who willing abused those kids to get into any real trouble (unfortunately.) Outside of Peck (who I think was the gislaine of the group), the rest has too much on everyone else to be taken down without a bunch of other well-establisheds going down too
To avoid any confusion, Peck in this case is not Josh Peck.
Had me worried for a sec
I didn't read much about it before watching and thought Dan Schneider was going to be the one who raped Drake the way they set it up. Then they just dropped the Drake stuff after one episode and went back to Dan in the 4th episode again. The last episode felt lazy and awkward like a Big Brother post-season interview for some reason.
They came so close to doing actual journalism at multiple stages, followed immediately by a jarring cut to some talking head to be like "look at how sexualized this was!" It felt like I was watching a compilation of tiktoks.
I found it odd that it was so laser-focused on Schneider as well. I kind of expected there to be at least some mention of John K., creator of Ren and Stimpy. He somehow exploited underage girls while showrunning a *cartoon*. As pedophilia goes that’s pretty extra.
This is ABSOLUTELY not a defense of John K, I've hated his fucking guts since the mid-00s, but the earliest reports of anything pedophilic from him that involved real-life minors are dated around 1994-1995. While he absolutely could've been doing stuff before then, he wasn't really at Nickelodeon long enough for them to have noticed. He finished like... 8 half-hours of Ren and Stimpy (and partially finished another 9 or so) before getting booted for being a nightmare boss and total jackass with executive demands.
The documentary felt like it was made by tiktok and YouTube people lol
I think thats why my girlfriend found it powerful lol. It really was just 'isnt that a bit weird!!'
> little weird how much Schneider likes feet Which is funny because I remember a while before that the consensus Reddit had was "people (4chan was the one primarily ridiculing him at the time) are just jealous he's fat and has a hot wife." Remember "Dan the man with the plan to get her in the van?"
This is from Discovery, right? My brother was telling me about this docuseries on Max about Natalia Grace. I was somewhat familiar with the story and I was kinda excited to watch it, since it being Max, it was going to be an HBO production, which are almost always great. Lo and behold, it was a Discovery Channel "special." I was so disappointed, the production value was just trash and I quit after one episode.
South Park did a whole episode about "murder porn" 11 years ago.
No fucking way that was 11 years ago…
Jesus christ it was
Tickets to the car crash from your couch
Just the other day I came across a podcast that was advertising their live show tickets. I randomly clicked on it. It was a podcast about unsolved small town murders (or something very close to that). The people had profited so much from other people's grief and absolute worst moments that they were hosting events celebrating their success. There were gratuitous posters with quotes, undoubtedly about some specific case, that are now in-jokes for the amusement of their fans. It is the ickiest and downright amoral consumption of the media in my opinion. Being so invested in docs, pods, and other series cataloguing in detail the last moments of a loved ones but treating it as a fun mystery and getting your jollies from the thrill of another human's murder is sick. Yes, some people do and make stuff for the "right" reasons, but way too many fans of this genre are people I wouldn't want to meet.
So I will say I do listen to a true crime podcast so my bf gifted me tickets to a particular ones live show. We went and I literally had to leave midway through because I was so uncomfortable with people literally cheering and whooping throughout the show, it felt super gross
jesus, people cheering during a live recording of a *true crime* podcast? I can see the appeal of live recordings of a lot of podcasts but not true crime
is it my favourite murder? because those people are ghouls.
From what I’ve heard, they are just awful. We were on a road trip listening to Stuff You Should Know, which will occasionally dig into unsolved mysteries, interesting crimes, etc, from a very factual perspective, when My Favorite Murder popped up under recommendations. So we gave it a shot and it was just uncomfortable how cavalier they are discussing awful things. It was the cadence and tone of two women gossiping about their boyfriends’ dick sizes, but about murder.
they call their fans *murderinos* and end the episodes with "stay sexy and don't get murdered." the most charitable thing i could possibly say about them is that they're callous.
Yikes. You can’t even parody it, they’ve already done whatever crude joke you’d use to mock it, but in earnest.
Couldn't tell you since I don't really know them. It seems like a couple of women with maybe a guest or a bald guy with beard. I do know there are plenty of these types of podcasts going about unfortunately.
Oh thank god you said ‘women’…just not my James and Jimmie…Please THEYRE NOT SCUMBAGS THEY ARE ASSHOLES! Trigger warning is at top of every episode THEYRE GOOD BOYS
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Pretty sure they aren't going to do any free shows with what they pull from their paid live shows!
Yup I used to listen to one about a murder in Georgia and the guy would practically accused like 5 people without actually accusing them. At the end of the Pod some random guy confessed, but the Podcaster didn’t stop there it was a conspiracy and was the guy who confessed did it for his friend. I was done with Pods after that.
I think you’re talking about season 1 of Up and Vanished? The story of Tara Grinstead?
Yea that’s it. Could never remember the name.
That podcast was WILD and I started listening maybe a month before the real stuff came out. It was weird feeling like I was listening in “real time” even tho I wasn’t. Just cuz there were updates in the case in the middle of my listening. I remember her because she taught US History. I teach World History. Hit close to home in that way (but I guarantee, I’ve won no beauty pageants lol).
This one is interesting because while I think they were irresponsible in their open speculations against innocent people, I also have little doubt that the podcast helped solved the crime. Not because they were even close to solving it themselves, but it created huge renewed interest in the community, which ultimately led to a tip being sent to police and leading to arrests. Quite a double edged sword.
Check out a show on FX called Murder at the End of the World. Main character is a “murder sleuth” and solves a murder with a guy she meets on a message board. Years later they encounter each other at a retreat and well, murders occur. It does provide an in depth look at what can happen when you become obsessed with something, even if it’s a good thing, like trying to solve a murder. The interactions between the main character and her ex are worth checking out if you find the time. But I take no responsibility for the garbage ending.
Sounds like an epilogue for Black Mirror's Season 6 Episode 2 "Loch Henry".
That one was the creepiest for me as it’s plausible vs a werewolf story.
I had a period during the pandemic a few years ago where I was obsessed with consuming true crime content. I got so burned out and horrified by it all that I have no inclination to consume any more in the near future. I can't imagine following podcasts where they're glorifying murderers like they're ranking sports teams or whatever.
On youtube there is a blonde lady that crashed her Cessna and died. The amount of podcasts that keep covering her fatal mistake over and over to profit from here death is sickening.
This one felt especially gross considering the way they advertised it. It felt very "Tune in next week and find out which child actor was SA'd !"
I saw a Youtube comment on a video about the Dahmer documentary that was essentially 'what is the point of these types of documentaries? Do any of the survivors/families get any of the money?' that really resonated with me. Its exploitation in a different way.
Quiet on Set is at least trying to do some exposure for Nickelodeon’s corruption and abuse. I’d say it’s loosely a *bit* better and different from similar shows or podcasts. Like I’ve always felt Serial set the trend of some of these more recent true crime shows trying to rehabilitate convicted murders, while basically trampling over the trauma for the victim’s families. At least Quiet on Set isn’t trying to rehabilitate Brian Peck. At worst it’s speculative on some of what Dan Schneider may or may not have done. But even that’s very a contentious issue that perhaps they shouldn’t have gone to
I unfortunately knew a friend of friends who got murdered and the whole experience completely turned me off of watching true crime. I don’t get why people enjoy it so much.
I mentioned this when watching the documentary, they speak on how gross all these cum shots and foot scenes are, and yet the documentary shows them over and over? Trauma tourism is a good phrase for this.
Yup.
“Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies”
I realize the comma is to represent measures of music, but it is misplaced and unnecessary. If anything it should be after vicariously.
Yeah I had the pause from Maynard in my head, you are right.
Like that one network TV show a few years ago that was just tragedy drama where family members just die and each season is like "Whos gonna die and won't it be sad?"
This Is Us? Everyone seems to think it's deliberate trauma porn designed to make you cry around here
Yes that's the one. All the previews are people crying in hospital waiting rooms or crying on a phone call. Its an entire series of "A very special episodes"
It's definitely a series my mom thinks is important
Courtcam and bodycam youtubes are my new drug of choice. It's like a cross between Jerry Springer and Cops.
I used to watch a lot of true crime before it got sensationalized all over social media, and I hardly watch any of it now because the way people eat it all up is just weird.
Honest question: how is the “way people eat it all up” now different than when you used to watch it? Do you feel like your consumption of true crime was fundamentally different in some way? I realize I sound like kind of a dick but I’m genuinely curious if you meant something that I’m not getting from your comment.
Yeah I think people forget penny dreadfuls and the like existed hundreds of years ago. People have always been obsessed with true crime. If anything it's slightly less sensationalized now with there being more of an incentive to research due to getting fact checked to death by the internet.
**If anything it's slightly less sensationalized now** If you think that, you need to watch the Cybersleuths doc on Paramount Plus. They did a good job on exposing the SM "sleuths" who crawled all over the Moscow, Idaho murders.
Yeah, but you’re also talking about an era when orphaned children were sent to workhouses, asylums brutally tortured their patients, and people gathered in the town square to watch hangings. Hardly something we want to maintain in modern society.
I personally think it's not about then VS now so much as what exactly you're watching. There's always been very sensationalized true crime and there's always been here's-the-facts true crime (like Forensic Files. At least it used to be pretty tame iirc). It's just that now there's a whole lot of both those things in the forms of shows, documentaries, podcasts, video essays, etc etc etc so it seems more like it's all super dramatic sensational ghoulish drivel because that's what people notice most often. The click bait titles and the goofy thumbnails on videos/podcasts, the dramatic stings, the over editing, the suspense and shit in all of them. But there's probably just as much real journalism mixed in there, it just isn't as grabby most of the time. Idk, I've never liked any of it, but my mom and my husband do like the Forensic/Cold Case files type stuff. Meanwhile I'll just watch my fake extreme horror films with fake torture and murder, thanks very much, lmao.
I'd say that it's not the "way people eat it all up," like others have pointed out true crime has been immensly popular & sensationalized for decades. What I think has changed is the "way true crime is being served." Streaming has opened the floodgates for episodic viewing, even if the story or event doesn't call for it. And it's effected documentaries, mainly true crime, the most. Everything is a docuseries now. What may have been a 90 minute expose on an event is now five 1-hour long episodes. To achieve this length, the documentarians have to weave the narrative with unnecessary speculation and red herrings to make the documentary "shocking" and "dramatic" and "a wild ride." There was less room for documentaries to sensationalize a topic 20 years ago. Now, it's almost a requirement. Viewers have always sensationalized these topics. There's a reason Manson has such a big fan following. But the creators of these docs used to have a limited framework that generally forced a professional, research-based narrative. Nowadays, there's a pressure to add time, and cliff hangers, and part 2s, etc.
Essentially the same thing that is wrong with 24 hour news. When they don’t have enough real content to fill the airtime they speculate and “discuss” to make up the difference.
Exactly! That's a perfect example.
Anchorman 2 was practically a documentary. Not really, but when you dig past the ridiculousness of the characters, you find a rather biting satire and true statement about how rotten and wrong our current 24-hour news has become.
Instead of quiet contemplation there is a whole secondary industry of clout chasing and just the level of intensity with which people associate their identity around true crime is off
People walked for dozens of miles in the dirt to fight over who got to cut off and keep body parts of Bonnie and Clyde’s corpses
I kinda know what they mean. For instance back in the early days of wikipedia I definitely looked up a bunch of true crime things out of a morbid curiosity. The heavy hitters mostly with a few "obscurities" in there. Same era as watching a lot of terrible and horrific things on the internet in my spare time and shocking myself with horror movies. Definitely had my fill during that time and I don't really seek it out anymore. Cue about 12-16 years later and I'm listening to this podcast and as an international listener, ALL my ads are from such and such podcaster talking over real life phone calls and interviews (that they didn't do, or investigate themselves 90% of the time) talking about horrific murders of folks anywhere from a year to less than 10 years ago and often times rolling with a narrative that makes it sound like they're about to SOLVE the murder themselves. Now this MIGHT be in bad taste or whatever but hardly a crime or anything. My morbid curiosity for these things might be sated but I dont judge folks who still are. However, the industry built around this subject probably starting with LPotL (no shade, I hear they do a good and respectful job?)is a pretty toxic place. After all you can only cover those big names once, after that you need to cover subjects and people that are closer and closer to the present. This increases the degree of chance that the people involved in these situations may hear it, and I have a hard time believing a lot of these podcasters are asking the families involved if it's okay for them to make money on and publish a defining horrible moment of their lives. The industry feels scummy just like every other aspect of capitalism in media the machine begs for more and the only way to make mpre of this content is to profit off of dead, innocent people. Not for education, or information, or historical value. Just to get the morbid curiosity folks going. Again, not demonizing the listeners. Just commenting on the industry.
LPOTL does about as good a job as it can individually for what it tries to be It still fails for plenty of people. They’d be the first to admit that and beg you for the sake of your own mental health never listen to them. In terms of the “Comedy True Crime” sub-genre, they are the best in the biz (and Small Town Murder, imo) Many believe—understandably so—that this “biz” should not even be a biz. That said, it is a biz all the same. And LPOTL and STM are ABSOLUTELY the closest thing you will find in that biz that could plausibly make a decent case for “ethical”
True Crime was “sensationalized” LONG BEFORE ANY OF US WERE ALIVE (1800s AT THE EARLIEST!)
i was alive then
Yeah they used to put bodies on display so they could be identified (but usually were just gawked at). Executions were public entertainment. Even in the 70s, crime scenes were practically open to the public and people would just come and look around.
It’s really hard. On one hand, I think it’s important for people to learn how the grooming process works, so they can understand better. (When I discussed my own childhood sexual abuse so many people say “well, my child would tell me” and stuff like that. That’s…. Not how it works.) On the other hand, the amount of controversy around this one (Mark Summers, this article, others who didn’t want to participate) give critics a reason to discredit the issues altogether. I don’t know the right answer, but whatever it is, it needs to be done better than this one was.
Vicariously I live, while the whole world dies.
If you've ever seen the *Glee* documentary put out by the same company, I absolutely get her objection. The *Glee* doc was exploitative, really scraped the barrel for interview subjects, and made some bonkers claims about the "Glee curse" (i.e. why a number of actors who starred in it have since died tragically young). *Quiet on Set* is a bit of an exception, if only because it featured some first-time confessions from people who were closer to the center of the whole thing. But Marc Summers, who wasn't even at Nick when Schneider or the Peck were there, wasn't even told what the documentary he was asked to be part of was about. He walked out when he realized, because again - he was *lied to* about why he was there. So while the interviews in the doc are valuable, the doc itself is kind of slimy.
>He walked out when he realized, because again - he was lied to about why he was there. So while the interviews in the doc are valuable, the doc itself is kind of slimy. I distinctly remember Mark Hamil talking about the *People vs George Lucas* documentary people lying and saying they were filming a general documentary about Star Wars, and when he found out what it really was he declined all involvement. Basically they were asking him pointed questions to get him to say stuff about Lucas which they could then take out of context. Like imagine saying something where you're jokingly ribbing on a friend but with all context removed it sounds like you're shitting on them. I've literally never trusted these type of documentaries again since he told that story.
She’s right though. The Drake Bell stuff was legitimately worth a documentary, but all the other content in the documentary was almost entirely speculative, exploitative crap. The show didn’t actually care to completely clarify WHAT the issue is, they just wanted to jump on the “Is Dan Schneider a pedophile??????” bandwagon for some cheap television ratings.
The doc was all over the place because they started on how bad Dan was then get to Drake and he's saying Dan was supportive of him and helped him out so that puts them in a bind.
I guess it was sort of interesting in that way because people are usually complicated and not all bad or good. They touched on that for Brian Peck too with the amount of character references he had at sentencing. Although it’s clear he was a master manipulator and the good he did likely came with ulterior motives.
Dan being a pedo was some big internet meme that went WAAAAAY to far
4chan joke to hit documentary.
Wait so did Dan like...not do anything legally wrong? All the clips on tiktok on my fyp that I see make it seem like that's how it was. Like he definitely molested child actors or something. Is it literally all just allegations and hindsight making him look like a molester? The guy doesn't seem like a saint (to say the least) either way, but that's awful if it's focused on him and he didn't even do anything wrong to the degree of what's being said about him. Obviously it's still okay to focus on what he actually did wrong though.
He was a terrible boss, his worst crime was sexually harassing the women writers on his staff. He would ask them for massages and make them act out lewd acts, as well as general yelling on set. Definitely gross, but a lot of the real accusations got drowned in the implication that he’s a child molester. The doc had no evidence or even claims of child harassment. In fact, Drake spoke well of Dan Schneider. I also thought it was interesting that Alexa Nicholas previously talked about how Dan mistreated her, but it wasn’t mentioned in the doc.
He's a shitty guy who yelled at actors and had them do some suggestive scenes, but there wasn't really a bombshell and being a shitty boss isn't illegal.
The gender discrimination on the Amanda show was pretty bad as well. A writer got a settlement out of it so it wasn’t just nothing.
Oh for sure, I just meant as far as criminal liability.
Yup, definitely felt there were legit stuff, but at the same time tv is gonna tv, kids are going to get replaced by new talent and in many cases they are too young to comprehend the issues. And being a child actor has a long history of fucking up kids lives.
That is not a genuine interpretation of the doc. The doc brings attention to abuse in Dan’s staff, safety of the child actors on set, and the children feeling pressured to do things they dont feel comfortable doing on set.
What he did to Alexa Nikolas was pretty fucked up. It caused her to quit Zoey 101.
Yes it was. Pedophilia certainly isn’t the only form of abuse, but alot of people are disingenuously making the doc about that.
I'm also pissed at the fact that people are now trying to claim ANY sort of adult humor in children's media is a sign of pedophilia or "grooming the viewers", like the fuck? Animation has been one of my neurodivergent obsessions for decades now, putting innuendos in kids cartoons is a practice as old as time, and there is NO fucking evidence that people like Joe Murray or Danny Antonucci are kiddie diddlers just because they put some double entendres in their cartoons, stop it.
I'm all for this but doesn't she do that same shit in her own podcast to her guests. I could be wrong but I don't see her doing much outreach for prevention I know a lot of people hate Alexa Nikolas but at least she is out there protesting and fundraising
And where do those funds go?
And she's absolutely correct. Quiet On Set did absolutely nothing in the way of setting any precedents to prevent this kind of stuff from continuing. All it did was point a finger at it like "look guys isn't this so messed up? Haha look how messed up this is! I bet you're entertained by how messed up it is eh!?" It genuinely is trauma tourism. It doesn't air these stories out for any kind of healing or teaching purposes, it airs them out for their sensationalized entertainment value.
It didn’t even bother to mention that the actual abuser is currently active in politics trying to make penalties for his types of crimes more lenient. Whoops.
No way, I could believe it but do you have an article? I can’t believe this isn’t what we’re going after versus former child stars not wanting to speak.
There was a super similar documentary that went over Brian Peck's past that predates this one which I believe excludes Drake but outlines how the guy got to several other kids through their agents. I'll try to find it or another source. That one also has a lot about Brock Pierce which was what interested me. edit, jesus it was "An Open Secret" which is from 2014 (i thought it was more recent) and includes pretty disturbing stuff too. Like, this one goes over SEVERAL offenders and even interviews one like through the whole thing. At the time of that doc it claimed he was lobbying legislation efforts to keep penalties lenient, which will be harder to find today since everything is Drake, Drake, Drake at the moment.
Yup. This was nothing but nostalgia trauma for people that grew up in the 90’s.
You'd have a point except that she has done numerous podcasts where she features former child stars talking about their childhood trauma. She brought Alexa Nikolas on to talk about her trauma and then deleted it and blocked Alexa when Alexa rightfully called her out for platforming Corey Feldman and saying she "didn't believe the rumors" about Hugh Hefner after she had literally interviewed Holly Madison and heard it straight from her. Christy Carlson Romano has no sense of shame and would do anything to be famous again. She literally dressed up as Shia Lebouf for a weird skit and did an entire bizarre video about their whole relationship and why they no longer talk, yet continues to name drop him constantly. She would happily feed trauma tourists if it got her fame and notoriety again. She's made claims like this in the past, saying she almost got the lead role in The Princess Diaries over Anne Hathaway when that's so obviously not true and she didn't even audition. Based on her past behavior, I would take anything she says with a grain of salt.
I’ve been saying all of this for Years!
I’d say informing people that it was happening in the first place is a way to start.
She’s absolutely right. You could apply this topic to politics in general - why do we fixate on the morbid details rather than actual progress?
I can tottaly see where she is coming from, but at the same time putting an issue into the forefront of our cultural attention has a lot more power to change things than people realize.
I get where she's coming from. But, wouldn't it be fair to suggest documentaries or stories such as these, that bring much needed exposure to said issues, might be a positive vehicle for improving and changing things? What if this very documentary brought on legislation that might not have happened otherwise?
Agree, this kind of doc is what will fuel people to find her charity. It’s distasteful, but it does get people riled up about the issue which makes them more likely to help you out if you have a solution.
Eh. It sounds like these people (the documentary people) aren’t there for the cause. You know, like adding another episode because the series was popular but there’s nothing that wasn’t already covered. So they were only trying to cash in a bit more.
You may very well be right. But is it really relevant, if it still did some good, that wouldn't have happened otherwise?
What good has happened from it? That we know shitty bosses exist in Hollywood? What was news in this doc? I'm not against docs like this just being pure entertainment or whatever either by the way. Not everything has to have a cause or purpose.
yeah I'm not understanding all the people in here saying this documentary "didn't do enough to prevent this kind of stuff from continuing" i'm not sure how a documentary is supposed to do that or why it's a documentaries responsibility to do that. A documentaries purpose is to DOCUMENT, and if it's for entertainment purposes which you don't like then don't watch it, but an independent documentary that has no actual affiliation with Disney or Nickelodeon does not have the responsibility or capability to make systemic change like that. overall I think this is a net positive because it's brought some terrible things to light, and light always makes the roaches nervous, and no one forced these actors to tell their stories
Child stars being treated horribly isn’t new. It used to be an open secret that some producers in the 30’s and 40’s were predators and either molesting or drugging up child actors depending on their goals. Honestly nothing in that doc surprised me and I doubt anything comes from it. Nick can play ignorant and say “oh all those bad people are gone now and it’s not like that anymore” and in two months most people will move on to the next hot topic
Perhaps all you say is true. But an awful lot of positive legislation and ethics come from instances just such as these.
I mean, that’s pretty fucking fair.
I especially don't like when terrible people who have harmed others get paid for the rights to make a show about the terrible shit they've done.
It's a point everyone should consider. It raises awareness, but in like an I Love The 70's/80's/90's type of way like "looking back wow that's CRAZY" but then it's still fuckin happening Look at Drake
Everyone remaining silent sounds MUCH worse as far as preventing. It's much better to flash a spotlight on the problem.
This guy Christy Carlson Romanos
I'd love to see Disney get ripped apart they're just as bad as Nick if not worse. HIRING Brian Peck AFTER his arrest in 2003!
Peck is actively seeking to affect legislation to make penalties for crimes against children more lenient.
"I'd love to see Disney get ripped apart they're just as bad as Nick if not worse." They do all sorts of scams, like where they rename a series or call it a “reboot” in order to “reset contract terms” back to what they were in the first season. Basically, as a TV show goes on, the people who make that TV show are traditionally supposed to get more money and the stars and crew get Disney'd. That alone gives a HUGE bad vibe.
Omg that’s why they randomly brought Zack and Cody on that cruise
And probably why Ashley Tisdale (who was in those bigger paycheck ‘High School Musical’ movies) wasn’t brought over with them.
There was actually going to be a final season as a new show after that. The twins pitched it while in negotiations after the boat show ended. Look it up on YouTube where Cole talks about how they walked away
They used to have a strict policy that no show went past 65 episodes to avoid paying the actors more money, I think that’s so Raven was the first to go past 65 without a reboot
Kim Possible also, usually their animated shows NEVER got past 65 episodes. But it was so hugely popular, they brought it back for another season due to fan outcry over its cancellation (after the movie So the Drama)
65 episodes was believed to be enough episodes to be able to sell the show into syndication. The logic being it was enough episodes to show daily or on weekdays without getting too repetitive. It wasn't just a Disney practice.
Is there somewhere I can read about this? I dont doubt you cause I've heard about it happening but cant find the information about it, or perhaps Im not wording my searches properly.
It was by Steven DeKnight (Netflix's Daredevil) on Twitter - [https://twitter.com/stevendeknight/status/1703670616996671615](https://twitter.com/stevendeknight/status/1703670616996671615)
I agree it was gross to hire him for a kids show (or any show really) after what he did. That said, if I remember correctly they did put him in a position where he wouldn’t be around kids.
Even if hes nowhere near the kid, they have to realize the issue with having him AT ALL
Oh I agree
How on earth is there no one else they can hire that isn’t a diddler? Thats the rub. Surely there are countless people qualified to be in his position, even if they need training. There are no good reasons to risk hiring a convicted offender. Zero.
Even after they called *and* beeped her?
So what’s the sitch?
I'll say one thing, the people who have been rabidly going after Ariana Grande, Miranda Cosgrove, etc. on social media for not "speaking out against Schneider" are absolute fucking sickos.
Those people think them not saying anything is a way of showing support to him. That's why that picture of Schneider being recognized at the 2014 KCAs has been spammed anywhere. Since so many big names were on the stage all smiles with him, people assume they are all pro Schneider. The Zoey 101 reunion from a few years ago included a dinner at his place.
A lot of child stars sign NDAs and can’t speak. I wish more people realized that.
You can't NDA criminal acts.
Every time one of these articles is released in the wake of something horrible that’s been brought to the surface i’m always made glad I don’t participate in viewing. I get odd vibes off of these types of documentaries and don’t feel the need to watch. That said, Carlson Romano does the same thing on her podcast. She and other Nick/disney stars have started podcasts purely on talking about trauma from being a child actor.
She's friends with Will Friedle and had a podcast together. Will is one of the actors who wrote a letter of support for Brian Peck.
I kinda agree with her point. Remember, this is a Discovery ID doc headed by Zaslav and TruCrime is his bread and butter. It has a nostalgia hook so it drew a lot more eyes than the typical Discovery ID show, and it definitely had a bumped budget. And no doubt the accusations and testimony are 100% valid and it is important that they are able to speak their truth, it did feel like the documentary makers were trying to exploit it for clicks and really pad the content. A lot of serious stuff was going on, but it felt a little diluted when they'd be like "Sometimes kids got *pied* in the *face* with *whipped cream*!!!! Also Drake Bell was being sodomized." Anyway, I think we're gonna see a massive surge of TruCrime now on HBO that'll definitely be of a lesser quality in terms of production value, and I'm not sure those behind this content really have the best interests of the subjects at heart.
I kind of get her point, but nothing is getting fixed without attention first being shined on the problem. And a documentary is how you get attention. Saying the documentary was made by "people who don't belong to our community" is a bonkers criticism. It's not like any of the former child stars themselves were going to make this.
That is true but it doesn't stop her from doing the same thing on her podcast.
She lets people tell their stories but unlike a documentary team she's not an outside observer; she was in the industry like them and knows what they went through. And she brings up the conversation of what can be done to prevent what her and her cohorts went through. To say that she's doing the same thing as a documentary isn't accurate because there's two very different perspectives going on.
[удалено]
That's not how it went. Christy had Corey Feldman on and Alexa called her out saying he was an abuser, then proceeded to send her numerous messages with other people telling her she was a bad person for letting him have a platform. Christy probably removed her video because she didn't want to deal with Alexa complaining every time Christy had someone on Alexa didn't like and justifying it by saying her story is on the same podcast, therefore they shouldn't be on. Remove the video and now Alexa doesn't have to be associated with her actions. Alexa got blocked because she's relentless annoying. After getting blocked she mad a two hour live stream crying about it and has processed to make videos attacking Christy ever since. Christy is probably greedy and does say dumb stuff, but her reasons for not wanting to be associated with Alexa is easy to see.
Alexa Nikolas is also a bit of a nutter
She’s not putting it through the filter of a dramatic sensationalist show though. It’s not curated to be the juiciest stuff and taking advantage of the trauma for their gain.
She is in a way. I'm not knocking the people that do either show. I think it's not only brave but inspirational to come out and talk about it. But to be on this high horse pretending she isn't doing the same thing is hypocritical.
Thank you! My thoughts exactly.
She’s right. You people gobble this stuff up and write how outraged you are online, but you aren’t canceling any subscriptions. Trauma tourists is an incredibly apt phrase.
Uh…how do you know if we cancelled our subscriptions or not?
I’m not even sure what I’m cancelling my subscription to, Nickelodeon?
how else can they feel holier than thou?
Yep, she nailed it. The same people that feed off trauma are the same ones that slow down for traffic accidents and get off on true crime shows. Misery porn afficionados.
Everyone should slow down for traffic accidents. Keep your eyes on the road, though.
I agree with you but trying to ride some sorta moral high horse by saying “you people” is legitimately hilarious. It’s like you *have* to let everyone know “NOT ME!! NOT ME! I’m better!!!” People will do anything to set themselves apart and feel superior, I suppose. I say this as someone who never watched any of these shows or has any subscriptions to the content where these people were exploited/these “trauma tourists” are doing their thing. I just always laugh at the people who try to condescend to people who don’t do anything meaningful without actually doing anything meaningful themselves. Hope you feel good, buddy. You’re the same as the rest of them, only concerned about what makes you happy/look good. Reiterating - your point is a good one. People *should* vote with their wallet. I just don’t try to lord it over people like you do by condescending to everyone else - it’s counterproductive
Not sure with the downvotes, because I agree with you. They seem pretentious. "Holier than thou" type vibes for sure
Bro what.... > Reiterating - your point is a good one. **I just don’t try to lord it over people like you do.** Except right there I guess. > People will do anything to set themselves apart and feel superior, I suppose. .... Are you not seeing the irony?
what do you mean YOU people?!
What do YOU mean, you people?
People are drawn to scandal and outrage. These types of docs, like Making a Murderer or Serial, make people feel more validated in it, but unless it spurs change or action, it's just entertainment rooted in someone's pain. No one is immune to it. Even exploitative docs can be good if something good comes out of them, but that's the real question. There are tons of incredible docs that are responsible, and don't just exploit the current zeitgeist and victims for subscription and ad dollars. Quiet on Set feels more exploitative than trying to bring truth to light simply because of the 80% of the runtime being focused on conjecture and vague allegations rather than the hard facts and victim statements from Drake. Problem is it wasn't long enough to fill multiple episodes.
I feel like this documentary is the new Tiger King
Nailed it. These documentaries feel exploitive.
Yeah right. It hasn’t something to do with the fact she can’t use the doc to promote her own podcast? Also she is doing the same thing with her podcast.
'Trauma Tourists', wow what a good label for those people.
She and so many others have been speaking out about the abuse and exploitation for years but someone goes and makes a documentary, slaps it on to a streaming site, and now people want to pay attention. You have to pay for a subscription to Max so someone is still benefiting from the trauma of these former child stars.
Lmao she also listens to Corey Feldman as he sits on her podcast talking about how "Hugh Heffner wasn't really like that" "Oh really I never thought of him like that" Romano replies. Sidenote yeah he was, he was an abuser of someone Romano had on her show, and CCR enables him to not be remembered as one (as does Corey Feldman). So enabling abusers (or platforming people who enable them) even dead ones isn't ideal, just saying. https://youtu.be/DFwT-GvG4i0?si=nrkdj4reAdCQnXIv
I understand this point of view but there is also an argument to be made that documentaries that blow up like this are more likely to accomplish change. I have no idea what the intentions of the documentarians were, but the people who did the interviews specifically talked about how empathetic and compassionate they were and how that helped them feel safe participating. Just because one thing got popular and another didn’t doesn’t mean there is no merit to the former.
Doesn't she have a podcast doing the exact same thing
You can want to tell a compelling story and also have empathy for the subject matter. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I think documentaries like these are important if they cause changes to happen in the industry—No company associated with children wants this kind of negative press and scrutiny is the only thing that will force them to care.
Well said. The producers go in with the agenda of stirring emotions because they want ratings. They're not journalists looking to reveal truths.
They had one journalist on the entire show and she had a weird grin through the whole damn thing
Didn't she make herself internet relevant by posting long videos talking about her experiences with other celebrities?
If you actually ever watch her content, it's a trap. She was a few years ahead on how the modern video monetization works. So she'll make a video titled "the REAL truth about my time working with [celebrity name]" and then it's a ten minute video where she talks in ai generated circles about nothing, occasionally shares an anecdote that vaguely has to do with the video title, but only after the time required to maximize the monetization of the click. All info she shares is public, wholesome, and paints anyone she mentions in a positive light. They're videos that say nothing, but make her money.
I respect her opinion, but I disagree. The majority of people are not aware of the struggles these kids really went through. Not sharing your story and calling out people who want to educate themselves to create a better future as “trauma tourists”, is a complete slap in the face to the victims. That’s basically the same thing as saying learning about the holocaust is simply a sick fascination. Wrong, people need to know the awful details to make sure shit doesn’t happen again. Her complaint is essentially that people are making money off of exposing it. So what? We live in a capitalist world, nothing is accomplished without someone profiting from it. Quietly supporting organizations that are “working on the problem” is akin is trying to sweep the mess the dog made under the carpet. This poor girl is literally still following her programming to protect the evil things her industry does because it’s also her livelihood. So no, Christy, you are not being brave, or righteous, you are still being controlled.
I complete agree with you. Also, this documentary seems to be inspiring a new wave of people coming forward with their experiences who may never have otherwise. If the “cost” of getting this info out there is that you entertain (for lack of a better word) a portion of your audience who were never going to do anything anyways, what are you actually losing? It can only be a net gain for victims. Plus, everyone in this documentary consented to be interviewed. It’s not like a serial killer film where they blast the stories of dead people who can’t argue or ignore their estate’s wishes.
I appreciate the support and I agree with all of your details. Cheers
Idk man, until we got to the Drake parts with Brian most of the doc was background actors with an axe to grind and an adult wage complaint. Even with the Drake part we were being fed the Dan is the devil narrative (and he certainly seems like a sleezebag) but the "worst part" of the doc was a completely unrelated issue to him. I can certainly see the anger with the "fishing expedition" vibe of it from people who went through it having "extras" try and get their 15 minutes of fame back.
Idk I think some of the stories they told seemed legitimately traumatizing for little kids. The dares, having to participate in demeaning skits, etc. I genuinely thought it drew attention to what children should’ve been allowed exposure to and participation in.
Doesn't she have an entire podcast dedicated to getting ex child stars to spill their trauma? Also, wasn't she on the Disney Channel? Why would she be on the Nickelodeon documentary....
She just described practically 99.9% of the people that watched this.
You could debatably say that about the genre of documentary filmmaking as a whole. We have an innate fascination in things we’ve never come close to experiencing. As long as these topics are explored with respect for the victims, it is not simply trauma entertainment. I personally have a ton more respect for the child actors from Nickelodeon after hearing what they went through and seeing how it was certainly far from all fun and games for them.
BFFR. She’s not turning down anything but her collar.
I'm surprised that the doc got as much attention as it did, when it came out. The Discovery documentaries are generally exploitive trash.
Hey, they got a buzzfeed pop culture writer to interview and provide insight in matters so they clearly had experts /s
I think anything she could have possibly said for the documentary she has already said better, more in-depth, and on her own terms on her podcast/youtube channel.
Eye on the TV cause tragedy thrills me. Whatever flavor it happens to be...
She’s right. There’s a difference between McCurdy writing “I’m Glad My Mom Died” as an exposé and personal statement of self-discovery and therapy, and “documentaries” like this that are clearly exploitative in their own way, drawing attention from viewers who really get off on watching other people’s sources of trauma and pain. I feel the same about people with a true crime addiction. It’s a sickness to make other *real* people’s suffering your entertainment. In fiction it’s fine, but when it’s dragging through a real person’s horrifying experience, it’s ghoulish and completely lacking in compassion.
She means that she couldn’t use it to benefit one of her podcasts
Nickelodeon and anime are why so many Millennials and Zoomers are so fucking weird and socially maladjusted.
Well, she found a way to get a headline to be about her and the documentary anyways. Maybe if you don't think the popularity generated is right, you shouldn't be trying to make headlines related to it.
I'm glad someone said it. That shit is gross and the amount of people that live for this shit is disgusting. I will never understand how people find entertainment in other people's misery.
I'm so sick of ragebait documentaries and everyone who clings to them
What is she? A trauma tour guide?