Is Neil Gaiman really a Monster? | The future of GOOD OMENS | picture and video edit
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- #neilgaiman #goodomens #goodomens2
After some negative, partly hateful and irritating social media posts about Neil Gaiman I just wanted to publish a different point of view. So, this video is a pro statement to the co-author of the GOOD OMENS book and showrunner of the TV adaption. Doing this is important for me, because in my personal opinion Neil is wronged. And I hope I can put some things right. Because in the end, we want to happen season three, right?
PLEASE COMMENT FAIR!
Even though this is a controversial topic, I would like to ask for fairness. In the interest of all fair comments, I will prevent troll entries and any form of insult in comments or replies. Therefore, I first check all entries before approval and reserve the right to remove unfair or offensive comments and replies, or to report them according to TH-cam guidelines. So, please understand that your comment may appear with a time delay.
Made by BP Artwork
Music:
Official Scene Recordings
Copyright Pictures:
Neil Gaiman
Copyright GOOD OMENS:
Prime Video
BBC Studios
Screen Scotland
Narrativia
The Blank Corporation
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for you wonderful thoughts and insights. I don’t hate Neil either and, yes, he means a lot to me. As does Terry and Good Omens. But that is not why I won’t turn on him… it is because 2 friends had their lives destroyed because of someone who lied about them and accused them of abusive behavior, which both turned out to be due to someone being vindictive. I don’t claim to know that Neilis innocent of what ever, because I don’t know him personally… and I makes me sad that so many “fans” who also don’t know him personally, have turned on him so venomously… I believe a lot of individuals are projecting their own traumas and anxieties on him… not to down play their hurts, but people need to learn to step back and not react due their knee jerk responses… I wish Neil comfort and privacy …
@@jeanninecalder3652 Thank you for your statement. You mentioned a lot of my points. For me, Good Omens and Neil are deeply linked and it won’t work to separate them. I can’t imagine that someone else will write the sequel. It won’t be the same. And unfortunately there‘re a lot of people on this planet who want to destroy other lives, for what ever reason. I also saw this happen to a good friend of mine.
I see this situation from both sides: as a survivor of SA (twice) and witnessing people's lives destroyed by vindictiveness and in one tragic case, a child tried to punish their mother by claiming the mother's brother r@ped the teenager, who in reality, by their own account had not only engaged in consensual activity, they'd encouraged it. The brother was none the less wrong, but he hadn't r@ped his sister's child. He lost his job as a police officer in a small town, was brutally beaten, ostracized, and ultimately lost his life as a realitively young man.
It is a breath of fresh air to hear a balanced and fair assessment. Most of all, the rule of law states that our right as a human being is that we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no matter Neil's admissions showing bad judgment in this matter.
@@yubantwo2086 Thank you for sharing these story’s and your fair opinion.
@@BirgitPa Thanks go to you for providing us with your thoughts and inviting us to share our own. The silence and anger against each other in this once unified and supportive community has been almost, if not, as bad as hearing the news and dealing with it in a vacuum.
@@yubantwo2086 You’re welcome. But that was more or less a selfish action, because I also hate this silence. It leaves too much room for thinking. And I thought it was about time to do something.
All this appeared out of nowhere.
Although the book was done in conjunction with Terry, the work of the show and its success is entirely Neil's creation.
I have to admit that I have not read other things by him and yet for me he is an excellent writer.
This season 2 totally changed my life and for that reason alone I thank him and the entire team that made it possible.
Now I admit that I don't make gods of famous people so to me he is just a very good writer.
I am an older person which gives me a broader vision of many things, and I want to say that until Neil is formally accused, he is another victim of this whole situation at the same level as the two women who somehow exposed their cases in a public way that I honestly don't think will benefit them in the end, it is better to do that through regular channels.
I have also been a victim of SA and emotional and psychological damage, so I understand them, but I also know people whose lives have been destroyed by defamation and intention to harm someone, and for all of the above in my personal opinion to express That Neil is a monster, that not only him but also a wonderful creation like GO must be destroyed is not correct.
When and if that happens and he is brought before a court of law at that moment I will wait for the sentence not a minute before.
And it is important to separate the idea of Neil's supposed to be a "monster" (remember IMPORTANT every accused person is considered innocent until proven otherwise) from GO.
Thank you for your bravery and for allowing us this space to express our opinions.
I love this show so much and i know as Gabriel said S2.01 min 18.49
"Well then it will be fine.
Most things are fine at the end"
@@isabelpineiroalfaro7915 Wonderful and detailed comment. Thank you so much,that you had the bravery to post your opinion.
I agree 💯 and am also an SA, survivor having been abused by a family member and a man of the cloth by age 15.
I also know dear friends whose lives have been destroyed by the vindictiveness of someone, it was later discovered had misrepresented and lied.
How people can throw someone overboard but more egregious to throw the work overboard without a fair trial.
Even then, we have highways today thanks to Hitler's regime among medical, ill-gotten advancements, obtained in deplorable, unthinkable ways. The work does stand separately from its creator. There are a plethora of examples of good fruits coming from bad or questionable people. Life is complicated and requires of us to weigh each situation according to facts, not feelings.
I'd recommend The Ocean at the End of the Lane, and also Neverwhere, if you want to read any others. .
@@ericamacs3875 Thanks allot
You are equating talent to innocence. You want people to stop seeing this situation in black or white, however you are doing just that. You refuse to recognize Neil Gaiman's faults as being factual because he created something that is dear to you. He created something that I find beautiful, therefore he *must* be faultless. You can still enjoy his works. No one has said that you can't (maybe there are some people who did say that, but here I am stating the opposite.). I am as much of a Good Omens fan as everyone else, and I didn't take the news well, as did many others. I felt betrayed, disappointed, you name it. But then I realized that putting my own feelings as a fan of one man's work above his victims' feelings is not the right way to go about stuff. I am continuing to enjoy Good Omens and interact with the fandom while recognizing the creator's faults.
@@magnolia7212 Thank you for your comment. Everyone has to deal with the situation in his own way, no question. But the main important thing is the ongoing of Good Omens, right? Actually I don’t see this happen.
I don't think anyone is refusing to recognize Neil's faults, neither the ones he's admitted to, nor the ones he is being accused of. The point is that his faults in his private life do not poison or damage the art he created that so many love. We have and benefit from highways bc Hitler found a new way to move vehicles (tanks) more quickly and efficiently to better be able to rule over, incarcerate, and kill. Should the world not have adopted the advancement bc the origin had evil motivations, intentions, and outcomes? The medical experiments his regime committed on blameless people, ill-gotten, to say the least, ended up helping humanity. Those facts do not justify the crimes committed by any means. They do, however, mean that throwing the baby out with the bath water is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Lastly, but most importantly, Neil, like you, me, and all of humanity, deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty while at the same time having compassion for those struggling with the effects of their experiences.
@@BirgitPa the main thing is a TV series? Yikes. And I like the show but that's not what really matters. What matters, is the women he abused.
@@terpsichorenthalia Yes, that is the topic of my video. I‘m not a judge and Neil isn’t finally convinced!
Out of respect both for Neil and for those who felt victimized in this matter, I will not express a judgment on the facts reported by the media, I know I don't know. But I know I keep asking myself one question: why now? These shadows, these accusations, these facts, reported by the media with fury shortly after the debate (including political) successfully opened by GO on important social issues that we all know: why these facts, right now? I don't know about you but I see an answer.
@@morgana7116 You put it very diplomatically. That’s more or less how I feel.
@@BirgitPa Yeah.. diplomacy is the only way I know to be fair to everyone. But you know me, you know that I have always respected Neil, and there have never been any alarms or shadows. My trust, oh BP my dear friend, does not collapse at the first hint of a problem. And as said, I keep asking myself that question.
P.s: in the video you say that angels don't exist, why not, of course they exist: me! 😃 ihihi I send you a big big BIG hug.
@@morgana7116 Thank you wee angel❣️ And I was very happy to see you here in the comments and much more happy that you‘re not turning away. I knew it was a risk to publish this video, but I had to. I think we all must do something to save GO. I think many people aren’t aware of the consequences, when Neil would be cast away. 🥺
@@BirgitPa I'm not going anywhere, sorry I didn't comment on the last video, it was very good. I looked at it and I put my Like from the bus, but I didn't have time to think of an adequate response, I was dedicating myself to solving an incomprehensible problem with a person (I think I failed). Anyway, have faith, I don't think season 3 will be cancelled. Maybe postponed, maybe not. We will see. There are many underground interests at play currently, beyond what can be seen. But have faith. In case, I'll interpret it and I'll send you the video!! Eh eh.. right. Come on, don't be sad. And you did well to address the topic. You're brave, kind, intelligent and loyal, BP. This is worth more than any TV series.
@@morgana7116 ❤️❤️❤️🙏
I appreciate your courage in directly addressing this topic. Good Omens is not only a beloved show, but it has made tremendous positive contributions towards cultural acceptance of people who are often attacked and marginalized. There is a risk that if Gaiman is cancelled, so might Good Omens be. I know what it is to be silenced, and I support the women he hurt. But I am also extremely concerned that there is an unspoken larger agenda in the timing of the release of the allegations, one that hopes to silence Transgender voices, and their allies.
I am not suggesting the women should not be believed. I am suggesting that there are those who might be willing to use their pain as a weapon in a cultural and political battle about the dignity and rights of transgender women. The journalistic source, and the events coinciding with the timing of the podcast’s release (including David’s advocacy and the political storm it triggered) seem more than accidental, and I recommend that people also look into that. It is important to be aware of all the layers that this terrible issue impacts, when deciding how to be part of it.
Because everyone who publicly contributes to this conversation, in any forum, becomes part of the decision that Prime will ultimately make about whether it is “worth it” to them to continue Season 3. Our voices cannot influence whether Gaiman is eventually proved guilty or not. But our voices may very likely influence whether Good Omens gets silenced. And there is too much good that this show gives to the world- I don’t want to silence one set of victims in order to support another. I wish it were not such a chess game, but I fear that is what is in play, and I dread seeing checkmate.
@@lisa_wistfulone7957 That’s the spirit! Thank you so much for your comment. You’re mentioned very touching and sensitive aspects. I agree, that the whole unfortunate story is much more complicated when you give it a deeper view. I hope, that doesn’t costs us GO in the end and of course, that Neil gets out of this disaster not to much destroyed.
I couldn’t possibly have said this so eloquently so I appreciate what you have written here. I don’t disbelieve the women at all. People are free to turn their backs on Neil and the show. But he hasn’t been convicted of anything so I believe it would be a travesty for prime to cancel it.
Thank you. You are very brave and honest. And you DID understand the message of Good Omens (unlike the most part of the fandom 🤦♀️😒)
Thank you, very kind❣️
Thank you! I met Neil at a book signing, and the vibe I got from him was one of integrity, sensitivity, respect, humour... the opposite of the "monster" so many now perceive him to be. Of course, that's only my perception, and I could be wrong... but so could they. An allegation is just that. Subsequent allegations are NOT evidence. Anyway, Good Omens is quality, don't blame the book - books are people too (Ok, maybe not, but it did choose Neil and Terry to write it, and they did an excellent job, regardless of anything else). It is said a lie goes round the world 7 times before the Truth gets its boots on. Let's stop making assumptions and we will see...
These are true words! Thank you for your comment. What you described is exactly the impression I got from Neil. I also agree that the truth will come out one day. And indeed “books are like people, only portable.“ 😉
If you feel that season 3 might be in jeopardy, what about rewatching season 1 and 2 to show Amazon that fans didn't abandon the show and that there is still interest and support for it?
@@proximashining776 Not sure, if that is a question for me personally? 😀 But of course you can’t know. I‘m watching season one and two over and over for nearly one year. Last time yesterday, next time tomorrow… But this is a very good point!
@@proximashining776 definitely something that might help support the future of the show!
@@proximashining776 i keep watching it, I'm not going to stop watching something I love just because others tell me to stop.
I think that under the circumstances the best course of action for Michael and David is exactly what they are doing at the moment they can't talk about Neil or about what happened.
@@isabelpineiroalfaro7915 Otherwise they’ll get also in the line of fire.
Here’s the thing: what Neil has admitted to is bad enough. But setting aside anything else, him hitting on his barely legal employee makes him not a nice guy.
But -again- here’s the thing- Good Omens is far more than just Neil. The fandom is much more than just Neil. He’s the seed; one of the inventors of the universe, and without him there’s no S3. I am 73; also a survivor of sa and also reconciling my love for the series and the fandom with my awareness than men too often think withe the wrong head. It’s the nature of most of them.
I don’t hate Neil. He’s a guy. Guys who get power do this, so often. But he’s a good writer, and he’s one of the few cis, straight men who get us queers. And since I want that particular universe to continue, I’m not throwing out the franchise just because the man behind it is not particularly nice in his character, or that part of it.
I didn’t like Harlan Ellison, personally, either, whose “feminist principles “ were performative and in my opinion a way to get laid. But he was quite possibly the greatest writer of our generation. Knowing he was at heart a misogynist didn’t diminish my enjoyment of his body of work.
It is the same for Neil. He’s not a saint. He’s not a monster. He’s a man. I may decide I don’t like the man. But I do love his work.
@@Starshadow This are true words. Thank you for your comment and that you put some exciting aspects into the discussion.
And the women are what innocent? There are two ppl involved in the action, so it's not fair to always put a blame on the guy. None of us were there with them, it's a he said she said situation
@@pavlabrisudova4251 That's the point. Thanks for your statement!
@@BirgitPa It seems like another "witch hunt" to me, which is quite popular these days and it's getting ridiculous. If those women slept with him and now saying otherwise to change the narrative, then I don't feel for them even a little bit, as that actually hurts ppl who have been assaulted but if they were hurt, the action should not include spreading gossip all over the media, they should report him and start a proper investigation
@@pavlabrisudova4251 Well, who knows what their real motives are. Unfortunately, Neil's reputation is already damaged, whatever the outcome.
In addition to the clips you show at the end, I'd like to add an oft-quoted scene from one of Terry Pratchett's novels which basically says there is only one sin, and that is treating people as objects. I agree with the post above that simply by what we do know, Neil has "sinned very bigly." Hate and Monster may be extreme words, but we cannot ignore or condone what he admittedly has done, not just what he is accused of.
Importantly, I think the requests that he step away from Good Omens 3 is actually about saving it from being scrapped. The story is still his. The scripts are paid for and (mostly?) written. The real question is whether cast and crew will feel comfortable working under him, whether Amazon believes its bottom line will or brand will be damaged by ignoring the accusations, and whether the less-devoted audience will feel they can enjoy it without bringing on themselves some kind of moral taint. The best compromise I can see is if Gaiman steps away as showrunner. It is probably the best scenario for everyone involved.
Regardless of what any individual believes about Neil Gaiman, Amazon has to contend with the reality of a plurality of opinions -- and the easiest choice Amazon can make to protect its bottom line and brand is to scrap the show. It hasn't even started filming. What is the easiest course for Amazon is the worst outcome for fans. So we should support any choice that allows the show to move forward in 2024 with Neil's scripts, including having him step away from overseeing its production. (My opinion, obviously.)
Glad fans are having this conversation in a civil way.
@@Alrischa-pisces Thank you for your detailed comment. Unfortunately there‘s no official statement from Amazon so far. Don’t know, if this a good or a bad sign. Also nor David or Michael have said a word on this complete drama since it came up. Therefore I would be very careful to say, that they might not work again with Neil. I‘m pretty sure they talked about it with Neil and have their very own opinion that is not influenced by any media.
Sadly, if Neil Gaiman is forced to step away from GO 3 then the series will be cancelled. He owns the intellectual property and the show cannot be made without his participation.
I'm quiet sure, that they'll find a good solution to carry on. Fortunately not too many people turned away from GO, so it's still in the main interest. Let's think in an positive direction.
I feel like you focused mainly on "But Good Omens ❤ Good Omens is wonderful, it changed me❤ If Neil is guilty, it affects if he can run the show..."
It doesn’t really address the title question "Is he a monster?" Yes, he has a right to do whatever in his personal life, and we needn't be privy to that, but when is private life is harming people? He's made a brand for himself being the emotionally intelligent guy who respects woman and the LGBT community and will fight for those. He's written such intelligent prose on the struggles of women...but behind his 'understanding', he's been one of the very proponents of a struggle women face.
Is hypocrisy black and white or is it gray? Is making these women feel small as he did, as he admitted to (with some softening of his own responsibility in the affairs,) black and white or gray?
What makes a man a monster? At what point do we say 'it's your personal life man- I don’t wanna know about that' and 'what have you done?' Where is it appropriate to hold someone accountable for behavior in the past, or allow that- however monsterous they were- they have changed/try to do good now/have influenced goodness in the world? A skeleton in your closet doesn't mean it's not still fleshy and rotting in someone elses.
I'll wait for the proceedings to reveal more about the issue before passing final judgment, but he's irreparably changed his legacy by how he admitted to treating his nanny at the very least, however he tried to soften his culpability. His work has unquestionable quality- he's a brilliant story teller. That's not whats in question. It's his humanity and whether he holds himself to the same virtues he preaches at others.
I agree, we have to wait until there's an official judgment. Thank you for your detailed statement.
I think you're letting your enjoyment of Neil's work blind you from seeing the things he's accused of. You say you can forgive him (if there's anything to forgive), but the first point is it's not your place to forgive Neil. You were not one of his victims. You don't have the power to forgive him for that. The second point is that I feel you downplay the severity of the situation at hand. Neil hasn't just been caught up in some scandal where he's done some questionable things. He's being accused of a crime. The problem wasn't him having s3x with younger women. The problem was that he was doing it without consent. That's called r@pe. This isn't a little thing to be brushed aside. Even if Neil's side of the story is true that still means that he was having s3xual relationships with women he was employing. That's a huge imbalance of power, and unethical on Neil's part. If the allegations are true I think Good Omens 3 should never be made by Neil if it gets made at all. Good Omens means a lot to a whole bunch of people, but Neil shouldn't be put on a pedestal. I don't blame people if this ruins their enjoyment of Good Omens, and choose to step away from that world for the foreseeable future.
@@brewster_4 Thank you for your detailed comment. However, you have mixed up some points here and put them in a different context. In particular the point about forgiveness, which only related to me personally. What bothers me is that some people think they have the right to interfere in the private lives of celebrities, which is not okay. And whether there is actually a crime here (as you meant) may have to be clarified by a court. But so far there hasn't even been an indictment. Until now it’s word against word.
Anyone should be innocent until proven guilty.
Obviously, one of Neil Gaiman's problems is by virtue signalling support for the "believe victims" campaigns of Me Too he had already established he was not a believer in "innocent until proven guilty" so some people are witholding that moral standard on the grounds that it is not a moral standard he holds. However, that is not how morality is supposed to work; it is supposed to be do unto others as you can at the same time wish was the general rule, not do unto others as they do unto others because the latter would be a race to the bottom ethical principle that would lead us all to be horrible to each other.
How about we'll let the courts and legal system try him in a court of law instead of public opinion. Whether he is guilty or not there is a correct process to go through.
@@rosebroady6618 That would be the correct way. But this would first require an indictment
@@BirgitPa so how about we stop the noise until the courts have done their thing. We don't have to like or agree with someone's life choices (including criminal) to still enjoy their work. Looking through history are an enormous amount of people who have done incredibly horrible things yet we still enjoy their work.
@@rosebroady6618 That was already discussed in the comments.
There is another channel I subscribe to which has pretty much drawn and quartered him already. My reaction to that was what you have said here.
@@beverlybrooks2736 Those channels are the reason why I posted this video.
I like the way you think. It's so rare to see a video this reasonable.
It's not our job to judge anyone. There is a proper place for that and it's called court .
I don't know him personally but unfortunely if you look closely, there are stories of non- famous people accusing famous people of such thing. So, i take it with a grain of salt.
I personally don't believe the allegations agaínst him because I think something is off.
It doesn't matter whether he is guilty or not anymore because his name and career are being tarnished which is hard but not impossible to recover from.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. To be honest I’m very enraged about how easy it is to destroy a life and career this days.
I do appreciate your views on this subject. I have felt a bit guilty about not shunning him or the series. But I don’t know all the facts. And I wouldn’t disbelieve the women. I’m so disappointed this has happened but I’m still okay with him being the show runner. Perhaps that’s selfish. I just don’t know.
@@lulu480 Good Omens makes us all a bit selfish, right? But I think it’s okay. The end justifies the means. But in general I‘m more on Neil’s side. As a professional writer I know that people are able to manipulate with their words. So, I‘m not sure if one can believe them.
The baby sitter was 40 years his junior and she was being used as a nanny. Real nannies have backgrounds in child care and often education, with agencies for support. If your client is wealthy and you are expected to travel/ live in, it's usually a very good salary. She was a baby sitter and he literally owned the roof over her head. He has admitted to digital penetration. Consent is ongoing, you can't dismiss her and everything she says, just because you like his art and she was nothing but a low level employee to your hero. People need to stop dragging the LGBTQ community into his predatory actions. He is not a Gay or Trans Batman. He just figured out how easy it was to manipulate a group for profit. Sadly, sometimes it's that simple, stop being an enabling apologist.
There are always two sides to a story and this one is yours. Obviously one that, like so many others, prejudges on the basis of unproven statements. As said in the video, there are multiple points of view. This really has nothing to do with the LGBTQ+ community. What makes you think that?
@@BirgitPa I am not replying to "her side", it's HIS own words. RollingStone is not going to print HIS rebuttal without verifying it. The lawsuit would be a slam dunk. If you are ok with exploiting anyone who is of the legal age, just say it and own it. As for your last question, look around the room FFS.
@@stellabee9670 All I want to say about this is that I don't agree with pre-judging people. And if you are referring to my video, you should understand that it isn’t LGBTQ+ related. But even though I don't personally belong to this group, I can very well understand why Neil stood up for their rights. This was my last answer to you.
@@BirgitPatwo sides of a story ? even at best he is now shown to be an extremely creepy and predatory man who targets young women, at worst he’s a r*pist. Do you think he’s actually going to tell an honest version of what events happened, he will manipulate and twist the story (like he has already done), hest not going to come and say “yes I r*ped these people”. You’re only defending him because you like his work and think he’s a good person. It’s disturbing how little empathy for victims you have. Even Gaiman himself has said “believe all women” so I think that’s what we should do.
I don't believe in trial by social media for anyone. Anyone can say anything about anyone. It doesn't make it true.
Agree !!
@@StubbyandShifu “Trial by social media” is such an accurate way to put it. Social media tends to pick up speed and spiral in on itself, until it becomes unsafe for anyone to question it.
@@StubbyandShifu Yes, that’s indeed the problem of social media. It can ruin peoples life in such a short time. But we also can use it for support.
So true. It sadly reminds me of an episode of "The Orville". It shows exactly this trial by social media, where people are literally judged and convicted based on some kind of social voting system. A case is broadcasted in the news and then anyone can just vote guilty or innocent, without knowing any facts.
@@FranziskaS6364 Appalling real. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
No matter what Neil did or didn’t do, the show wouldn’t be the same without him. Of course, this doesn’t make it right to overlook the things he’s being accused of but it makes me quite sad to see the show get associated with the situation. This show and it’s fanbase have been some of the kindest people up until this incident, a lot now being quick to turn on it. I understand why they might be hesitant to continue enjoying it, but it has a separate meaning from who it’s creator is. Sadly, the shows writing genius is under these accusations and the fate of a third season being written by someone else just seems… wrong. All I can say is that I pray he is innocent, but sometimes even smart people do dumb things. It’s what makes us human, eh?
Yes, fundamentally human, as said in Good Omens. Thank you for your comment!
I'm totally agree with you! We don't know all the facts. And I don't hate Gaiman. I have a lot of questions in this cases. And it will break my heart if his shows will be closed because of this.
I can understand your worries. But I am confident that everything will be fine in the end. There are such small signs...
@@BirgitPa Yeah, as you said, it's not even legal accusations.
I have no problem believing both sides. The women and Neil both confirm they were in a relationship and that it was consensual. The women also confirm that they consented specifically to the things they now complain about, such as rough treatment etc.
What they describe sounds like common BDSM practices to me. Not everyone's cup of tea, so no wonder they disliked it and look back at it as a bad experience.
Nevertheless the women explicitly say they consented to those practices, so it seems what Neil did was neither illegal, nor punishable by law. Funny how people loved it in works such as 50 Shades of Grey, but when a guy does it in real life, they call him a monster. What we might like in fantasy doesn't seem so great to us in reality.
Both women were quite young but still adults. Many rich men have girlfriends or wives who are decades younger and no one drags them through the dirt because of it, so no reason to do that with Neil either.
Is Neil an asshole? Most likely. Is he a monster? I doubt it. Will I stop watching Good Omens because of it or boycott season 3? Of course not.
@@proximashining776 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Thank you for your courageous statement.
@@proximashining776 I absolutely agree with you.
This really reminds me about 50 Shades Of Gray everyone went crazy about it and now the same people became judges and jury just because...
And the timing, the timing, reminds me that Neil supported David when the Tories went after him, and suddenly this appears out of nowhere this is so odd...
Yeah, I also think there is some judging historic events by modern standards; definitions of consent narrowed an awful lot around 2014 onwards and "power dynamics" started to be touted an awful lot as a reason why "it's not really consent if..." which used to be confined to siuations like boss and employee, professor and student; now it is being applied to fan and celebrity - if you go top far down the road of playing the "power dynamic" card there isn't a single relationship that is "consensual" - there is always somw sort of power dynamic - what about a divorced couple with kids in which one can prevent the other from seeing their own kids? That's definitely a power imbalance, but are we going to extrapolate from that that a divorced couple can never get back together because the power imbalance means it can never be consensual? And if we are taking "celebrity and fan" as one such verbotten relationship type are we seriously suggesting that fans never hit on celebrities or if they do a celebrity must always say no? If you say "it's not consent if you're not thinking straight", well you are not thinking straight when you're horny; imagine a world where you can only have sex when you're NOT horny! I don't think the unrelenting expansion of categories that "aren't really consent" can keep expanding until all possibility of regretted sex is eliminated because before we reach that point all possibility of sex wlll have been eliminated.
But, a lot of the details that are being used as damning evidence in this are recognosably standard features of bdsm relationships, like "he told me to call him master" - is this not at a time when 50 Shades of Gray was a bestseller? And as far as I can tell, usually the person making thr requests for bdsm scenarios is the person who wants the sub role, not the other way around. It is really quite ironic that such people with submissive fantasies call themselves "submsissives" when they are the ones making the requests. And if you read Venus in Furs, which was Masoch's semi-autobiographical seminal novel that informed the culture it is clearly the case there that Masoch's alter ego Severin is the initiator and not the supposedly dominant Wanda. The allegations seem to be relying on the broader ignorance of that culture to gain additional scandal points. But the noughties were a fashionable time for bdsm culture but the "safe word" system of ensuring consent is based on a no is no model of consent - with a "safe word" being a coded way to say "no" and mean it within what is effectively a live action role play of, what would be were it real, an abusive situation. And I suspect the no is no campaign drove the surge in popularity of bdsm, particularly for the neuroatypical, because safe words were far less ambiguous than the communications in more vanilla relationships. Now, "no is no" has been put to one side and "yes is yes" has been put in its place, and I don't think the "safe words" system can serve a "yes is yes" standard.
Bear in mind, in the 80s it was unacceptable to admit that anyone had fantasies of non-consenting scenarios, and if that had really been the case no one would be having to employ "safe words" in their bedroom LARPing. Clearly a lot of people were harbouring fantasies of non-consent at the time we had to pretend such things did not exist, because it was pragmatic to do so regardless of what the truth was.
Whether or not the allegations are warranted he is certainly the victim of schadenfreud after he had been so vocal in support of the me too movement.
I really struggle with people who in their allegations say "I thought it was consensual at the time but on hindsight..." It makes me think, well if you thought it was consensual what chance did the accused have of knowing otherwise?!? The idea they may have a better awareness of their partner's non-consent than the partner themselves is bizarre. And quite possibly the shift between believing it was consensual at the time and then coming to believe it wasn't much later is as a result of being a recipient of the new standards of definition. For example, the Ched Evans effect was that the downstream effect of Ched Evans being accused under a "too drunk to consent" standard led to many women who had had regreted sexual encounters whilst drunk to recontextualise the regretted encounter as non-consensual leading to a surge of historic allegations using a standard that didn't exist at the time the encounters occured, usually against people with no prior convictions.
I also wonder if this isn't a spearhead attempt to attack the kink community as part of the "can't consent to this" campaign, which if you read between the lines is an attempt to recriminalise bdsm (their campaign uses as its flagship concern cases where "a consensual act went wrong" is used in homicide cases to shift a murder charge to a manslaughter charge where the death was by choking, but if you read the actual demands it actually means any act that leaves a bruise can be counted as illegal even if the alleged victim testifies that it was consensual and is not pressing charges; as you may be aware an alleged victim of DV does not have to press charges for an arrest to be made and an arrest must be made if a complaint has been made even if it is not by the alleged victim, so in theory if you phone the police and say the couple next door are having a fight the police have to arrest one of them, usually the man, even if both members of the couple in question say there isn't a problem here. I am not sure the people campaigning care whether this was consensual or not, they just think it is wrong and want to stop it. The topic of consensuality is merely a rhetorical tool to justify the moral disapproval.
@@markpostgate2551 Thank you for your detailed comment and for sharing your views. It's actually a shame that you placed it as a reply and not as a new, separate comment. Interested parties will only find it by chance.
I think that you can separate his behaviours from the artwork, and that's what people mean. Not pretending he didn't create it, but just enjoying it on its own merits.
I'm disappointed with him, just because it all sounds so tedious, older blokes hitting on much younger women working for them, it's such a cliche and often seems to happen with famous men. I wish they'd learn to just behave and think for a moment, be a grown up.
IDK if he did anything illegal, and it seems to me that those types of investigations can take many months or years, so if they're filming in January, they might need a new showrunner and someone to do any script doctoring at the time.
I don't place huge credence on Rachel Johnson, she might want to explain her own brother who screwed a whole country. But if there is a crime then of course criminal justice has to happen.
I do hope that they can carry on with GO though, no matter what.
@@ericamacs3875 I unterstand. And yes, this is a very difficult situation. But I‘m generally against pre-allocating someone.
@@BirgitPa pre allocating?? What do you mean?
Do you mean to say pre judging? I agree if so, but I do think hitting on a very young employee is creepy. If nothing else.
@@ericamacs3875 Oh, sorry, a misspelling. I meant pre-judicate.
Hoping that this situation shall be cleared as soon as possible, we all wait the final season
Exactly what I thought, couldn't have said it better!
Thank you!
I honestly don’t know how to feel about the allegations, but, what I do know is that I’m going to keep supporting Good Omens. Because Good Omens is not just Neil, it’s also Terry, David, Michael, etc
The most important thing is, that you stick to Good Omens!
I looked it up and found that one mainish piece of "evidence" they're using is a highly sensitive SA storyline in one of his many "Sandman" comic books. I don't think Neil would ever do what was described in that comic or that that comic should be used against him because it's completely fictional. Also, there are barely any proper details and the sources of information are from blog posts.
That said, I do not know Neil Gaiman personally, however, I don't think Michael Sheen or David Tennant would be friends with or work with someone like that. You also have to take into consideration that the allegations only came from two people (I'm not saying they're necessarily lying, however, it just feels weird that these two women came forward only after "Good Omens" and Neil Gaiman became famous enough for this type scandal to ruin him) who had very brief, and intensely sexual encounters with Neil.
I also find it weird that Scarlett (the second woman, who may or may not have undiagnosed memory issues, I don't know for sure) would continue having a consensual sexual relationship with a man who SAed her in the bath. It just seems weird to me. The first woman "K" alleged that her and Neil's sexual relationship was too rough for her, and it's unclear if she told him her discomforts repeatedly or not (the details are vague in the article and I haven't listened to the Podcast).
Speaking of the podcast...Why would they make a podcast discussing in detail (how much...I don't know) the alleged SA that Neil did to them? Was it to spread honest awareness? Did they want their fifteen minutes of fame? Was it a "you're not alone" type of thing? I just don't get why a podcast was made discussing their trauma or why it came out right before "Good Omens" Season 3 (Which I am still very much looking forward to watching and I hope Neil Gaiman continues to be the showrunner of) is close to being in production.
The whole situation feels very weird and off to me. It doesn't seem real and I am having a tough time believing that Neil Gaman would SA anyone. It feels like this situation is being used to demonize consensual relationships with sizable age gaps. Though I don't know if that's true or not. It just seems very unreal, weird, and so out-of-the-blue, especially with the timing of the third and final season of "Good Omens" ( A very queer and diverse show) and the fact that it's supposed to start production and filming in January 2025 (a little over five months).
Another thing to note is the fact that Neil Gaiman is a strong supporter and ally of the LGBTQA+ community and a scandal like this may reflect badly on the LGBTQA+ community for supporting said Ally (I'm not sure if this would happen or not, but the way the world and the USA is going I wouldn't be surprised if this somehow came up for some reason). Like I said before, the timing is weird, and the whole allegation thing is weird, especially since Neil Gaiman supports SA survivors telling their experiences and bringing light to the situation. Neil has also said on several occasions, and on Twitter that it's important to listen to SA survivors because their voices matter and that no one has the right to abuse anyone. So why would he say that if he was one of those said abusers?
It makes no sense why these allegations are coming up now when Neil Gaiman is hitting peak influencer level and fame. Again, I am not accusing the two women of lying. It just feels weird, off-putting, and unreal that this whole situation is happening. There's barely any concrete evidence, Neil himself has denied the allegations, the blog posts are strangely vague and are unofficial news sources, and the timing is just so odd.
@@sahrawakehouse8959 Thank you so much for your detailed comment and your straight argumentation! That’s mostly how I see this situation. I hope that the truth one day come to light and that‘s then not too late for GO and of course Neil.
@@BirgitPa You're welcome! I also hope the truth, whatever it may be, comes out and that it's not too late for "Good Omens" and Neil. It's also just disheartening that so many people, despite the lack of proper solid evidence, just automatically assume the worst without taking the time to take a step back and properly process the situation and try to decipher the truth from the fiction. Also, Blogs are notorious for creating false news to garner more readers.
There have been so many Blogs that over-dramatized and/or completely falsified stories about famous people to garner more readers because people tend to read more "news" about shocking and disturbing events of their favorite celebrities and stuff. A good example is Taylor Swift. Entertainment blogs and unofficial "news" blogs would make up the most outlandish and over-dramatized articles about her with no solid, reputable proof backing it up. I'm not saying everything said about Taylor Swift was false, just a sizeable amount was false (though I will never know for sure).
Also, accusing a famous person of SA (true or not) is something that happens quite a lot. Sadly a lot of accusations were true, but not all of them were true. I hope the accusations against Neil are false, however, even the kindest and most compassionate people can make seriously stupid mistakes. Does that make them a bad person? No, it does not make them a bad person. It makes them a good person who did a bad thing. Which in turn makes them human incarnate.
That said and regardless of the conclusion of these current events surrounding Neil, I will always enjoy his literary works and the film/television adaptations because they're artful interpretations of philosophical thought and ideologies that are shared by many people, and are wonderful worlds of fiction that are a joy to visit.
My thoughts exactly. Thank you so much for verbalising my confusion!
Also when this type of thing happened before, look at Armie Hammer (who was eventually exonerated by police but his life was ruined) the tabloids jumped on it.
The only thing that I suspect is he's just not well known enough... he's known to his fans, but the wider public would have no idea. So the media really hasn't picked this up.
Also why it's very wise for Michael and David to say nothing, because they would become the story.
@@ericamacs3875 That points the theory of a political motivation.
I agree on not prematurely judging, especially with so little or unclear and contradictory information. I also don't want to dismiss the accusers. There has to be room for them to be heard.
As far as GO is concerned, I rather have no 3rd season than a 3rd season thought up by someone else. At least the overall ark has to come from Neil.
Thank you for your thoughts. I also hope they’ll find a way to clarify everything and bring GO to a good end.
Apparently, Neil has already written most, if not all of the script for Series 3. If his script isn't used, he owns the intellectual property and the show most likely would be cancelled.
That is possible, of course. But many of the makers are interested in the ongoing. So I believe they’ll find a good way for season 3. This isn’t the first production drama in film history and won’t be the last. So let us think positiv 😉
@@ctwofirst6635 or Neil might move to a different media? (book, graphic novel)
Also possible. But difficult in the next time I fear when his name appears on the cover. Time will help and maybe a correction.
At least six women have now spoken out.
You can meet a lot of people within thirty years and have relationships with them!
You do know what he actually admitted to though, which isn't good. It seems you are confusing what the art has meant/done for you as opposed to the artist who you dont actually have a relationship with besides parasocial.
@@terpsichorenthalia Most people who have an opinion about Neil (especially a bad one) have no personal acquaintance with him. And he has denied the allegations against him, so it's word against word.
@@BirgitPa he hasn't denied the latest allegations from the woman with children he told he would evict (and did) if she didn't have sexual relations with her. In fact he settled in court about this incident so he could get a NDA so it wouldn't get out. See a pattern...
Thank you so much for this balanced view! I very much agree with you. I'm not quite sure what to think of the accusations, but Good Omens has done so much for me, and it is at least halfway Neil's brainchild.
Thank you for your kind words. I agree, that it’s difficult to classify the accusations. It might sounds odd, but it helped me to listen to the podcasts. Did you?
@@BirgitPa I didn't, I'm generally not a podcast and audio book person, but I did read basically a summary and script of the first podcast. I only heard about the other ones and haven't looked into it all too deeply. For now, I'm waiting for something official.
This is surely a good decision. These are more dramatic audio plays then classical podcasts. Listen to them helps (me) finding the truth behind the story.
@BirgitPa which is why I'm very grateful for people summarising and screenshooting them. The thing is, I'm not an audio-only person. The only stuff I can listen to for a long time is music. Might be my neurodivergence, no idea, but for something like this, I'd need video to go with it. Or people to listen to it for me and give me the summary.
@@GraupeLie Ah, I see. The problem with audio only is in general that your fantasy and your imagination put pictures in your head, which sometimes is counterproductive. I can't descripe my conclusions here in the comments, sorry.
Rushing to condemn isn't good. Watch The Twilight Zone's, "The Monsters on Maple Street." My opinions.
Actual title: The Monsters are due on Maple Street. Twilight Zone.
You can hear the radio show of this story on TH-cam: Nikola Tesla Wireless Radio.
To the first part of your comment I agree. But I don’t understand the second part. Similar affairs, watch suggestions? 🤔
@BirgitPa The Twilight zone is a TV production and there is also a radio version. It is a story about people rushing to judge and condemn that I recommend watching or listening to. The story is a cautionary tale. The Twilight has many such stories: The obsolete man, Number 12 looks just like you, ect...
@@emilyashley4820 Thank you, very interesting, I'll have a look. I knew this series by name, but have never seen anything of it. Your additive comments arrived later (I had to approve them first). So it makes more sense to me now.
Your optimism is lovely and I respect everything you have stated in this video. Though, I will have to respectfully disagree with how some of this was worded. Near the end of the video you have went on about how human Neil and everyone else is, but I have to say that you have to think about the victim's lives too. Saying he's human is fine, because he is, but that shouldn't be an excuse for putting other people's lives in danger. I get that Neil has done some things that mean a lot to you, but sometimes when allegations like these drop; you need to create a safe space for victims and always believe them first and foremost. When you think about forgiveness don't think of it about yourself forgiving Neil, these are real people with real feelings. Also, this situation has absolutely nothing to do with Good Omens, the sandman, etc. and should not be priority in the actual situation either. I love GOmens, and i will continue loving it, but there's a line you can't cross when it comes to something like this. Even if some allegations come out as not true, Neil is not innocent or a good person in general. Keep doing what your doing, your videos are awesome.
@@MadamChalkydri Thank you for your very fair statement. I appreciate that much much. Yes, it's a gray area, I'm well aware of that. My main points are that I am against general prejudice and that I know what slander can do. Neil may not be a good person in general, but he's certainly not a bad one in general either.
I'm so glad that I stumbled upon this video of yours. I won't dwell on my stance on the whole story because it's not my job to judge who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Given that I come from a long line of criminal lawyers and studied criminal law myself, I do have a certain opinion, but I firmly believe that personal opinions are irrelevant. Facts matter. I don't have the facts. Authorities investigating it probably do.
So, I'd like to share some thoughts on GO S3 instead.
1. The second season of "The Sandman" is not cancelled yet. I believe that the future of GO S3 depends on how it performs. If "The Sandman" S2 turns out to be as successful as S1, then all those Prime CEOs will see that people are still willing to watch the stuff Gaiman makes.
2. Even if things do go pear-shaped for NG, he can sell the rights to the TP's estate. If he really loves TP as much as he says, if he really wants to make GO for him, he will. Besides, he can still remain somewhat of a shadow showrunner. He never planned to fly to the UK anyway. If his team is still on board, nobody can control who's there on Zoom right now. And it might be him.
3. Frankly, from what I googled, it only seems a big thing amongst the fans of NG. Most people speaking my first language are not even aware of the accusations. Furthermore, even the English-speaking lot seem to be unaware in general.
@@mariengofesenin7306 Needed a bit time to answer, because your appreciated comment arrived deeply in my night. You gave in some goods points. Especially No 3 reflects also my own experiences. No big or important media in our Country placed even a minor note, what they normally would do if there’s truly an interest. It is mostly the international (private) social media. And I’m sure, Amazon will monitor this detailed. Thank you for your input!
I don’t particularly like your idea of „innocent until proven guilty“ (by trial). The public isn’t court. First of all: not everything that is legal is right. And what he already has admitted to publicly doesn’t put him into a particularly positive light. Sleeping with an employee during their first night on the job - screams power abuse to me!
Secondly, as in many cases, the main witnesses are the accused and the victim. No further direct witnesses. If we treated all (and mind you, we do way too often) accusations of rape and/or sexual abuse like this, many victims won’t get any empathy.
How would you rate this accusation if it wasn’t against the author of your favourite IP?
Probably a lot harsher.
Now, does that mean, that you can’t and shouldn’t enjoy Good Omens and his other works anymore? No. (Believe me, I’ve already been through this as a Potterhead).
I’m undecided, when it comes to his future works such as the coming season of Good Omens. I would very much like it to be continued.
But also: the way many people depend on this story ending in a satisfactory way for them is seriously unhealthy.
And Neil Gaiman is definitely profiting off of his future and past IPs, as well as his work on Good Omens.
To make it short: he is gaining money AS WELL AS POWER. Or one could say: continues to.
I‘m not sure how comfortable I am with that.
What I’m also not sure about is, if there is anything he could do to right his wrongs and show growth. If there even is space for that in our current discourse. I would love for him to learn from his mistakes and showing other men how it’s done. Currently, it doesn’t really seem like it, despite him owning up to some of the allegations.
But the illegality must first be proven. Until then, a person is considered innocent. And that has nothing to do with whether you like a person and their works or not. Thank you for your comment.
@@BirgitPa I can only tell you from my experience with a few cases that happened in Germany in the past few years - among them the band Rammstein. Very often, a lot of alleged victims only talk anonymously with Journalists or bloggers, but don’t go to court. Only a few choose to. So even with lots of allegations, courts only take a few into account. Most of these situations are difficult to prove, even with several alleged victims and witnesses. Most trials can’t even be about whether the thing really happened or not, they are often defamation trials. And just because something that can hardly be proven doesn’t get proven also doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Or in the case of Neil Gaiman: some behaviour may be legal (I can’t really evaluate whether or not it is) but still ethically questionable. That’s what I mean with the „court of public opinion“. In many cases, this is the only kind of warning people can give about a certain person, or the only recognition they can get for what happened to them. I know that there are problems with this approach as well. But overall, I understand the people who angrily demand him to be taken off of Good Omens and other TV shows because of the allegations (and the things he has admitted to). I’m not sure if I agree with them wholeheartedly, mind you. But the innocent until proven guilty approach mostly doesn’t work for such cases, in my opinion and experience.
Also, there are additional things that aren’t illegal (sometimes on purpose!), that we should still publicly call out and shame:
-excessive lobbying in politics, basically legalised corruption
-using tax loopholes to pay less than 1% in taxes as a billion dollar corporation or billionaire
-offering lower than minimum wage-jobs in the food service sector
…
I’m sure there are more things that aren’t illegal per se. And yes, I’m comparing what Neil Gaiman admitted to to a much broader context that doesn’t fit 100%. But the point stands: some things are legal, but ethically wrong or questionable. And that’s why the public is allowed to be angry about them and discuss these cases, as well as draw their own personal consequences from them.
@@ubermut1379 Thank you very much for your comments. I partly agree with them, but partly disagree. However, I don't want to go into further detail here as I have already expressed my opinion in the video and I would be repeating myself. In the end, everyone has to decide for themselves how to deal with this situation. My intention was simply to show that not all Good Omens fans have turned their backs on Neil. This is confirmed by the comments, likes and subscribers.
Lemme guess, we should be angry with JK Rowling?
Sorry, that is somewhat incomprehensible. What exactly are you referring to?
I do hate him because I tend to believe victims, if the trails don't prove them wrong. But Good Omens is not Neil Gaiman, fortunately. However we need to stop idolizing people and remember that they are what they are: human beings. They may have written/created the most beautiful stories, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be deplorable individuals. Sorry for eventual mistakes, english's not my first language. And thank you for the video.
@@alicebartocci1886 Your English is fine, not to worry. I‘m also not nativ. Thank you for your statement and please excuse when I hope that truth will proof you wrong and the real victim is Neil.
Another came forwards, yes he is.
@@shenotski That isn‘t understandable. What do you mean?
this was pointless
How do you mean?
No. I hate him. But thank you.
I understand. Thank you for being fair anyway.