Bill Cosby Arraigned

[rookie]

Which part, Ravy? I thought I was pretty blunt.

[RavynousHunter]

The implication that Mr. Rogers, the character, was somehow tainted by Fred Rogers, the person.  Likely not your intent, but awkward wording and all that.

[SpaceProg]

Indeed.  Fred Rogers was pretty much what you saw on the screen.  According to just about everyone who knew him.  All you gotta do is look him up.  The guy was almost too good to be real, yet he was.  He was the most Christlike Christian I've ever heard of so far.

Cosby and Rogers are opposite ends of the spectrum from each-other.

As far as Cosby goes, however it ends up, this will probably be the end for him.    I've had mixed feelings about this whole thing, and I think I probably always will, considering I grew up listening to him and watching him.   Sad all around, any way you cut it.   It is what it is, though; and it will be what it will be.

[Askold]

The implication that Mr. Rogers, the character, was somehow tainted by Fred Rogers, the person.  Likely not your intent, but awkward wording and all that.

Nah, I think the point was that the character played on the screen is separate from the actor. Whether the actor is a saint or a monster in real life they can play characters who aren't like them.

[SpaceProg]

That is true, but it makes some folks uncomfortable knowing about what the actor did, and that the whole time you watch whatever said actor has been in and created,  some feel as if what they're seeing is all a lie and the actor is really just hiding behind a facade.

A lot of people can separate the actor from the character, *strictly* seeing only one or the other, but that viewpoint is just one of many different gradients of the same.

[RavynousHunter]

Aye, I've never really watched anything Cosby did as I'm...not too terribly fond of sitcoms, but if I liked the shows, I think him being a rapist would kinda sour things, at least a little.  Mostly because I tend to think "wonder what goes on backstage" from time to time and that leads to distinctly uncomfortable things when you realize something like that about a person.

[MadCatTLX]

I think Rookie is refering to one of the urban legends that Mr. Rogers was either a convicted child molester or that he was an ex special forces member and wore the sweater to cover the tattoos he had from his time in military. These legends circulated in Emails, particularly right after his death. All of those are false as Snopes explains here: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp

[Barbarella]

Pump your breaks there just a second Barb. Compartmentalize for just a moment. Fat Albert isn't ruined because the creator is who he is any more than Mr. Rogers is in any way tainted by who Fred Rogers was. Fat Albert is a character, and therein subject to the same rules as any other character.

Other than that, hell yeah!

But Fred was a great guy and it's hard to separate Cosby from his art....because Cosby's art was, more often or not, about him and his life (albeit idealized and without the rape).

Believe me, I'd LOVE to separate Cosby from his art but with him, it's REALLY hard.

Maybe if someone else told all those wonderful stand-up stories and changed the names a bit, but that would make them plagiarists.

I might be able to watch Fat Albert if I put it through my Windows Movie Maker and edit out the live-action Cosby parts. Of course, he did the voices....but it's still a bunch of cartoon characters (even if one is supposed to be him).

There's a lot of skeezy and jerky celebs but sometimes, a person's ability to separate artist from art is hard if the two are almost interchangeable and the artist's offense is super-heinous.

[SpaceProg]

Most of Cosby's stuff is semi-autobiographical, so it can indeed be hard to not think about current events when listening or watching things he's in, or reading his books.  Whether true or false, these allegations have tarnished his career forever either consciously or subconsciously.   

[rookie]

Fine. Replace Rogers with Bing Crosby. Or whoever the hell you want.  My point is the actor is not the character and the character is not the actor. There are actors, writers, producers, etc. All of which come together to "bring the character to life" but they aren't coming to life. It's the collective imaginative play of others and we watch it. If you want to let Bill Cosby taint Dr. Huxtable, go ahead. Or Fat Albert. Or whatever other character he played or developed. If you want to separate fact and fancy, that's fine too. That! That was the point. Fred Rogers was as good a man as he played. Bing Crosby was the polar opposite of who he usually played. Cosby too.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Can I replace him with Mel Gibson?

[rookie]

Can I replace him with Mel Gibson?

If you'd like, sure. Gibson is an ass, Riggs was funny.

[Askold]

Can I replace him with Mel Gibson?

If you'd like, sure. Gibson is an ass, Riggs was funny.

Stonebanks was a well done villain. That pedophile-teacher with a burnt face made for a great and complicated character as well.