Should issues in actors personal lives preclude having their character brought into Timelines?

Pallidyne

We've had some situations like investigations of Stephen Collins and an accusation against George Takei, should those prevent bringing those characters (or more variants of those characters) into Timelines?

The Great Gornholio

No

No, unless they are thinking of making Stephen Collins and George Takei into cards themselves. Captain Decker and Captain Sulu didn't do anything.... Not to mention accusations are nothing until proven. Even if they are proven it shouldn't have anything to do with the game. People need to separate reality from fiction and stop being so overly sensitive.

PS> Captain Decker is long overdue....

For Cardassia

No

It's about the characters in this case, not the actors. Regardless of what George Takei may have done, Sulu is still Sulu.

Similarly, the actress who portrayed Kes developed some mental health issues and got herself into trouble because of them, but I don't think that means I can't like Kes and want her in the game.

Actor =/= Character

[VA] NATE

Since when did our society go back to innocent until proven guilty?

The Great Gornholio

No

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Since when did our society go back to innocent until proven guilty?

I know right? Maybe someone should accuse Jonathan Frakes and Kate Mulgrew of something so we don't get any more Rikers or Janeways.

Pallidyne

No

I've been pondering this for a while, mostly due to some responses I've seen in other posts -- were the ones stating caution representative of forum goers at large or simply in the minority but just the ones who spoke up.....

DavideBooks

No

I don't want to know anything about the actors personal lives. I only care about the characters.

Cal.me.Ishmal

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

Dralix

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Since when did our society go back to innocent until proven guilty?

That's for the courts.

The bottom line is, regardless of whether it should happen, companies will distance themselves from people surrounded by controversy. The court of public opinion practices guilty until proven innocent, and guilt by association.

Captain Mattis

Case by Case

Voted case by case.

Someone who comes to mind as a card I would never want in the game due to the actor is EMH mark 2 as played by Andy Dick. He's just an all-around scumbag and one of the worst people in Hollywood. Look up his record if you are curious.

Ironagedave

No

If this were to be the case Kes would not have been added to the game surely. Characters are characters and should be considered purely on that merit alone IMO.

[VA] NATE

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

Spoiler tags are wonderful things, if only this forum would allow us to use them.

Bardez

No

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

A hate crime, no less

Cal.me.Ishmal

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

Spoiler tags are wonderful things, if only this forum would allow us to use them.

Im sorry, I edited my post to include the spoiler.

Paund Skumm

No

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

Spoiler tags are wonderful things, if only this forum would allow us to use them.

Passive aggressive and sarcastic much? Here you go...

Technically not murder as he’s VOQ-Ash, and The Klingons are at war with the Federation so at most a war crime. But given Culber is Starfleet, even by our standards, he’s military personal (athough he’s a doctor) on an enemy ship and should be considered an enemy combatant. I’m sure the Klingons won’t bother with a human distinction of war crimes though although they may have their own standards on who is fair game... given what they did to the 80,000 people on Starbase 1, including civilians, I’m assuming that definition is pretty loose. If we assume he is just a brainwashed Ash with dual personalities, then of course he is clearly clinically insane and also not responsible.

Paund Skumm

No

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Cal.me.Ishmal wrote: »

Tyler ash committed murder as his character , caught on camera as he broke Culber’s neck. I wouldn’t dream of anyone one banning the card for what the character did, I sure wouldn’t want anyone banning a card for what the real life actor (may or may not) have done.

Spoiler tags are wonderful things, if only this forum would allow us to use them.

Im sorry, I edited my post to include the spoiler.

Lol... but the quotes of your not spoiler tagging don’t have spoiler tags...

[VA] NATE

Passive-aggressiveness, as the word indicates, is a tendency to engage in indirect expression of hostility through acts such as subtle insults, sullen behavior, stubbornness, or a deliberate failure to accomplish required tasks.
Me? Lol, very much.

Paund Skumm

No

[VA] NATE wrote: »

Passive-aggressiveness, as the word indicates, is a tendency to engage in indirect expression of hostility through acts such as subtle insults, sullen behavior, stubbornness, or a deliberate failure to accomplish required tasks.
Me? Lol, very much.

😝😝😝 hey it wasn’t directed at me but boy did it ooze sarcasm from every orifice. Jonathan Swift would be proud...

Hungry Dog DDM

Case by Case

Does making a card of that character line the pockets of said actor/actress? If it does, then probably yes.

If it doesn't line their pockets, then it really doesn't matter.

Commander Sinclair

I believe it doesn't matter whether DB or us want certain characters to be in the game, the characters are the likenesses of certain people, and if alive, they have the final say on whether to release their likeness to the game, regardless of their "personal lives". If they are no longer alive, the studio may have the rights to their likeness and may have final say themselves in either case.

It is strictly a legal thing.

[TFA] Commodore Wizzlestix

No

Voted "No". Kirstie Alley is a Scientologist. Jennifer Lien has well documented issues. Dwight Shultz is a raging right-wing misogynist but... that's the actors, not the characters.

I personally airlock the cards for those characters automatically (except for Kess because Lien is deserving of sympathy and help) but that's my choice. I don't feel that the conduct and/or beliefs of the actors should impact the inclusion of the characters they portrayed.

Peachtree Rex

Case by Case

Commander Sinclair wrote: »

I believe it doesn't matter whether DB or us want certain characters to be in the game, the characters are the likenesses of certain people, and if alive, they have the final say on whether to release their likeness to the game, regardless of their "personal lives". If they are no longer alive, the studio may have the rights to their likeness and may have final say themselves in either case.

It is strictly a legal thing.

You're missing the point a bit. Of course the actors have a say in how their likeness is used. DB also has the choice of whether or not to include a character. The question is, when DB is evaluating whether or not to add a character, should they consider current "issues" related to the actor who portrayed that character.

Grant77

No

Barclay is an awesome character. I would never airlock him because the actor doesn't share my view on politics, but that's just my opinion.

[TFA] Commodore Wizzlestix

No

Grant77 wrote: »

Barclay is an awesome character. I would never airlock him because the actor doesn't share my view on politics, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, Barclay is. Too bad the actor isn't as good a person. And in his case, it's more than his political views. But again, it's all personal choice as to whether we keep cards or not.

Commander Morak

Case by Case

It's relevant that the 'rights' to create cards usually involve payments to the actor in question.

I could care less about an actor's personal opinions or personal life. If it crosses into convicted criminal behavior and victims it crosses a line. Even then if the funds are going to victim restitution I'll go for it.

Dirk Gunderson

Case by Case

The issue at heart is whether or not we want the fees paid to actors for use of their likeness to support people who have done something or been accused of something wrong. Take the Hey Song, for example. It’s a great song for pumping up the crowd at sporting events but the person who gets the royalties, Gary Glitter, is in prison for child pornography and sexual abuse of children in several countries. People have made a good argument that not playing the Hey Song and this depriving Gary Glitter of the royalty checks is a good thing.

In this case, Stephen Collins is in a similar boat but as far as I know has not been criminally charged with anything. George Takei has been accused of sexual assault of an adult but has shrugged off such allegations (poorly). The others who have various personal and/or legal problems aren’t as serious but still represent the possibility of us funding them and their actions indirectly.

Regardless of their personal legal and moral status, DB choosing to not to create a character based on an actor’s problems - or a movement by the player base to avoid certain characters - has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty” because these are not legal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil suits is less than that for criminal charges even if we could call “not wanting to finance an actor’s personal activities” a legal proceeding.

With this in mind, I think it is fairest to say that this should be a case-by-case decision. As much as I would like to see Will Decker as a character, I’m not really sure I would like to give money - however small of an amount - to Stephen Collins. Despite her many problems, however, I don’t mind seeing more versions of Kes. I don’t mind seeing more versions of Barclay because I like that character more than I disagree with Dwight Schultz’s politics.

[VA] NATE

I am having trouble finding on the internet as to how dwight schultz is a bad person.

Dirk Gunderson

Case by Case

[VA] NATE wrote: »

I am having trouble finding on the internet as to how dwight schultz is a bad person.

He’s an avowed conservative. That’s enough to get some people to claim he’s Literally Hitler just by itself...

Sabine of Athens

Case by Case

Political or religious affiliations shouldn't have impact. Criminal (non-white collar) issues that impact another person should. I don't care if XYZ actor embezzled some money or did some drugs, but if that actor killed or **tsk tsk** someone, their card shouldn't be in the game.

This doesn't mean cards should be removed is someone commits a crime tomorrow, but if some guest star committed a horrible crime after their ST appearance but before this game came out, I think we can safely exclude them.

[VA] NATE

Avowed-that has been asserted, admitted, or stated publicly.

Hmmm...saying someone is bad because of their political views, that doesn't sound like Nazi Germany.

Grant77

No

Dirk Gunderson wrote: »

The issue at heart is whether or not we want the fees paid to actors for use of their likeness to support people who have done something or been accused of something wrong. Take the Hey Song, for example. It’s a great song for pumping up the crowd at sporting events but the person who gets the royalties, Gary Glitter, is in prison for child pornography and sexual abuse of children in several countries. People have made a good argument that not playing the Hey Song and this depriving Gary Glitter of the royalty checks is a good thing.

In this case, Stephen Collins is in a similar boat but as far as I know has not been criminally charged with anything. George Takei has been accused of sexual assault of an adult but has shrugged off such allegations (poorly). The others who have various personal and/or legal problems aren’t as serious but still represent the possibility of us funding them and their actions indirectly.

Regardless of their personal legal and moral status, DB choosing to not to create a character based on an actor’s problems - or a movement by the player base to avoid certain characters - has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty” because these are not legal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil suits is less than that for criminal charges even if we could call “not wanting to finance an actor’s personal activities” a legal proceeding.

With this in mind, I think it is fairest to say that this should be a case-by-case decision. As much as I would like to see Will Decker as a character, I’m not really sure I would like to give money - however small of an amount - to Stephen Collins. Despite her many problems, however, I don’t mind seeing more versions of Kes. I don’t mind seeing more versions of Barclay because I like that character more than I disagree with Dwight Schultz’s politics.

The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.