1. P.R.Aquilone says:

    I think that there needs to be a separation of topics although I acknowledge that many will mesh them together. The topics should be “the person” and “the job” (which in the case of the Batfleck or fandom it is entertainment based).

    Given that, the person should always be forgiven as Jesus clearly states so. Therefore our attitude towards Ben or the executives at Fox or whatever should be one that has forgiveness, compassion and love. And this should be across the board no matter who they are or what they create.

    On the flip side, their job is another story. For example, if you go to a mechanic to get your car fixed and then later discover that you were ripped off because he charged you for work not done, then you would become upset. Would you bring your car back to him? No. Why? Because the business operated dishonestly towards you. Now you might if you met the mechanic and he apologized or the shop put a sign out “under new management” or you heard via a friend that the business changed it’s ways. But only if something changed.

    Another example, suppose you hire a carpenter to build you a house and inside of two weeks of the house being completed it falls down. The investigation shows that the builder (the carpenter) used faulty wood and took a ton of shortcuts making the structure unstable. Would you hire this guy again to build your next house? No. Again if time passed and you heard something changed, then maybe but you would still be hesitant to hire him.

    The entertainment industry is tricky because the “job” is about people. But we need to remember that they are acting, writing, etc and what is produced is not the person. For example, none of us think that Benedict Cumberbatch is a generically alter superhuman who is kind of evil. Nor do we look at Mark Hamill and see him as a force wielding Jedi. So there is a difference between the person and the job.

    Back to things like Batfleck. Personally I say give him a chance (http://wp.me/p37kAZ-1ce). He has done a bunch of other things since Daredevil and I think he has grown as an actor. Is he going to be a good batman, well, that remains to be seen. But I think there is validity in questioning their craft just like you would question the mechanic who ripped you off or the carpenter that took shortcuts. Because there is a separation (or there needs to be) between the person and the job.

    Anyway, I guess that is my two cents.

    • Galadriel says:

      How would you apply this standard to characters, then? It was announced months ago that Billie Piper will be returning for the 50th anniversary Doctor Who special as Rose.
      I have very little exposure to her acting outside of Doctor Who, but Rose is far from my favorite character. I feel her story is done with and does not need to be revisited. That’s not exactly ‘job’ and it’s not quite ‘actor’ either.

      • notleia says:

        Rose’s returning would be the “fault” (it’s the most convenient word) of the writers, producers, and other executives who run the show. And I agree, it looks like beating a dead horse.

    • notleia says:

      You’ve pretty much articulated what I find not-sense-making about this article. Being angry about dumb (or potentially dumb) corporate decisions isn’t really the same as being angry at a person. Corporations are made up of people, but corporations as entities are faceless, bloodless things whose motivation is almost entirely in making the biggest pile of money possible.
      And I think being angry is an okay thing (provided that it doesn’t consume your life and yadda-yadda). This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone use the word “angry” in the sense of all-consuming rage-bitterness, and that implies that it’s never okay to be angry for even a little while, which I think everyone can agree is pretty absurd.

What do you think?