Brian Cox praises “really, really gifted” X2: X-Men United director Bryan Singer in the year 2023
The superhero sequel was one of the controversial director's most notoriously toxic productions
Aux News Brian Cox
Brian Cox certainly isn’t afraid to speak his mind, unless you’re a Succession fan hoping he’ll drop Logan Roy’s infamous catchphrase off-camera. In a new interview with Yahoo! Entertainment, the veteran actor had some significantly kinder words to share–about his X2: X-Men United director Bryan Singer.
“I think he’s an extraordinary director—really, really gifted” Cox says. “Certainly I will always be grateful to him because he had confidence in me and got me the role. I played a waiting game and it worked.”
In the years since the superhero sequel’s 2003 release, Singer’s stock has plummeted, thanks to various sexual misconduct allegations and reports of unprofessional behavior on set (whenever he could be bothered to actually show up). X2: X-Men United was one of the director’s most notoriously toxic productions, culminating in the main cast members threatening to quit. This apparently didn’t include Cox, who played the movie’s villain, William Stryker.
“One of his great things was that when he came to a new set, he would have to rethink it,” Cox tells Yahoo! Entertainment. “He’d have a thought, and then have to rethink [the scene]. So that was always a difficult transition for him. But once he cracked it, he cracked it very quickly and was able to get on with it.”
On one hand, movie magic can’t always be planned. On the other, sudden changes are disruptive to the many, many people involved in making a blockbuster, and even dangerous. During the X2 production, Singer reportedly decided to mix up the schedule while “incapacitated after taking a narcotic” and shoot an action sequence without a stunt coordinator present, which lead to an accident that saw star Hugh Jackman “bleeding on camera.”
Whatever Cox did witness on the X2 set, the Adaptation. actor chalked it up to Singer being “under a lot of strain.” The controversial director didn’t reach his final straw until 2017, when he reportedly abandoned the set of Bohemian Rhapsody and was fired from the Queen biopic.
112 Comments
Eh, people can be two things. It’s a little out of touch to praise him at all but it’s not like Cox is saying Singer is a good guy.
Also likely that Cox didn’t have as much on-set time as the rest of the cast (and I don’t remember the Stryker role as being particularly stunt-y). He’s probably remembering a couple things on his days of shooting from 20 years ago, which I can hardly blame him for being wistful over as it’s regarded as one of the best superhero movies and he likely gets decent residuals.
No stunts at all i dont think, he just walked around barking orders.
It sounds like he is digging up excuses for very very difficult behavior, that EVERY TIME he came to a new set he had to redo EVERYTHING that he had previously storyboarded and worked out with stuntmen, costumes, actors, etc.This kind of very selective praise would be a HUGE red flag even without the little boys. WITH the little boys it’s just like…could you learn how to stfu already, Brian Cox?
Digging up excuses? What excuses? Where does he excuse behaviour? HE DOESN’T!It’s much more likely that HE WASN’T THERE when the shit went down.
Exactly. This is mostly funny for how angry it makes mediocre people who write things like “weird hill to die on.”
I guess it’s been five minutes since the last outrage the AV Club tossed to its audience like so much red meat!
Remember the time this site dedicated a week to interviews with John Landis?
We were like children then. Time really flies.
Don’t say “children” in a Bryan Singer thread, you’ll summon him.
Lot of people lost their heads over that one.
Tough but fair.
*googles*Huh.Hollywood job security is kind of amazing innit?
Some people take those issues to the max.
I’m sort of thinking Cox is oblivious to the allegations against Singer. This is just a weird take on a guy who has both a slew of personal allegations and a slew of on set allegations against him.I can understand being grateful for the opportunity, but it seems like an actor who wasn’t as involved in the project as some misinterpreting incompetence for genius. Retrospectively, the fact that X-2 is as good as it is reads as more of a miracle in spite of Singer, not because.
I have a hunch Woo Ping Yuen might deserve a lot of the credit.
I don’t believe this for a second. Singer has been well known as a sex pest in the industry for basically his whole career. There was a widely publicized lawsuit regarding him filming nude scenes with minors during Apt Pupil, for fuck’s sake. EVERYONE knew he was a sex pest by the time X2 came around, it was just in the era when we mostly ignored those things as a society.Also, I think people here don’t really understand the gravity of the allegations against him. He and Kevin Spacey were BFFs and went to all the same parties together. He did everything Spacey did and possibly worse. People are acting like this is just some social media rumor and not a documented history of sexual impropriety over multiple decades.
It’s odd to report an actor discussing a bad man as if he was the bad man. Also there’s an extra period after the word Adaptation in this.
Name of the movie is “Adaptation.” with the period, though a lot of writers skip it.
https://youtu.be/dvdkNrResxo
So, you’re saying that Bryan Singer ISN’T gifted?
Maybe Cox just didn’t realize what’s been going on. It’s not like he’s had more bad takes on controversial figures recently…
Guys gotta be doing a bit at this point
Alternatively, he’s old as balls and either doesn’t know all of Bryan Singer’s dirty laundry or doesn’t really give a fuck about the consequences of expressing a vaguely positive opinion about him. ‘Cause what’s the internet going to do, cancel him? He’s like eighty years old, his career’s in it’s twilight either way.
Just like with his opinions on the Rowling shit, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an 80 year old working actor to not be up to date on scandals that are mostly discussed on entertainment news websites and Twitter.
Yep. It’s like he’s just living his life, instead of stalking the internet for things to be offended about.
And not for nothing, but that film is still absolutely one of the best in the genre
Like you are doing right now? People get offended by child rapists. You get offended when people get offended by child rapists.
Wait, you’re telling me that while reminiscing about his biggest, most mainstream breakout role from over 20 years ago, this 80-year old actor said reflexively nice-but-qualified things about the person who hired him? I’ve got a new headline for this article then!“ELDER ABUSE? INDUSTRY INSIDERS SAY COX GROOMED TO SEEK FAVOR, AVOID CONTROVERSY WITH HOLLYWOOD’S POWERFUL”
Y’all need to calm down.
Yes that was exactly my point, thanks for the comment!
Plus, how likely is it that Cox observed anything weird on the X2 set? Even back then he was about 40 years too old for Singer to take any interest in him. Brian Cox wasn’t invited to the coke parties with barely legal twinks.This was a huge role for him that paid off years of hard work, and now he’s expected to completely disown the experience and talk shit about the guy who gave him the opportunity.
He probably knows very little or nothing about it, anyway. I doubt he was drinking and doing coke with some teenager and then said “hey, someone go get Brian!!”
So he’s been working in Hollywood for decades but somehow is completely ignorant of one of the biggest scandals to hit a Hollywood director in all that time? Do you think people in Hollywood don’t talk to each other? I call bullshit.The Rowling thing is at least fairly recent and involves someone who isn’t really a Hollywood player, but Singer’s abuses have been public knowledge for almost a decade and he’s very much a Hollywood insider type.
He lives and works primarily in the UK, and he’s an old man who probably goes right home to bed after shooting. I would not call Brian Cox an insider type, he has had a recent major role in a popular US TV show, other than that he mainly does small/voice roles in US movies (that are probably filmed in UK studios like Pinewood) and otherwise does British TV and movies.
Man, the word “probably” is doing a lot of work in that post. You don’t know what this guy’s daily schedule is, for starters.Also, Succession IS his major role right now, he’s been doing it for three years and it’s a highly successful show made by a major Hollywood studio. It’s not some side project. The show is filmed primarily in the US, and the last two seasons took over six months each to film, which means Cox had to effectively move to the US for half a year to do them. He’s clearly not some sheltered old English guy, come on.
I’m jumping to fewer conclusions than you, and I’m not using them to decide to be worked up at someone I’ll never meet for some perceived moral failing based on his response to an interview question. I stand by thinking an elderly character actor isn’t gossiping and hobnobbing every second hes in the US for work.Fuck Brian Singer, fuck JK Rowling, I don’t care to speculate more on how much a third unrelated guy is lying or morally wrong for not getting into controversies during an interview.
Succession isn’t actually watched by that many people(as Family Guy pointed out) it’s nowhere near as big as the likes of Yellowstone.
His comments about JK Rowling were specifically about the “scandals that are mostly discussed on entertainment news websites and Twitter,” so if he wasn’t familiar with the topic he probably shouldn’t have weighed in. And I can’t imagine he was unaware of Singer’s poor leadership on the set of X2, considering it led to injuries and the set being shut down for a day.
I’m not sure you’re aware but in the UK the Rowling story is a regular thing in our press, which is uniformly transphobic and paints her sympathetically. If he just reads newspapers or watches talk shows, the framing is she’s a nice lady who has never said anything wrong and is being bullied.
she should be treated sympathetically, the whole thing is fucking ridiculous. Looks like the UK press is smarter than ours.
Superman returns is the best live-action take on Superman in the last twenty years. It runs too long and could be tightened up but I’ll still take its warm colours and empathic, loving Superman over a single fucking second of Snyder’s ‘Pa Kent once told me it was probably better to let kids on a bus die then reveal my identity because self-interest is what heroism is all about.
Bryan Singer? From all account a real pice of shit. But Superman Returns is good in spite of him, and that scene where Superman catches the plane is fantastic, and we should say it more.
I can see how people would see Snyder’s Superman as less heroic if they ignore stuff like him rescuing people from an oil fire, standing up for a woman being sexually harassed, being willing to sacrifice himself to save Earth from Zod, rescuing kids from a drowning bus when he was only a kid himself and basically just anything he does outside of the Metropolis battle that is largely Zod’s fault. Seriously, I feel like most people who complain about these movies just saw the trailers and nothing else.
And other heroic actions like letting his father and who knows how many other people get sucked up by a tornado and impaling a union trucker’s rig on some telephone poles.
The only person who got sucked up by the tornado was his father, who told him not to help.As for the trucker, you’ll excuse me if I don’t cry over a sexual harasser getting his comeuppance. Especially when Superman has done much worse for less.
My problem with that scene is he went too over the top by ramming poles into the truck. I think it would have been funnier if he just poked all the tires out with his finger.
The scene wasn’t supposed to be funny.
It was though. Thats why they show the truckers reaction when he goes out of the diner to see his truck.
The scene wasn’t supposed to be funny.You know what was funny? Superman and Lois making out above the burnt out rubble and charred corpses of Metropolis.
Oh Christ, this dumb take again.
Good point, Agent Zack.It’s not nearly as funny as the church scene, when Clark talks with the priest while shown in double profile with Jesus Christ.
Really deep stuff from Zack, here. Because he’s Jesus, get it?
Ddon’t mention it Brian.
i’m sick of trolls whining about that.
Also, several adjoining counties are now without phone service or electricity. And I hope that truck wasn’t delivering insulin or anything else people need to live.
That trucker might be a dick, but Superman going around destroying people’s livelihoods because they’re unpleasant is a worrying use of his extreme, unstoppable power. He should be better than that.The worst thing about the Pa Kent hurricane scene is it just doesn’t make sense for Clark not to save him. A normal human being the size of Henry Cavill should be able to move a man out of the path of a hurricane without it arousing suspicion, especially considering the well-known phenomenon of people achieving feats of great strength in times of stress. No one’s going to think “That large young adult must be an alien demi-god to perform such wonders!”
That trucker might be a dick, but Superman going around destroying people’s livelihoods because they’re unpleasant is a worrying use of his extreme, unstoppable power. He should be better than that.Well, tell that to the various Superman writers who’ve had him do worse.
Maybe I will, when we’re discussing the works of those writers. We’re talking about ‘Man of Steel’ now, and the bad writing that takes place within it.
it’s got damn good writing, i’m with Angry Joe on that film.
So your defense for SnyderSupes is ‘Well he did some good stuff before he decided he cares less about collateral damage than some villains’ and ‘his dad was asking for it’? Not the winning arguments you think they are.
He’s a Republican stand-in during those movies. He’s not meant to be good. It’s a criticism of American power.
I think you’re the first to ever accuse Zack Snyder and David ‘She-Hulk was created so Hulk would have someone to fuck’ Goyer of knowing what subtext is.
The conversation surrounding these movies has been going on for a decade now. It means that there 100% has to be more to them than most mainstream movies. What country are you from, for example? It’s a very American story and most of its subtext Americans don’t necessarily spot very easily. It’s ironic.
He saves Lois from being sucked into a tornado at the end. It’s a payoff to that scene.
his dad told him not to save him though.
You know those things explain the writer’s ideology, right? If someone is mean, then push forward with those consequences. I’m a union person through and through. Old school, working class, everything like that. This also comes with the need to drop words when someone wrongs me. It is part of the paradox of being where I’m from. The scene where the trucker lost his truck wasn’t as bad to me because I know the unions. If I lost a truck because it all of a sudden became a “fucking telephone Christmas tree art piece” then my living probably wouldn’t be as endangered as it would be if I drove it off a cliff by mistake. It’s as easy to think of positive consequences for the person as it is negative. The film doesn’t explain this. There is a populist hroughline to the films where Superman’s dad is priveliged in some ways and downtrodden in others. He talks about survivor’s guilt and being haunted by dreams of not drowning as a boy alongside emphasising that Clark shouldn’t fight back against horrible people. It’s that working class paradox again. Clark saves all of his friends from drowning on the schoolbus and at the end of the film, beats up the bad guys and saves his new love from a tornado!The film explains everything to some degree… It’s just that the mainstream media aren’t really the type of people who can read between certain lines. Most are American companies and, in America, classism is hardly a concept to people who work from certain elite avenues I. E. City apartment bloggers etc.
They saw the scene where Pa Kent suggests that maybe it’s better to let people die instead of saving them. Just because Snyder didn’t turn Superman into the Punisher doesn’t mean he got it right.
They saw the scene where Pa Kent suggests that maybe it’s better to let people die instead of saving them. They also ignore the context of him clearly not believing it when he says it and explaining himself further.What’s so funny is that this isn’t even the first version of Jonathan Kent to act like this. The Golden Age, Smallville and Lois & Clark versions have said similar things.
Hey, I’m just glad to see that even people who hate this part are finally acknowledging that this all was a “maybe”. For ten years it’s usually been “That time when Pa Kent totally told Clark in no uncertain terms not to help people”
“They also ignore the context of him clearly not believing it when he says it and explaining himself further.”
Probably because his actions later in the movie demonstrate that he DOES believe it, when he waves his son off from saving him because reasons.
The discourse is annoying. If a person takes offense to how a fictional character acts, they’re just behaving weirdly.
Seriously, I feel like most people who complain about these movies just saw the trailers and nothing else.I refuse to allow people to tell me I didn’t sit through Man of Steel – I earned my complaints! It had some cool-looking action scenes and good actors doing their best to take the material seriously (in particular Costner’s yeoman work for trying to make sense out of a messily written Pa Kent), it was exhausting and grim. It’s hard to feel victorious at the end after Metropolis has been turned to ash.It reminded me of Ebert’s review of one of the Transformers movies describing how one could save the ticket price by getting a choir singing the music of hell while banging pots and pans together.
I don’t mind long movies – and MoS isn’t even bad compared to recent Marvel entries – but for a film filled with action and excitement it really drags. Superman 1978 is the same length and yet MoS feels twice as long.
My favourite bit was where the person responsible for his moral compass told him he should just let a bunch of kids die because “I don’t know”.
Man of Steel is very underrated. The tone was dark, OTHER people in it were villlainous, but i feel like that version of superman is almost as good as christopher reeves’ version.
Nah. A couple of admittedly great sequences don’t make a great movie.
Superman Returns brings back the look and music of the Christopher Reeves films, which is fun. At the same time, it also brings back the idea that Lex Luthor would surround himself with the absolute dumbest people he could find. It has Superman disappear from Earth for YEARS, even after learning why this is a terrible idea in Superman II. It woefully miscasts Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth was seven years younger in SR than Margot Kidder was in the original Superman, playing the same character who is now ostensibly at least in her forties.
And lets not get started on the idea the Superman can somehow lift an entire fucking mountain of Kryponite.
Absolutely. Keeping the look of those previous films was the best part of it. But it also contributes to it feeling that it is slavishly devoted to just repeating the previous films like a really, really expensive fan film.I saw Superman Returns twice on opening weekend and enjoyed it for the most part but it did leave me feeling disheartened that they saw the Donner/Reeves take as the only way to do Superman.
Superman Returns is milquetoast, forgettable, and plays it way too safe.
One good scene dont make a movie. How about when he lurks outside Lois and her new families home spying on them. Not too creepy for a known child molester to have the hero watch a kid sleep…
There’s a lot to like about Superman Returns but it’s a movie which is so narratively inert and dull. And Kate Bosworth particularly is hugely miscast as Lois.I fucking love the character and the Superman mythos but Man of Steel is a significantly better film both from a storytelling point of view and from structure – Shit actually happens and there are real, serious stakes.
I’m happy to call both movies awful in different ways.
In Superman Returns they had Clark spy on his loved ones – including little boys, from a director who was later outed as a pedophile. They also have him kill three enemies during the final action sequence. He crushes them with stones. Plus, DC copies and pasted the old 70s Superman formula to make a contemporary film: Wonder Woman 84. Not only did most people not like that film but the parts they don’t like were all feature in the old Superman films.
Oh, Brian Cox. Sometimes, you can just deflect. It’s not ALWAYS necessary to opine on whatever subject an interviewer may bring up. Or, godtopus forbid, to put it in writing where it will live in perpetuity like a giant flashing neon sign saying, “This man was over 70 when he wrote this book and he STILL CHOSE TO INCLUDE THIS.”And I say this as someone who only learned this lesson, like, yesterday. But then, I don’t have professional people whom I purportedly pay to help me navigate the rocky shoals of modern culture.GET THEE A PUBLICIST.
in addition to my other reply I would like to note that Brian Cox has made a film with Emile Hirsch, and praised JK Rowling and now acting like it matters if Singer was a good work buddy…I’m a bit concerned we are going to find out something about Cox now.
Rowling absolutely deserves praise.
Brian Cox has been the dictionary definition of ‘jobbing actor’ since the early 1960s; he’s probably worked with three quarters of the British and American acting community by this point. I suspect what we’re going to ‘learn’ about him is that he’s an old geezer who isn’t especially worried about the internet getting angry at him for saying mildly positive things about rather controversial people.
He has repeatedly singled out people who have done things that are bad and said they’re not so bad. If you look at the tops (cast listings) of direct to streaming ads you will see that there is a specific weather system of people who make movies with Mel Gibson and Emile Hirsch. Kate Bosworth, for example. Unfortunately, with Boss Level, Joe Carnahan tainted a whole bunch of people worse than Brett Ratner has. It’s like six degrees of smeared with feces and complicity. In any case, it sounds like he is there for the baddies…so probably is one, or is a sucker.
Is he singling out people, or is he being asked about them and responding?
I think in his book he singled out people, here he’s being asked but he is volunteering more than he needs to. With JK Rowling no idea why he felt the need to weigh in but apparently everybody needs to open their traps about Marvel movies and JK Rowling. In any case, with the Rowling stuff he is treading on thin ice, and he should be more discrete, but I don’t think it’s that stuff that could come back and bite him. There were some things in his memoir I believe that could a little. I’m just, as I say above, a bit concerned that people who voluntarily work with Emile Hirsch (or Mel Gibson) and talk about these traits in the way he does, if they’re that tolerant of them, might be a reason. I sure hope not. I also wish there was a way that athletes and actors could not have to do a million press interviews and answer questions like this all fucking day, giving them the chance to tell us things we don’t need to know at all. Hollywood is a town full of pieces of shit, tell me something I don’t know.
In total fairness, like EmptyBox said, it’s more like people keep getting asked about them.
He praises a lot of people, and in order to make money, the internet tries to paint a picture with selective quotes with the worst ones. And without readers like you, they would never be successful at it.Hell, it’s refreshing that one of the most talented actors currently working can’t give two tosses about Twitter Dot Com or the people who kind of regurgitate its vibes.
According to IMBD he’s worked with each of those actors precisely once, though, and in Mel Gibson’s case it was back in 1995, way before any sketchy behaviour was public knowledge. It’s not like he’s a frequent collaborator with either of them, and frankly if we’re going to start suspecting people by who they happened to share a working environment with one time, we’re getting into sketchy territory.As for Joe Carnahan, to be honest I’ve no idea what he’s got to do with anything, since as far as I can tell Brian Cox hasn’t worked with him at all.
I don’t think you are thinking about this in the same way, which is fine, or understanding exactly what I’m saying, I’m fine with dropping it
Fair enough, I’m quite happy to drop it as well. Though in total fairness, I’m also quite happy for you to clarify your point as well.
Well, just look at the films of Michael Polish. He and his twin brother used to make unusual indie movies. He married Kate Bosworth and has been making very odd films in recent years, he made a sex-bot farce that has a 3.1 rating on IMDB. Since their scandals he has cast Emile Hirsch and Mel Gibson, made a movie that is sympathetic to an American woman who went to Nazi Germany to broadcast propaganda in english, and cast Gina Carano in a movie. This is clearly suspicious.So yes, who you choose to share a work environment with is perfectly fine grounds for finding someone suspicious…for example, working at the Trump White House.
Okay, but on the flip side it’s not like Brian Cox is appearing in Ben Shapiro films on the regular. Like, one of the films you’re using to cast suspicion on Cox for appearing in was Braveheart and the other, so far as I can tell, is just some cookie-cutter exorcist-horror film from 2016. They’re both fairly mainstream (or appear to be in the case of the latter, to be honest I haven’t seen it) and are exactly the kind of films a jobbing Scottish actor might sign on to for a pay check for rather than because he’s secretly a true-believer in neo-fascist transphobic women-beating ideology showing solidarity with other true believers. Coupled with his defences of these people being generally kind of wishy-washy ‘they’re pretty talented and can’t we all just get along’ sentiments, I can’t help but think that using any of this as evidence that he’s potentially a die-hard fellow traveller up to his neck in evil deeds is a bit of a stretch, and that he’s far more like to just be a somewhat out-of-touch septuagenerian working actor with a tendency to run his mouth off without care and who’s happened to professionally cross paths with a few assholes in the span of a fairly long career.
Yes, Cox appeared in that film with Emile Hirsch in 2016…IMMEDIATELY AFTER Hirsh choked that woman in 2015. It’s the same as doing a Roman Polanski movie, it’s a political statement whether you want it to be or not. He can go run his mouth in the other direction then, and talk about how it doesn’t matter if Singer is talented if he is abusing people. I didn’t say shit about Braveheart, don’t strawman me.
Sorry, but I’m not strawmanning you; you’re the one who brought up Mel Gibson, and in a way that suggests that Cox working with him is a reason to be suspicious of him. I’m just pointing out that Brian Cox only ever worked with him at a point well before it was considered controversial to do so.As for the Emile Hirsch movie, yes, it was released a year after he was in the news, but according to IMBD it would have been filming roughly around the time when the story was breaking, and Cox would likely have been contracted to appear in it well before it did. That would make it seem more like a case of unfortunate timing rather than anything else. So yeah, I find the evidence for your argument unconvincing. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
but that is what I mean: Brian Cox says unnecessarily nice things about Mel Gibson in his book, RECENTLY. I never said it had something to do with him being in Braveheart years ago, you are making that up! And I don’t know why you are making it up because I am perfectly fine with you not being completely on board, just don’t make shit up!
I’m not ‘making anything up’. I just thought that’s what you were trying to say. We’ve obviously just got some wires crossed; I may have just misunderstood you.I thought you were talking about the time Mel Gibson and Brian Cox worked together; that’s how it came across in your original post. Not everything’s an act of maliciousness.
I think we’ll probably learn that he’s not a chronically online loser who goes around lambasting people for not being sufficiently outraged about things.
Can we also acknowledge the context of this? Yahoo!Entertainment asked Cox what he thought of similarly equivocal statements about Singer on the set of X2 made by Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman.Who cares what he thinks about what other stars think about another (sort of) star? It seems like the question is designed to provoke a “controversial” response either way, which is just lazy journalism.Ugh — why do I bother? I used to actually like the A.V. Club. Now it’s like 50% articles about some star saying something not entirely negative about someone we’re trying to cancel. The scandal! I just can’t anymore.
Hot take: X-2 sucked. Just one bland action sequence after another topped
off by a really awkward sequel tease, and the only reason people think
it’s such a masterpiece is because in 2003 everyone still expected superhero
films to be terrible and instead of being terrible, this one was merely
boring. Superman Returns is a much better superhero film despite its many problems. At least there’s an attempt at characterization and it has some pretty memorable imagery.
Anyway I find it completely ridiculous to think that Cox would have never heard about the Singer’s child sex abuse scandal considering that those allegations have been floating around for nine years now (and that’s not counting other stuff which dates back to the mid-90’s) and that story had a major impact on Hollywood at the time it broke. Between this and the Rowling thing, I get the feeling that Cox is just one of those people who doesn’t care how shitty someone is, so long as they’re nice to him personally. That attitude is more common than you think.
I don’t understand why the hell don’t these people just say “No comment” or “I believe the victims”? If my best friend were suddenly accused of sexual assault, I would definitely believe the press over him simply because they have evidence, regardless of my feelings. Why can’t anyone do the same?
It’s a shame that we now turn real scandals into a host of secondary scandals by asking everyone who has worked with the wrongdoer what they think about him, and then lambaste them for failing to be sufficiently mad.We can just keep being angry at the person who did the real thing.
Thank you! Please copy and paste this comment on every “they weren’t mad enough!” article at the A.V. Club from now on. It is pure gold.
How much of a shame is it?
“which lead to an accident”Led, not lead.
X2 and Days of Future Past are two of the best superhero movies ever made. I wish the MCU was more like them.
There was a shortage in X2OF COX
Breaking news: 80 year old successful actor not sufficiently outraged by things that only chronically online bloggers are even aware of.
Funny that Cox played a child molester in “L.I.E”. Not saying anything about him, its just funny.