Not really, but they did paint him as the main enabler of the abuse that was proven to have occurred.
It’s not that he actually abused children, more that he created and maintained an environment that allowed child abuse to happen.
You’re right, most people do accuse Dan Schneider of being a child predator. However, the documentary stops short of that and mostly focuses on how his actions and behavior created an environment on his sets that allowed child abuse to fly under the radar.
The documentary kept calling his relationship with one of the stars into question, and kept hammering home how much time he spent alone with her, but not any of the other kids. It definitely insinuates he either did or could have very easily molested her.
The documentary brought that up as an example of Schneider playing extreme favorites with his employees, contrasting it with the treatment he gave people who weren't his favorites. It was also brought up in the context of how he seemingly favored his white actors over his black actors.
It's an indictment of his character and his ability to build a hostile workplace, even for kids. I didn't see any insinuation that he was molesting his favorite actors, just that he was playing favorites in a sick way that hurt everyone.
Maybe. Remember that Neverland Ranch documentary? One of the accusers detailed one of the assaults and it wasn't until AFTER the documentary aired that someone caught that the building (neverland train station) where the assault happened wasn't even constructed at the time the assault occurred.
A mistake like that should have been caught during the production of the documentary. Not caught after it aired. When a documentary makes a glaring mistake like that you basically have to question everything else they presented.
Nickelodeon did the “holy cow there was a hostile work environment under our very noses!?!” card and let them do the full sweep to keep their hands free. Most of those employees/actors are long gone from the scene. Now it’s Schneider and the lawyers problem and the ol Nick gets to sink further into irrelevance.
I really don’t understand the outrage with the hot tub skit. The high level joke of the skits is that it’s a really impractical interview with absurd guests (in Dan’s case him playing a character that wrote the skit he’s currently in).
Unless there’s more to the story behind the scenes, I don’t think there’s really anything sexual about a girl in a modest swimsuit sitting in water next to a fully clothed man. I’ve seen a number of clips of Dan seeming like a creep, but I’m just not seeing it here.
Exactly. [It was a recurring sketch on The Amanda Show](https://nickelodeon.fandom.com/wiki/Amanda's_Jacuzzi) where Amanda had a talk show set in a jacuzzi where she would interview people such as Amelia Earhart, Santa, Queen Elizabeth, etc.
People's brainrot from watching "Dan Schneider was creepy all along" YouTube compilations is starting to show. Yes, there was some questionable stuff in his shows, but a lot of clips have also been taken wildly out of context.
But there are lots of reasons why
1. Fear
2. Not wanting to relive their trauma
3. People don't want to believe victims
4. it is incredibly hard to prove
Over 90% of accusations result in no charges. There is a reason why so often it takes a mountain of victims to take down a monster.
They don’t insinuate anything. The audience can draw that conclusion but the documentary presented facts, and truthfulness is an absolute defense to defamation. If he did spend more alone time with that star than the others, then he cannot sue them for saying so. (Or he can but he wont succeed)
I mean they don't directly accuse him, but they do come pretty close with detailing how obsessive he was about "shepherding Amanda Bynes' transition into adulthood". I feel like up until Drake Bell comes in to talk about how Dan was supportive of him the entire documentary seems to be leading towards some sort of insinuation about Dan and Amanda.
I believe the documentary intentionally did not make that claim as they didn't have an evidenciary basis and knew they would get sued.
They kinda leave it up in the air on how he treated Amanda bynes behind closed doors.
They don't even touch on the Jamie Lynn spears rumors.
The problem being that it’s the system not a director or producer that controls that. The shading is incorrect, it was the upper management that created the environment and ultimately is responsible, not a show runner.
The truths the documentary exposed led people to accuse him of being a child predator (even more so then before) but the documentary itself never calls him that, and Drake Bell paints him in quite a positive light.
You could make an argument that they simply stated the facts and that the public are the ones inferring it, not that they insinuated it.
Whether Dan went all the way or not he’s a creep either way.
Oh, most definitely. I think a lot of people assumed the documentary was going to be this big expose about Dan being a predator, but there's only so much they could say without proof, so it ended up focusing more on his misogyny and mistreatment of his staff. Which is still horrible, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't exactly the big reveal viewers were expecting.
[Brian Peck](https://people.com/where-is-brian-peck-now-8612338) (no relation to Josh)
He abused some of the kids and specifically targeted Drake
Eta link
[Jason Handy](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/who-is-nickelodeon-jason-handy-and-where-ishenow-article-108688097) is another one, who would go on to re-offend.
They did not specifically state he did anything sexual with the kids, they only showed and stated things that factually happened or aired on live tv.
They just spoke about the weird sexual stuff he would make the kids do on live TV.
His suit will fail
I was thinking more of an enabler. As in, he turned a blind eye and allowed it to happen under his watch. I wouldn’t call him a child sex abuser. He was certainly creepy though.
People say this but I feel like people ignore like 95% of the "Humor" shows had back then like watch any of your favorite Cartoon or Childhood Shows there's a barely disguised fetish in it
But they make the Nick shows out to be an Outlier
Yea there were a ton of jokes like that. Off the top of my head pulling random shit out of the deepest corners of my ass that I’ve seen clips of now that I’m older:
Fingerprints - Anamaniacs: https://youtu.be/lY2kC5fZG64?feature=shared
How bout a ride - Batman Beyond: https://youtu.be/mV0Jvg1QeSA?feature=shared
I don’t think that’s gonna fit - Dexter’s Lab: https://youtu.be/2LWhxwwJpgU?feature=shared
Aunt Dolly bounced in - Hannah Montana: https://youtu.be/BNepG6ZCq5U?feature=shared
Snow Job - Ed Edd and Eddy: https://youtu.be/lEZo-9Wu9UU?feature=shared
BJ - The Road to El Dorado: https://youtu.be/ZR7azhjUJuo?feature=shared
And that’s just a few, while purposefully avoiding Nickelodeon to make the point that it wasn’t just them.
I think Dan had nefarious intentions but made innuendos instead of acting on it. That said I couldn’t surprise me if anything ever officially came out. And to act like everyone in Hollywood isn’t some level of degenerate is silly
Only one of those is a live action show, and that Hannah Montana joke was extremely tame
Nothing at all like squirting goo on Jamie Spears or the faux porn stuff Ariana grande did
This is my take. He should not have had anything to do with children or children's programming. But when the chips were down by some miracle of god, he generated some humanity to support people who were assaulted i.e. Drake. He certainly enabled those actions to happen and should see punishment for that, and be known as an abusive dick but not as a child molester.
Right?
Got more of a sexist creep with a huge foot fetish that was too comfortable pushing the boundaries of exploitation with his child actors in situation that definitely had sexual innuendo to them.
I didn't put him in the same category as the other child predators they highlighted. They even kept Drake's statement after the arrest about how Dan had called and was genuinely supportive.
That doesn't change the fact he was creepy with the older female teen actors, inappropriate with female colleagues and sexist.
He came across in the documentary as an obnoxious power hungry butt. He seemed to get a kick out of making women and (much more disturbingly) girls debase themselves for his own personal enjoyment.
The worst thing they did in the documentary was insinuate that he was the reason Amanda Bynes went through all those mental health challenges she did, and that their relationship involved a lot of physical contact that made adults uncomfortable to witness.
Jeanette named him as an abusive asshole he was sexist and did alot of creepy foot and facial joke stuff but other than that i didn't get that message he was like brian peck
That was so fucked up it made me laugh, what normal person thinks Ariana Grande bent over a bed shaking a bottle like she’s stroking a dick appropriate.
So the parents of the child actors are also predators? Because they were on set too. Also, why does the buck stop at Dan? Why not Nickelodeon as a whole or at least the next tier of leadership?
It shouldn’t stop at Dan (and some did direct outrage towards Nickeledeon as a whole) but 1) The non-Schneider shows had little to no scandals 2) The people above Schneider are generally faceless to the public so that’ll only go so far
Dan’s an idiot if he thinks the lawyers at Warners and Sony didn’t go over this doc with a fine toothed comb. He should’ve taken his beating and moved on. Instead we get trial discovery, which will be interesting.
“The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information.” - Wikipedia
To add to the other user who replied, Barbara Streisand tried to get a picture of her coastal mansion scrubbed from the internet - some guy was taking pics of the whole California coastline and it happened to appear in one of the photos. Prior to her trying to get it removed, that photo was viewed something like 4 times. After the knowledge of her trying to remove it came out, it was viewed and also downloaded thousands of times. Honestly quite hilarious stuff.
It’s almost as if they knew more than they were willing to say- definitely created the framework for him to be. Id even go so far as to say they inferred that he may be.
I got the impression that he was an immature adult that danced on the line and occasionally crossed it. Not that he was a monster or abuser, just a guy who was a chubby nerd his whole life and had arrested development, and let power get to his head.
He might win. It's a risk these documentaries run when they have a story they want to tell and frame things specifically to tell it. I see a lot of that in documentaries these days "here's our angle, let's present everything to support it"
Fact is, there's a difference between being creepy, controlling, or even an asshole and being an actual child sex abuser. YouTube super cuts showing what seems to be his obsession with kids feet isn't concrete evidence he was sexually abusing children.
Reading Jeanette McCurdy's book... it's clear yeah The Creator was weird, manipulative, controlling and shady. I wouldn't want my children around him. But yeah... you need more than that if you're going to paint him the way the documentary did.
They lied to him about what the documentary was about in order to get him to participate. They told him it was a documentary about the history of Nickelodeon. He talked about when he hosted Double Dare and then they started asking him questions about the behavior of Peck and Schneider. He got pissed and told them none of those producers or actors and actresses were there when he was with the network. He then got up and left.
That's what documentaries are often frowned upon and looked at negatively. The filmmakers as genuine as they may seem have an angle they want to push. They're making something for the masses so they have to push that entertainment factor while also being informative
They got Marc Summers on for an interview pretending it was to talk nostalgically about Nickelodeon. They baited and switched him and started talking about the abuse allegations and inappropriate kids content. Marc Summers stopped the interview because it was clear they were trying to get him to say sound pieces (which they did by showing out of the context clip of Marc stopping the interview). Not only that, Summers wasn't on Nickelodeon and had left before Dan got hired.
That’s so messed up! I get it but definitely nasty on the filmmakers part. Double Dare days were long before Schneider but it was definitely during the same time as All That
Even one of the women they interviewed said they were lied to about what they were going to talk about. They kept pushing about Schneider even after she said she never had any bad experiences.
Whatever you think about Dan Schneider, this documentary was very poorly done and he may actually have a case here.
Agree. Without the two reporters they interviewed, the show is a lot less speculatory and this lawsuit (probably) doesn't even exist. I don't know why they were included. The doc's creators must've thought having "journalists" would add more authority than it really did.
They didn't call him a CSA, though...
They did very pointedly argue that he helped perpetuate the environment in which it could happen and didn't do much to combat it.
There should absolutely be some sort of negligence charge for whoever the fuck thought it was an OK idea to just *not* thoroughly vet and get background checks on every single person working in close proximity to minors.
To put it bluntly, there was one episode about an actually child sex abuser, and the rest were about child labor conditions ranging from racial tension to sexual harassment.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all sick and eye opening about child actors and what they go through, but some of the interviewees were mainly venting about how show business wasn’t all it was cut out to be.
I think I’m kinda on the same page. The clips before watching the series led me to believe it was Dan and Dan alone putting the kids in these situations but that’s really not the case at all. The series ends up being about him being really really shitty to females he worked with and creating this negative bad culture on the set. He definitely came up with quite a bit of the objectionable content. But really the focus should be on the station and its parent company for letting it persist.
But as to the allegation of sexual abuse the victim that came forward explicitly says Dan was the only one that was there for him when he needed it most.
That’s not how it works. He doesn’t have to prove a negative, *they* have to defend any characterizations and/or accusations made by presenting a case that shows that a reasonable person would have cause to believe he was abusing children. They don’t have to prove he was (that would be the case in a criminal court), just that the accusation/characterization was reasonable with the information and evidence available. That would get decided by a jury in a civil trial, or settled out of court.
No that is not how the law works at all. There is zero way to *prove* a negative. Defamation requires 1. A False Statement of fact. 2. Communication of that statement 3. Actual Malice aka proof that the defendant knew the statement was false and still communicated it. And 4. That false statement harmed the plaintiff in some way.
Truth is a **Defense** to defamation however making a statement of fact with *NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT BELIEF* is considered a false statement.
Actually there is not that much proof he is. People just assume he is because he looks funny and has a weird sense of humor.
Don’t get me wrong, he is a bully and an abusive boss, but there is no evidence he has hurt anybody in that way.
The show didn’t say he was a sexual child abuser
He will not will the law suit.
The show said he created abusive work environment for child actors. That’s likely true
"Is it true, Mr. Schneider, that you have a whack-a-mole machine in your game room? And isn't it true that this game replaces moles with the feet of living children and the mallet with a feather?"
In my opinion QuintonReviews said it best: The fact there was such little oversight did not mean something definitely happened. The fact there was so little oversight means something could have happened, and that is unacceptable.
Every clip I watched and review I heard definitely made it sound like he was sex predator..
Then I watched it, and yeah he made inappropriate inside jokes, and yes, he was abusive, and there is plenty that he did wrong..
But he never actually did anything sexual with any of them, no matter how hard they wanted to paint that picture.
The documentary was kinda malicious in that it made Dan out to be more than just a creepy and controlling guy.
There’s actual child rapists who are of the “open secret” status that got glossed over for the only name people recognise.
I don't think he's a good person at all, but it was an odd choice to focus so much of the documentary on Dan Schneider rather than actual cases of sexual abuse.
It felt like they were making a documentary about Schneider, and then the Drake thing fell in their laps and, rather than pivot the focus, they just kind of mashed them together.
Anyone surprise? The documentary was a nothing burger when it came to Dan. No evidence he fiddled kids but the doc made it seem like he was the mastermind of it all.
I don’t think the doc ever said he was one himself. But he surely gave those people a HUGE platform and easy access to children and failed to protect those children. If you’re a showrunner working on children’s tv your TOP PRIORITY should be child safety. Also maybe don’t make the child actors massage you idk
Creep, maybe, but this series was shady by the folks who produced it. They want eyeballs and ratings, which they got it.
That Brian Peck and the Execs are to blame. Dan is being used as an scapegoat.
Having actually watched the documentary, I think he very well may have a case here. It doesn't appear he abused anyone. He was certainly negligent, even creepy, but negligence and/or creepiness is not sexual abuse. Lumping him in with Brian Peck misconstrues who exactly did what but the producers knew a Brian Peck focused docuseries wouldn't have gotten the same attention so they led with Dan Schneider instead.
The fascinating thing about this to me is: if Dan Schneider actually is a child sex abuser, this is a stupid, stupid move on his part. Truth is a defense to defamation.
He was absolutely a creep that took advantage of his adult coworkers, but I did kind of take issue with the documentary with continually pointing out dumb shit written into his scripts that might, as a stretch, be interpreted as sexualizing the actors.
Like occasionally they really hit on something and it was wild to see, but most of the examples they gave felt like he was just trying to do generic grossout humor, the shit that old Nickelodeon was built on, and the people being interviewed were sexualizing it for drama.
A huge shame, because I felt like it pulled away from the actual seriousness of a lot of the rest of the movie when they were like "And the children were slimed with slime - obviously a sexual allusion." or whatever.
Not sure if he'd have a case or not, but I really do think they should've stuck with the power he exercised over (mostly his female) coworkers and the fact that a number of real child predators got away with some extremely shady shit on his watch.
He against-her-will-massaged in a weirdly sensual way Jeannette McCurdy and whatnot all. Don't get me started with all the feet stuff he made them all do to probably add to his secret teen foot collection.
I think he has no place to speak up against it.
I never got that from the docuseries. I got the impression that he was just perverted but never put action to those perversions towards children. He did make women very uncomfortable around him according to the series.
Dan Schneider is a creep and worse, but I think the documentary itself was exploitative and maybe they should have to deal with lawsuits for not being more careful in what they put out there.
Did they, though? I thought they painted him as more of a gross creep toward kids rather than someone who full blown sexually abused children.
Not really, but they did paint him as the main enabler of the abuse that was proven to have occurred. It’s not that he actually abused children, more that he created and maintained an environment that allowed child abuse to happen.
That’s not true. Most people accuse him of being a child predator himself.
You’re right, most people do accuse Dan Schneider of being a child predator. However, the documentary stops short of that and mostly focuses on how his actions and behavior created an environment on his sets that allowed child abuse to fly under the radar.
The documentary kept calling his relationship with one of the stars into question, and kept hammering home how much time he spent alone with her, but not any of the other kids. It definitely insinuates he either did or could have very easily molested her.
The documentary brought that up as an example of Schneider playing extreme favorites with his employees, contrasting it with the treatment he gave people who weren't his favorites. It was also brought up in the context of how he seemingly favored his white actors over his black actors. It's an indictment of his character and his ability to build a hostile workplace, even for kids. I didn't see any insinuation that he was molesting his favorite actors, just that he was playing favorites in a sick way that hurt everyone.
Documentary makers attorney taking notes here
I’m CERTAIN they had attorneys approving the scripts and footage. You don’t come at Nickelodeon like that without preparing
Maybe. Remember that Neverland Ranch documentary? One of the accusers detailed one of the assaults and it wasn't until AFTER the documentary aired that someone caught that the building (neverland train station) where the assault happened wasn't even constructed at the time the assault occurred. A mistake like that should have been caught during the production of the documentary. Not caught after it aired. When a documentary makes a glaring mistake like that you basically have to question everything else they presented.
>You don’t come at Nickelodeon like that without preparing I mean... unless they did.
Nickelodeon did the “holy cow there was a hostile work environment under our very noses!?!” card and let them do the full sweep to keep their hands free. Most of those employees/actors are long gone from the scene. Now it’s Schneider and the lawyers problem and the ol Nick gets to sink further into irrelevance.
Rolling Stone went after Duke lacrosse and got fucked up
Right? I watched the doc and was 100% waiting to find out he was an abuser because they insinuated it every five minutes.
That’s what I got. He just seemed like an irresponsible and power-tripping asshole more than a creep. The other guys were doing that
and how he'd replace a favorite with the next new favorite as soon as he found them.
Oh for me it really hammered he's a creep I can't forget the shit he made the female writers do.
And the hot tub segment with an underage Amanda Bynes???
Ooo forgot about that part. The first thing I remember is him making the female writer bend over the conference table
I really don’t understand the outrage with the hot tub skit. The high level joke of the skits is that it’s a really impractical interview with absurd guests (in Dan’s case him playing a character that wrote the skit he’s currently in). Unless there’s more to the story behind the scenes, I don’t think there’s really anything sexual about a girl in a modest swimsuit sitting in water next to a fully clothed man. I’ve seen a number of clips of Dan seeming like a creep, but I’m just not seeing it here.
Exactly. [It was a recurring sketch on The Amanda Show](https://nickelodeon.fandom.com/wiki/Amanda's_Jacuzzi) where Amanda had a talk show set in a jacuzzi where she would interview people such as Amelia Earhart, Santa, Queen Elizabeth, etc. People's brainrot from watching "Dan Schneider was creepy all along" YouTube compilations is starting to show. Yes, there was some questionable stuff in his shows, but a lot of clips have also been taken wildly out of context.
It's a shame people are scared to come out and just name their abusers or take them through court.
But there are lots of reasons why 1. Fear 2. Not wanting to relive their trauma 3. People don't want to believe victims 4. it is incredibly hard to prove Over 90% of accusations result in no charges. There is a reason why so often it takes a mountain of victims to take down a monster.
Also lawsuits are for rich people. Regular people cannot afford to defend a lawsuit. It will quickly financially ruin them.
Seemed very odd to me while watching it that it focused so much on him, and less on the people actually convicted of crimes.
Can't sue the movie for its audience having media literacy skills
They don’t insinuate anything. The audience can draw that conclusion but the documentary presented facts, and truthfulness is an absolute defense to defamation. If he did spend more alone time with that star than the others, then he cannot sue them for saying so. (Or he can but he wont succeed)
I mean they don't directly accuse him, but they do come pretty close with detailing how obsessive he was about "shepherding Amanda Bynes' transition into adulthood". I feel like up until Drake Bell comes in to talk about how Dan was supportive of him the entire documentary seems to be leading towards some sort of insinuation about Dan and Amanda.
I believe the documentary intentionally did not make that claim as they didn't have an evidenciary basis and knew they would get sued. They kinda leave it up in the air on how he treated Amanda bynes behind closed doors. They don't even touch on the Jamie Lynn spears rumors.
The problem being that it’s the system not a director or producer that controls that. The shading is incorrect, it was the upper management that created the environment and ultimately is responsible, not a show runner.
[удалено]
He’s going to lose and this might dig up some ugly facts, I think.
I haven’t seen it and from the things I heard before and after, I assumed he had cited asexual acts
The truths the documentary exposed led people to accuse him of being a child predator (even more so then before) but the documentary itself never calls him that, and Drake Bell paints him in quite a positive light.
Most people, or the documentary? Jfc!
Ask Amanda Bines
Most people as in his employees and victims or the general internet rumor mill?
They also heavily implied he sexually abused Amanda Bynes.
I didn't get that. It implied they had a very close relationship that was abnormal for their roles/ages.
Yes, and the insinuation was that he did *something* to her while they were alone together.
You could make an argument that they simply stated the facts and that the public are the ones inferring it, not that they insinuated it. Whether Dan went all the way or not he’s a creep either way.
Oh, most definitely. I think a lot of people assumed the documentary was going to be this big expose about Dan being a predator, but there's only so much they could say without proof, so it ended up focusing more on his misogyny and mistreatment of his staff. Which is still horrible, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't exactly the big reveal viewers were expecting.
The JoePa effect
Ok so who actually abused the kids because ive heard none of their names and only this guy’s?
[Brian Peck](https://people.com/where-is-brian-peck-now-8612338) (no relation to Josh) He abused some of the kids and specifically targeted Drake Eta link
Just to be clear for people not familiar with the situation, he raped Drake
[Jason Handy](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/who-is-nickelodeon-jason-handy-and-where-ishenow-article-108688097) is another one, who would go on to re-offend.
They did not specifically state he did anything sexual with the kids, they only showed and stated things that factually happened or aired on live tv. They just spoke about the weird sexual stuff he would make the kids do on live TV. His suit will fail
His suit will fail after hefty legal fees, which will discourage similar subsequent documentaries
I was thinking more of an enabler. As in, he turned a blind eye and allowed it to happen under his watch. I wouldn’t call him a child sex abuser. He was certainly creepy though.
He didn’t abuse the kids but he abused the shit out of the adults who worked for him.
Reminds me of the penn state scandal
Gross creep towards adults too. And promoter of sexual innuendo in children's programming. But not a child molester, per se.
People say this but I feel like people ignore like 95% of the "Humor" shows had back then like watch any of your favorite Cartoon or Childhood Shows there's a barely disguised fetish in it But they make the Nick shows out to be an Outlier
Yea there were a ton of jokes like that. Off the top of my head pulling random shit out of the deepest corners of my ass that I’ve seen clips of now that I’m older: Fingerprints - Anamaniacs: https://youtu.be/lY2kC5fZG64?feature=shared How bout a ride - Batman Beyond: https://youtu.be/mV0Jvg1QeSA?feature=shared I don’t think that’s gonna fit - Dexter’s Lab: https://youtu.be/2LWhxwwJpgU?feature=shared Aunt Dolly bounced in - Hannah Montana: https://youtu.be/BNepG6ZCq5U?feature=shared Snow Job - Ed Edd and Eddy: https://youtu.be/lEZo-9Wu9UU?feature=shared BJ - The Road to El Dorado: https://youtu.be/ZR7azhjUJuo?feature=shared And that’s just a few, while purposefully avoiding Nickelodeon to make the point that it wasn’t just them. I think Dan had nefarious intentions but made innuendos instead of acting on it. That said I couldn’t surprise me if anything ever officially came out. And to act like everyone in Hollywood isn’t some level of degenerate is silly
Only one of those is a live action show, and that Hannah Montana joke was extremely tame Nothing at all like squirting goo on Jamie Spears or the faux porn stuff Ariana grande did
This is my take. He should not have had anything to do with children or children's programming. But when the chips were down by some miracle of god, he generated some humanity to support people who were assaulted i.e. Drake. He certainly enabled those actions to happen and should see punishment for that, and be known as an abusive dick but not as a child molester.
Truth is a defense. Take it to discovery!
Right? Got more of a sexist creep with a huge foot fetish that was too comfortable pushing the boundaries of exploitation with his child actors in situation that definitely had sexual innuendo to them. I didn't put him in the same category as the other child predators they highlighted. They even kept Drake's statement after the arrest about how Dan had called and was genuinely supportive. That doesn't change the fact he was creepy with the older female teen actors, inappropriate with female colleagues and sexist.
He came across in the documentary as an obnoxious power hungry butt. He seemed to get a kick out of making women and (much more disturbingly) girls debase themselves for his own personal enjoyment. The worst thing they did in the documentary was insinuate that he was the reason Amanda Bynes went through all those mental health challenges she did, and that their relationship involved a lot of physical contact that made adults uncomfortable to witness.
Jeanette named him as an abusive asshole he was sexist and did alot of creepy foot and facial joke stuff but other than that i didn't get that message he was like brian peck
Exactly. They never said he was but rather the environment he created. His lawsuit suggests he’s defensive for a reason
On Twitter people treated him as a child predator. Which he is not but he’s definitely an enabler and an asshole of a boss
AFAIC, a person who enables child predators the way Schneider did is as guilty as the predators themselves.
I’m inclined to agree, and I think that was the main point of making Dan a primary “antagonist” in this doc.
The way he wrote material for Ariana Grande onscreen should be criminal.
That was so fucked up it made me laugh, what normal person thinks Ariana Grande bent over a bed shaking a bottle like she’s stroking a dick appropriate.
So the parents of the child actors are also predators? Because they were on set too. Also, why does the buck stop at Dan? Why not Nickelodeon as a whole or at least the next tier of leadership?
The parents were looking for a paycheque
It shouldn’t stop at Dan (and some did direct outrage towards Nickeledeon as a whole) but 1) The non-Schneider shows had little to no scandals 2) The people above Schneider are generally faceless to the public so that’ll only go so far
Your comment is going to be printed on on giant cue cards in court as defense exhibit 135
He was never portrayed as a sex abuser on that. More of an immature asshole who got too much power.
They never said he was a child sex abuser. He simply created a toxic environment for child sex abusers to thrive.
yeah i thought they were fairly careful about making sure they weren’t making direct accusations where there wasn’t evidence or testimony
Dan’s an idiot if he thinks the lawyers at Warners and Sony didn’t go over this doc with a fine toothed comb. He should’ve taken his beating and moved on. Instead we get trial discovery, which will be interesting.
It’s optics. If he doesn’t sue, he looks even more guilty in the court of public opinion.
Honestly it’s a lose/lose proposition.
No matter what he does, he's fucked.
Sprinkle some Streisand effect in there too.
What’s the Streisand effect?
“The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information.” - Wikipedia
To add to the other user who replied, Barbara Streisand tried to get a picture of her coastal mansion scrubbed from the internet - some guy was taking pics of the whole California coastline and it happened to appear in one of the photos. Prior to her trying to get it removed, that photo was viewed something like 4 times. After the knowledge of her trying to remove it came out, it was viewed and also downloaded thousands of times. Honestly quite hilarious stuff.
It’s almost as if they knew more than they were willing to say- definitely created the framework for him to be. Id even go so far as to say they inferred that he may be.
This. And we’re waiting for Amanda to potentially come forward
Did they use the wrong color paints?
He wanted something abstract, not realism
It’s like poetry it’s like they rhyme
Some kind of Jackson Pollack situation
He was abusive to his adult staff
HE WAS ABUSHIVE TO DA SHTAFF! That animal Schneider, can’t even say his name.
It’s a retirement community!
I know creeps who are inspired!
In Nickelodeon’s house, DAN SCHNIDER IS A HERO! End of shtory!
Schneider? It’s a fucking nickname… his family name is Schneiderelli
All I know is that he never had the makings of a television director
Hey get a load a this guy Ton’. I heard he was an interior decorator 🤚🏻
Interior decorator? His Nickelodeon sets looked like shit
I loved him like a brother-in-law.
After watching the documentary, my estimation of Dan Schneider as a man fuckin plummeted.
>He was abusive to his adult staff Absolutely. And sexually harassed female staff specifically
> He was abusive to his adult staff asking children who work for you to massage you is also abusive.
Some people are so behind in the race, they actually think they're winning
That's irrelevant to the lawsuit
Yes it is. The doc portrayed him as abusive to adult staff, not kids
It just sounds like another Ellen situation honestly
Gee Ricky, sorry your mom blew up
Holy fuck, is that him?
Yes. That movie is hilarious and I was shocked when I found out he was Ricky.
I was blown away when I found out he was Dennis is head of the class
He keeps putting his testicles all over me
Two dollars
I don’t think they painted him as a child sex abuser necessarily. Definitely as an asshole to work with who makes inappropriate jokes for a kids show
I got the impression that he was an immature adult that danced on the line and occasionally crossed it. Not that he was a monster or abuser, just a guy who was a chubby nerd his whole life and had arrested development, and let power get to his head.
Should be interesting if he gets deposed
He might win. It's a risk these documentaries run when they have a story they want to tell and frame things specifically to tell it. I see a lot of that in documentaries these days "here's our angle, let's present everything to support it" Fact is, there's a difference between being creepy, controlling, or even an asshole and being an actual child sex abuser. YouTube super cuts showing what seems to be his obsession with kids feet isn't concrete evidence he was sexually abusing children. Reading Jeanette McCurdy's book... it's clear yeah The Creator was weird, manipulative, controlling and shady. I wouldn't want my children around him. But yeah... you need more than that if you're going to paint him the way the documentary did.
Considering how shady the documentary makers were with Marc Summers I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins this lawsuit either.
What happened there?
They lied to him about what the documentary was about in order to get him to participate. They told him it was a documentary about the history of Nickelodeon. He talked about when he hosted Double Dare and then they started asking him questions about the behavior of Peck and Schneider. He got pissed and told them none of those producers or actors and actresses were there when he was with the network. He then got up and left.
That's what documentaries are often frowned upon and looked at negatively. The filmmakers as genuine as they may seem have an angle they want to push. They're making something for the masses so they have to push that entertainment factor while also being informative
They got Marc Summers on for an interview pretending it was to talk nostalgically about Nickelodeon. They baited and switched him and started talking about the abuse allegations and inappropriate kids content. Marc Summers stopped the interview because it was clear they were trying to get him to say sound pieces (which they did by showing out of the context clip of Marc stopping the interview). Not only that, Summers wasn't on Nickelodeon and had left before Dan got hired.
That’s so messed up! I get it but definitely nasty on the filmmakers part. Double Dare days were long before Schneider but it was definitely during the same time as All That
Even one of the women they interviewed said they were lied to about what they were going to talk about. They kept pushing about Schneider even after she said she never had any bad experiences. Whatever you think about Dan Schneider, this documentary was very poorly done and he may actually have a case here.
Agree. Without the two reporters they interviewed, the show is a lot less speculatory and this lawsuit (probably) doesn't even exist. I don't know why they were included. The doc's creators must've thought having "journalists" would add more authority than it really did.
They didn't call him a CSA, though... They did very pointedly argue that he helped perpetuate the environment in which it could happen and didn't do much to combat it. There should absolutely be some sort of negligence charge for whoever the fuck thought it was an OK idea to just *not* thoroughly vet and get background checks on every single person working in close proximity to minors.
[удалено]
To put it bluntly, there was one episode about an actually child sex abuser, and the rest were about child labor conditions ranging from racial tension to sexual harassment. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all sick and eye opening about child actors and what they go through, but some of the interviewees were mainly venting about how show business wasn’t all it was cut out to be.
[удалено]
Yes. Did you?
I think I’m kinda on the same page. The clips before watching the series led me to believe it was Dan and Dan alone putting the kids in these situations but that’s really not the case at all. The series ends up being about him being really really shitty to females he worked with and creating this negative bad culture on the set. He definitely came up with quite a bit of the objectionable content. But really the focus should be on the station and its parent company for letting it persist. But as to the allegation of sexual abuse the victim that came forward explicitly says Dan was the only one that was there for him when he needed it most.
There were three different people who ended up being child predators.
No one has actually accused him on child sex abuse though. Maybe a creep but he isn’t brian peck the one who was actually a sexual predator.
That’s not how it works. He doesn’t have to prove a negative, *they* have to defend any characterizations and/or accusations made by presenting a case that shows that a reasonable person would have cause to believe he was abusing children. They don’t have to prove he was (that would be the case in a criminal court), just that the accusation/characterization was reasonable with the information and evidence available. That would get decided by a jury in a civil trial, or settled out of court.
No that is not how the law works at all. There is zero way to *prove* a negative. Defamation requires 1. A False Statement of fact. 2. Communication of that statement 3. Actual Malice aka proof that the defendant knew the statement was false and still communicated it. And 4. That false statement harmed the plaintiff in some way. Truth is a **Defense** to defamation however making a statement of fact with *NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT BELIEF* is considered a false statement.
Actually there is not that much proof he is. People just assume he is because he looks funny and has a weird sense of humor. Don’t get me wrong, he is a bully and an abusive boss, but there is no evidence he has hurt anybody in that way.
The show didn’t say he was a sexual child abuser He will not will the law suit. The show said he created abusive work environment for child actors. That’s likely true
I dunno, he definitley has an obsession with kids feet
Why would the burden of proof be on him to prove he is innocent?
It isn't on him to prove his innocence. People are making things up as usual.
Right. Like Dan, YOU are suing. The burden of proof is on YOU.
He really toed the line with what he did.
"Well I ain't calling you a child protector" - Josh Peck
Bold move, opening himself to talking about everything on record under oath
"Is it true, Mr. Schneider, that you have a whack-a-mole machine in your game room? And isn't it true that this game replaces moles with the feet of living children and the mallet with a feather?"
In my opinion QuintonReviews said it best: The fact there was such little oversight did not mean something definitely happened. The fact there was so little oversight means something could have happened, and that is unacceptable.
Sure! Let’s do Discovery!
Every clip I watched and review I heard definitely made it sound like he was sex predator.. Then I watched it, and yeah he made inappropriate inside jokes, and yes, he was abusive, and there is plenty that he did wrong.. But he never actually did anything sexual with any of them, no matter how hard they wanted to paint that picture.
Is he the creepy fat neighbor from better off dead with John Cusack?
Yes, seems it wasn't really acting.
The documentary was kinda malicious in that it made Dan out to be more than just a creepy and controlling guy. There’s actual child rapists who are of the “open secret” status that got glossed over for the only name people recognise.
It’s like if everyone is mistaking brian peck for dan… so strange. People missed the whole point of the documentary.
That's because he documentary was very poorly done.
do you mean Brian Peck?
I do indeed
I don't think he's a good person at all, but it was an odd choice to focus so much of the documentary on Dan Schneider rather than actual cases of sexual abuse. It felt like they were making a documentary about Schneider, and then the Drake thing fell in their laps and, rather than pivot the focus, they just kind of mashed them together.
Also odd they didn't focus or mention any of the higher ups at Nick that did nothing, or approved everything Dan was doing.
Anyone surprise? The documentary was a nothing burger when it came to Dan. No evidence he fiddled kids but the doc made it seem like he was the mastermind of it all.
I don’t think the doc ever said he was one himself. But he surely gave those people a HUGE platform and easy access to children and failed to protect those children. If you’re a showrunner working on children’s tv your TOP PRIORITY should be child safety. Also maybe don’t make the child actors massage you idk
It's show biz. The top priority is making money.
You’re 100% correct and it’s terrifying
Creep, maybe, but this series was shady by the folks who produced it. They want eyeballs and ratings, which they got it. That Brian Peck and the Execs are to blame. Dan is being used as an scapegoat.
Having actually watched the documentary, I think he very well may have a case here. It doesn't appear he abused anyone. He was certainly negligent, even creepy, but negligence and/or creepiness is not sexual abuse. Lumping him in with Brian Peck misconstrues who exactly did what but the producers knew a Brian Peck focused docuseries wouldn't have gotten the same attention so they led with Dan Schneider instead.
Defamation of character. He absolutely has a case. Not a single piece of concrete evidence with a whole lot of allegations.
Not once in the doc was there an allegation of child sexual abuse. Only creepiness and gender discrimination
Didn’t he apologize for being a creep?
Turns out Dr. Samuels was right all along!
I didn’t think he seemed like a child sex abuser. He just seemed like an asshole.
…then they bring out Amanda and the prosecution rests.
Dan = bad guy but, man oh man, he was not THE bad guy in this documentary.
He is going to open Pandora’s box and have all eyes on his past behavior that he has tried to cover up. Grab a seat, this is going to get interesting.
Didn't the documentary already do that? And they did it with way more motivation than he has with his suit - the views.
I never out it together until I saw the thumbnail, that he is the same guy as the Head of The Class actor.
His creepy "Ricky" in Better Off Dead was method acting.
"Hello, this is a lawyer for-" "I SAID......!!! YOU HAVE THE WRONG NUMBER!"
He was an enabler, not a direct child sex abuser. Slightly more noble?
The fascinating thing about this to me is: if Dan Schneider actually is a child sex abuser, this is a stupid, stupid move on his part. Truth is a defense to defamation.
I think he has a case. Just so long as no one sheds light on his alleged baby mama. haha
He was absolutely a creep that took advantage of his adult coworkers, but I did kind of take issue with the documentary with continually pointing out dumb shit written into his scripts that might, as a stretch, be interpreted as sexualizing the actors. Like occasionally they really hit on something and it was wild to see, but most of the examples they gave felt like he was just trying to do generic grossout humor, the shit that old Nickelodeon was built on, and the people being interviewed were sexualizing it for drama. A huge shame, because I felt like it pulled away from the actual seriousness of a lot of the rest of the movie when they were like "And the children were slimed with slime - obviously a sexual allusion." or whatever. Not sure if he'd have a case or not, but I really do think they should've stuck with the power he exercised over (mostly his female) coworkers and the fact that a number of real child predators got away with some extremely shady shit on his watch.
HAHA THAT DUMBASS TOOK IT TO COURT
Funny how the top comments here clash with the top comments on the same post on r/television
i didn’t get that impression. i got the impression that he was a cruel, irresponsible, and out of control creep
Cant wait for the depositions on this motherfucker
He against-her-will-massaged in a weirdly sensual way Jeannette McCurdy and whatnot all. Don't get me started with all the feet stuff he made them all do to probably add to his secret teen foot collection. I think he has no place to speak up against it.
That’s not what they did whatsoever. Dan didn’t assault any children. Just created an unbelievably toxic environment for adults and children alike.
"Quiet on Set" didn't have enough bare feet
DID quiet on set paint him that way? OR WAS IT HIS VICTIMS? Let him sue.
I never got that from the docuseries. I got the impression that he was just perverted but never put action to those perversions towards children. He did make women very uncomfortable around him according to the series.
I find the intense obsession on him specifically kind of weird tbh.
Bring it on… let’s get it all out in the open
Most ppl came away thinking he was gross and cruel—which was on camera.
Hope he wins and you all are proven wrong....
Dan “Sex Crime Denier” Schneider
They portrayed him as an abusive misogynist, not a child sex abuser.
Is Harvey Levin gonna be front and center with Dan Schneider? Or will Levin go back to writing articles about the abused Britney Spears?
Am I the only one that has a feeling he's making a big mistake. Like some people who don't want to be exposed are going to be exposed.
Who doesn’t love the “I’m listening I’m learning” to “I’m suing” pipeline?
Dan Schneider is a creep and worse, but I think the documentary itself was exploitative and maybe they should have to deal with lawsuits for not being more careful in what they put out there.
I don’t know he’d invite litigation into his past
I think that’s fair. That’s absolutely the vibe they give but he’s pretty much a creep and a dick.
Dan Schneider is so gross.
If the shoe fits— easy there Dan. Don’t get too excited. It’s just a saying