Jason Biggs getting targted by parents ?
 

I have to hear your guys opinions on this. Did anyone here about this ?:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michell...ist-jason-bigg

Yes, we have. Michelle Malkin is a toad. Her chances of affecting any change in this self-righteous campaign of hers are approximately zero.

I'm not even gonna read all of that. I love Michelle Malkin. I think she's smart, and I agree with many of her political views, but she's been ragging on Biggs for weeks.

And it's pissing me off.

I just don't hink what Jason Biggs does on her personal time does, or should be expected to mirror his work or the views of his audience. The show is the show, and his tweets are his tweets. I don't care if he starts doing porn and tweets his work. As long as he pulls a good Leo, I'm happy.

The only mistake anyone made is this situation is the @tmntmaster account tweeting Jason Biggs twitter handle to turtles fans. Obviously, they didn't realize what kind of things he tweets.

And what good does boycotting do? Does she expect to teach Nick a lesson? Teach them to make sure none of their employees like lewd humor? That's no crime.

"Like disgusted parents across the country, I put my foot down and am standing up for decency: No more Nick."

Ugh. I do so despise scandalmongers. Especially conservative Christian ones.

This is about a month old and there is a thread about it already that has been locked. Jason should be fired for his actions because people have been ousted for much less and he is nothing but controvsersial so the hiring is a head scratcher.He has not done voice work before in the first place.Let's just hope for his firing if we want him out or his maintaining voice work as Leo if we want him to continue and leave it at that.No need to bring social politics around the mb.

That's true.The other voice actors including Sean Astin have a good voice over background.Biggs' claim to fame was American Pie and has no voice over experiance.I do agree with Michelle Malkin on a lot of things but this is not one of them.I will continue to watch the new series.As I said I always serperate the actor for the character they play.So,there.

I hate it when they replace voice actors. I really could care less about Biggs being used or not, but if they replace him I would rather it be sooner rather than later. I was already weary about his longevity assuming that his VA duties would eventually interfere with his movie career.

Actors get into voice acting all the time. Specifically, every year when animated movies that cost tens of millions of dollars come to blow up the box office. I don't hear anyone objecting to his take on Leo...

While l like Biggs's take on Leo, I agree that he needs to tone down on the lewd comments because he's working for a company that's family friendly. I'm not going to boycott the show or Nick though as they corrected the mistake of putting his link for his Twitter off of their site. But honestly, Biggs would not have been my first choice for Leo. I would've picked either James Arnold Taylor or Cam Clarke to do the role instead.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the "BUT WHY WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" argument.

Not everything is made for kids, nor should everything be made for kids. And the only people who should be determining what IS for kids are their specific parents. Not some talking head on tv.

Seriously, when did it become so hard to talk to one's own children and say: This language is rude, and we don't talk like that in public.

I honestly don't think kids give 2 craps about who is voicing their cartoons, so it's not like because little Jimmy is a TMNT fan he's all of a sudden going to take an interest in Jason Biggs' life. Jason should be able to say whatever he wants on his Twitter unless his contract says otherwise. The fault lies with Nick in this case, who should have never linked the account in the first place without screening it. But it's out there now and there are a lot of yuppy parents who may have issues if they catch wind of it. The same thing happened with Miley Cyrus when some racy pictures surfaced while she was still filming Hanna Montana. Ratings dropped as a result and never recovered. Granted I believe the show was nearing the end of its run anyway.

The reality of the situation is that no one really cares about the children. They complain because THEY'RE offended, not because they think it'll have a negative effect on children.

I liked his Leo, and I couldn't care less about what he does in his private or public life. He's an actor, not a role model, and he's not allowed to express any of his thoughts using Leo's character. He goes in the studio, performs the script someone else wrote, and then goes on with his life.

The audience shouldn't expect to agree with every thought of every person working on TV. I mean, there are hundreds of people in the making of Nick's TMNT. Some of them might even be horrible people, but so what? Does it make the show any worse? Does it affect kids in any way?

If you wanna talk about old news, bump the old thread. & for Gods sakes guys, try to avoid the politics, threads never end well on that subject...

-ms

HELLO

LARRY THE CABLE GUY In cars 2.. are all his jokes kiddie like outside this movei???????

i rest my case

some people are looking for things to be offended off

I think the parents need to understand that they probably shouldn't be letting their children view twitter if they're really that concerned about them being exposed to bad things.

THIS.

There are no parental settings or rules against adult content on twitter. Just a check box asking if you'd like to see mature content, and a check box asking if your content is mature.

But Nick is a kids network and TMNT is a kids show, and Biggs is a spokesman for it. Did you even read the article? That's exactly what Michelle Malkin is doing, she's not letting her kids watch Nick. She's not telling anyone else they shouldn't watch Nick or that Nick should be banned. Look I'm not gonna be upset if Biggs stays. But I'm not gonna care if he gets fired either.

I definitely agree with Heather on this. Little kids shouldn't even have Facebook or Twitter accounts. The rules usually say that you must be thirteen years or older to have these accounts, and if you aren't of that age, you have to have parental consent to join. Frankly, I think they should end that second rule and just have it be only thirteen and up can have these accounts. It would make things so much better.

^ This. Well said Heather.:tsmile:

I know, it's ridiculous. All of these parents are horrified by the utter EVIL of the internet and how "helpless" their children are.

Get a program that filters out websites that have the words "porn" and "sex" and everything will be fine. Either they are unaware of this or they just want an excuse to complain.

This has nothing to do with kids having Facebook or Twitter accounts. You can still view those sites without joining them.

The point is that little kids really shouldn't be looking there in the first place. Social networking is primarily aimed at teenagers/young adults.

Hmm...well, I find this little uproar rather silly, but I also think, from what I've heard here and elsewhere, that Jason Biggs is a putz. That being said, it does seem an odd thing to get angry at the off-screen behavior of a voice actor, as it is unlikely the kids will be exposed to the connection between such a moron's antics and their favorite characters.

Yet...this entire conversation makes me long for the days when there were people of character involved in this type of entertainment and wish for more people like Clayton Moore in Hollywood. He played the Lone Ranger in the 1950's, and believed that it was important that the man behind the mask behave as honorably as the Ranger himself. He believed that role models were important, and that the ideals of the hero were worth preserving. Because of those beliefs, he lived a moral life off screen as well as on...that is an impressive dedication to the better principles of entertainment and the belief in edifying fiction.

I didn't read the article because I don't wish to give Malkin the attention she's vying for.

Yeah I'm sure a columnist is vying for the attention of some douche on a cartoon forum.

I'm a conservative and I'd say "article" is being too nice. It's an opinion piece. Do those get to be called articles?

I call it a blog which is what has become the internet's version of the opinion column!

This thread should be locked btw.

OpEds are articles when they're convenient.

And...uh...they wouldn't be columnists if they weren't vying for attention and being willfully provocative. It is how she makes her living, so yeah. I think she does care about some douche on a cartoon forum.

I've agreed and disagreed with Malkin over a variety of things. I agree that Biggs is an idiot, but I think calling for a boycott is taking it a bit far. Mostly because parents are lazy and give their kids anything they want. If the kids wanna watch Nick, it doesn't matter if one afternoon they accidentally show Jenna Jameson porn instead of iCarly, if the kids cry enough, their parents will relent and let 'em watch Nick if it keeps 'em quiet.

There is also, like it or not, a line between "Free Speech" and "being a representative of the company you work for." Even as a very minor-league independent wrestler, my Facebook is monitored by my promoter and he lets me know when something I say is "Not Allowed" because "It reflects poorly on the company". I have always had a disclaimer, "The views and opinions expressed here do no represent...", but still, a little self-censorship is implicit in being a public figure, even for someone like me who barely qualifies. Further, I'm "Not Allowed" to hug or kiss my wife at wrestling events, because my character is supposed to be a "heartthrob" and appear "available" to the female fans. It's stupid, but after ONE screwball fan sent the boss an angry letter saying she wasn't going to our shows anymore, after seeing me and my wife hug, I was told "NO public displays of affection, the fans pay for tickets and you can love your wife on your own time." It is what it is.

As was explained to me, "If you want to be an entertainer, you can forget free speech. You represent who you work for, if you value freedom of expression more than you value the opportunity to be on a stage, then stay home." As someone who makes a lot more money than I do, I'd be surprised if Biggs didn't kind of already know that's how it works. I expect he simply doesn't care.

I'm a Christian, so i don't like the things he said, but its his freedom of speech. I'm not gonna say he shouldn't be able to say what he believes, but I will say that he should be bit more careful of what he says, because some kids will look at him as someone cool, because he is the voice of Leo. I think he is a good Leo, and i hate it when the show gets a new voice to take over a character, so i kinda hope he stays. I just think he should be a little more mindful of the kids that are looking up to him.

As I've said before, and Leo656 very nicely put, there is freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences. He has every right to say it. Nick had every right to fire him. They chose not to. That's their decision. Do I like what he said? No. Do I find it in poor taste? Yes. Will it stop me from watching the Nick series or sharing it with my son (who is too young to even really care, but hey why not, right?)? No. He does need to think a little more about what he says though, because, as Leo pointed out he's not just speaking for himself, he's part of "The Brand" now.

Can you please tell me where Malkin called for a boycott?

Now, as I was trying to say before my stupid computer decided to freeze up on me, Jester and Leo have good points. Jason is representing a company that caters to children, and while he may have some views on certain subjects, he needs to be mindful of what he says as that is a reflection on Nickelodeon.

Don't get me wrong. He rocks as Leo, but he needs to really think before he posts.

It all comes down to his contract. Leo656 might have that level of Boss Control in his contract that Biggs doesn't. We don't know one way or the other.

This. This is my opinion on the whole matter to a T. I find it ridiculous how up in arms this Malkin lady, and a lot of other 'concerned parentals' are over this, as it's silly, but I do think Biggs really needs to think before he puts something like that out on the internet. When you're a public figure of any kind, any single thing you say can be put under the microscope and scrutinized by anyone and everyone. So unless that's what you're going for is being outrageous and getting popular because of that (maybe Biggs was taking a page from the Charlie Sheen book of publicity), you need to carefully consider anything you're going to be putting out there - especially if you're at all connected to a kid's brand.

Man, I can't believe this is still an issue amongst concerned parents. It's not like Biggs is actively storming into peoples' house and making these lewd comments right infront of the kids. He's posting them on a public blog that people choose to access on the net.

Maybe not Jepheal,but he is continuing his rated R comments on Twitter after he took a two week break. Its not AS vulgar as the key two or so post but if he truely cares about this VA gig he would delete his account and time will wear on his stupid remarks.