CBS Les Moonves gets the boot

talonxv

Well where does this leave the company and star trek going forwards?

Anyone have an idea? Or do you guys think this changes nothing?


(Corrected title spelling. -- StarSword-C)

vengefuldjinn

Wasn't he the one holding any new PRIME Trek back?

jonsills

Who's Les Munioz?

Les Moonves, on the other hand, was (note past tense here ) president of CBS Entertainment, in which position he was responsible for the development of four different CSI series (and three NCIS!), cancelling ENT just as it was getting good, and merging UPN and The WB to create CW Network. (According to reports from 2005, Moonves cancelled ENT in part because he "didn't like sci-fi".) So I can't see his departure from CBS as anything but good for Star Trek, and for television in general.

vengefuldjinn

Maybe Moonves's departure will be good for the Picard show.

captainwells

valoreah wrote: »

He isn't getting the boot. He is resigning. There is a difference.

It has been fairly widely reported that Moonves is among the wave of high profile individuals with a questionable history of sexual harassment allegations, so as much as it may appear that he is "resigning" he is actually being leveraged out after something of a behind the scenes negotiation process. Good riddance too!

mirrorchaos

valoreah wrote: »

He isn't getting the boot. He is resigning. There is a difference.

According to what i read about this, his "resignation" was apart of a merger deal between CBS and Viacom. In other words he was forced out by CBS in order to show good faith on their part.

Quite honestly he was the main problem in attempting a Merger, i think CBS finally got the idea that his goals no longer aligned with their and his stonewalling is hurting business.

talonxv wrote: »

Well where does this leave the company and star trek going forwards?

Anyone have an idea? Or do you guys think this changes nothing?

Changes nothing so long as Ianniello is capable and the main senior structure remains largely untouched. With Moonves out the way a future merger with Viacom is looking a lot more possible so it could help Star Trek in the long run if Ianniello is more supportive of the idea.

garaks31

with a $100 million exit pack boot, thats nice ^^

mustrumridcully0

ruinthefun wrote: »

When someone who has power and has held it for some time suddenly "resigns", you immediately know something is up, because nobody just voluntarily gives that up.

But that "something" could just as well be: "Hey, we really all want that merger, and you don't. So why don't you resign in honor, so we don't have to fire you?"

smokebailey

that bean counter, who thought he has talent, but did not, won't be missed.

markhawkman

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

ruinthefun wrote: »

When someone who has power and has held it for some time suddenly "resigns", you immediately know something is up, because nobody just voluntarily gives that up.

But that "something" could just as well be: "Hey, we really all want that merger, and you don't. So why don't you resign in honor, so we don't have to fire you?"

It's also important to pay attention to the fact that Mr. Moonves is 63 and may have decided he'd rather retire and chill at home with his grand kids(not that I know whether he has any, this is hypothetical) than argue with people over business deals all day.

mirrorchaos

valoreah wrote: »

captainwells wrote: »

It has been fairly widely reported that Moonves is among the wave of high profile individuals with a questionable history of sexual harassment allegations, so as much as it may appear that he is "resigning" he is actually being leveraged out after something of a behind the scenes negotiation process. Good riddance too!

I think it important to remind everyone that allegations do not equal truth.

Should the man have done what some have claimed he did, then by all means do what the law requires. With that said, saying he did it and proving he did it are two different things.

And he is still resigning and there is a difference.

And yet you are here you are making allegations he resigned instead of learning if he did it by choice or was forced out.

valoreah wrote: »

ruinthefun wrote: »

When someone who has power and has held it for some time suddenly "resigns", you immediately know something is up, because nobody just voluntarily gives that up.

Interesting point of view. Would you want someone with such a narrow view sitting on a jury where you are on trial? Facts are kind of important.

It may as well be a jury of his own making, he was judge, jury and executioner within CBS and he had as narrower view point as anyone ever has had working in business when it comes to profitable ventures and yet he is so opposed to the idea or creating a better future for star trek, he already made his mind up long ago.

What exactly are you defending here?

starkaos

valoreah wrote: »

captainwells wrote: »

It has been fairly widely reported that Moonves is among the wave of high profile individuals with a questionable history of sexual harassment allegations, so as much as it may appear that he is "resigning" he is actually being leveraged out after something of a behind the scenes negotiation process. Good riddance too!

I think it important to remind everyone that allegations do not equal truth.

Should the man have done what some have claimed he did, then by all means do what the law requires. With that said, saying he did it and proving he did it are two different things.

And he is still resigning and there is a difference.

Also, sexual harassment is on a spectrum. On one end you have Harvey Weinstein and on the other you have people that hug for a bit too long. People that hug for too long make some people uncomfortable, but their life shouldn't be ruined because they are extremely affectionate. People like Harvey Weinstein should have their life ruined.

markhawkman

starkaos wrote: »

valoreah wrote: »

captainwells wrote: »

It has been fairly widely reported that Moonves is among the wave of high profile individuals with a questionable history of sexual harassment allegations, so as much as it may appear that he is "resigning" he is actually being leveraged out after something of a behind the scenes negotiation process. Good riddance too!

I think it important to remind everyone that allegations do not equal truth.

Should the man have done what some have claimed he did, then by all means do what the law requires. With that said, saying he did it and proving he did it are two different things.

And he is still resigning and there is a difference.

Also, sexual harassment is on a spectrum. On one end you have Harvey Weinstein and on the other you have people that hug for a bit too long. People that hug for too long make some people uncomfortable, but their life shouldn't be ruined because they are extremely affectionate. People like Harvey Weinstein should have their life ruined.

Also this is one of those situations where spreading rumors is foolish. If you don't have any way of verifying the rumors it's just spurious allegations and unworthy of mention in public conversation.

smokebailey

Flaming/trolling/political remarks removed. — StarSword-C

redvenge

starkaos wrote: »

Also, sexual harassment is on a spectrum. On one end you have Harvey Weinstein and on the other you have people that hug for a bit too long. People that hug for too long make some people uncomfortable, but their life shouldn't be ruined because they are extremely affectionate. People like Harvey Weinstein should have their life ruined.

Funny you should mention Harvey Weinstein.

The original reports on Harvey Weinstein (the ones that started an investigation and set off the #metoo movement) was written by Ronan Farrow. He also compiled a similar thorough (and damning) report on Leslie Mooves.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/06/les-moonves-and-cbs-face-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

It's a long piece. Moonves denies doing more than "forcing women to kiss him, but never harmed their careers" (surely, that is not sexual harassment. what is a little forced kissing between co-workers? And they still have their careers intact. He's a proper gentleman, that Moonves). He may not be a convicted rapist, but he is certainly guilty of sexual harassment (and admits it). But wait, there is more:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/as-leslie-moonves-negotiates-his-exit-from-cbs-women-raise-new-assault-and-harassment-claims

Let me regale you with the "Update" to this hard-hitting news piece:

Three hours after the publication of this story, CNN reported that Moonves would step down from his position at CBS. Later the same day, CBS announced that Moonves had left the company and would not receive any of his exit compensation, pending the results of the independent investigation into the allegations. The company named six new members of its board of directors and said it would donate twenty million dollars to organizations that support the #MeToo movement and workplace equality for women. The donation will be deducted from any severance payments that may be due to Moonves.

Everyone inside and outside CBS says Moonves was on his way out after the first story (because of his history of sexual harassment). After the second story, CBS had to give him the boot. In light of the New Yorker articles, I believe Les Moonves is as bad a Harvey Weinstein. CBS in general seems really scummy.

starkaos

redvenge wrote: »

CBS in general seems really scummy.

Hollywood in general seems really scummy. There might have been some clueless Hollywood people that didn't know what was going on, but far too many of them knew what was going on and did nothing for decades.

mirrorchaos

valoreah wrote: »

mirrorchaos wrote: »

And yet you are here you are making allegations he resigned instead of learning if he did it by choice or was forced out.

It isn't an allegation - he resigned. That's entirely different than being fired. I made no assumptions as to whether he was forced out or not.

an opinion of resignation made into an accusation which is what you think and are pushing, which is an allegation in the end. you seem to think he resigned and yet everything points to Moonves being pushed out the front door by an agreement between CBS and Viacom, he had no choice in the matter.

and by definition if you want to use the "resign" word, then it can be explained in meaning that he submitted and gave up, in effect he let himself be fired. so the distinction of what you are going on about is irrelivent.

trygvar13

valoreah wrote: »

mirrorchaos wrote: »

And yet you are here you are making allegations he resigned instead of learning if he did it by choice or was forced out.

It isn't an allegation - he resigned. That's entirely different than being fired. I made no assumptions as to whether he was forced out or not.

Do you remember when Richard Garriott "resigned" from NCSoft while he was still in quarantine from his trip in space? How much did he get from the lawsuit against NCSoft? 40 millions or so? So ok, Les Moonves "resigned". Doesn't change the fact that we all know (well apparently not) that he was booted.

talonxv

> @valoreah said:
> trygvar13 wrote: »
>
> Do you remember when Richard Garriott "resigned" from NCSoft while he was still in quarantine from his trip in space? How much did he get from the lawsuit against NCSoft? 40 millions or so? So ok, Les Moonves "resigned". Doesn't change the fact that we all know (well apparently not) that he was booted.
>
>
>
>
> ^ See above. Of course he could be forced to resign for any number of reasons. It is the connotation of the word(s) used that is important here.
>
> As an example, take something like filing for unemployment. In certain US states, if you are fired you may not be eligible for benefits at all or only partial benefits. There is a reason the state may ask the circumstances behind why you were let go. Being terminiated due to downsizing or restructuring is entirely different than being fired for something like embezzlement. My apologies if I haven't made that clear.
>
> Not defending Moonves in any way, shape or form. If he did do any of the things he is accused of, I hope he is brought to justice and suffers the consequences.

But the question remains. Where does Star Trek go? Guess it depends on who replaces him.