MovieChat Forums > The Cosby Show (1984) Discussion > Should The Show Suffer Because of What I...

Should The Show Suffer Because of What Its Creator did?

posted 9 years ago by IoannesImprov
41 replies | jump to latest

Admittedly I think what Bill Cosby has done tests the limits of the old adage "separate the art from the artist", but is it fair to punish all the other people who worked on this show because of the abhorrent behavior of its star?

I jokingly suggested to a friend that the show could be reedited to remove Bill Cosby altogether ala Garfield without Garfield or replaced with another popular black sitcom actor who hasn't been disgraced, say Reginald Veljohnson, and simply retitled "The Show".

Being somewhat more serious would it be beyond reason to start a campaign to retitle the show "the Huxtables" in order to preserve it as a cultural artifact that had a beneficial impact in terms of countering negative racial stereotypes and providing positive family role models?

[–] blaque108 9 years ago

That is silly its just a show half the world has seen The Cosby Show this show came out in the 80s its not like its a new show just coming out on air. Seriously to get rid of all his shows off the network it crazy what is that going to prove? I'm sure most people have The Cosby Show and his other shows on DVD. I plan on going to the store this weekend and buy some more Cosby DVDs.

[–] IoannesImprov 9 years ago

I suppose the main reasoning is that people want to symbolically cut ties with Cosby and don't want to pay royalties to someone who "allegedly" did the things he's accused of. Also given how many victims he has perhaps they're thinking it's traumatizing to see the person who victimized them adulated on TV.

But his costars, co-writers, and others deserve royalties too don't they?

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 9 years ago

Agreed blaque108.

Very good. But brick not hit back!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beastmayne1989 9 years ago

If we knew the truth about most ppl in this world, we wouldn't support anybody. No voting, watching tv, no working, no nothing. However, he ain't been convicted of anything, regardless of what's been said.

[–] dpcole7 9 years ago

We'd still support some people, if the similarities outweighed the differences. Then what's left involves deception or betrayal of those similarities.

"No man is an island" - didn't some loser scribble stuff like that out decades ago? Or concepts such as sharing, like what was written roughly 2,000 years ago?

[–] frankiegee 8 years ago

O.j. Didn't do it! Go juice

[–] qrz94 9 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. If you retitled reruns and cut Cosby out of any advertising then people who found any image of Bill offensive or traumatizing would not have to see him but those who still wanted to watch the show for its own merits could do so.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmyJolamb 9 years ago

The show is part of my childhood and it won't even go away no matter what. Removing it from TV doesn't remove the memories of millions of kids who grew up watching it.

We don't have cable but I plan to buy the whole series on DVD. I will still watch it.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Your memories are tainted AmyJolamb. The wool has been lifted from your eyes.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 9 years ago

Totally agree with everything you said amyjolamb.

Very good. But brick not hit back!

[–] dpcole7 9 years ago

No, but I'd bet real money that impressionable children would look at ALL of Cosby's messages over time, and think it's okay for them to do all of it. Adults are more likely going to see a fall from grace due to power, selfishness, disdain for others (especially those women whom he used the worst), and so on.

[–] nrrork 9 years ago

It SHOULDN'T have to suffer for it, but it WILL.

And I don't think bowdlerizing the title is the answer.

[–] nicotinequeen63 9 years ago

Having the show titled 'The Cosby Show', never did make much sense, considering the family name was Huxtable...so? why not remove the Cosby name from the title? because 'Cosby' is referring to the real man, Bill Cosby, not some character...so we can't really ignore him in this instance. Should we want to ignore him? I don't have a problem with that if it helps viewers disassociate Cosby from his character. And this show was too important to not attempt to to 'fix' it. Cosby has nobody to blame but himself, (yes, obviously I think he's guilty), but you know? even at its worst, it's not the end of the world...there are worse things. Somebody needs to get this taken care of so the show can be back on tv where it belongs.

[–] LiteraryLane 8 years ago

It wasn't uncommon to name a series after its star when the main character had a different name. Cosby's previous sitcom was called The Bill Cosby Show.

"It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves."

[–] womenofbocc 9 years ago

Dr. Cosby was the creator and executive producer of the show. I am sure he has some ownership in it also. There would be no way that they could re-name the show without his permission.

My thing is this: if the people who don't want to watch the show are offended, why don't they just not watch? Why do the rest of us have to be deprived of enjoying his work? I still watch my Cosby dvd's and have shared them with my children, the first of whom was born during the show's original run. I also watch "Fat Albert", "I Spy", and "The Cosby Mysteries".

Btw, I do not believe that Dr. Cosby did any of the things that those women say he did. It is stupid to think that they conveniently forgot what happened to them all those years ago, and all of a sudden now they can remember. Ridiculous.

[–] jayraskin1 8 years ago

Absolutely right, womenofbocc.

The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion - Thomas Paine

[–] rajeshmulan 8 years ago

I thought that Cliff (the character) was the Dr., and not Bill the mens hana?

[–] de_bergerac 8 years ago

He has a doctorate in education.

[–] dpcole7 9 years ago

The messages are great, but the man made his living from selling them. It seems in poor taste that he would sell something he personally didn't believe in or wanted to do the opposite of.

If I knew now what happened back then I might not have bought any of his shows, much less idolize him.

But the show is, technically, a work of fiction, about a fictional family. His stand-up routines were telling stories, fictional but sometimes based on personal experiences.

Did Cosby himself go to schools and workplaces and address graduates and workers to give them encouraging pep talks, inspiration and how to live, and so on. Then it's no longer a cut and dry answer.

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

"The messages are great, but the man made his living from selling them. It seems in poor taste that he would sell something he personally didn't believe in or wanted to do the opposite of."
Hmmm, lessee. If we applied this kind of thinking to others, I guess we should stop reading, listening to, watching people like:
Miles Davis and Stan Getz (two of the greatest melodic jazz musicians ever, but both were noted drug addicts and physical/emotional abusers of women)
Richard Wagner (one of rhe supreme composers of symphonies & operas, but a rabid anti-Semite who greatly influenced National Socialism)
Thomas Jefferson (one of the founders of American democracy and inventor, but was a slaveowner, as were other Presidents, e.g., Washington & Madison)
Ernest Hemingway (one of the greatest American writers, who was also an alcoholic and a womanizer)
Should I go on?
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] Furienna (3312) 7 years ago

But you seem to forget that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both were rich plantation owners from 18th century Virginia, so there is no way that they wouldn't be slave owners. It's not fair to blame them for being born as Southern gentlemen at that point in history. And unless I'm really mistaken about this, Thomas Jefferson was actually against slavery. But he couldn't do much about it even as the president, as so many people still wanted to keep things the way they were.

And as for Richard Wagner, he too lived in a different era than ours. Many people were antisemitic back in the 19th century, and he can hardly be blamed for what the Nazis did after he was gone.

The rest of the men on your list lived in the 20th Century though, so I have to say that they should have known better than to abuse those women. And the same goes for Bill Cosby, who even still is alive today!

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 6 years ago

The show sucked regardless...it ALWAYS ticked me off how he was picking on Theo for his learning disabilities.

People naturally have learning differences. We are not cookie cutter all alike. Theo was a saint for not snapping---very unrealistic.

My own father picked on me and created tons of pain and anguish.