Chappelle says that CC airing "third season" is a "bully move"

While his statement is also a bully move, saying I am the crossover star of your network, and if you want me back then don't fuck with me.

Oh the irony.

If the man doesn't have any psychological problems (as he maintains), then he should suck it up and get on with it, as per his contract, or go do something else.

I don't get Comedy Central's logic. If they kiss his ass and get him back, they can make five times as much as they could for showing the "third season." While it means shallowing some pride and even taking the risk that Chappelle still might back out, its still the fiscally smart move.

I don't understand why Chappelle doesn't want it aired in the first place. He was, or will be (I assume....correct me if I'm wrong) paid, and CC owns the rights to the material. Does he think that it was sub-standard work? If so, CC may disagree, but in any case that happens all the time in just about every form of entertainment. You don't hear folks complaining about it publicly very often. Was he unhappy with his contract? I just don't understand his position whatsoever.

I believe it was Chappelle's concerns about the quality of the work he had produced for the third season which led him to leave in the first place. It's not often that someone in Hollywood sacrifices money for standards of quality, but it does happen. (Mike Myers not wanting to go ahead with the SPROCKETS movie is another example, although that kind of backfired, because he ended up having to make CAT IN THE HAT for the studio, which was worse).

It sounds like Chappele's being a bully and making threats toward CC. But if disappearing in the middle of filming didn't damage the relationship, I don't see why this would.

Well if that is the only reason (and money is not an issue) then he's being unprofessional. I mean, c'mon, in what industry can you be paid for your work, produce the work, then decide that you want the work destroyed even though someone else owns it?

If he's that unhappy about it, he could refuse to promote it, disown it, or have his name removed from the show, or whatever. It's pretty immature to call CC a "bully" when they've been supportive and are well within their rights.

Plus, Chappelle arrogantly assumes that he's the only one whose work matters in the show: what about the other writers and actors?

Of course his work is the only one that matters. It's called CHAPPELLE'S SHOW, not COMEDY CHANNEL PRESENTS FUNNY STUFF. Plus, he's essentially THE main writer, along with his (i guess now ex) partner. It's refreshing to see that the guy refuses to put forward sub-standard material, even though he knows the ratings would be high. I liken it to a band in the studio - if they know the tracks suck, would you want them releasing the album anyway?

It's obvious that the guy had some sort of mental break when he took off to Africa, but I don't think the issue here is that he's being an asshole or a bully. He's trying to be true to his art and is being overwhelmed by it.

Chappelle wasn't performing in a vacuum. Your "Chappelle is the only thing that matters" tone ignores the many contributors to the show.

The material may be sub-standard. I haven't seen it. Have you? (not being sarcastic, maybe you have...) If I knew for a fact the material sucked, I wouldn't want it released. But, that doesn't change the fact that his entire demeanor has been unprofessional, IMHO.

** Just as food for thought: The list of artists who have disliked critically acclaimed and popular work that they produced is a long one.

Honestly, the show is like 80+% Chappelle. That comes from talking to people behind the scenes at the show.

Chappelle says the material sucks. I haven't seen it. He wrote it and performed it, so I would assume he wouldn't say it sucked unless he really felt that way.

Do you think he's been behaving in a professional manner? I can't see how he's being fair to CC, or the other contributors (how ever minor) to his show. I mean, at this point he's basically devolved into name-calling.

I don't really worry if genius artists are behaving professionally. That's for businessmen, not creative people.

How much did the pay him for the 3rd season? 50 million?

I don't understand his position, if he did get paid, what is he expecting?

Maybe this analogy helps.

We've all done multiple drafts of some piece of writing. It would be as if a partner in a law firm or an editor went through your trash bin and kept a prior draft that you got rid of because you though it was shit. Now the partner/editor is threatening you by saying that they are going to put it out there unless you finish the piece to their satisfaction. Wouldn't you call that bullying?

Yes they are paying you for the work, but if you back out, their option is to stop paying you and to walk away, not blackmail you into doing their bidding.

I understand the analogy, but it's somewhat flawed. An attorney can refuse to sign any legal pleading or document, and can prevent to a limited extent the use of a prior document bearing his signature from being used in any legal proceeding if he no longer affirms the contents.

Unlike the attorney/writer you mention, CC actually owns the physical rights to Chappelle's work. This whole situation is just such a freaking mess, it's unbelievable.

No, their options are to either get you to finish what they payed you to do, or use the work that you did do for them (and they apparently own).

Can you imagine a pool contractor walking out of you in the middle of the contract? Would it be reasonable for him to fill up the hole and not give you your money back, instead of you building on top of what he already did?

Comparing a construction worker to a creative artist shows that you don't understand the situation.

So are you on the "If it's legal it's automatically right" side? No one's questioning the legality of this. Yes, Comedy Central owns the rights to the show. Yes, they paid Chappelle for his work. Yes they reserve the right to air the material as they so choose. That's all a given.

HOWEVER - That doesn't make it right. If Dave was not happy with the work and was not comfortable with it being released and Comedy Central does it anyway then yeah, that's shitty. It doesn't matter who owns the show, it doesn't matter who contributed - at the end of the day it's Dave Chappelle's name on the product and if the product isn't good it's Dave Chappelle that suffers the fan backlash. Not Charlie Murphy, not Ashy Larry not Comedy Central - it's Dave, so his position makes perfect sense to me.

My law firm owns everything I write, I can't walk out of here with it. And I was thinking of terms of forwarding work to a client, which need not be signed. Would that blow your rep with the client if they forwarded one of your drafts to them?

I understand perfectly his point as an artist and can even symphatize, but you have to concede that they were "buying shows" not trying to sponsor his artistic expression your for the heck of it.

If he plans to get back and they're under negotiations, this might be a pretty dumb move, but if they think he's not going back any time soon, they have little choice.

Devin beat me to it, its a different situation.

And as I posted above, all they have to do is let him do his thing and they can have the product. This only destroys their credibility and whatever goodwill they had built.

That's a good point, but it would be more believable if he returned the money plus a bit of expenses (he might have offered that already ...)

No, they were trying to sponsor his artistic expression. That was part of the basic deal when they got on their knees and begged him back for a third season.

Getting back to the content of what he has shot, one of the main problems I noticed from the preview we saw a few months back is that it is horribly dated (a super-size me reference and a Howard Dean screaming joke, etc). Now let's assume that it was in fact a bit weak back when it was originally scheduled to air, it's weakness will be increased when you add on the time factor. I think Chappelle is in fact being an artist and doesn't want his name attached to something that is a sub-par product. As far as I know, the only credited writers are him and Neil Brennon, so if they are against the airing of this material, then CC should respect their decision. Now if they do respect his decision, I do think Chappelle should do a proper season 3.

And if he doesn't?

Assuming that even after catering to every (reasonable) demand that Chappelle gives and he still walks away, then I can't say CC should air season 3, but it would make the most sense from a business standpoint and I can't say I'd blame them. But as was mentioned above, Chappelle is CC's biggest money maker, so they should be ready to bend over backwards to meet his demands and respect his decsions .

The way I heard Chappelle put it, he thought the material was funny but he was troubled by the lack of understanding that went with the popularity of his show. The wrong people were laughing at it for the wrong reasons and he felt socially irresponsible.

But then again, he's been sort of a cypher since his reappearance.

That is such a fucking cop-out. Just because you are talented means you have the right to be an asshole and do whatever the fuck you want while others have to simply tolerate it?? I know it goes on, but that doesn't make it right.

Yeah, it is right. If you have ever enjoyed the work made by someone who was crazy or acted weird or like an asshole, it's obvious that it's right.

Woody Allen's notorious for trying to stop his work from getting to theatres, and Kubrick himself destroyed every copy of his first film.

I understand it, as a filmmaker, I wouldn't want something I did, and felt wasnt my best work, getting to air. Especially if my involvement with the project ended before it was completed.

So someone should be allowed to violate contracts and shit on others just because they are talented?

He strikes me as the kind of guy that can't handle the spotlight. He panicked, and left. Now he's trying to salvage what he can in the aftermath.

I don't care much for his argument that the wrong people were laughing at his show for the wrong reasons. Honestly, you're a comedian. Tough it out. And if it bothers you that much, then take a portion of the $50 million and donate it to some worthy causes.

He has never said the material is sub-standard, in interviews he said the comments about him getting writer's block and being unhappy about what he had done were wrong.

Also he is insistant that he didn't have a breakdown, and there was nothing wrong more than he was fed up of the situation he was in.

He said the last straw was when a white guy who worked on the set was laughing at something, not for the irony but for the actual face value content of the performance.

If that is the case and he isn't trying to cover some shit up then CC have every right to air the material and Chappelle has shit to say about it. So what if some people don't get it, don't give a fuck about those bigots. His work isn't going to influence someone to be a racist, which he says is his main concern.

No, they shouldn't. But they shouldn't have to work with a company again, either.

Chappelle's perfectly within his rights to say "If they air that, I'll never work for them again." And CC's perfectly within their rights to air it.

As far as CC's stance on this goes, it makes sense from a business standpoint. If they start essentially nullifying contracts when successful artists make demands, they'll have to do that for every successful show, and that's not a good way to run a business.

As much as CC would love the revenue from more Dave C., they literally can't afford to always put art before commerce, or to concede to demands from artists who've already been compensated in mammoth sums.

That is the whole point of this, Chappelle is saying that he is being bullied, when he is quite clearly bullying them as a consequence of his commercial power.

I love and have even defended Chappelle's quest at bettering his life and taking a long hard look at what hollywood can do to people's original intentions...but this is getting a bit ridiculous now.

He obviously understands how the business works. Does he not think Comedy Central is any different from the rest of the networks out there? They know they are sitting on a gold mine in ratings and future dvd sales even if Chappelle isnt happy with what he produced. Why wouldn't they fucking release the show? I feel like Chappelle has returned from africa expecting a sense of honor from hollywood that he already knows doesn't exist. Basically, making it impossible for him to do any work unless he compromises his current standing.

I agree with you on all the points you make. My comment was directed towards Devin, who seems to give any talented artist a pass if they decide to do whatever they want in regards to their work, no matter what their contract says or common decency and respect towards those you work with/those that work under you.

I'd rather have great art than common decency. Picasso was a prick. I'd rather have his art than have had him be nicer.

And fuck contracts. People who talk about contracts when discussing artists have no love of art.

I'm not saying it devalues his art. I just wonder why someone who is talented should be encouraged to treat people like shit simply because they can.

Some contracts suck and an artist can get shoe-horned into them (especially when they are young). Fuck those type of contracts, I agree on that. But if you have the power to call the shots in your negotiating and you still cry that you are getting fucked in the ass, then why did you sign it?

The problem with your argument Will is that I don't think that Chappelle's demands are unreasonable. As far as I know, the only public demands he's made are that some of the DVD profits go to charity (and really, what business is going to publicly deny that) and that they not air the previous season 3 because he doesn't think it's worthy of his name. If he were asking CC to double his paycheck while going around saying that CC is destroying comedy, I'd be less likely to sympathize with him.

I agree with most everything you've said, but not with this. Art and commerce are so hopelessly mingled when it comes to something like television that it's unrealistic to discuss a topic like this without talking business, or contracts.

You're talking as if Chappelle decided to do this on a spiteful whim.

From what I understand, the man took a hard look at the magnitude and weight of his exploding fame and decided that it wasn't what he wanted.

He's got no obligation to entertain anyone.

I'm sorry, what? Dave's pretty open about his drug use and the strongest drug he's ever taken was pot. From what i've seen it's not a drugs issue it's a personal ethics issue. The Inside the Actor's Studio interview he did clears up a lot of questions as to his motivations for leaving. I'm not sure why you pulled this "hopped up on crack" talking point out of your ass but you don't fucking make a statement like that with no goddamn justification other than "acting irrationally while black".

Hey pal I read the "shit" you posted and responded to it as such.

Really when white actors like Tom Cruise melt down publicly, do they have "issues" or are they on crack?

I haven't implied racism, when I imply racism pal, I'll write it in bold goddamn letters, so just stifle that noise.

Breaking down barriers? Martin Lawrence never broke any barriers guy, he was forced into the same old Steppin Fetchit routine many black actors are still forced into. Something Dave Chappelle caught himself doing, something he then questioned, apparently without support from the people around him looking forward to that 50 million dollar payday. So he walked.

What debate? You callled the man a crackhead, making an unfounded statement like that is not debate its half assed rumor mongering.

How is it being an enabler if I make a value judgement based on a man's public statements. Seems to me someone fed you a meme about addicts and enablers and you badly want to apply it to this situation.

So knowing an addict would make me qualified to question you labelling someone "acting irrational while black" a crack addict?

I grew up in Hollis, New York during the worst of the Crack Wars asshole.
I saw my whole neighborhood get shot up some idiot's arm while the city ignored the problem, my little brother's fifteen year old friend shot for a buck twenty-five in quarters while out doing the family's laundry. Out of ten friends I had in high school, I'm the only one who's alive today. Real enough for you?

Listen quit with the emotional tangents and the straw horses, pick a real point and argue it.

Really why don't you name some of these basehead/cokehead celebs for me guy? And try doing it without googling or falsely impugning anyone's reputation.

Dude the topic is "Chappelle says that CC airing third season is a bully move". Not "that crazy darky is doing things I don't understand, he must be hopped up on the crack". Maybe I should make a fallacious statement about him and then try to back it up with some rubbish like "If you'd ever known an addict".

From your responses I can see that carrying on this "debate" wouldn't be fair to you, or in any way beneficial to me. So I'm going to walk away now.

Citizen Burke wrote:

The only thing worse than a dumb douchebag, Giant Baba, is a blowhard dumb douchebag.

Here is my major beef with Dave: he had complete creative control over his show. If he thought he was going down the kind of path you describe, he could have just changed the focus of his show. His celebrity was powerful enough that he could have turned his humor in another direction or changed the style of his show and people would have watched and listened. If they stopped watching, then he still holds up his end of the bargain with CC (making the shows he was paid handsomely to) but also raises the debate and awareness of how a black comedian is viewed in this country. Instead, he tucks tail and bolts and heaps alot of shit on some unnamed white dude that apparently laughed too hard at a skit.

Did anyone watch Dave on Bravo's Inside The Actor's Studio? I'm watching it right now and it's only 20 minutes in. So far it's all childhood related. I'm looking forward to the later half of the show.

Well, this is going to be interesting. Chappelle's team hosting the remaining shows without him. Difficult to imagine Dave being impressed (least of all with his already estranged former best pal Brennan), but I'm not sure you can really blame the guys -whose contributions to the show are significant- from taking this route...