In general, I am willing to separate the art from the artist to a point that varies based on both the art and the artist.

I'm usually willing to do that, too. Hell, I still listen to Motley Crue. (But they never presented themselves as anything other than raging trashfires.) With Bowie, the were the 70s a massively different time, but he changed his behavior. Ray Bradbury, my patron saint, said some cringy stuff wrt to gender roles, but was such a massive force for good that I'm willing to give him a pass on that. Plus, the era he was from predisposed him to the "Women are nurturing and aren't interested in science stuff" nonsense, but he learned. He changed his views.

Johnny Depp? I'm uneasy about rewatching his work (even his collaborations with Tim Burton), and I almost certainly won't be rushing to see anything new he does. Joss? I still like what he did with Buffy, Angel, and The Avengers, but will wait for reviews of anything new, because if he displays his kinks and issues in there, I'll probably pass. Especially because part of his defending himself was the "Temptation! So hard to resist! I knew I shouldn't! But needy, vulnerable young women!" routine.

If it turns out that Robert Smith did these sorts of behaviors, I don't know what I'll do besides cry in shock.

I don't like feeling as if I am responsible for judging who is morally sound enough for me to reward with my audience or patronage or whatever. Art I fall in love with is generally because it feels, y'know, true, like the person/people who made it really know how the world is so if it turns out that they treat some people as if they were not really human it's severely disappointing and makes their work enormously less attractive. I can analyse the whys and wherefores of it, but it's not, like, something I can decide rationally.

Woody Allen, for example, I have no real interest in seeing anything new he does, but I still think that Bullets Over Broadway and Deconstructing Harry are amazing and have important things to say. I'm pretty sure that what I get out of them is not what he meant me to, but that's okay.

Joss - on the one hand, the little things that always kinda bugged me about him are validated. So, less disappointing, in a way. But on the other, well, I had a male friend who made a comment once about a particular season of Buffy being "all about bouncy breasts" and at the time I was like, he's watching it wrong, and now I have that little question of maybe I was giving too much credit to empowerment over exploitation and it just makes me angry.

I think he was watching it wrong. I don't recall thinking that was a problem in any season of Buffy, and I was definitely aware of similar issues at the time, like the lead character on Dark Angel going into heats or a teacher on Smallville who looked and acted like she stepped out of a Van Halen video.

He didn't regard it as a problem...

Sounds like the new Buffy is going to be about a different Slayer rather than a reboot. [link]

Sounds like they had to pitch one thing to the studio execs, and a different thing to the fans.

Very relieved.

Good.

I'm definitely happy that it's not a true reboot, though I wonder how much, if any, they'll refer to the old show (or if this truly ends up set in the same universe, which doesn't seem to be confirmed one way or another, just that they won't be recreating the old Scooby Gang.)

I'm more than willing to watch the adventures of a new Slayer and new supporting characters in the Buffyverse. Much better than a reboot/re-imagining this soon.