collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* Recent Posts

Wojo's Peer Group by dad's couch
[February 25, 2020, 11:42:13 PM]


Recruiting as of 2/15/20 by JakeBarnes
[February 25, 2020, 11:38:14 PM]


7 years ago tonight by JWags85
[February 25, 2020, 11:32:08 PM]


If Wojo left the program today... by rocky_warrior
[February 25, 2020, 10:58:34 PM]


Upsets! / Surprise results. by We R Final Four
[February 25, 2020, 10:20:00 PM]


NM by rocket surgeon
[February 25, 2020, 09:54:35 PM]


Marquette opens -7.5 vs. Georgetown by RideMyBuycks
[February 25, 2020, 09:49:09 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???  (Read 8139 times)

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13364
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2019, 09:18:55 AM »
I haven't read through the entire thread carefully, but has anyone in this thread defended what they did to Jewell?  I haven's seen that, but maybe it's here.

The issue, as I understand it, is that the movie includes a character that is based on (and has the same name as) a real person and added fictionalized behavior.  Legal or not, I think that's pretty crappy.  Of course, no movie is going to be 100% true. However, I think if you're making a "true" story and using real-life people, there is a certain obligation to not unfairly disparage them with salacious fictional changes.  I don't think it matters if they're living or dead.

All 100% correct, SAW.

But there is no way to defend this baseless attack on a person who cannot defend herself, so it's best to make things up, shift the goalposts, play the victim, do all the things hoopaloop does rather than admit that he (or something he holds dear) is wrong.

I sincerely hope that neither hoopaloop's wife nor daughter are ever publicly smeared like this. No woman deserves such treatment by a "great filmmaker" or anybody else. No human being deserves it, including Richard Jewell.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4993
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2019, 09:50:53 AM »
I haven't read through the entire thread carefully, but has anyone in this thread defended what they did to Jewell?  I haven's seen that, but maybe it's here.

The issue, as I understand it, is that the movie includes a character that is based on (and has the same name as) a real person and added fictionalized behavior.  Legal or not, I think that's pretty crappy.  Of course, no movie is going to be 100% true. However, I think if you're making a "true" story and using real-life people, there is a certain obligation to not unfairly disparage them with salacious fictional changes.  I don't think it matters if they're living or dead.

I generally agree that the fictionalization of Kathy Scruggs is unnecessary and pretty immoral (unless there is some sort of evidence that shows it could have gone down that way). I also think this actually a story about how twitter isn't real life, because what I've heard about the scene is that there is definitely flirting and the FBI agent and Scruggs leave the bar "together" so there is certainly implication but it doesn't go so far as to explicitly show them knocking boots so yeah....not good but it's also not some monstrous portrayal.

Note there are some generalizations coming up to make this post not be 18 paragraphs long, but I recognize its more nuanced then the media writ large being some amorphous blob with a hive mind.

I think the reaction to the Kathy Scruggs portrayal is valid but it is also greatly overshadowing the larger injustice that was done to Richard Jewell. It's been a topic of conversations in casual settings(work, sports event, holiday parties, etc) and nearly universally the take away seems to be "So wait, Richard Jewell wasn't involved in the bombing?" The man has been dead for 12 years and the true bomber was caught 16 years ago but in the collective conscious of a lot of people (generalization) there is belief that Jewell was involved. That's where the media needs to take the L on this and the Kathy Scruggs stuff feels like a deflection to avoid blame for the terrible job the media did in the first place. If the media is to be a paragon of truth then they have to be trumpeting corrective information as loudly as they do the sizzly type information. The fact that years later a lot of the generally well informed public still doesn't have the story straight is problematic at best and I'm not seeing the think pieces or agnsty twitter posts about that content.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5942
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2019, 10:37:01 AM »
Just because it is "legal" per se, does not mean it is moral. I haven't looked  at all jurisdictions, but I am surprised some do not have a civil remedy for this, especially in cases involvimg famous people, who have products their brand is still selling.


On an aside, this topic reminds me of a part of Repo Man, involving John Wayne.

Didn't Michael Jackson's kids/estate sue someone recently? 


(Maybe it was Chicos for defaming the moonwalk?)
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13364
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2019, 10:44:18 AM »
I generally agree that the fictionalization of Kathy Scruggs is unnecessary and pretty immoral (unless there is some sort of evidence that shows it could have gone down that way). I also think this actually a story about how twitter isn't real life, because what I've heard about the scene is that there is definitely flirting and the FBI agent and Scruggs leave the bar "together" so there is certainly implication but it doesn't go so far as to explicitly show them knocking boots so yeah....not good but it's also not some monstrous portrayal.

Note there are some generalizations coming up to make this post not be 18 paragraphs long, but I recognize its more nuanced then the media writ large being some amorphous blob with a hive mind.

I think the reaction to the Kathy Scruggs portrayal is valid but it is also greatly overshadowing the larger injustice that was done to Richard Jewell. It's been a topic of conversations in casual settings(work, sports event, holiday parties, etc) and nearly universally the take away seems to be "So wait, Richard Jewell wasn't involved in the bombing?" The man has been dead for 12 years and the true bomber was caught 16 years ago but in the collective conscious of a lot of people (generalization) there is belief that Jewell was involved. That's where the media needs to take the L on this and the Kathy Scruggs stuff feels like a deflection to avoid blame for the terrible job the media did in the first place. If the media is to be a paragon of truth then they have to be trumpeting corrective information as loudly as they do the sizzly type information. The fact that years later a lot of the generally well informed public still doesn't have the story straight is problematic at best and I'm not seeing the think pieces or agnsty twitter posts about that content.

Just because an uneducated public seems unaware that Jewell was cleared doesn't mean the media didn't write/broadcast what happened at the time. The clearing of Jewell, and the guilt of Rudolph, were stories for many days' cycles back when it happened. Was the media supposed to continue reporting on it regularly since then? I'm really not sure what you're asking for here, mu03.

I haven't seen the movie, so all I have are the accounts of how Scruggs was portrayed by those who have seen it. I'm sorry, but I'm not as good at casually dismissing baseless smears as some here are.

The simple point is that had Eastwood/Ray told the story without making up crap to demonize the media even further, they wouldn't be getting this blowback now. They would have had their "media is evil" narrative, and critics would have had to find something else to complain about.

It's sad that Eastwood/Ray sullied their own story about harmful fabrications by advancing their own harmful fabrication. In tennis, we'd call that an "unforced error," although maybe it's exactly how Eastwood was hoping everybody would react. In that case, it's not unforced at all. Just cruel and unnecessary.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2019, 07:40:06 PM »
75% Rotten Tomatoes approved critics reviews.  Currently 91% from audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.  Richard Jewell worth seeing.


Also highly recommend Knives Out.   Going to see Uncut Gems tomorrow, I hear Sandler is amazing in it.  1917 is on the list when it comes out shortly.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2019, 01:19:11 AM »
I can’t imagine why the writer / movie described her that way.

“She was blonde and wore mini skirts and gaudy stockings. She smoked. She drank. She cursed. She flaunted her sexuality. She dated Lewis Grizzard. She dated an editor who allegedly beat her with a telephone. She dated cops, including one who was accused of stealing money from the pockets of the dead.”

“You can tell how badly Kathy needs a story by how short her skirt is that day.”

Her own brother talked of her wildness and very poor choice in boyfriends.


At any rate, this is nothing but deflection and distraction and the script writer had this to say, “ The AJC hung Richard Jewell, in public.... They editorialized wildly and printed assumptions as facts. They compared him to noted mass murderer Wayne Williams. And this was after he had saved hundreds of lives. Now a movie comes along 23 years later, a perfect chance for the AJC to atone for what they did to Richard and to admit to their misdeeds. And what do they decide to do? They launch a distraction campaign. They deflect and distort...opting to challenge one assertion in the movie rather than accepting their own role in destroying the life of a good man. The movie isn’t about Kathy Scruggs; it’s about the heroism and hounding of Richard Jewell, and what rushed reporting can do to an innocent man. And by the way, I will stand by every word and assertion in the script.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

TAMU Garcia

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 16569
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2019, 03:38:51 AM »
I can’t imagine why the writer / movie described her that way.

“She was blonde and wore mini skirts and gaudy stockings. She smoked. She drank. She cursed. She flaunted her sexuality. She dated Lewis Grizzard. She dated an editor who allegedly beat her with a telephone. She dated cops, including one who was accused of stealing money from the pockets of the dead.”

“You can tell how badly Kathy needs a story by how short her skirt is that day.”
In case anyone is wondering, this is the article Chicos is using: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/12/richard-jewell-movie-kathy-scruggs

He left out the first part of this quote:

Quote
All the cops knew her and respected her and kidded her a lot,” said Coram, who based a character in Atlanta Heat on Scruggs. “I never heard any of them, even when they were drinking, say anything negative about her personally or professionally. The only thing that came close to it was one of them told me one day, 'You can tell how badly Kathy needs a story by how short her skirt is that day.'

Her own brother talked of her wildness and very poor choice in boyfriends.

He also left out the rest of this quote:

Quote
Scruggs’s own brother Lewis has publicly remarked on his sister’s wild streak, telling the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “She was a little bit rebellious.... Her choice of boyfriends was not great.” While King was clear that Scruggs had never slept with sources, he told Vanity Fair that the reporter had “in-house romances [at the paper] that caused us to have to say, ‘You stay over here, you stay over there. Y'all stay away from each other, if at all possible.’ Ya know?”

To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. While I think the agenda being pushed is obvious, historical fiction takes liberties like this all the time. I just don't like the illogical leap of "She was abused by another boyfriend and dated guys her brother didn't approve of so she must have slept with sources"
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 03:43:16 AM by TAMU Garcia »
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4993
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2019, 07:44:59 AM »
Just because an uneducated public seems unaware that Jewell was cleared doesn't mean the media didn't write/broadcast what happened at the time. The clearing of Jewell, and the guilt of Rudolph, were stories for many days' cycles back when it happened. Was the media supposed to continue reporting on it regularly since then? I'm really not sure what you're asking for here, mu03.

How did the "uneducated" become that way? Put another, how do they know the universal truth that Jewell was somehow involved but don't know the universal truth that he wasn't involved? I'm sure the media broadcast Jewell's innocence and the true bombers identity, etc but did they spend as much time, space in the paper, and sensationalism that they spent in broadcasting his guilt? Tom Brokaw on the nightly news at one point said "the FBI has enough to arrest him, probably have enough to charge him, and are just waiting to get enough to convict him", that is a very tough bell to unring. I would hope that the media would take the occasion of this film to self reflect on where they went wrong and what they need to do in the future to prevent such a thing.

The media's job is one of the toughest around, there is no doubt of that but part of that is a responsibility to get things right because a rush to judgement can significantly impact public discourse and people's lives. The failure in the Jewell case was that the folks involved didn't have a healthy skepticism, yes the FBI sources were telling them things and they ran with it because it made it a very juicy/compelling story but the FBI is also an "unreliable narrator". I'm not at all calling for pitch folks and torches but this is a great opportunity for the media writ large to have a mea culpa moment and its disappointing that is not only being missed but smoke screened by this defense of Kathy Scruggs from a fictionalized portrayal
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2019, 10:48:36 AM »

I haven't seen the movie, so all I have are the accounts of how Scruggs was portrayed by those who have seen it. I'm sorry, but I'm not as good at casually dismissing baseless smears as some here are.


No, you have the accounts of only SOME who have viewed it.  Other accounts saying that was her, how she acted, etc....you are a victim of the sources you seek to read and the confirmation bias that goes along with them.  Broaden your horizons.   

I mean we also can't help it that half the population thinks things that have been perpetuated constantly in the last few years despite being totally proven wrong....I wonder who perpetuated them and pushed them?  Oh, that's right...the media.

My son and I talked a bunch about the movie last night after watching it.  Media has a tough job, but they MUST be held to a higher standard. MUST.  Their power is immense.  In this particular case it was a combination of the FBI totally screwing up and the media running with it and adding massive fuel to the fire for weeks on end.  Feeding frenzy.  Get those ratings, get those newspapers sold...and today, get those media clicks.  MUST MUST MUST be held to a higher standard. 

And quite frankly how often are the media losing in courts on libel and slander lawsuits?  Rarely.  The standard of winning is very high hurdle.  There's a fine line here, but I'd like to legislation that essentially forces the media to think thrice before going to town on reporting.  You don't want to hinder reporting, but there have to be safeguards that are real. And I also get that the media is going to report the info they have at the time...at least usually when they aren't spiking stories...but HOW they report it, the words they use and how they frame it is critical.  They can turn public opinion instantly.  The media and law enforcement knew the Jewell story was falling apart fairly quickly, but their reporting to queston law enforcement was lax and with nowhere close the vigor in rushing to paint him as the bomber....and that's the problem.

Rotten tomatoes up to 96%.  Worth watching and worth watching the real life interviews with his mother, his attorney. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13364
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2019, 09:37:16 PM »
How did the "uneducated" become that way? Put another, how do they know the universal truth that Jewell was somehow involved but don't know the universal truth that he wasn't involved? I'm sure the media broadcast Jewell's innocence and the true bombers identity, etc but did they spend as much time, space in the paper, and sensationalism that they spent in broadcasting his guilt? Tom Brokaw on the nightly news at one point said "the FBI has enough to arrest him, probably have enough to charge him, and are just waiting to get enough to convict him", that is a very tough bell to unring. I would hope that the media would take the occasion of this film to self reflect on where they went wrong and what they need to do in the future to prevent such a thing.

The media's job is one of the toughest around, there is no doubt of that but part of that is a responsibility to get things right because a rush to judgement can significantly impact public discourse and people's lives. The failure in the Jewell case was that the folks involved didn't have a healthy skepticism, yes the FBI sources were telling them things and they ran with it because it made it a very juicy/compelling story but the FBI is also an "unreliable narrator". I'm not at all calling for pitch folks and torches but this is a great opportunity for the media writ large to have a mea culpa moment and its disappointing that is not only being missed but smoke screened by this defense of Kathy Scruggs from a fictionalized portrayal

I have said many times that many in the media and law enforcement screwed the pooch on the Jewell case, and that I felt sorry for him. Otherwise, I agree that it's a shame Eastwood created this narrative himself by doing exactly what he accuses the media of doing.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13364
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2019, 09:45:26 PM »
No, you have the accounts of only SOME who have viewed it.  Other accounts saying that was her, how she acted, etc....you are a victim of the sources you seek to read and the confirmation bias that goes along with them.  Broaden your horizons.   

I mean we also can't help it that half the population thinks things that have been perpetuated constantly in the last few years despite being totally proven wrong....I wonder who perpetuated them and pushed them?  Oh, that's right...the media.

My son and I talked a bunch about the movie last night after watching it.  Media has a tough job, but they MUST be held to a higher standard. MUST.  Their power is immense.  In this particular case it was a combination of the FBI totally screwing up and the media running with it and adding massive fuel to the fire for weeks on end.  Feeding frenzy.  Get those ratings, get those newspapers sold...and today, get those media clicks.  MUST MUST MUST be held to a higher standard. 

And quite frankly how often are the media losing in courts on libel and slander lawsuits?  Rarely.  The standard of winning is very high hurdle.  There's a fine line here, but I'd like to legislation that essentially forces the media to think thrice before going to town on reporting.  You don't want to hinder reporting, but there have to be safeguards that are real. And I also get that the media is going to report the info they have at the time...at least usually when they aren't spiking stories...but HOW they report it, the words they use and how they frame it is critical.  They can turn public opinion instantly.  The media and law enforcement knew the Jewell story was falling apart fairly quickly, but their reporting to queston law enforcement was lax and with nowhere close the vigor in rushing to paint him as the bomber....and that's the problem.

Rotten tomatoes up to 96%.  Worth watching and worth watching the real life interviews with his mother, his attorney.

First, you lied by accusing others of "defending" the mistreatment of Jewell even though we did the exact opposite. Now, TAMU demonstrated how easily and willingly you lie by omission in your desperate attempts to justify your hatred for the free press. Sad to see somebody so filled with hate.

Go watch All the President's Men and/or Spotlight. Free thyself!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2750
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2019, 07:15:16 AM »
I watched Jordan Peele’s horror film Us last night. I had heard it was really good. I thought it was just so-so. Disappointing. My daughter and I were looking for a good scare.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13364
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2019, 08:00:35 AM »
I watched Jordan Peele’s horror film Us last night. I had heard it was really good. I thought it was just so-so. Disappointing. My daughter and I were looking for a good scare.

I haven't seen it but had heard it was nowhere near as good as Get Out. Sounds like you agree with that assessment.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6898
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2019, 08:06:40 AM »
How is what Clint Eastwood is doing any different than what Oliver Stone has done? No matter whose point of view you may tend to agree with, if you are going to call out one of them, you should call out the other.
Have some patience, FFS.

Frenns Liquor Depot

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2019, 08:35:11 AM »
How is what Clint Eastwood is doing any different than what Oliver Stone has done? No matter whose point of view you may tend to agree with, if you are going to call out one of them, you should call out the other.

Why specifically Oliver Stone?  Also my impression of him is that he is constantly called out for sensationalizing history/conspiracy theories. 

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2019, 09:29:36 AM »
How is what Clint Eastwood is doing any different than what Oliver Stone has done? No matter whose point of view you may tend to agree with, if you are going to call out one of them, you should call out the other.

Because if Clint is going to direct a movie he's marketing not only as "the true story," but as a scolding of the media and FBI for libeling Richard Jewell he should, you know, tell the true story and not libel the real-life people depicted in his film.
Seems obvious enough, but what do I know?

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2019, 09:35:46 AM »
No, you have the accounts of only SOME who have viewed it.  Other accounts saying that was her, how she acted, etc....you are a victim of the sources you seek to read and the confirmation bias that goes along with them.  Broaden your horizons.   

Where are these other accounts that say Kathy Scruggs slept with sources to get  information? And that FBI investigators traded information for sex?

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2019, 09:52:19 AM »
In case anyone is wondering, this is the article Chicos is using: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/12/richard-jewell-movie-kathy-scruggs

He left out the first part of this quote:
 
He also left out the rest of this quote:

To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. While I think the agenda being pushed is obvious, historical fiction takes liberties like this all the time. I just don't like the illogical leap of "She was abused by another boyfriend and dated guys her brother didn't approve of so she must have slept with sources"

Actually

The boyfriend comment from the brother did not come from the article you posted.  Nor did the skirt reference.


The skirt reference came from a 2003 article I found about her that had the quotes I copied.

https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/requiem-for-a-reporter-kathy-scruggs/

I didn’t leave out anything out because there wasn’t anything in the above article like you describe.  Or in the below articles.


The last quote, I will have to double check but think it came from Vulture or a different source.  https://www.vulture.com/2019/12/richard-jewell-writer-responds-to-kathy-scruggs-controversy.html   


https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/12/richard-jewell-ajc-continues-its-mission-to-deceive-and-distract-from-its-own-unethical-behavior


https://www.indiewire.com/2019/12/richard-jewell-ajc-controversy-1202197083/

If I am wrong I will correct it.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 10:39:26 AM by Cheeks »
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2019, 09:56:48 AM »
Because if Clint is going to direct a movie he's marketing not only as "the true story," but as a scolding of the media and FBI for libeling Richard Jewell he should, you know, tell the true story and not libel the real-life people depicted in his film.
Seems obvious enough, but what do I know?

Did he libel her?  The screenwriter 100% stands by every word of it....methinks someone again is upset the media is called out and will do everything to defend them no matter what.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2019, 10:04:58 AM »
Did he libel her?  The screenwriter 100% stands by every word of it....methinks someone again is upset the media is called out and will do everything to defend them no matter what.

The fact that he won't admit he made it up doesn't mean it's true.
Many in the media handled the Richard Jewell story very poorly. That doesn't excuse the film telling scurrilous lies about someone. The exact same story with the exact same message having the exact same impact could have been told without inserting that bit of fiction. Eastwood could have even portrayed her as someone who pushed boundaries and not been inaccurate. But instead, he chose to portray her as someone who slept with sources, despite there being zero evidence it occured in this or any other instance.

The fact is, Cheeks, its hypocrisy to justify the film's false portrayal of Kathy Scruggs while also criticizing the treatment of Richard Jewell. Both people saw or are seeing their reputations severely tarnished by an erroneous depiction in media.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 10:10:05 AM by Pakuni »

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
  • When I'm in Holland I eat the pannenkoeken
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2019, 10:09:39 AM »
Furthermore, Scruggs was the crime reporter for the AJC.  She had plenty of sources where she could have gotten the information that the FBI was investigating Jewell.  But Clint and Chicos drink from the same brainless Kool Aid.  So I'm not surprised that both have come to the conclusion that a female reporter can't actually be good at their job without sleeping with someone.  Sexist trash.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2019, 10:10:44 AM »
The fact that he won't admit he made it up doesn't mean it's true.
Many in the media handled the Richard Jewell story very poorly. That doesn't excuse the film telling scurrilous lies about someone. The excact same story with the exact same message having the exact same impact could have been told without inserting that bit of fiction.

The fact is, Cheeks, its hypocrisy to justify the film's false portrayal of Kathy Scruggs while also criticizing the treatment of Richard Jewell. Both people saw or are seeing their reputations severely tarnished by an erroneous depiction in media.

Scurrilous lies...can you prove that?  The screenwriter 100% stands by them.  Why are you not giving that writer the benefit of the doubt?  Hmm.  We all know why.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2019, 10:14:21 AM »
Furthermore, Scruggs was the crime reporter for the AJC.  She had plenty of sources where she could have gotten the information that the FBI was investigating Jewell.  But Clint and Chicos drink from the same brainless Kool Aid.  So I'm not surprised that both have come to the conclusion that a female reporter can't actually be good at their job without sleeping with someone.  Sexist trash.

Lol.  Same old rant from you...just a different card you are playing now.  Old and tired, but been your thing for years. 

The screenwriter stands 100% behind every word. 

The outing of Jewell wasn’t the only sin, it was the dogged bulshyte they did for the month after...that was the problem...they never came up for air convicting the man in the press.  How ironic that you miss what this is about. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2019, 10:17:28 AM »
And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.

Eastwood has won two Academy Awards for Best Picture, two others for Best Director, and has had three other films nominated for Best Picture.
Only three directors - Capra, Ford and Wyler - have won the Best Director Award more than Clint.
Hollywood sure loves piling (awards) on Eastwood.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 10:32:11 AM by Pakuni »

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
  • When I'm in Holland I eat the pannenkoeken
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2019, 10:20:02 AM »
Lol.  Same old rant from you...just a different card you are playing now.  Old and tired, but been your thing for years. 

The screenwriter stands 100% behind every word. 

The outing of Jewell wasn’t the only sin, it was the dogged bulshyte they did for the month after...that was the problem...they never came up for air convicting the man in the press.  How ironic that you miss what this is about. 

I don’t give a flying f*ck what the screenwriter says. What’s he supposed to say?

And Jewell’s primary problem was the FBI who dragged him on as a suspect for far too long.

But it’s easier for brainless kool aid drinkers like yourself to assume a female reporter is sleeping with someone. Because God forbid they actually succeed otherwise.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

 

feedback