So... we are now in a culture that puts a condemned label on those who simply SAY something out of line - well... depending on if they are socially favored at the moment.
But this movie wants to make a hero out of someone credibly accuses of heinous crimes?
How is this a story of bravery of the “brave” person is a monster?
now, I believe that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the best move is for Apple to store this until such time as proof is made and then either release or put to pasture.
-
Actually not even anyone in the movie. The SON of one of the characters has been accused of criminal abuse far after the events of this film. He wasn't even alive when the events portrayed in the film took place. That's how absurd this has gotten.
-
If that is correct, then I believe you are right. Forgive me if I misunderstood. It doesn’t appear easy to understand that from what I’ve read so far.
Understandable. The buzz around this is going off in every possible direction. It is tough to keep it straight.
Apple said "inspired by" which means nothing more than that. I imagine that Star Trek was inspired by a lot of things too, and it doesn't matter if any of those things got "distorted" or even were stolen. There's a fine line between inspiration and theft. Since Apple is obviously paid for the creation of this flick, the upset wives and their money hunting attorney should be shown the door. If that's not acceptable to them, then they should foot the bill for the entire creation of the film to ensure Apple incurs no losses. Then it doesn't matter if Apple pulls it. It really is that simple.
Apple was not involved in the creation or production of this film. FTA: “Apple purchased the rights to the film for $20 million and had no involvement in its production.”
The accusation from the sister was straightforward and easy enough to deal with -- Junior, her (half) brother, wasn't one of the creators of the film, he was just getting some type of producer credit for his name and cooperation. That rankled part of the family, likely for good reason, and they got what they wanted (apart from the Streisand effect) -- he is no longer associated with the film. I think the fear was that if it were to win awards, he would be involved in its public face. By all accounts, it is a very good, compelling work of art. Major awards are not out of the question.
This latest salvo seems like a different attempt to undermine the film, and it is harder to understand. The "distortion" charge is, as far as I'm aware, non-specific. Have they explained what has been distorted? I don't get it. It's not a documentary. I guess maybe they want to take over the role that Junior would have played if the film is successful? If so, this is a strange way of going about it.
A company that profits off of what would be illegal labor violations if they existed in America shouldn’t concern themselves with doing what is right. Release the damn show!!
Apple fucked up. The allegations against Bernard Garrett, Jr. was out there for several years. And he already profited from the production of this film and was poised to benefit after its release. It's further BS to say he was simply listed as a co-producer. He was involved in the production process from the beginning to the end.
IMO, that's enough to shelve this project. But wait, it gets worst:
As a result of the further pressure from the former wives, Apple has added a disclaimer to the opening of the film, declaring it to be "based on true events" rather than an exact portrayal.
But Bernard Garrett Sr's 2nd wife (via attorney) says:
"The story was stolen and distorted" ... "it has been hurtful to the family. They have manipulated the narrative."
Indeed the producers have manipulated (that's being generous) the narrative. Garrett's first wife Eunice is depicted in the film as helping her husband and business partner build a banking empire. It was actually Linda Garrett that built a banking and real estate empire together with Bernard Sr. and his partners. She and Cynthia, the most vocal of the sisters abused by Garrett Jr, are cut out of the timeline although Bernard Sr. was married to Linda Garrett when the first Savings & Loan is purchased, and Cynthia was born before his discriminatory prosecution.
Apple should demand it's $20 million back and distance itself from this hot mess.
"The story was stolen and distorted," said Linda Garrett's attorney, "it has been hurtful to the family. They have manipulated the narrative."
It's as if they've never seen a movie before. {shrugs}
"The story was stolen and distorted," said Linda Garrett's attorney, "it has been hurtful to the family. They have manipulated the narrative."
It's as if they've never seen a movie before. {shrugs}
They've never seen a movie about their lives being distorted and manipulated by an abusing family member.
Comments
The accusation from the sister was straightforward and easy enough to deal with -- Junior, her (half) brother, wasn't one of the creators of the film, he was just getting some type of producer credit for his name and cooperation. That rankled part of the family, likely for good reason, and they got what they wanted (apart from the Streisand effect) -- he is no longer associated with the film. I think the fear was that if it were to win awards, he would be involved in its public face. By all accounts, it is a very good, compelling work of art. Major awards are not out of the question.
This latest salvo seems like a different attempt to undermine the film, and it is harder to understand. The "distortion" charge is, as far as I'm aware, non-specific. Have they explained what has been distorted? I don't get it. It's not a documentary. I guess maybe they want to take over the role that Junior would have played if the film is successful? If so, this is a strange way of going about it.
IMO, that's enough to shelve this project. But wait, it gets worst:
As a result of the further pressure from the former wives, Apple has added a disclaimer to the opening of the film, declaring it to be "based on true events" rather than an exact portrayal.
But Bernard Garrett Sr's 2nd wife (via attorney) says:
"The story was stolen and distorted" ... "it has been hurtful to the family. They have manipulated the narrative."
Indeed the producers have manipulated (that's being generous) the narrative. Garrett's first wife Eunice is depicted in the film as helping her husband and business partner build a banking empire. It was actually Linda Garrett that built a banking and real estate empire together with Bernard Sr. and his partners. She and Cynthia, the most vocal of the sisters abused by Garrett Jr, are cut out of the timeline although Bernard Sr. was married to Linda Garrett when the first Savings & Loan is purchased, and Cynthia was born before his discriminatory prosecution.
Apple should demand it's $20 million back and distance itself from this hot mess.