Support NeoGAF

[Kinyou]

They didn't pay her just to watch the movie. They paid her to watch it and provide her opinion on it. It's mystifying why completely uninvolved people feel the need to protect her from something she agreed to.

But apparently Gawker thought it was crucial she watches the movie, or else they wouldn't have paid her for that. I think that's an ugly move from Gawker, even if she agreed to it.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

This has nothing to do with being progressive. It has always been about the fact that I would love for Gawker to take more responsibility for how they approach "story" ideas. This is evidently very offensive to people.

No. What is offensive are the people that seemingly know what's best for someone else and questioning the decisions they made for themself. How is that not obvious?

But apparently Gawker thought it was crucial she watches the movie, or else they wouldn't have paid her for that. I think that's an ugly move from Gawker, even if she agreed to it.

Uhhhh... Who gives a shit about Gawker?
The only thing that matters is the individuals personal decision and empowering them to make it. Nobody who ever experienced trauma will ever move past it if other people keep telling them they are too weak to try.

 

[Dude Abides]

But apparently Gawker thought it was crucial she watches the movie, or else they wouldn't have paid her for that. I think that's an ugly move from Gawker, even if she agreed to it.

If you want someone to write about a movie it probably makes sense if they watch it. I realize you think it's "ugly" but stating your opinion is not the same as substantiating it.

 

[Kinyou]

If you want someone to write about a movie it probably makes sense if they watch it. I realize you think it's "ugly" but stating your opinion is not the same as substantiating it.

Probably because what someone finds morally acceptable or not is a bit subjective.

Uhhhh... Who gives a shit about Gawker?
The only thing that matters is the individuals personal decision and empowering them to make it. Nobody who ever experienced trauma will ever move past it if other people keep telling them they are too weak to try.

So I shouldn't criticize Gawker because who gives a shit about Gawker? And people usually don't have to get paid to face their traumas, do they?

 

[EGM1966]

Are you now controlling how victims shall talk about their suffering?



I do think you entirely missed the point and set up a strawman.

No I don't think so. I'm being somewhat sarcastic to those seeming to expect it to be in the film or think there's some automatic failing involved. Film biopics are not totally true to life nor should they be considered as such (although I'll admit there is an issue in that many people do seem to assume they're the truth). The Social Network is not the whole story, neither is Lawrence of Arabia (to go back in time a bit) nor any film biopic that is not a documentary (and even documentaries suffer from many of the same issues of detailing all the facts).

It is a stylized, arguably fictionalized "based on true events" take on some aspects of those who are its subjects. Some stuff will be pretty accurate, some will be missing and some will be invented to "represent" scenarios too complex or unwieldy to simplify.

Therefore I'm noting that it's crazy to act outraged the film doesn't portray this incident as though it's some exception to the rule (I accept there is a fair criticism to be made that films that chose knowingly to skip arguably notable incidents that are less than flattering should be automatically criticized for it, but that's another story). To put it another way it would have been a genuine surprise if the film chose to focus on this even as a major one and give it a lot of screen time. That would have been unexpected.

That being said his actions were heinous and remain as awful and unlawful today as they were then no matter how much he may have changed himself (I have no idea) therefore I also make the point that I would hope that other media will use the timing of the film's release to "go beyond" the film and remind people of incidents such as these, if for no other reason than to act as a check and balance to those who might simply accept the film as "the whole story".

 

[Nealand Liquor]

So I shouldn't criticize Gawker because who gives a shit about Gawker? And people usually don't have to get paid to face their traumas, do they?

In this case Gawker isn't the problem. It is people policing others decisions out of "concern".

Usually people get paid to share their experiences and opinions in media, should people who experienced trauma not be paid to share?
Or are you trying to imply she's still too weak to speak but compromised her mental health because she couldn't refuse the allure of evil Gawker Dollars?

Think about exactly what you are saying.

 

[Dude Abides]

Probably because what someone finds morally acceptable or not is a bit subjective.

Or in the case of your objection here, entirely subjective.

 

[dave is ok]

So I shouldn't criticize Gawker because who gives a shit about Gawker? And people usually don't have to get paid to face their traumas, do they?

People who write articles for popular websites usually get paid.

Sometimes they involve bad or good things that have happened to them in their lives.

 

[Oersted]

No I don't think so. I'm being somewhat sarcastic to those seeming to expect it to be in the film or think there's some automatic failing involved. Film biopics are not totally true to life nor should they be considered as such (although I'll admit there is an issue in that many people do seem to assume they're the truth). The Social Network is not the whole story, neither is Lawrence of Arabia (to go back in time a bit) nor any film biopic that is not a documentary (and even documentaries suffer from many of the same issues of detailing all the facts).

It is a stylized, arguably fictionalized "based on true events" take on some aspects of those who are its subjects. Some stuff will be pretty accurate, some will be missing and some will be invented to "represent" scenarios too complex or unwieldy to simplify.

Therefore I'm noting that it's crazy to act outraged the film doesn't portray this incident as though it's some exception to the rule (I accept there is a fair criticism to be made that films that chose knowingly to skip arguably notable incidents that are less than flattering should be automatically criticized for it, but that's another story). To put it another way it would have been a genuine surprise if the film chose to focus on this even as a major one and give it a lot of screen time. That would have been unexpected.

That being said his actions were heinous and remain as awful and unlawful today as they were then no matter how much he may have changed himself (I have no idea) therefore I also make the point that I would hope that other media will use the timing of the film's release to "go beyond" the film and remind people of incidents such as these, if for no other reason than to act as a check and balance to those who might simply accept the film as "the whole story".

You are repeating the mistake. Noone is acting shocked, surprised or whatever kind of adjectives you want to use to create your strawmen. And yes, biopics ommitt details. We are talking about a ommitted detail. And based on your last paragraph you don't even have a problem, so I don't even get what you are going for.

 

[Kinyou]

In this case Gawker isn't the problem. It is people policing others decisions out of "concern".

Usually people get paid to share their experiences and opinions in media, should people who experienced trauma not be paid to share?
Or are you trying to imply she's still too weak to speak but compromised her mental health because she couldn't refuse the allure of evil Gawker Dollars?

Think about exactly what you are saying.

People who write articles for popular websites usually get paid.

Sometimes they involve bad or good things that have happened to them in their lives.

Again, I don't think there's any problem with Gawker asking her to share her story and paying her for that. What I find objectionable is to ask her to watch the movie.

 

[Oersted]

Again, I don't think there's any problem with Gawker asking her to share her story and paying her for that. What I find objectionable is to ask her to watch the movie.

Is that concern in any way valuable?

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Again, I don't think there's any problem with Gawker asking her to share her story and paying her for that. What I find objectionable is to ask her to watch the movie.

And she could have said no, right?
So why is it objectionable?

 

[Transhuman]

So I shouldn't criticize Gawker because who gives a shit about Gawker? And people usually don't have to get paid to face their traumas, do they?

She's not "facing her trauma", it's something that's she's talked about at length that's also been on public record for over two decades. I mean she's still being blackballed from the industry, which is a more real and ongoing concern for herself. Her life probably would've improved had the film actually shown the way she was treated.

And no doubt whoever pitched the article to Dee probably watched the film already, and they weren't thinking "I wonder if we can get this sad damaged girl to cry".

 

[Siegcram]

Again, I don't think there's any problem with Gawker asking her to share her story and paying her for that. What I find objectionable is to ask her to watch the movie.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Kinyou]

Is that concern in any way valuable?

So now the concern isn't valuable enough? I didn't know there weren't so many requirements for just saying "Stay classy Gawker"

And she could have said no, right?
So why is it objectionable?

Because watching the movie herself simply shouldn't have been a requirement for this piece.

This is getting ridiculous.

I can see that this is getting nowhere.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Because watching the movie herself simply shouldn't have been a requirement for this piece.


I can see that this is getting nowhere.

She had choice, she excersied her agency. I still don't see how her viewing the movie is an issue at all.

Pretty much.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

The person I believe deserve acknowledgment, is Michelle'e because she not only had a personal relationship with Dre, but a contract under the Ruthless label. Dee Barnes story has no direct tie to the group, or the group fall out. The movie is about a group, maybe we'll get a Dr. Dre biopic after he has passed away. But don't expect one now and for a very long time.

 

[Goodstyle]

This movie coming out that glamorises events means it is no longer old news. The article is about the discord between actual events and depicted events. The idea that someone severely assaulting people isn't a noteworthy event is fucking insane. It'd be like doing a documentary on the Titanic and never mentioning it crashed into an iceberg.

That really doesn't work as an analogy. Titanic was about a boat that crashed into an iceberg. That's the big event. The big event in this film is the rap careers of three central figures in hip-hop history.

A better example here would be like doing a whole movie about these three men and not mentioning that Ice Cube went to the Phoenix Institute of Technology to study architecture before abandoning that to be a rapper.

Obviously, Ice Cube's education and Dre's criminal assaults are huge parts of their identity, but they weren't absolutely necessary to the narrative of their rising careers in the same way that iceberg is necessary to a story about Titanic.

 

[enzo_gt]

The Dee Barnes incident was in the original script.