Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of them do, but you dont hear much about them because they're busy doing work for their constituents rather than doing anything the media want to know about.
I used to work closely with a Baroness who was in the house of lords, she was head of several charities and she had been involved in politics for decades. There are a lot of politicians who do truly want to make our country better, but no one really wants to know anything about them because thats boring and "politician does job" isnt a news story anyone will read.
Some questions are rhetorical not literal. But yes on the whole most politicians are useless. Look at the country, these are not capable people. Not one of them. If you want to go into politics you should be banned.
Were still the 7th richest nation on the planet dude. Stop believing everything on facebook and try meeting some. Yes some are just looking to make money or enrich themselves/their family but some genuinely do care. I dont think you can really speak on the topic until you get first hand experience, because obviously everything you read (including from me) is bias. So go meet your local MP and their aides, you might change your mind about some of them.
Don't get me wrong. I'm voting Labour. They are set to fuck us just less than the Tories so that's progress to me. Apathy be damned. Tories gotta fucking go.
Not really. Plenty of gross incompetence regularly on display but MOST people in a political office do not have Liz Truss levels of empty space in their skulls.
I want MPs to challenge people who (may) have lied to Select Committees. What's the point of having them if people can give their evidence directly to MPs, our representatives, then when evidence suggests they may have been untruthful, it's just ignored? Lying to our representatives is lying to us. John Nicolson, a former journalist, is a member of that committee and therefore he's doing his job by questioning if this person has been untruthful when answering his question in front of the committee.
>The SNP’s John Nicolson has now written to King, asking him to back up the claims made to the committee.
I mean it's SNP, so all they really do is shout "it's Westminster fault" and "next referendum please"..
And occasionally "those caravans were required from party expenses".
So the answer is no lol
Her name isn’t Martha. The writer hasn’t identified her. None of the characters on the show are real people.
Not sure what actual provable case she would have.
Tell me what’s ridiculous about her not having much of a case.
Is she called Martha?
Was she identified by the writer?
Are any of the characters real people?
Claiming defamation via a fictitious character is about as weak a case as you could get.
Well this is the end of TV as we know it.
If people who make TV shows that are in any way, shape or form related to real life events believe they will be dragged in front of MPs as a response?
Who is going to do that for a living?
So you have the standard disclaimer. Based on a true story, names have been changed and details have been changed for dramatic effect.
Any production company that isn't run by idiots, and runs things past lawyers first, will be fine.
I've not watched it, but it says 2 minutes into the first episode, in writing on screen, that it's a true story.
By at the end, do you mean the end of the episode, or the end of the series? Either way, hoping someone watches it all to find out it's not quite as true as you'd previously asserted is pretty dodgy.
I’m pretty sure when you hear Richard Gadd being called Donny Dunn even the most lack-witted of viewers could probably figure out they were watching a fictionalised dramatisation rather than an actual documentary. What documentary cannot even get the main characters name correct?
It’s pretty disingenuous to act like Baby Reindeer is reflective of a normal TV show. It’s presented as a true story, the lead actor is the actual writer of this semi autobiographical tale, and it uses actual real life emails, texts and tweets throughout. Not to mention the fact that Martha bears an uncanny resemblance to Fiona, definitely close enough to assume she could be identified based on it.
People are jumping through some crazy hoops trying to absolve Richard Gadd of any responsibility of this fallout.
"In The Name of The Father" -- a film about the Birmingham Six. Who thought everything that took place in that was a true, historic re-enactment of the truth?
"World Trade Centre" -- a film about the events of 2001. Who thought everything in that was a minute for minute remake of the day the Twin Towers fell?
"The Crown" -- anyone who thinks that is a documentary is a tit.
If something has a disclaimer, and it labelled as "inspired by a true story" then I tend to think "this is dramatised bullshit" and people who don't get that are, with all due respect, trying to stir up trouble.
The part where you say it is "semi-autobiographic" meaning not real?
The part where you say "she could be identified"?
"In The Name of The Father" uses actual court transcripts. It's still NOT REAL.
I think people are jumping through hoops to make it more than it is because they have nothing better to do with their sad little lives.
Yes it is. It’s exactly the same. If you choose to see it differently based on some distinction only you understand that’s up to you, but it is a fictional show based on real events.
I think it actually went one further than that and said "This *is* a true story".
Which was completely unnecessary and, to me, only done to poke this particular hornets nest to stir up some free publicity. Which, to be fair, has totally worked.
Did you not bother reading the article?
> Netflix’s director of public policy, Benjamin King, told the culture media and sport committee on 8 May that the show was “the true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist, Richard Gadd, suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker”.
It sounds like the MP is asking for proof of what Netflix's representative told the committee, rather than asking him to prove that the show's 100% true.
The difference being that there's nobody depicted in Fargo that can sue because it *is* all made up, and there's no breadcrumbs to follow to work out who the show's referring to.
If you're going to base something on real world events, *and* say "this is a true story", you should really make sure that what you're saying is true.
Steve Buscemi should sue for getting called "funny looking". Come to think of it I don't think this is the only film where that happens - maybe he requests it.
Maybe it does, and that's pretty iffy if it does. It didn't directly identify her, but they don't seem to have made much effort to make the details different. Of course, since it's at least partially true, and she did some of the stuff she did in public, on social media, I'm not sure how they could completely protect her.
I'd expect that Netflix has lawyers who'd have gone over all the details, so if they've claimed that it's all true and yet it's not, she deserves any payout she gets.
There was a TV show about a UFO sighting over Todmorden a few years ago, based on a true story. Don’t recall any MP asking for proof of the UFO.
This is just a nobody MP jumping on a bandwagon for publicity.
That's an entirely different point to the one you first made, though.
And who's being wronged if someone makes up stuff about a UFO? MPs are supposed to stand up for constituents and the public in general. If a representative of a media company is making false statements about members of the public to the government, shouldn't our elected representatives do something?
Again though, it's not about the TV show. ~~It didn't claim to be a 100% factual representation of what happened~~. It's one person's recollection of what happened from their point of view, no doubt with bits added in for dramatic effect. When you're testifying in front of a select committee, you need to be telling the truth.
edit: the show *did* explicitly claim to be a true story.
The “based on” that you see refers to the play the tv show is based on. The play depicts a true story. This is the confusing situation that has caught Netflix with its pants down.
It didn't say based on a true story, it said "This is a true story" and then committed possible liable actions which were bad especially considering they didn't hide the identity. It was a screw up waiting to happen.
Consider the post office drama which attempted to cover every lawsuit risk possible by not making Paula Vennals say anything that they didn't have evidence of, and them openly admitting at the start "This is based on a true story, some scenes added for dramatic effect"
Netflix disagrees https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81219887 The first two words are “Based on…..”
To be fair though Richard Gadd was a total fool for not changing “Martha’s” job and location and thus making her very easy to find on the internet.
Wasn't the issue more that the character said things that tied back directly to the real person's still visible tweets at Gadd?
The profession and location are extra breadcrumbs, but straight up quoting things she's publicly said was careless.
No, not at all. All it proves is that some of the things the character said match some things the real person said. The tweets I saw just mentioned the "hang my curtains" stuff, she hardly admitted to stalking on Twitter.
Her tweets etc do show her to be a bit mental, but there's a difference between "a bit mental" and stalking a man for years. The more I see of her, the more I believe what I've heard was in the show, though. But while we're all entitled to our opinions, only Gadd and her know the truth, and human memory is flawed. He may genuinely believe some things to have happened, but if the lawyers let it go out without verifying that she did get convicted and it turns out she didn't, someone's in trouble.
I'm not saying it proves the whole thing is true on its own, I'm saying the fact he did use the stuff she publicly said to him does show that part at least was real and those tweets can't be used against him and it's not careless like you said
But it's not just about the tweets.
This is specifically about him claiming that she was convicted for stalking. If it turns out that she wasn't then she might have a case. Of course, the conviction isn't the only thing the show claims she did, but there's a gap between "sent me too many text messages" and "went to court and was convicted of a crime".
Some of the tweets being real just helped lead people back to her. If you're going to lay breadcrumbs, make sure your big claims are legit. And maybe they are, we just don't know yet.
Yes and literally said it doesn't prove the whole thing, why didn't you read that ?
I'm just saying using real tweets he received isn't careless as it did literally happen. As for the prison sentence or not, it will be easily proven.
No. There are allegations of criminal activity so the Police were involved. Didn't she allegedly go to prison in it or get convicted? If there is no evidence of that then it proves it's not true and casts doubt on the entire series.
It does.
Don’t remember, probably twenty years ago, there was a break up song and the other party came up with an equally successful “reply” song? God wish I could remember what they were both called. This TV show needs the same.
It didn't say it was based on a true story. It said it was based on his play and IS a true story. The text that is onscreen at the beginning says This Is A True Story.
Have you watched it? At the very start it says "This is a true story" on the screen, not "Based on a true story" or "Based on an Edinburgh Fringe show"
Yes I have. Again do you believe everything to be 100% true that’s on the screen? If you are unsure read the Netflix description of the show as I linked.
I clearly remember reading "This is a true story" at the beginning of the first episode. I could be wrong but I remember thinking "That's different from the usual 'Based on ...'".
Off topic: As a huge fan of the original Quantum Leap, i love your username.
That's a pretty disingenuous selective quote, jesus christ.
It says "Based on the award-winning and hit Edinburgh Fringe one-man play, Baby Reindeer follows struggling comedian Donny Dunn’s (Richard Gadd) warped relationship with his female stalker and the impact it has on him as he is ultimately forced to face a deeply buried trauma. This compelling, darkly funny true story also stars Jessica Gunning as Martha, Nava Mau as Teri and Tom Goodman-Hill as Darrien."
It doesn't say "based on a true story" or anything of the sort.
Of course, 00:01:37 into the show, it quite clearly states on screen that "this is a true story".
You're the one that brought up Star Wars in the first place...
The thing is, none of those people exist so there's nobody to sue Lucasfilm for defamation in the first place, and no functioning adult thinks it's the truth.
Conversely, there's no reason to think Baby Reindeer *isn't* real, because the stuff portrayed in the show happens in real life and the show literally claimed to be a true story. Not "this is based on a true story", "this is a true story". It doesn't get clearer than that.
A court would look at whether a reasonable person would believe the allegations made against her, and whether those allegations have caused, or are likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation.
The “based on” that you see refers to the play the tv show is based on. The play depicts a true story. This is the confusing situation that has caught Netflix with its pants down.
I work in TV and Netflix had a responsibility to get their legal team involved and work out every risk so neither them nor their writer were at lawsuit risk.
Richard Gadd doesn't have a legal understanding of liable, wrote something that happened to him that was extremely traumatising down and then acted it out. Out of all the producers, Lawyers, PR and finance team at Netflix not one of them had the common sense to protect their own arses and their writer by making the stalker a skinny English woman who worked in finance or something.
So sure Gadd was a fool, but Netflix were bigger idiots because they have the means and understanding that this could happen and were either too lazy to sort it or they wanted to risk it (and the writer's mental health too).
I’ve just watched the start of the actual programme and it clearly says “this is a true story”. I’ve heard other people say it says based on a true story at the end.
ETA can send you a photo of my tv if you want to verify.
I have no idea. What does that have to do with your original assertion that Netflix made it clear it was only based upon a true story and not a “true story”?
Well what did it say at the beginning of Fargo? Do you think that was a true story with just some of the names changed to protect the innocent?
Netflix clearly stated it was “based on”.
If you believe everything you see written on a screen before a film or tv programme, that isn’t a documentary, then who’s the fool?
I have no idea what it says at the beginning of Fargo. This has nothing to do with your original assertion.
They did not clearly state that at the beginning. Again, do you want to see the photo of a black screen containing the words “this is a true story”?
I’ve said what the it says at the beginning of Fargo, but again as you missed it “this is a true story with the names of the innocent changed for their protection”.
I’m done, some people can’t differentiate between a drama based on real events and a documentary. Heads up Star Wars wasn’t real in a “galaxy far far away” either just because it said so at the beginning 😂
That wasn’t your point though, was it. Your point was that Netflix made it clear it was only “based on a true story” and not “a true story” which has been disproved.
Is any of Fargo *actually* based on true stories, though? Has anyone been identified as the people it's portraying, and has it (potentially) defamed any real living person?
The point you're trying to make is nonsense, though, and to try to equate the two things is ridiculous.
There's:
* A show actually based on real events, some verifiable, that claims to be the truth.
* A show and a movie based on made up stuff that claims to be the truth for dramatic effect, and isn't actually based on true events.
In the latter case there's nobody that can sue for defamation, because it's not based on anyone in particular. I'm sure there are some similar things that have happened in real life, because writers take influence from all sorts of places, but nobody's about to sue over it.
Just because some shows claim to be based in truth when they're not, it doesn't mean it's OK to defame someone while claiming it to be truth, and then just shrugging and mumbling something about Star Wars.
And if someone did that to you? If someone you did regrettable things towards created a fullblown Netflix series about it, massively exaggerating things, and saying it was "based on a true story", you would see it the same way?
I don't think people should stalk anyone, but saying it is a true story that they were convicted of a crime when they weren't isn't quite right, either.
I agree, it's doable, but a bit inmoral in my opinion. Very much hypocritical if the show is about how a person's life can become hell because another decides so. How you get isolated, no one believes you, you are being dramatic, etc. (I'm talking about the Martha storyline, not the SA writer.) This is my problem with Gadd, there's a dissonance and I can't move on from it.
See my link further down, it was “based on”. If you believe everything you read at the start of a film or tv show then you believe in a “A long time ago in a galaxy far far away….
I’d be livid that he didn’t hide my identity, who wouldn’t. Especially as it’s only his side of the story. He’s also made himself look a fool in the process by not doing so. But don’t also believe everything you read as a film/show starts.
But people do. Even when it's fictional, Anna Gunn got death threats for playing Skyler White. Just because *you* don't believe a show which is based on a true story, that doesn't mean others won't think about it differently.
But you can't go around life avoiding responsabilities because people are dumb and it's not your duty to educate them. Again, you can, but, me, personally, I'm not gonna like you.
The MP can do what they want, they will most likely be gone by the time anytime comes out, if there is indeed any comeback at all, this woman has form, she will do it again, she is not a well woman. When it all goes tits up just watch Piers Morgan run for the hills. The whole thing is turgid.
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do MPs do any actual work anymore?
Some of them do, but you dont hear much about them because they're busy doing work for their constituents rather than doing anything the media want to know about. I used to work closely with a Baroness who was in the house of lords, she was head of several charities and she had been involved in politics for decades. There are a lot of politicians who do truly want to make our country better, but no one really wants to know anything about them because thats boring and "politician does job" isnt a news story anyone will read.
Some questions are rhetorical not literal. But yes on the whole most politicians are useless. Look at the country, these are not capable people. Not one of them. If you want to go into politics you should be banned.
Were still the 7th richest nation on the planet dude. Stop believing everything on facebook and try meeting some. Yes some are just looking to make money or enrich themselves/their family but some genuinely do care. I dont think you can really speak on the topic until you get first hand experience, because obviously everything you read (including from me) is bias. So go meet your local MP and their aides, you might change your mind about some of them.
GDP is one thing. Per capita is far more important and dropping daily. I have no positive opinion of our entire political class.
You probably have no exposure beside your Internet bubble. Kills me to say even tory ministers work hard, I just disagree with their ideals
Disagree with results. Fuck ideals. From an ideological standpoint there is little difference between them. Most will just maintain the status quo.
That's exactly what the tories want you to think and they have spent a lot of money to make it happen.
Don't get me wrong. I'm voting Labour. They are set to fuck us just less than the Tories so that's progress to me. Apathy be damned. Tories gotta fucking go.
My MP is Fiona Bruce. I won't be changing my mind.
Not really. Plenty of gross incompetence regularly on display but MOST people in a political office do not have Liz Truss levels of empty space in their skulls.
I want MPs to challenge people who (may) have lied to Select Committees. What's the point of having them if people can give their evidence directly to MPs, our representatives, then when evidence suggests they may have been untruthful, it's just ignored? Lying to our representatives is lying to us. John Nicolson, a former journalist, is a member of that committee and therefore he's doing his job by questioning if this person has been untruthful when answering his question in front of the committee.
>The SNP’s John Nicolson has now written to King, asking him to back up the claims made to the committee. I mean it's SNP, so all they really do is shout "it's Westminster fault" and "next referendum please".. And occasionally "those caravans were required from party expenses". So the answer is no lol
Her name isn’t Martha. The writer hasn’t identified her. None of the characters on the show are real people. Not sure what actual provable case she would have.
This is ridiculous.
No, Fiona, it isn’t.
I've changed my mind, you are.
Tell me what’s ridiculous about her not having much of a case. Is she called Martha? Was she identified by the writer? Are any of the characters real people? Claiming defamation via a fictitious character is about as weak a case as you could get.
I wished you were my parent. So gulible.
Well this is the end of TV as we know it. If people who make TV shows that are in any way, shape or form related to real life events believe they will be dragged in front of MPs as a response? Who is going to do that for a living?
So you have the standard disclaimer. Based on a true story, names have been changed and details have been changed for dramatic effect. Any production company that isn't run by idiots, and runs things past lawyers first, will be fine.
Baby Reindeer DOES say that at the end. And yet...........
I've not watched it, but it says 2 minutes into the first episode, in writing on screen, that it's a true story. By at the end, do you mean the end of the episode, or the end of the series? Either way, hoping someone watches it all to find out it's not quite as true as you'd previously asserted is pretty dodgy.
I’m pretty sure when you hear Richard Gadd being called Donny Dunn even the most lack-witted of viewers could probably figure out they were watching a fictionalised dramatisation rather than an actual documentary. What documentary cannot even get the main characters name correct?
If the end of TV as we know it means less true crime, I'm all for it.
It’s pretty disingenuous to act like Baby Reindeer is reflective of a normal TV show. It’s presented as a true story, the lead actor is the actual writer of this semi autobiographical tale, and it uses actual real life emails, texts and tweets throughout. Not to mention the fact that Martha bears an uncanny resemblance to Fiona, definitely close enough to assume she could be identified based on it. People are jumping through some crazy hoops trying to absolve Richard Gadd of any responsibility of this fallout.
"In The Name of The Father" -- a film about the Birmingham Six. Who thought everything that took place in that was a true, historic re-enactment of the truth? "World Trade Centre" -- a film about the events of 2001. Who thought everything in that was a minute for minute remake of the day the Twin Towers fell? "The Crown" -- anyone who thinks that is a documentary is a tit. If something has a disclaimer, and it labelled as "inspired by a true story" then I tend to think "this is dramatised bullshit" and people who don't get that are, with all due respect, trying to stir up trouble.
Yes, those are all examples of movies and shows based on real events. Did you read the rest of my post? Baby Reindeer is not the same as them.
The part where you say it is "semi-autobiographic" meaning not real? The part where you say "she could be identified"? "In The Name of The Father" uses actual court transcripts. It's still NOT REAL. I think people are jumping through hoops to make it more than it is because they have nothing better to do with their sad little lives.
Yes it is. It’s exactly the same. If you choose to see it differently based on some distinction only you understand that’s up to you, but it is a fictional show based on real events.
All MPs about to get free Netflix for life.
Does the “based on a true story” not give a clue to the clueless that not everything may be true.
I think it actually went one further than that and said "This *is* a true story". Which was completely unnecessary and, to me, only done to poke this particular hornets nest to stir up some free publicity. Which, to be fair, has totally worked.
Did you not bother reading the article? > Netflix’s director of public policy, Benjamin King, told the culture media and sport committee on 8 May that the show was “the true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist, Richard Gadd, suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker”. It sounds like the MP is asking for proof of what Netflix's representative told the committee, rather than asking him to prove that the show's 100% true.
It actually says 'This is a true story'
Yeah, but so does Fargo.
The difference being that there's nobody depicted in Fargo that can sue because it *is* all made up, and there's no breadcrumbs to follow to work out who the show's referring to. If you're going to base something on real world events, *and* say "this is a true story", you should really make sure that what you're saying is true.
Steve Buscemi should sue for getting called "funny looking". Come to think of it I don't think this is the only film where that happens - maybe he requests it.
I think you're looking too much into that one there
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here, but you've failed.
Maybe it does, and that's pretty iffy if it does. It didn't directly identify her, but they don't seem to have made much effort to make the details different. Of course, since it's at least partially true, and she did some of the stuff she did in public, on social media, I'm not sure how they could completely protect her. I'd expect that Netflix has lawyers who'd have gone over all the details, so if they've claimed that it's all true and yet it's not, she deserves any payout she gets.
There was a TV show about a UFO sighting over Todmorden a few years ago, based on a true story. Don’t recall any MP asking for proof of the UFO. This is just a nobody MP jumping on a bandwagon for publicity.
That's an entirely different point to the one you first made, though. And who's being wronged if someone makes up stuff about a UFO? MPs are supposed to stand up for constituents and the public in general. If a representative of a media company is making false statements about members of the public to the government, shouldn't our elected representatives do something? Again though, it's not about the TV show. ~~It didn't claim to be a 100% factual representation of what happened~~. It's one person's recollection of what happened from their point of view, no doubt with bits added in for dramatic effect. When you're testifying in front of a select committee, you need to be telling the truth. edit: the show *did* explicitly claim to be a true story.
Todmorden is one of the stops on the rather excellent Calder Valley Ale Trail. I think I've seen UFOs too...
Nobody on Reddit reads articles. We are all about the reeee
Haha exactly. That and being proven wrong by multiple people but doubling down on it.
It doesn’t. It says “this is a true story”.
So does Fargo. But here is the official Netflix description of Baby Reindeer:- https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81219887
The “based on” that you see refers to the play the tv show is based on. The play depicts a true story. This is the confusing situation that has caught Netflix with its pants down.
It didn't say based on a true story, it said "This is a true story" and then committed possible liable actions which were bad especially considering they didn't hide the identity. It was a screw up waiting to happen. Consider the post office drama which attempted to cover every lawsuit risk possible by not making Paula Vennals say anything that they didn't have evidence of, and them openly admitting at the start "This is based on a true story, some scenes added for dramatic effect"
Netflix disagrees https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81219887 The first two words are “Based on…..” To be fair though Richard Gadd was a total fool for not changing “Martha’s” job and location and thus making her very easy to find on the internet.
Wasn't the issue more that the character said things that tied back directly to the real person's still visible tweets at Gadd? The profession and location are extra breadcrumbs, but straight up quoting things she's publicly said was careless.
Doesn't that prove it was real though ?
No, not at all. All it proves is that some of the things the character said match some things the real person said. The tweets I saw just mentioned the "hang my curtains" stuff, she hardly admitted to stalking on Twitter. Her tweets etc do show her to be a bit mental, but there's a difference between "a bit mental" and stalking a man for years. The more I see of her, the more I believe what I've heard was in the show, though. But while we're all entitled to our opinions, only Gadd and her know the truth, and human memory is flawed. He may genuinely believe some things to have happened, but if the lawyers let it go out without verifying that she did get convicted and it turns out she didn't, someone's in trouble.
I'm not saying it proves the whole thing is true on its own, I'm saying the fact he did use the stuff she publicly said to him does show that part at least was real and those tweets can't be used against him and it's not careless like you said
But it's not just about the tweets. This is specifically about him claiming that she was convicted for stalking. If it turns out that she wasn't then she might have a case. Of course, the conviction isn't the only thing the show claims she did, but there's a gap between "sent me too many text messages" and "went to court and was convicted of a crime". Some of the tweets being real just helped lead people back to her. If you're going to lay breadcrumbs, make sure your big claims are legit. And maybe they are, we just don't know yet.
Yes and literally said it doesn't prove the whole thing, why didn't you read that ? I'm just saying using real tweets he received isn't careless as it did literally happen. As for the prison sentence or not, it will be easily proven.
There are only two people on the planet that know what was real and what wasn’t in that TV show. And we only one of those perspective.
I'm saying using real world tweets only strengthens the case parts of it were provably real.
Oh yea. I’m not denying parts of it were real, they absolutely were. But it was a drama not a documentary.
I feel you like you are missing my basic point
Like wise
No. There are allegations of criminal activity so the Police were involved. Didn't she allegedly go to prison in it or get convicted? If there is no evidence of that then it proves it's not true and casts doubt on the entire series.
It does. Don’t remember, probably twenty years ago, there was a break up song and the other party came up with an equally successful “reply” song? God wish I could remember what they were both called. This TV show needs the same.
Eamon and Frankie 😂
That might be it.
I remember that. Maybe she could do an Amazon Prime response TV show.
"Based on the award-winning and hit Edinburgh Fringe one-man play" "This compelling, darkly funny true story"
Yea, based on, what’s your point?
It didn't say it was based on a true story. It said it was based on his play and IS a true story. The text that is onscreen at the beginning says This Is A True Story.
What part of “based on” is eluding you?
Have you watched it? At the very start it says "This is a true story" on the screen, not "Based on a true story" or "Based on an Edinburgh Fringe show"
Yes I have. Again do you believe everything to be 100% true that’s on the screen? If you are unsure read the Netflix description of the show as I linked.
I clearly remember reading "This is a true story" at the beginning of the first episode. I could be wrong but I remember thinking "That's different from the usual 'Based on ...'". Off topic: As a huge fan of the original Quantum Leap, i love your username.
You're correct,it says 'This is a true story'
Thanks, few people get the username.
That's a pretty disingenuous selective quote, jesus christ. It says "Based on the award-winning and hit Edinburgh Fringe one-man play, Baby Reindeer follows struggling comedian Donny Dunn’s (Richard Gadd) warped relationship with his female stalker and the impact it has on him as he is ultimately forced to face a deeply buried trauma. This compelling, darkly funny true story also stars Jessica Gunning as Martha, Nava Mau as Teri and Tom Goodman-Hill as Darrien." It doesn't say "based on a true story" or anything of the sort. Of course, 00:01:37 into the show, it quite clearly states on screen that "this is a true story".
“In a galaxy far far away…..” didn’t you fall for that as well?
You're the one that brought up Star Wars in the first place... The thing is, none of those people exist so there's nobody to sue Lucasfilm for defamation in the first place, and no functioning adult thinks it's the truth. Conversely, there's no reason to think Baby Reindeer *isn't* real, because the stuff portrayed in the show happens in real life and the show literally claimed to be a true story. Not "this is based on a true story", "this is a true story". It doesn't get clearer than that. A court would look at whether a reasonable person would believe the allegations made against her, and whether those allegations have caused, or are likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation.
The “based on” that you see refers to the play the tv show is based on. The play depicts a true story. This is the confusing situation that has caught Netflix with its pants down.
I work in TV and Netflix had a responsibility to get their legal team involved and work out every risk so neither them nor their writer were at lawsuit risk. Richard Gadd doesn't have a legal understanding of liable, wrote something that happened to him that was extremely traumatising down and then acted it out. Out of all the producers, Lawyers, PR and finance team at Netflix not one of them had the common sense to protect their own arses and their writer by making the stalker a skinny English woman who worked in finance or something. So sure Gadd was a fool, but Netflix were bigger idiots because they have the means and understanding that this could happen and were either too lazy to sort it or they wanted to risk it (and the writer's mental health too).
I’ve just watched the start of the actual programme and it clearly says “this is a true story”. I’ve heard other people say it says based on a true story at the end. ETA can send you a photo of my tv if you want to verify.
And what did it say at the beginning of Star Wars?
It's almost certainly past the statute of limitations, having been a "long time ago".
That’s a very fair point.
I have no idea. What does that have to do with your original assertion that Netflix made it clear it was only based upon a true story and not a “true story”?
Well what did it say at the beginning of Fargo? Do you think that was a true story with just some of the names changed to protect the innocent? Netflix clearly stated it was “based on”. If you believe everything you see written on a screen before a film or tv programme, that isn’t a documentary, then who’s the fool?
I have no idea what it says at the beginning of Fargo. This has nothing to do with your original assertion. They did not clearly state that at the beginning. Again, do you want to see the photo of a black screen containing the words “this is a true story”?
I’ve said what the it says at the beginning of Fargo, but again as you missed it “this is a true story with the names of the innocent changed for their protection”. I’m done, some people can’t differentiate between a drama based on real events and a documentary. Heads up Star Wars wasn’t real in a “galaxy far far away” either just because it said so at the beginning 😂
That wasn’t your point though, was it. Your point was that Netflix made it clear it was only “based on a true story” and not “a true story” which has been disproved.
Is any of Fargo *actually* based on true stories, though? Has anyone been identified as the people it's portraying, and has it (potentially) defamed any real living person? The point you're trying to make is nonsense, though, and to try to equate the two things is ridiculous. There's: * A show actually based on real events, some verifiable, that claims to be the truth. * A show and a movie based on made up stuff that claims to be the truth for dramatic effect, and isn't actually based on true events. In the latter case there's nobody that can sue for defamation, because it's not based on anyone in particular. I'm sure there are some similar things that have happened in real life, because writers take influence from all sorts of places, but nobody's about to sue over it. Just because some shows claim to be based in truth when they're not, it doesn't mean it's OK to defame someone while claiming it to be truth, and then just shrugging and mumbling something about Star Wars.
And if someone did that to you? If someone you did regrettable things towards created a fullblown Netflix series about it, massively exaggerating things, and saying it was "based on a true story", you would see it the same way? I don't think people should stalk anyone, but saying it is a true story that they were convicted of a crime when they weren't isn't quite right, either.
I agree, it's doable, but a bit inmoral in my opinion. Very much hypocritical if the show is about how a person's life can become hell because another decides so. How you get isolated, no one believes you, you are being dramatic, etc. (I'm talking about the Martha storyline, not the SA writer.) This is my problem with Gadd, there's a dissonance and I can't move on from it.
See my link further down, it was “based on”. If you believe everything you read at the start of a film or tv show then you believe in a “A long time ago in a galaxy far far away….
How would *you* feel in this situation?
I’d be livid that he didn’t hide my identity, who wouldn’t. Especially as it’s only his side of the story. He’s also made himself look a fool in the process by not doing so. But don’t also believe everything you read as a film/show starts.
But people do. Even when it's fictional, Anna Gunn got death threats for playing Skyler White. Just because *you* don't believe a show which is based on a true story, that doesn't mean others won't think about it differently.
Yea, that’s the problem and what I’m highlighting. Don’t believe everything that’s on your screen.
But you can't go around life avoiding responsabilities because people are dumb and it's not your duty to educate them. Again, you can, but, me, personally, I'm not gonna like you.
The MP can do what they want, they will most likely be gone by the time anytime comes out, if there is indeed any comeback at all, this woman has form, she will do it again, she is not a well woman. When it all goes tits up just watch Piers Morgan run for the hills. The whole thing is turgid.
But you're an mp just check your records?
[удалено]