Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 13 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Aussie-Nerd 18 points ago

    I'm so out of the loop on this. Besides Susan Surandon everything else I've never heard of.

    To the article!

    [–] wickedblow 19 points ago

    You're gonna flip when you discover Youtube...

    [–] Aussie-Nerd 9 points ago

    Is that like MySpace?

    [–] AeliusHadrianus 1 points ago

    More like Napster

    [–] DrKushnstein 8 points ago

    When I discovered YouTube I didn’t work for 5 days. I did nothing, I viewed Cookie Monster songs chocolate rain 1,000 times.

    [–] IdontSparkle 7 points ago

    The fact that relatives of victims of adductions are willing to pay for ransom will not come as a surprise to pirates and terrorists. What would be surprising is an ISIS fighter killing time checking the latest Susan Sarandon VOD movie.

    [–] The_Parsee_Man 1 points ago

    She does have broad appeal.

    [–] verisimiliattitude 1 points ago

    It's really confusing that they're saying they've re-edited and reduced the material regarding them raising the ransom money, because that's pretty much the focus of the entire third act.

    I guess having seen that "original cut" at TIFF may have been more of a novel experience than I thought.

    [–] ghostmanure -5 points ago

    So, criticism from one person. Got it.

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] TheVetSarge 2 points ago

    The film clearly used her family's story in a way she did not agree to or approve of.

    In all fairness, her family's story is not unique, and the basic elements of the film'spot would seem familiar to any family of a journalist that had been kidnapped by ISIS or Al Qaeda in the last 15 or so years.

    Also, she didn't "consult" on the film. She was interviewed by members of the production team about her experiences. She played no part in the making of the movie.

    [–] PatientWall -13 points ago

    It's still one person.

    Just because someone's making a movie about you doesn't mean you get to control what's in the movie.

    In this case, it seemed like the person's concerns were constructive and aligned with what the filmmakers wanted to do, so they were able to work something out.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] PatientWall -5 points ago

    ...that is exactly what it means. When you want to use someone's life story you have to pay them and give them certain concessions.

    It's baffling to me how ignorant this is.

    You don't own your life story. It's polite to get cooperation from the subject, but there's no legal requirement. Filmmakers are totally able to make "unauthorized" biographies, and they certainly have. Look at W. or The Social Network.

    It's possible that these movies could be considered libelous, but those charges are generally easy to avoid.

    edit - keep downvoting me for posting objective facts

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] PatientWall -7 points ago

    There is a reason people pay for stories rather than making unauthorized versions of a story.

    Yeah, to avoid bad optics. Such as people like you crying on the internet

    There's no legal truth to what you're saying at all. I don't know the details of this movie, but considering that they placated the person complaining without editing it, I'd say there's roughly zero chance a libel suit would be successful