Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

"All persons fictitious" disclaimer

Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

23 Apr 2023, 3:28 pm

mharrington85 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The liberties taken were not "defamatory". They didnt make the van Trappe family "look bad". It just made the story a little more dramatic, or consolidated into a shorter story, or less prosaic, or more...heroic even (ie the opposite of defamatory).

Folks usually sue if it makes them look bad. But sometimes they sue for the opposite. Some real veteran sued a movie that made him look more heroic than he actually was (I guess because it made it look like he had lied to the movie studio ...thereby actually defaming him).


According to Wikipedia, the film was poorly received in Austria and Germany for the liberties taken. Austria took exception for the costumes, which did not reflect the traditional style and the replacement of traditional Austrian folk songs with Broadway show tunes. As for Germany, the Nazi theme was extremely unpopular, to the point where the Munich branch manager of 20th Century Fox actually managed to cut, without authorization, the entire third act, showing the Anschluss, thus ending the movie after the wedding. The filmmakers intervened and restored the third act and fired the manager.


The Van Trappe family, then living in the US, apparently didnt feel insulted. So it wasnt "defamatory".



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

23 Apr 2023, 3:37 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
mharrington85 wrote:
What I really wanted to know was, why was the film so poorly received by the Von Trapps if they couldn't actually do anything about it?


I'm sure the details of what they didn't like about it are documented, but not liking something doesn't mean one has the ability to do anything about it beyond publicly express their dislike.


Yeah. Siskel and Ebert didnt sue the studios of every film they gave a thumbs down to. :lol:


Imagine the studio suing over a bad review.
And S&E counter-suing because it wasted their time. :lol:


Or even worse...
Vincent Price murders every critic who ever gave him a bad review...murders them by the same means as murders in Shakespeare.



mharrington85
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Jan 2023
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 148

26 Apr 2023, 11:14 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
The Van Trappe family, then living in the US, apparently didnt feel insulted. So it wasnt "defamatory".


Why then did so many critics find fault with it? And why did it do so poorly in the Von Trapps' native homeland?