cougar14
US Veteran
Read this isn't doing well at the box office due to bad press. I am going to see it tomorrow if for nothing else to support Clint. I expect it to be excellent.
Richard Jewell
- Thread starter cougar14
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Apparently......and completely hilariously ironic.......the MEDIA doesnt like when THEY are "lied" about. So the media is having a fit over the "accusation" or innuendo that said media person did that.
Clint made it seem like some reporter was sleeping with an FBI agent to get inside knowledge of the case, may or may not be true but after all it is a MOVIE.
Did anyone complain about Titanic not being historically accurate? No....cause while yes it tells the story of the ship.....it had to take some creative license as well.
Whether or not the reporter slept with an FBI agent for information is irrelevant to me, the moral should be follow the evidence and dont destroy a man purely for a quick close.
Last edited:
Ivan the Butcher
Member
I remember the loose facts, a few things didn't add up at the time! But THE FBI got their man! Then it was a mistake and a ruined reputation wasn't any big deal!
It may be a while, but I will see this movie!
Ivan
It may be a while, but I will see this movie!
Ivan
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
What is ironic is that Clint, in making a movie full with (justified) indignation about the smearing of the reputation of one person, felt the need to smear someone else's and thus torpedoed his own moral high ground.
And it was completely unnecessary, because you really don't need that final old-guy stereotype about how female reporters get their stories to understand that, just based on the facts, she really is the bad guy in this story.
I haven't seen much of the "bad press" the OP mentions. All the major papers carried generally positive reviews. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
scatter shot
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 168
It's a compelling story IMO. The simple facts of the story was a common man that should've been hailed as a hero was destroyed by the FBI and the media.
Sounds familiar?
Sounds familiar?
Maddog 521
Member
We watched it yesterday and it was a very good movie. Clint Eastwood has another winner. While I was watching I kept thinking about a quote a lawyer friend of mine has hanging on his wall. It says, "You have the right to remain silent, use it". When I got home James Comey kept running through my head. It's worth buying a ticket to see it.
DWalt
Member
The single review I read was slanted toward negative, clearly because of the portrayal of the female reporter. To be expected.
ColbyBruce
Member
It should be noted that a former employer of Mr. Jewell fingered him as a possible suspect. The AJC and FBI took the thought and ran with it. While Richard Jewell was being tormented, Eric Rudolph was plodding along the AT.
UncleEd
Member
Yes, all reporters are hacks and liars just as all gun owners
are stupid and mindless brutes.
And most likely neither positions are true.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Richard Jewell may eventually recoup its production costs, but it's probably going to take a while.
Reports have it generating only $5 million at the box office on opening weekend nationwide. That justifiably marks it as one of Clint Eastwood's few box office flops (so far).
I haven't seen the film, and probably won't anytime soon. So I don't know about the stories saying it flopped because of Eastwood's screen treatment of a reporter. The film might just be a story that a lot of people are no longer interested in.
Reports have it generating only $5 million at the box office on opening weekend nationwide. That justifiably marks it as one of Clint Eastwood's few box office flops (so far).
I haven't seen the film, and probably won't anytime soon. So I don't know about the stories saying it flopped because of Eastwood's screen treatment of a reporter. The film might just be a story that a lot of people are no longer interested in.
Rammer Jammer
Member
I'm interested in seeing it. But it doesn't meet my criteria of being theater worthy. I'll wait to stream it.
UncleEd
Member
Eastwood has had a few either critical or
box office flops during his long career as
director and actor.
"The 15:17 to Paris" in 2018 might be one
of his least seen films.
box office flops during his long career as
director and actor.
"The 15:17 to Paris" in 2018 might be one
of his least seen films.
Having watched all facets of this thing unwind not too long ago on the tube, I see no reason to try to relive it!
Remember Clint has political leanings the media might not care for. Most of Hollywood with the same leanings get blackballed. The media isn't going to say anything good about any of his work.
UncleEd
Member
He's generally received excellent to good media reviews of his
work throughout his career, both as director and actor. Don't
know he's ever been blackballed and he's participated in
several Academy Award shows.
I suggest one and all to look up Clint Eastwood Rotten Tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate of hundreds of critics across the
nation. Eastwood has one of the best records in Hollywood for
producting, directing and acting. One of his most recent
highly praised as producer is "A Star Is Born" along with other
efforts such as "Sully" and "Mule" and "Gran Torino."
Last edited:
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Lots of Clint Eastwood films have gotten rave reviews from the media and made millions (billions?) of dollars. The Outlaw Josey Wales is one. And Unforgiven, which won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Just to mention a couple. Oh, and Million Dollar Baby, another Best Picture and Best Director Academy Award winner.
I wasn't that crazy about the Mule but it was O.K. but nearly all of Eastwood's other movies I really liked. I haven't heard much about the new movie and the story didn't really sound that interesting but maybe it is, I just don't know much about it and maybe others don't either and that's why initial box office dollars are down. I'm sure I'll go see it soon since it's getting cold and there's not much else to go out and do on the weekends.
Last edited:
Very familiar.
Geronimo Jim
Member
Very, very familiar.
Maddog 521
Member
I wouldn't expect the fake news media to like it at all. Just like present day news.
When you make great movies like Eastwood has done, and millions go to the theater to enjoy his films, the talking heads have no other choice than to give him props. 
UncleEd
Member
When you make great movies like Eastwood has done, and millions go to the theater to enjoy his films, the talking heads have no other choice than to give him props.
Isn't that true of any person and his/her endeavors?
In comedy and for entertainment, Homer Simpson
certainly is popular but who in reality would hold him
up as what a role model should be?
kozmic
Member
We aren't big movie goers and not supporters of the Hollywood set, but my wife and I agreed we would like to it. I think a date night is in order.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Clint Eastwood will always be one of my favorite actors and directors. I think he's been without peer at what he's done and continues to do. But no one bats a thousand all the time. Especially not for over fifty years.
Like it or not, he isn't the icon to the younger generation that he is to people my age.
A whole lot of today's moviegoers weren't even born when the Atlanta bombing took place in 1996. I'm betting lots of them don't even know who Richard Jewell was.
I don't see blaming "the media" for this film's lackluster performance at the box office. Lots of films get bad press but go on to make millions. If this one is any good, word of mouth and reviews that take a second look at it will save it. If it isn't, that same word of mouth will kill it.
The film's subject matter really doesn't interest me. I watched it all play out on TV when happened. I don't need to see a new depiction of it.
Like it or not, he isn't the icon to the younger generation that he is to people my age.
A whole lot of today's moviegoers weren't even born when the Atlanta bombing took place in 1996. I'm betting lots of them don't even know who Richard Jewell was.
I don't see blaming "the media" for this film's lackluster performance at the box office. Lots of films get bad press but go on to make millions. If this one is any good, word of mouth and reviews that take a second look at it will save it. If it isn't, that same word of mouth will kill it.
The film's subject matter really doesn't interest me. I watched it all play out on TV when happened. I don't need to see a new depiction of it.
All of those great films were made when the media was a bit more neutral to one's views.
Isn't this about Eastwood?
This is a problem....
...and anybody that becomes aware of an over zealous media,motivated by making a living for themselves is a good thing. This has led to the creating the term, 'Trial By Media" which is NOT something that we want to replace our courts, regardless of how full of holes the system is.
...and anybody that becomes aware of an over zealous media,motivated by making a living for themselves is a good thing. This has led to the creating the term, 'Trial By Media" which is NOT something that we want to replace our courts, regardless of how full of holes the system is.
Last edited:
I think that if I were a criminal defense attorney, the first thing I would make a new client do would be to sit down and watch this movie. It shows a perfect example of how not to behave as a suspect, and that no one is your "friend".
Impossible Timing Shows Jewell Cound Not have been guilty
The new movie "Richard Jewell" takes the media, especially the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, to task for its role in accusing Jewell of a crime he did not commit. But there's more to the story, and defense of Jewell, than you might know, according to AJC's Bill Torpy.
How an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter helped Richard Jewell
Portion of the story from above link follows:
In the newspaper business, they say nothing beats shoe leather reporting. That means getting out there on the scene. Knocking on doors. Pulling documents from the courthouse. Getting reluctant people in the know to talk.
A classic case of such shoe leather was my AJC colleague Bill Rankin's four-minute-and-45-second walk in August 1996 from a row of pay phones in downtown Atlanta to Centennial Olympic Park. In that hike, Rankin traced the path from where a bomb threat was called in to 911 to the site of the deadly explosion that occurred in the early morning hours of July 27, 1996.
Rankin's reporting, his five-block walk, and his basic understanding of physics — that a person can't be in two places at once — ended with him writing a front-page story headlined, "Timing indicates Jewell didn't make bomb threat."
It was the first public break in the case that went Richard Jewell's way. And it gave Jewell's defense team an opening to fight back against federal authorities who were investigating the security guard as the possible Olympic Park bomber.
Bekeart
The new movie "Richard Jewell" takes the media, especially the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, to task for its role in accusing Jewell of a crime he did not commit. But there's more to the story, and defense of Jewell, than you might know, according to AJC's Bill Torpy.
How an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter helped Richard Jewell
Portion of the story from above link follows:
In the newspaper business, they say nothing beats shoe leather reporting. That means getting out there on the scene. Knocking on doors. Pulling documents from the courthouse. Getting reluctant people in the know to talk.
A classic case of such shoe leather was my AJC colleague Bill Rankin's four-minute-and-45-second walk in August 1996 from a row of pay phones in downtown Atlanta to Centennial Olympic Park. In that hike, Rankin traced the path from where a bomb threat was called in to 911 to the site of the deadly explosion that occurred in the early morning hours of July 27, 1996.
Rankin's reporting, his five-block walk, and his basic understanding of physics — that a person can't be in two places at once — ended with him writing a front-page story headlined, "Timing indicates Jewell didn't make bomb threat."
It was the first public break in the case that went Richard Jewell's way. And it gave Jewell's defense team an opening to fight back against federal authorities who were investigating the security guard as the possible Olympic Park bomber.
Bekeart
