FC: Pacino officially playing Joe in an HBO production
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
He's a film-maker
They make films to make money (this ain't an episode of NOVA or LENS)
They are not stupid
They know what story is going to have the best chance of getting folks to pay $10 for a ticket
99% of the public already "know" the story..... now they (the film makers) just want to get them to pay their $10 to see their film about it.
Of course, as you said, we will see (Though I expect that I won't be part of the "we" who will ever actually pay $10 to see it
. I expect this is going to be a movie that we have been "seeing" for the last six years. )
Last edited:
Don't see a reference to Hollywood contacting the Paternos or others who have been pushing the truth, for info on what happened.
Hard to believe it won't primarily be a one-sided Hollywood smear flick, to titilate the audience with alledged scandal, character assasination and innuendo. If so, they will call the false portrayals and mischaracterizations "art" and "poetic license."
Hard to believe it won't primarily be a one-sided Hollywood smear flick, to titilate the audience with alledged scandal, character assasination and innuendo. If so, they will call the false portrayals and mischaracterizations "art" and "poetic license."
That makes sense. You can't shoot outdoors in bad weather. Ganim is quite the storm trooper.
Levinson is worth over 150 million dollars. He doesn't need the money. This movie will not be some superficial "Joe is evil" production. He will try to get inside Joe's head and draw out what he was thinking when faced with information about Sandusky. Again, no one knows at this point, but I predict most here will view it and say it was much more balanced than they expected.He's a film-maker
They make films to make money (this ain't an episode of NOVA or LENS)
They are not stupid
They know what story is going to have the best chance of getting folks to pay $10 for a ticket
99% of the public already "know" the story..... now they (the film makers) just want to get them to pay their $10 to see their film about it.
Of course, as you said, we will see (though I wxpect that I won't be part of one of the "we" who will ever actually pay to see it
What information, exactly? If I don't know, and you don't know, how tf does Levinson know?
From what source or sources are they getting the "balanced" information?
Do they really want to fairly represent Joe Paterno, if they don't have Sue, the family and supporters as primary parts of their process?
Granted, most of what is being discussed seems more like rumors and guesses, but those seem to be pointing toward very biased or discredited sources who have their own problems to hide and agendas to be driven home.
Time will tell, if this is actually going forward.
We don't know what information Levinson has, or will have, by the time they start filming. Most here are rushing to judgment on a film that has not yet started production. The easiest thing in the world would be for Levinson to make a movie that matches the public narrative, but that is not what he is about. This is my last post on this subject until I actually see the film.
Hard to feel optimistic about this announcement so shortly after the "guilty" verdicts.
Just a rumor, but JZ is consulting on the screenplay and I've heard Jerry walks in the movie.
Recall Oliver Stones "JFK"? The public bought it hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately too much of the public believes the bullshit it sees in the theatres or on TV. And when they are predisposed to a certain conclusion...well. This isn't going to be good. And if that witch Ganim is helping.....
If this movie hits the theaters:
Whatever is in that 100 minutes of film will become FACT.
Thereafter, you could have 1,000 highly educated, well-informed, commentators working night and day, for 1,000 years, to disseminate facts and truth - - - - -
And they wouldn't even make a dent into what the general public "knows" (a concept not that different from some of the "Loftus" stuff vav how we come to "know" things)
The movie about the Enigma code breaking was reportedly full of completely made up and false claims.
The makers
justified false relationships that didn't exist,
meetings between people who never met,
a decision about a team maker with a brother on a ship was sunk that wasn't true,
a made up plot line which was in real life was a non-existent link to an MI-6 leader,
misrepresenting the code-breaking actions as sort of a lone wolf success etc,
and misrepresenting how the code was actually broken to falsely engrandize the main character
... by stating the movie makers wanted people to experience the feelings of the gay main character... facts and reality be dashed.
It is a very well made movie, as a fantasy that didn't happen as portrayed, that didn't happen in that way with the people portrayed and that smeared the reputations of one or more characters who were falsely portrayed...justified false relationships that didn't exist,
meetings between people who never met,
a decision about a team maker with a brother on a ship was sunk that wasn't true,
a made up plot line which was in real life was a non-existent link to an MI-6 leader,
misrepresenting the code-breaking actions as sort of a lone wolf success etc,
and misrepresenting how the code was actually broken to falsely engrandize the main character
... by stating the movie makers wanted people to experience the feelings of the gay main character... facts and reality be dashed.
But the audience liked it and the PC movie created sympathy for the LGBT character, which was the goal of the makers... truth be darned. The main actors' feelings won him an Oscar iirc, to enshrine the misleading and false story's made up plot into history.
Hollywood is too often about projecting political agendas and making money, not about evidence that holds up in a court of law.
We will see what happens.
I'll bet a year's salary I know what will happen. Joe as a good guy doesn't sell tickets. A misunderstanding or a false narrative doesn't sell tickets. This will clearly be portrayed as a powerful, win at all cost coach covering up a pedophile to protect his football program until a young, brave journalist broke the story and won a Pulitzer. There's no other way the movie sells tickets.
Just a rumor, but JZ is consulting on the screenplay and I've heard Jerry walks in the movie.
Well, I see the production has a few positives.
It's going to be on HBO. They don't need to sell tickets. They already have your money.
I truly could not understand how ANYONE could look at that videoclip - along with Barron's original statement that he wanted to "assure everyone" - and not come to the definitive conclusion that Barron is a:
"Steaming pile of shit on two legs"
He'll just use the grand jury testimony and Sassano interview material as his artistic liberty and the family won't have an angle to attack it. In fact I can see a scenario where they have a scene with Joe, Scott and Sassano in an interview situation just to support this back story.
That phrase brought a smile to my face.
Our neighbor's 14 year old daughter was at a cookout at our house last weekend and she used the phrase constantly. "You have corn on the cob? Wow! Just Wow!!"
"Watermellon? Wow! Just Wow". Sadly her dad picked it up from her, or maybe vice versa, and he is a great guy, but intellectually a bit slow. He generally uses it when he has no rebuttal for an argument. Anyway, no shot at you. Just an observation about my neighbors. WAIT, maybe you are my neighbor. If so, I'm sorry!
Last edited:
The movie needs some reality, Bernie Mc is documented.
I worked at Zeno's in the early 80s and Bernie spent time there. Hard to believe it's the same guy I used to talk to on occasion.
I'm going to break ranks and say . . . I think this movie may be more Posnanski than McCue. IIRC, Pacino said he was drawn to Joe as a tragic greek figure, a noble man who had a fatal flaw (possibly not willing to believe Sandusky was an evil person) . . .
This is a great analogy. Apparently Turin's boss was actually quite supportive of him but in the movie he was depicted as a complete douchebag to create some drama. The man's family was quite upset by the depiction. Anyone who think Joe Paterno is going to be portrayed fairly is naive.
I am not a huge movie afficianado (not contemporary movies, anyway) ....... but even I could list OTTOMH a slew of "true story" portrayals.......none of which bore any resemblance to "true":
Captain Phillips
Hotel Rwanda
Pursuit of Happyness
21
The "Joe Clark" Story
The "WW2 POW Soccer" Movie
The "Hurricane Carter" Movie
ARGO
and - just to show this isn't a "new" phenomenom:
The Sound of Music (seriously)
and, of course, who could forget.......
RUDY, RUDY, RUDY!!!
All movies "based on a true story" that have the following two features in common:
A - Complete Bullshit
B - "Altered" for the purposes of creating the most "public interest"
I couldn't think of a single "based on a true story" movie that WAS accurate - - - - - and CERTAINLY not one where the "adjustments" served any purpose aside from maximizing the "titillation" factor (and drive viewership) and the "mood of the day public sentiment" (gay discrimination is "bad", US Government is "bad", Nazis are "bad", whatever.....)
So.......what is the storyline for the "Sandusky/Paterno" feature that maximizes the titillation factor?
That appeals to the broadest "lowest common denominator"?
Whatever that is - - - - that's your movie
And I think we ALL KNOW what the "titillation" storyline is.
He was just a quiet, unassuming guy. Never caused any trouble. He always made it a point to mention that he was a teacher. I thought he said, "math and engineering" at the time. Memory though. The math part is documented. He also might have worked at the Hotel State College in some capacity at or around the same time.
