PATERNO on HBO. Tonight at 8:00 pm ET (official thread)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
A
anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u
Guest
I’m confused about the ending. Trying to establish that Joe knew in Summer of 1976? I thought that was a kid that told Joe about an incident and Joe didn’t think the kid was credible. Now this movie just throws it out there like the kid was credible. Maybe Joe knew but that doesn’t mean he was wrong in his behavior. Outside of calling the police he contacted superiors.
I enjoyed the LOTR discussion much more than anything else on this thread. The Paterno movie was gonna be a hatchet job from the get go, so I'm glad I didn't watch it. The husker poster is actually entertaining. He's a one troll sideshow. .
I wasn’t going to watch the movie, but I did. 75% of the movie was shown with people they never even talked to. The other 25% of the movie was about how great Sara Ganim performed. How can anyone take even 1% of this movie seriously. I actually laughed out loud at certain parts of this. It was so far from the truth that we can’t even take it seriously.
neither the 1971 or 1976 accusations should have been in the movie or anywhere else that claims to be credible
I’m guessing it didn’t mention the vigils held on campus for the victims or the millions of dollars raised to help fight child abuse, huh? I wonder how much money Nebraska fans have raised to help fight child abuse, if it’s so important to them.
Wasn't the 71 and/or 76 claim double hearsay rather than a phone call to Ganim. Also makes me wonder why the movie was called Paterno ... should have been called Ganim.
Well, she was a consultant, so I imagine she wanted to first protect her image in her own mind, much like uncle fester did recently. Secondly, she probably wanted to validate her Pulitzer by showing how she "earned" it leaving out the details of leaks to her from the AG's office, or corbutt, or noonan, or any of the other porno kings. Third she wanted to "correct" the image people have of her by saying lines in the movie that in hindsight she wishes she had said in real time.
So the fictional movie became a vehicle to improve upon some of the criticism she had previously received.
Unfortunately I thought the movie was pretty fair. They could have made Paterno look way worse than they did. Did they get all the facts correct and bring up all points of view no, not even close but what movies has? It is hard to say Joe didn’t know anything, I think he knew, but he responded the correct way for those times. Unfortunately times have changed and he was a fall guy.
It was reasonably fair until the end, but there are a couple huge leaps they took like eluding that JVP had knew about 98. They spun the why would JVP allow his kids to swim in pool with JS if he knew into he had a one track mind about football.
They tipped their hand with that final scene & lose all credibility with that alone.
I agree that it could have been much worse. But what I was thinking was an ok movie, completely went the other direction with the ending. Not just with the '71/'76 accusation. But also about '98 and '01. Basically painting him as a liar.
We can agree to disagree on that point, but nobody knows, and they made it appear as fact.
Bottom line is the filmmakers lost all credibility with that ending. Ganim never got a call from the ‘76 claimant & his story has been debunked by many including his own lawyer. Of course, everyone outside of this board/community doesn't realize how outlandish it was.
Last edited:
Funny thing. When I first heard about 1971 and 1976 in I believe June 2016 (?) I was sitting in the chair I’m sitting in now, and I laughed out loud, knowing it was a pile of crap.
Last edited:
I bet this movie cements Ganim’s job at CNN in which the Pulitzer Prize winner does virtually nothing that I can see.
Ahh, her true calling is reporting on the weather. you can look outside and see if she was accurate.
I turned it off about halfway through, I thought they seemingly made all the victims younger than they actually were, and didn't address the false GJP.
IMO, the the scene with victim #1 interesting. I was expecting to see him laying on a bed covered in cash, flipping off the camera.... was shocked to see him crying in the car.
IMO, the the scene with victim #1 interesting. I was expecting to see him laying on a bed covered in cash, flipping off the camera.... was shocked to see him crying in the car.
He's probably a UCLA fan. Main thing is Ganim.
Sara Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Penn St. scandal, worked as a consultant on the series and was in attendance for the panel. She says the scandal is still being felt in the campus town of Happy Valley.
“[Paterno’s legacy is] still a hotly debated topic,” Ganim said, after being asked about how local Penn St. fans feel about the coach today. “Unfortunately […] it is a gray area for a lot of people. It’s not known one way or another what people knew.”
Levinson said the movie isn’t going to take a stand one way or another.
“I think at the end of the day there will be people who believe [Paterno knew about the abuse] and there will be people who don’t,” Levinson said.
The film marks Pacino’s fourth collaboration with HBO, following “Phil Spector,” “You Don’t Know Jack,” and “Angels in America.” Levinson directed Pacino in “Spector” and executive produced “You Don’t Know Jack.” He’s also coming off the Emmy-nominated HBO film starring Robert De Niro, “The Wizard of Lies,” which examined Bernie Madoff.
Well, his movie very definitely took a stand
Why has this ever mattered? Knew what? That it was a false alarm? That it was resolved without any restrictions placed on Jerry's access to young boys? That all the right people investigated the matter and failed to establish any sexual intent? What would Joe have even wanted or needed to know other than it was over, that it was a misunderstanding?
The only admonishment to come out of that whole process was a police officer telling Jerry not to shower with kids any more. I think this is misinterpreted. I've long argued that it was said for Sandusky's benefit. Think about it! If the cop was saying it in the context of "we'll be watching you" and out of concern for the kids and in an official capacity, wouldn't there have been a written record? But if the cop was saying, off the record, "Mr. Sandusky, you really have to be more careful. This behavior is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Have any extra tickets for the Ohio State game?", it would be less likely to have been written down.
A big deal has been made here by a few people regarding C/S/S failing HR 101 by not documenting the '01 incident. Isn't that police officer guilty of the same thing in '98? Shouldn't you hold these taxpayer funded, child protection professionals to the same standard as you hold the Penn State officials who were laymen?
Some things happen, and because of extenuating circumstances, they bypass normal procedures and go right to the top. In '98, the DA was directly involved. In '01, the university president was directly involved. Had Sandusky been a nobody, both incidents would have been processed dispassionately through the system by underlings and would have never reached either Gricar or Spanier. But because of Sandusky's prominence, he had to be handled more discreetly, to avoid unnecessary harm to TSM.
Invariably, such a delicate matter is going to result in violating some procedures along the way. I believe TSM was required to have been informed about the '98 investigation, but wasn't. Shouldn't CYS have indicated him? Shouldn't the cop's instructions have been in writing? In either case, had there been suspicion of sexual intent, things would have surely been handled by the book. Because there was none, they weren't. I don't have a problem with that.
It can be argued that because '98 was mishandled, PSU had bad information when establishing Jerry's retirement package, which included a five year privilege to bring TSM kids to the facilities as part of the Friends Fitness Program. And we know Jack Raykovitz had an obligation to record the complaint and file a report with CYS.
If you believe Sandusky is a monster, then the professionals failed in '98 and are responsible for all future incidents, including '01. If you believe neither incident involved sexual intent, especially when factoring in the long standing relationships Jerry had with both boys, then both incidents were handled correctly.
Reporter claiming to get a direct phone call from a victim. Watch the last scene again. I ask for a clarification from someone that closely followed the entire situation.
I watched the movie and found it to be just a terrible production and not worth my time.
First, the title of the movie “Paterno” by any objective viewpoint, was not in anyway indicative of the individuals life, failures, accomplishments, and sorrows.
Next, it totally misrepresented Joes character and left out important parts of what actually happened and the way Joe publicly reacted to the Sandusky scandal. No real and truthful perspective whatsoever.
Finally, it misrepresented facts, inaccurately made some kind of hero out of Sara G and Arron Fisher, and it was dark and far from entertaining or informative to say the least.
If they really felt it necessary to invest the time and money into producing something like this they could have at least made it somewhat believable, and informative.
Terrible movie.
First, the title of the movie “Paterno” by any objective viewpoint, was not in anyway indicative of the individuals life, failures, accomplishments, and sorrows.
Next, it totally misrepresented Joes character and left out important parts of what actually happened and the way Joe publicly reacted to the Sandusky scandal. No real and truthful perspective whatsoever.
Finally, it misrepresented facts, inaccurately made some kind of hero out of Sara G and Arron Fisher, and it was dark and far from entertaining or informative to say the least.
If they really felt it necessary to invest the time and money into producing something like this they could have at least made it somewhat believable, and informative.
Terrible movie.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Levison is a complete douchebag.
How anyone could have not “seen this coming” is head-scratching.
Didn’t have to be this way, of course.
But ranting over Levison / Pacino / Hollywood / and the base stupidity and sloth of the General Public ain’t really the productive avenue to pursue.......
Not when those who had it in their power (and their responsibilities) to present the “Truth”, utterly failed - repeatedly.
[Exhibit A: ]
Of course, most of those eunuchs are widely regarded as “Penn State Heroes”so whattayagonnado?
Hell...... now that a couple of them have fulfilled their mission - and will be fading away - let’s elect/re-elect a couple more of them again this week!!
And then bitch about Levison / Pacino / and Trolls.
Yup. There is a tremendous story here ripe with deceit, vendettas, and corruption. It's just not the move they made nor the narrative that was established. I think someone will get this right one day - when they decide to look further than the football coach.
