5 ms·
> In response, Netflix released a statement which read, “Netflix has only the utmost respect for Ms. Gaprindashvili and her illustrious career, but we believe t
by coolspot 5y ago
> In response, Netflix released a statement which read, “Netflix has only the utmost respect for Ms. Gaprindashvili and her illustrious career, but we believe this claim has no merit and will vigorously defend the case.”
Netflix could have done better with this one. Instead of “vigorously defend the case” they should have settled and publicly apologized to Ms. Gaprindashvili for this insult.
- akomtu 5y agoLet the courts find out who's right in this case.
- elliekelly 5y agoWhy? Why can’t big companies just apologize and try to make things right? Why do they always need to gaslight and deny and drag it out? Why does this need to be a whole big thing involving the court system and years and years of effort and thousands and thousands of dollars? The show fucked up. Maybe legally, maybe not. But there’s no denying the show could have just as easily left the entire line out or used a fake name. And I think any reasonable person can understand how Gaprindashvili must feel having had one of her greatest accomplishments erased on the world stage. So why can’t anyone at Netflix understand? Netflix messed up. Make it right and move on. Fighting this in court is stupid and it’s a terrible look for Netflix.
- rsj_hn 5y agoWhy on earth would an artist apologize for insulting someone in a work of fiction, even if that fictional work was inspired by real events? Imagine all the apologies that would be required if every historical portrayal needed to apologize for not being accurate to the underlying events in some aspects? It would be the end of historical fiction, particularly in our current era of tender feelings. Netflix does not owe anyone an apology here.
- rkk3 5y agoSo why do we have libel laws?
- throwaway675309 5y agoThe show features a fictional character named Beth Harmon, so I'm not really sure libel law would apply here.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBecause in the fictional show, they lied about a real (non-fictional) person.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Veen 5y agoIs a fictional lie really a lie? After all, it’s not intended to be taken as true in the first place.
- rsj_hn 5y agoWe certainly do not have libel laws to prevent people from being offended by art.
- rkk3 5y agoSo you think we should have libel laws but "Art" should be exempt?
- rsj_hn 5y agoYes, all fiction should be exempt and public figures should be almost entirely exempt -- Wait! that's the law right now. Please don't invent your own fantasy version of libel law. Well, you can, of course, but don't expect success in the courts.
- Veen 5y agoPerhaps because they don't want to encourage everyone who thinks they were misrepresented in drama or documentary to try their luck. I mean, imagine what would happen if the British Royal Family decided to kick up a stink about misrepresentations in The Crown, of which there are very many.
- rkk3 5y agoBetter yet, they could make a series about civil rights, star a fictional character and then talk about how MLK and Rosa parks never got arrested for dramatic effect.
- akomtu 5y agoHow do you know what's right and what's wrong? Educate us, the ignorant, how to see the truth without messing with courts, discovery and evidence. Edit: there's a legend that long time ago everyone had an eye of wisdom, called enochion, that allowed to see reality as it is; but that was in the pre-flood era and today we only see deceptive mirages and shadows.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bobisme 5y agoIt's a work of historical fiction that fictionalized history in order to tell a fictional story about a fictional character. Not a documentary. Like Netflix says, the case has no merit. they're not saying her feelings have no merit or that they didn't say what they said, just that the lawsuit has no merit and they have a legal right to say what they said. It's an extremely dangerous precedent to set that anyone offended by fiction can sue the artist and win. that precedent would also have the inverse effect that an independent author could write a piece of fiction where Netflix lost to Blockbuster and went bankrupt then Netflix sues that author for offending and misrepresenting the company's history.
- phendrenad2 5y agoSure, and then thousands of people pop up who's life story mysteriously matches the plot of some Netflix original. Hey, you settled with the chess grandmaster, why not me who's life exactly matches a character in some other show? Let's not forget that movie companies are inundated with these frivolous cases, often people who suffer from mental health disorders. Infamously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noid
- LocalH 5y agoThey used her name explicitly, and claimed something that was not true. This isn't "my life exactly matches this character, except for the name, and a bunch of other details". This is a direct reference, by name, to a chess champion, that misrepresents her accomplishments. Nobody would have said anything if, within the fictional universe, they didn't use the name of an existing champion.
- lupire 5y agoPlease check the facts by rereading the OP before making embarrassing statements.