I was making the point (since me and Harolds got into a bit of a friendly back and forth last night) that im fans of guys who associate with him to make the point that I don't have anything against the guy really

I thought the film was good but its like any of those "inspired by true events but not technically a biopic" movies of course there's embellishments and messing with timelines of events to tell a particular narrative or story thread

I read and respond fast and understand literally everything that you are saying.

You still don't understand the difference between biopics and documentaries so clearly not

I NEVER SAID THIS WAS A DOCUMENTARY

Why does me simply bringing them up trigger you like that

Did I say you did?

say what you are saying rather than things I didnt say thats how you hold a discussion

I am saying what you have said. You have said numerous things that lead any reasonable person to believe that you hold biopics to the same expectations as you do documentaries. Therefore, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between the two genres

I mentioned documentaries to say the public largely doesnt watch them. Discuss them. Engage with serious non sensationalized reporting still to this day.

While making clear yes Chris Hansen at times used sensationalism objectively not subjectively objectively. He did use humor there is no debate about that. He himself will tell you that.

While directly asking not what the movie ask of "what if i wasnt here"

what if his show was dry what if he was reporting on it but was Amy goodman about it? it never gets the full traction. Never takes off gets some arrest but gets taken off the air or he returns to dateline nbc to basic crime.

I am asserting the idea that sensationalism and entertainment of the news existed before and after Chris Hansen. If anything he refined it and was too close with law enforcement but he didnt create anything new and to this day they do the same exact thing with reporting on epstein list while delivering less concrete details and more vibes

at times using it to trigger victims and create clickbait for ad revenue to a much larger degree than chris hansen ever did

ALL WHILE DOING LESS FOR VICTIMS THAN CHRIS HANSEN EVER DID.

I do agree with you that you could make the same argument about other journalists/documentary filmmakers as people are bringing up about Hansen regarding sensationalizing and having ratings/sales/etc in mind...I mean Lance Oppenheim got that Elizabeth Holmes documentary coming soon too which im sure people will be debating the ethics on

Whataboutism

I just wouldn't call Primetime unfair to Chris necessarily or a hatchet job on him...it makes very clear he believed in what he was doing at one point and that he was sincere in wanting to stop these awful people...the story about the "monster" in the cave makes that quite clear and like I said last night the scene where he blows up on the producer...I just think it also goes into how easy it is to become performative and ratings hungry which leads to looking to up the stakes and it becoming way more than just catching bad guys

My final say on the matter...got no beef with Chris really except for the buddy buddy s*** with Fox News and law enforcement lol

I dont hold biopics to the same expectation as documentaries......

I saw Tony in theaters and enjoyed it for what it was lol

a biopic about a serious topic adding this many false details and changes a major hollywood star and a serious topic at a time where the nation is discussing pedophilia would get the same reaction out of me if Michael which my Grandma loved adding a bunch of false details to portray Michael as perfect or pedophiliac

I take the topic of PEDOPHILIA as someone who has experienced it SEROIUSLY. Not as JOKE or COMMERCIALIZED content

some parts of this movie and fictional moments sprinkled on are so dishonest that its more OFFPUTTING than anything I saw on to catch a predator

"he preyed on american fears"

brother AMERICA STILL FEARS PEDOPHILES. Many of us are VICTIMS who prefer a man using sensationalism to dry reporting that never gets seen or taken seriously.

S*** even Epstein was reported on FOR YEARS before being taken seriously by these same UPSTANDING reporters on corporate news.

Look at their reporting of epstein, the victims and how its used

a recent example is in some ways Rsoeanne is a reprehensible person but

\

reprehensible people can do great things

S*** Alex Jones was talking about Epstein before anyone else

Reporters would laugh in the faces of Weinstein victims who made clear jokes and made it clear til it dropped

R Kelly, Bill Cosby, Weinstein, Epstein, Diddy

all those names and many more including many still being covered for til this day are known by the media that chooses not to properly report on them at all let alone sensationalize them because they have ties to them at times. They wait til its allowed to fully go in

Cosby came to the forefront because of Hannibal Burress joke and eventually victims being taken seriously

i am saying the most unlikely break on many serious crimes comes from imperfectly viewed human beings

People have criticized Glenn Greenwald for many things

Snowden they accused of bieng a rapist and just doing it for fame in regards to wikileaks then made him look like a terrorist.

What about this and what about that

If you felt this way, why even watch this movie?

The movie itself paralllels the reporting Chris Hansen did to Stone Phillips and the rise of middle east reporting. the Middle east reporting and sensationlalism present was worse than Chris Hansens reporting and lead to ethnic cleansing of an entire population.

yet you will struggle to name a singular islamophobic reporter from the early 2000s because they all did it and many still do ....

yeah you really have an inability to hold a discussion. Whole time you work as a 911 operator

We've reached the part where Condom Eyes mentions my current occupation as if it has any relevance

Why watch a movie where Pattinson and others still put on good performances?

again parts of the movie were great

the decoy call in the police station where Chris Hansen aiming at the decoys p\*\*\*\* and saying cock wasnt entirely insane to you?

If a grown man did that would you not view him as a creep or a bordrline pedophile with that age difference and the person he was doing it to pretending to be a child at the time?

Do you think moments like that or waking his kids up to watch the show

cross the lines?

SOME PARTS OF THIS MOVIE WERE GREAT

other parts were so fictionalized again it boreded on south park

You could change this whole movie to a cartoon and it would make more sense

No, no, and no. It's a dramatization

you have not held a discussion for multiple pages you do your usual straw man gimmick of "i am lead to believe you dont know the difference between a biopic or a documentary" even after I name my favorite documentaries with trailers and discuss how the public doesnt watch documentaries and prefers fictionalized sensationalized accounts

Your favorite documentaries have nothing to do with you self-admittedly holding biopics to the same expected standards of documentaries

the amount of things added in or changed in this is much larger than most biopics of a serious nature especially ones rated this highly .

I never said I hold biopics to the same standards as documentaries .....

"you self admittedly said something you never said "

I am not expecting a biopic to be entirely true at all man. I get it embellishes makes changes is forming a PIECE OF ENTERTAINMENT FOR MONEY COUGH COUGH

I think some of the CHANGES THAT MAKE TO MAKE THIS ENTERTAINMENT FOR MONEY ON A SERIOUS TOPIC ARE REPREHNSIBLE

and I even directly gave the example of the MJ biopic from this same year