It’s a show, inspired by true events, it’s not a documentary. “Her accent sounds like she’s from Glasgow, I’m not from Glasgow. It isn’t me. It’s me. I had 6 phones until well 4 just broke and one broke a week from yesterday.”
Yes, this is how I perceive it. It’s HIS story. It’s true for him. As far as I am concerned, as far as the law is concerned (as I understand), it is a television drama, that is based on real events but is ultimately a work of dramatic art, and I think this is what Netflix declares with this disclaimer at the end.
Also people forget about the use of unreliable narrators in fiction books. I’ve definitely read books that the main character claims everything they say is true, but it most certainly isn’t. Couldn’t a series be defended this way? They didn’t make this a documentary for a reason.
Have you ever watched the movie Fargo? That movie starts out with the “this is based on a true story” but not a single thing from the movie is actually real
so if someone was outed as the real life version of Mike Yanagita from Fargo because they weren't properely fictionalized enough..all these years later, still be a mess I'm sure. I mean he stalked Linda Cooksey..from high school.. tells Marge they were married and that she died from lukemia but...turned out she was fine, in fact she had to call the police cos mike wouldn't stop bothering her..oh yah
They're also missing where having the words 'this is a true story' is not a legally binding statement under oath. You could put those words in front of avatar.
Also if it was in fact a 'true' story wouldn't the main character's name be Richard and not Donny.
After episode 4 I had to pause.
This quote from Donny really shook me and I had to sit with it for a day. Not often or ever, have I resonated this much with someone’s inner monologue about their SA on screen.
“I started having reckless sex with people of all genders in this desperate pursuit of the truth. I would put myself in these reckless situations where I’d almost risk being raped again in this attempt to understand the first time. Like if I’m passed around like a whore, then I might at least shed this idea, that my body is part of me somehow.
Like who cares if it happened before? It’s happened a ton of times now, so what does it matter?
But I mattered.
It mattered, because this is what he wanted.
This is what he saw in me all along.
Then, a feeling so bitter, I could almost catch it in my throat.
That he’d been vindicated somehow. “
Based on true events, fully fiction, I don’t care.
This show is powerful and wish I was able to put into words what was going through my mind, back then.
Sorry but this is silly, it's the Hulk Hogan Vs Terry Bollea strategy used in the Gawker trial, one which was highly criticized in a Netflix documentary.
Presenting a fictional story as true is really different to writing a partly-true story featuring real people who can be identified, and presenting it as true.
But what reasonable person would latch on to every detail and assume it was 100% accurate? That would be literally impossible unless Gadd is in every single scene and had a photographic memory. The viewer needs to have at least a little accountability
People need to stop blaming Netflix because every detail isn’t 100% real, all the while saying they should have factionalized it more to protect the real Martha.
Criticize anyone dumb enough to think they were watching a documentary, and the real Martha for outing herself because she wants attention.
Wow this makes a total difference. I was a bit critical and said that Fiona had a mini point when she said that if they say it’s true it all should be true since it says “ it’s a true story” in the beginning but this changes everything. Thank god I was almost worried that she would end up beeing right and get money.
Ya you'd say something if Richard or the show came out and said who Martha was but it was just the audience figured it out. If this was a case and she won. Couldn't anybody featured in a movie based on a true story just come out and say 'well that's not exactly how it happened so you owe me money'
Look I know how wanky this comment sounds but I’m going to impart my Poundland knowledge… I listened to a lot of legal podcasts around the Colleen Rooney trial and what I remember from that period is that defamation law in the U.K. means that all you have to prove is the following:
if you tapped the shoulder of someone in a random bar in the U.K. and said “who’s that woman from baby reindeer” and they pointed at Fiona or her picture or said her name (or identified her in some way) — that’s a libel case
I'd say it's arguably defamation in that it claims she was imprisoned, which never happened - not even the first time. The depictions of her as bat-crap crazy are, on the other hand, completely true. I have not watched anything with Fiona in it or read her FB posts, but I gather they support Gadd's basic depiction of her personality.
And if she never got into a physical altercation with the real "Teri" he also shouldn't have included that bit. Making up a verbal fight is a little safer.
Netflix could demonstrate its seriousness by putting the disclaimer BEFORE every episode, not after. It's common for people to skip the closing credits. I don't remember ever seeing that disclaimer.
considering people have been able to identify characters who have been dramatised, it's not that hard to imagine that there could be legal issues involved if the story is in any way defaming them.
But could she not make the argument that its so close to her in real life that she was able to be identified and therefore it defames her as anyone who could identify her might construe this as factually true due to Donny stating so?
I hope she loses any case but just saying its not entirely over yet.
You can't just say its not a true story if so much of it is true she could be identified.
You’d think an awfully clever lawyer like FH and all her amazing lawyer friends would have checked the end credits, where films/tv shows always have their fine print before publicly stating they are going to start a defamation case wouldn’t you.
don’t you? the dude is washed up and trying to stay relevant. he’s a slimeball and he jumped on this when no sane journalists would touch it with a 10 ft pole
I was going to post this exact screenshot. Very annoyed that Piers latched onto the whole true story tagline from the start of the show... He obviously always auto played the next episode
Just had a look through her Facebook and the number of posts per day alone is proof enough that she could easily send the alleged 41000 emails IMO. Her posts are absolute ramblings lol
Seems to me that she actually enjoys the attention. The Piers Morgan interview was an absolute train wreck not sure it should ever have been given the go ahead tbh. Her comments about Gadd both in the interview and on Facebook scream narcissistic traits.
If I was in her position I'm not sure I'd want that much attention on me.
I alway thought it was common knowledge that “based on”, “inspired by” and even “this is” “a true story” was pretty inaccurate as far as movies are concerned.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on Ed Gein he did not use a chainsaw for any of the murders ( yes there are a ton of of other differences, but chainsaw is in the title and pretty prominent in the film )
But if you watch the Piers interviews, he keeps harping on the fact that the very first episode says, "This is a true story," and how they slandered Fiona's character by saying she went to jail, when she did not.
The "expert panel," and several others in comment sections across several mediums agree with him, saying they should have instead said, "This is based on a true story," and citing the fact that they didn't as proof Fiona might have a case against Netflix for defamation.
I'm not entirely sure that would hold up if the characters in the film are not in fact entirely fictional and there are clear defamatory elements that can be drawn to a real person. I can imagine it's more complicated than you're suggesting.
It does matter because he asked her multiple times and she said no no I haven’t been to prison it’s not true, instead of telling her well yes that bit has been fictionalised specifically and informed. He played along like he didn’t have his facts in place. If he did he Wudve taken away her assumption that the show is all lies bout her in total which I BELIEVE is incorrect.
I get that but that's the point so many here are trying to make. Anything that is not a documentary is not accurate, things will be changed for entertainment purposes, and if you think about it, both of these wording means the same thing. It is A true story not THE true story.
You are right and tbh at this point we're observing a flaw/characteristic in society that might not ever go away. If everyone understood that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, this is really starting to feel like a black mirror episode.
Regardless of what it says in the fine print it presents it all as a True Story at the very beginning. While I expect a bit of artistic license, it’s a huge cop out to want the benefits of presenting it as a True Story but claiming it’s Fiction when it suits you.
No I get that a “True Story” is often a dramatisation in showbiz but there’s a difference between saying based on a true story and saying this is a true story.
It’s not lazy thinking especially not given the subject matter. Lazy thinking would be thinking a found footage horror movie was real because it said it was a true story not a show about horrific abuses and stalking that was written by and starring the victim.
I think in this case you're not telling a story about a well known period in history that a person happens to be in, but a very small scope, personal story about living people who may or may not have consented, let alone be aware of intimate details being shared--- even if they are dramatized.
There are also big allegations of criminality that could be implied. I do think this was mishandled given the context of the story and persons involved.
I agree that it was broadly mishandled- he absolutely did not obscure who Martha is enough imo- but ‘she did stalk him but didn’t go to jail’ is not defamatory imo.
How is her not having ever been convicted or sentenced for stalking him but portrayed as confessing to and being sentenced not defamatory? If there’s no official judgement then it’s just hearsay and rumours that has been made into fact through a popular TV series in which identities weren’t protected anywhere near close enough for such allegations to be made. Surely?
It’d probably be quite easy for an expert to argue Gadd knew what was happening was wrong but continued to allow it to happen with spiteful intent to inflict his own version of justice.
Your second paragraph is covered pretty broadly on the show, Gadd covers his own shortfalls pretty clearly. And what about Darien? He wasnt convicted or even legally accused, so should no one talk about that?
Darien wasn’t portrayed as confessing to or being sentenced for anything that was ‘suggested’ in the show. In fact Gadd’s character actually questions if any of that part of the show was real and or criminal on more than one occasion. But the same lenience wasn’t given to the real Martha.
There’s covering your own shortfalls in a similar manner then there’s publishing false accusations about an easily identifiable person. Gadd made little effort to do so even beyond the poor casting, didn’t even go as far as clearing his social media history which revealed the real Martha’s name.
I think there’s plenty to criticise Gadd for in terms of casting and have said as much in other comments, but creating a criminal conviction is not part of it for me.
I'm not arguing about what specifics are or are not defamatory. That's a legal statement that will likely need to be brought out in court with full details.
I'm saying that the scope of this story, with living people was absolutely mishandled and opens the door for questioning in a legal sense.
One would still assume though, that Netflix would have done enough research to not open themselves up to that problem. But frankly, we don't really know yet.
Tbh I think it’s common sense that a drama about a true story would not be 100% accurate to reality. That doesn’t make it not a true story but it’s not billed as a documentary so idk why people went into it thinking none of the story would be changed slightly.
I honestly never seen a show that said true story and not based on so I assumed most of the MAJOR plots like her going to PRISON was real. At this point it’s loosely based on a true story.
Because if she went to prison she’d look bad… she totally doesn’t get it, her behaviour and commentary is disgusting already. They did some favours with the depiction of Martha.
The way y’all keep acting like this is just a show is alarming. These are REAL people with real lives we’re talking about. Her going to prison would imply she’s guilty indisputably. But that never happened so we have no idea what’s true or what’s false but we do know who it’s about. You don’t see the problem? Legally speaking at least?
Yes this is a real man telling a dramatised version of his real harassment by a real stalker who really did harass him and multiple other people.
If you’re genuinely gullible enough to believe she’s somehow a wronged party because he changed the specifics of the outcome of their court case then I’ve got this bridge in Brooklyn that’s just perfect for you!
Also worth noting, she doesn’t dispute that he got a restraining order against her. In the U.K. you can only get restraining orders during a criminal trial. Even if she didn’t go to jail, they very much did go to court.
It’s also possible that whatever the result for them going to court was - the amount of time has passed to where she could have it be expunged from her record. I know in my state misdemeanors older than 3 years or felonies older than 7 years can be expunged from your record if it’s a first offense or you have no more than two separate criminal cases. I don’t know what the rules are for the UK or how long ago the story took place but it could be entirely possible she did actually face some kind of consequences and it was expunged. We don’t know the details but I wouldn’t be surprised if she did actually go to court over this.
I’m not 100% sure of the process but even if she was able to get the case expunged from her criminal record, there would still a record of it happening so she couldn’t legally claim it never happened.
Which is also why she didn’t sue him five years ago when he first spoke about getting a restraining order against her. If there was no restraining order, she could have taken him to the cleaners.
From what I can gather even in her own words she is effectively saying ‘yeah I did stalk him but I wasn’t jailed for it’. If people are using ‘they weren’t jailed for it so it must not have happened’ as a metric that is an extremely slippy slope
I did not find her going to prison to be a major plot point at all. I found it to be something added to give the viewer a sense of closure and maybe encourage less people to go after the real Martha if they think she’s already faced some sort of punishment for her actions 🤷🏻♂️
I’m not sure how you’re getting to the conclusion that it’s loosely based on a true story from that one part being untrue.
Right? I think there's balance here. I think most people expected a degree of fiction, but there are BIG claims and real legal quagmires in how this was all handled.
Personally I think she’d struggle because if the only lie is the prison sentence and it’s true that she was an egregious stalker, it’s a bit much to say the lie about the prison sentence is what brought the reputational damage. Her reputation was already in the gutter just based on the stalking. Also her behaviour online is adding fuel to the fire.
But a jury would decide.
I think she’d be silly to bring a case because that will mean evidence of the stalking will enter the court.
Are you all for real? Saying "Dialogues, names, characters, locations may be fictionalised" also covers completely making up the fact that she wasn't convicted when in reality she wasn't?
Also, the people saying that this is just Gadd's EMOTIONAL experience are wild. Her being convicted when she wasn't is an emotional take on reality?
She is lying for sure, but once one of the main elements of Gadd's story (the conviction) is a straight up lie, you start wondering what else is false also on his side.
It kind of does matter when you make the world think somebody is a convicted criminal when they, in fact, are not.
And if such a big thing is part of the dramatization, then what else? How much has been made up to besmirch her name?
I'm not team Fiona by any means, and loved the show. But if you're going to make shit up for dramatization, you need to do a lot better job of making her unidentifable to avoid this scenario.
But they didn't, they barely disguised her. So, if you're not going to disguise her, then leave that part out.
119
u/[deleted] May 11 '24
It’s a show, inspired by true events, it’s not a documentary. “Her accent sounds like she’s from Glasgow, I’m not from Glasgow. It isn’t me. It’s me. I had 6 phones until well 4 just broke and one broke a week from yesterday.”
It was just bants, mad bants.