Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Baby Reindeer (Netflix)

It’s not really the same thing. Netflix suggested very strongly that they were telling a true story about a person they made it very easy to identify. This is going to cost them.
hmmm, I do think that they failed to make her unidentifiable, and thats their bad, but claiming everything must be exactly true because of five words on a screen briefly, well, thats bullshit.
 
hmmm, I do think that they failed to make her unidentifiable, and thats their bad, but claiming everything must be exactly true because of five words on a screen briefly, well, thats bullshit.

As posted previously above those could be the most expensive two words in TV history. 'Based on'.
 
He claims throughout the series that she had previously been locked up. And that she was locked up at the end. Neither of which are true. He's a fantasist himself.
 
There’s no such thing as a “true story” in the completely literal sense. All stories are told from a particular perspective, giving the circumstances as they are or were experienced by particular people. Furthermore, this story was self-evidently not an attempt to impart literal fact, because names and locations and life histories and social networks were all transparently altered (and, indeed, completely invented). So it comes down to what the audience can be expected to infer from “true story”. Personally, I inferred that it provided an emotionally real description of how a particular real incident of stalking was experienced by a particular real individual, but I did not infer that Martha was truly a lawyer, truly went to jail, truly walked after him down that specific canal or truly heckled him during the final of that specific comedy competition.
 
There’s no such thing as a “true story” in the completely literal sense. All stories are told from a particular perspective, giving the circumstances as they are or were experienced by particular people. Furthermore, this story was self-evidently not an attempt to impart literal fact, because names and locations and life histories and social networks were all transparently altered (and, indeed, completely invented). So it comes down to what the audience can be expected to infer from “true story”. Personally, I inferred that it provided an emotionally real description of how a particular real incident of stalking was experienced by a particular real individual, but I did not infer that Martha was truly a lawyer, truly went to jail, truly walked after him down that specific canal or truly heckled him during the final of that specific comedy competition.

Well then don't preface it with 'This is a True Story'. I dont think you need to be a lawyer to get the semantics around that. When it's mostly fiction.
 
Are you actually this fucking stupid?

Lol... She's got one of the biggest law firms in the US taking on one of the biggest broadcasters in the US. For an astronomical sum. Do you really think they would have taken on the case unless it was cast iron?

Can you read? Just checking.

Can you see the difference between 'This is a true story' and 'This is based on a true story'? Cmon Einstein...
 
Lol... She's got one of the biggest law firms in the US taking on one of the biggest broadcasters in the US. For an astronomical sum. Do you really think they would have taken on the case unless it was cast iron?
Well, yes. They're almost certainly expecting Netflix to settle for a not-insignificant sum, but still a small fraction of what they've asked for. That's pretty standard from the entertainment law handbook. Whether they think it would actually fly in court is almost inconsequential.
 
Lol... She's got one of the biggest law firms in the US taking on one of the biggest broadcasters in the US. For an astronomical sum. Do you really think they would have taken on the case unless it was cast iron?

Can you read? Just checking.

Can you see the difference between 'This is a true story' and 'This is based on a true story'? Cmon Einstein...
Of course lawyers only ever take cases that are ‘cast iron’. Definitely none of them ever take a case on a hope and a chance or anything of the kind.
 
Well then don't preface it with 'This is a True Story'. I dont think you need to be a lawyer to get the semantics around that. When it's mostly fiction.
Did you think it was all literally true exactly as presented? Did anyone? Did they even pretend it to be the case, those words aside?

If it was a “true story” in the narrow definition you’re applying, then who was Donny? He never existed in real life. And he’s the main character.

Law does not operate on the basis of little logical games and semantics. It operates on the basis of how a reasonable person would interpret the situation. I’ll be amazed if anybody out there thought that it all literally happened as shown on the screen, regardless of any words that preface it.
 
Richard Gadd, the actor who created "Baby Reindeer," has shared in a court filing a selection of the abusive, explicit emails and voicemails that he claims Fiona Harvey, the woman said to have inspired his popular Netflix show, sent him over a three-year period.


 
Did you think it was all literally true exactly as presented? Did anyone? Did they even pretend it to be the case, those words aside?

If it was a “true story” in the narrow definition you’re applying, then who was Donny? He never existed in real life. And he’s the main character.

Law does not operate on the basis of little logical games and semantics. It operates on the basis of how a reasonable person would interpret the situation. I’ll be amazed if anybody out there thought that it all literally happened as shown on the screen, regardless of any words that preface it.

I think most people would have thought that she really was a convicted criminal.

They didn't change enough about her, except, it seems, that part. Not that I have much sympathy with someone who stalked him to the extent she did, which does seem to be based on fact.
 
I think most people would have thought that she really was a convicted criminal.

They didn't change enough about her, except, it seems, that part. Not that I have much sympathy with someone who stalked him to the extent she did, which does seem to be based on fact.
Even if it’s true that most would have assumed that the unnamed woman behind the story was indeed a convicted criminal, it’s hard to see how that one element alone comprises material harm to her reputation. The written testimony is damming enough that the existence or not of actual jail time becomes somewhat moot.
 
Is the media person/producer/writer or whatever he is who was depicted doing the drug and rape thing still slinking about incognito while people mutter about it being a well known dirty secret, or has anyone come forward to expose him yet?
ETA (Understand why that might be difficult to come forward as someone who he has forced himself on/groomed and be first on the parapet so to speak, and those who haven't experienced it first hand are just going on hearsay and would not be admissible evidence - but I do hope people start to come forward with complaints about this person if they haven't already done so).
 
Last edited:
Baby Reindeer is still on my 'to watch' list, but I've read that the male lead was stalked in real life and based the show on his experiences. And I've also read that his real life stalker was outed and subsequently decided to sue.

I don't recall reading about this previously:

"The Sunday Times reported in June that Gadd had reservations about including the line “This is a true story,” but that it was included at Netflix’ request."

Which is incredible. And might prove very costly for them, given how the storyline apparently diverges from reality in very significant ways, ie portrayals of her as a criminal when she apparently hasn't been prosecuted or convicted.

Why on earth did they say it was a true story?
 
Why on earth did they say it was a true story?
Probably to attract people like me, who like true stories - because life is stranger than fiction... ;) A dick move in this case, and it's going to cost Netflix!!! I'd have gone with 'inspired by true events' as so many movies/series go with.

I'm still at a loss regarding the drug/rape man - I'm thinking that actually happened and yet... All the focus is on the female stalker?!? Why?
 
Klausner did dismiss Harvey’s claims for negligence, violation of her publicity rights, and for punitive damages. But the judge allowed her to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which applies to “extreme and outrageous” false statements.

Sounds like a lot of Harvey’s routes of claim are gone. No punitive damages really limits the potential award.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
I'm still at a loss regarding the drug/rape man - I'm thinking that actually happened and yet... All the focus is on the female stalker?!? Why?
Because it was easy to find out who she was, even for someone who had zero knowledge of anyone involved.

By contrast, only insiders will have an idea who the drug/rape man might be. But even they might be wrong, and whether right or wrong, it would be foolish to say things without evidence that could end up costing them a lot of money in a court of law.
 
The story has been ruled as a fictionalized, slanderous version of a recognizable real person who is not a celebrity or in any other way exempt from public criticism
Who such person has suffered real harm thereby giving said person standing to sue. Netflix would probably not win a motion for summary judgment of dismissal
 
Back
Top Bottom