HBO reminds Jerry West that Winning Time is “not a documentary”
Last week, the Lakers legend sent out a letter demanding a legal retraction by the company
Aux News Jerry West
Following basketball legend Jerry West’s legal letter demanding a retraction by HBO due its Lakers series Winning Time: The Rise Of The Lakers Dynasty, the company has shared a resolute response on the criticism, stating that the series is “not a documentary.”
“HBO has a long history of producing compelling content drawn from actual facts and events that are fictionalized in part for dramatic purposes,” HBO says in a statement. “Winning Time is not a documentary and has not been presented as such. However, the series and its depictions are based on extensive factual research and reliable sourcing, and HBO stands resolutely behind our talented creators and cast who have brought a dramatization of this epic chapter in basketball history to the screen.”
Well, there you have it. HBO’s not wrong in the slightest, and it’s unlikely any legal challenge would stand. Nonetheless, West is very unhappy with his depiction by actor Jason Clarke, calling it “a deliberately false characterization.”
“You took a happy and super successful Lakers era and turned it into a pulpy soap opera,” West wrote in his letter to HBO. “You depicted the people in a false light, not at all who they are, to garner ratings and make money.”
Former Lakers played Kareem Abdul-Jabbar also voiced his own criticisms of the series and West’s portrayal in a recent blog post.
“[Jerry] has openly discussed his struggle with mental health, especially depression,” Abdul-Jabbar writes. “Instead of exploring his issues with compassion as a way to better understand the man, they turn him into a Wile E. Coyote cartoon to be laughed at. He never broke golf clubs, he didn’t throw his trophy through the window. Sure, those actions make dramatic moments, but they reek of facile exploitation of the man rather than exploration of character.”
Winning Time is currently airing its first season, which wraps up on May 8. The series has been renewed for a second season.
136 Comments
“HBO’s not wrong in the slightest” is, well, one way to put it? No one is saying it’s a documentary. What people are saying (and not just West, but pretty much everyone who ever worked with him) is that the show is very wrong in its portrayal. Kareem’s essay is worth reading, in fact, because it’s not at all focused on the idea that film/television/art can’t change reality for dramatic or comedic purposes. He readily admits that’s necessary. He posits, though, that the entire show is actually much worse for having made the choices its made.
West should have just left it alone, but being portrayed as a raging alcoholic asshole in a prestige series when pretty much none of that is in the show’s ostensible source material is understandably frustrating. Yes, the likelihood of a legal challenge being successful is slim at best, but that doesn’t mean it’s not fair to discuss the ethics at play here.
He’s 83. Can hardly blame a man for being concerned that this is the image that will live on forever after he’s gone. I wouldn’t “leave it alone” either.
Yeah, I couldn’t see myself threatening legal action or anything but would definitely tell HBO I thought their treatment of me was disrespectful bullshit, and be sure the public knew it.
Kareem seems to think the show is boring, which, okay, he’s entitled to his opinion; but the critical mass doesn’t seem to agree with him and I’m not sure why his criticism is any more useful to me than any professional critic’s. Historical accuracy does not necessarily (or even usually) translate into good drama. I know he’s a brilliant guy, but his closeness to the material necessarily compromises his objectivity.
The show is very boring, but ironically, the best bits involve Kareem and his exploration of self and blackness in the context of athletic celebrity.Otherwise, it’s not very compelling viewing. And West is indeed depicted as a cartoon character, one who didn’t want to coach the team but was still something of a desperate micro-manager who couldn’t give it up.I think Will Ferrell can make amends with Adam McKay, because he really didn’t miss out on anything by not being cast. At least McKay stopped it with the manic 4th-wall breaking that plagued the first episode. It’s such a hacky device.
The show is boring, and Kareem is absolutely correct that one of the reasons it’s boring is because it reduces all its characters into people defined by a single character trait. Jerry West is angry, Kareem is standoffish, Paul Westhead is ineffectual, Jerry Buss is a playboy, Claire Rothman is harried.
The actor playing Chick Hearn nailed the voice though
The show is boring, but it’s worst offense are how historically inaccurate it is every single week with a story that wouldn’t suffer one iota if they just got some basic facts correct.Last night they invented some fantasy that McKinney was traveling with the team during his recuperation (he did not) and still had the power to fire Pat Riley (seems dubious). The truth was he did want his job back badly, but the team knew he wasn’t ready and ultimately gave Westhead the job as permanent coach effectively firing McKinney. The story was good enough without inventing all this fake drama.
I don’t get why Karem is used. “The Voice of Black Folk” at Hollywood Reporter. It felt random when he started and it still feels random. Could they not recruit someone more relevant?
No, it’s pretty boring
KAJ is guilty of being too subjective. It’s obvious that he cannot critique the show objectively, he couldn’t separate his personal issues with the intrinsic merits of the show, resorting to mud-slinging himself.
The OP didn’t say Kareem’s criticism was “any more useful” than “any professional critic’s.” They said Kareem’s essay was worth reading. But given that this is a show that purports to be portraying events that actually happened, his experience, as someone who was actually there, does seem to be worth a fair amount more than a critic’s on at least that aspect.Also, it is true that historical accuracy does not necessarily translate into good drama. But if you have to change the major aspects of that history to make a compelling drama, maybe you shouldn’t be presenting your drama as portraying real events? Like, one of the nice things about being a dramatist is you get to make up any story you want and tell it however you want, and nobody gets to tell you “that’s not what happened.” The nice thing about it is, you can do that and still draw inspiration from real life events. In fact, you can draw generous inspiration from prominent historical events that lots of people will draw a direct connection to, and even then people can’t really say “Well, that’s not true,” because it’s fiction! It’s only when you start telling stories that purport to be based on real events and real people that complaints about particular things not really happening start to resonate. Adam McKay and HBO could have told any story they wanted about the dramatic ups and downs of a dynastic professional sports franchise. They have chosen to tell a very specific story that very much happened in the real world, involving (and naming) real people, many of whom are still very much alive.
But if you have to change the major aspects of that history to make a
compelling drama, maybe you shouldn’t be presenting your drama as
portraying real events?False dichotomy: the options are not limited to “boring but historically accurate” and “dramatic but historically inaccurate.” Something can be historically accurate and dramatic but not the angle you want.And let’s also make sure the other quiet part is said loud: filmmakers want to make money, and having a real-world connection draws in people who might not be interested in a purely fictionalized version. You could assert, I suppose, that people should not do this, but, heh, good luck with that.
So, I didn’t present that dichotomy, at least not the way you’re portraying it (I think you did, if anything). But if the story you’re telling is historically accurate and dramatic, what does it mean to be “not the angle you want”? If you have to change the angle, I would say the same thing: Why present it as based on real events, using real people as characters?And let’s also make sure the other quiet part is said loud: filmmakers want to make money, and having a real-world connection draws in people who might not be interested in a purely fictionalized version. You could assert, I suppose, that people should not do this, but, heh, good luck with that.I have no idea what point people who say things like this (and there are a lot of you) are trying to make. Yes, I recognize one of the reasons people like to glom onto real life events for content is because there is usually a ready-made, built-in, audience, that makes it easier to turn a profit. Congratulations on understanding a very basic principle of marketing, I understand it as well. And? Now that we both know we’d be decent interns in the marketing department of a studio, now what? Keep in mind, I’m pointing out a particular line of criticism is valid, not proposing laws.
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make; you keep implying that you should not base stories on real events if you have to change them at all, and I’m trying to figure out why you think that makes any sense.
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make; you keep implying that you should not base stories on real events if you have to change them at allWelp, there’s the disconnect, because I didn’t say that! I can understand why my argument is confusing when you’re literally making it up out of whole cloth. I never said “you should not base stories on real events if you have to change them at all.” I am saying if a historical event doesn’t have enough of its own dramatic momentum to carry it without making major changes to major elements of the story, for example falsely portraying one of the main characters as an alcoholic with a violent temper, then why are you basing a drama on that historical event at all? Maybe just make up the story you want to tell the way you want to tell it. Like, if they want to show a particular event happening on a Saturday instead of a Wednesday because that makes something about the narrative easier, fine, whatever, but it’s reasonable to expect that the key elements of a story based on real events, using real people’s names, gets the big stuff basically right.
but it’s reasonable to expect that the key elements of a story based on
real events, using real people’s names, gets the big stuff basically
right.You keep assuming that it’s obvious why it’s reasonable to expect this, but you haven’t explained why. What harm or damage is caused by doing this? There are countless historically-inspired movies that were hugely successful both critically and commercially that made major changes to history. For what good reason should Patton, Braveheart, Schindler’s List, Ben-Hur, Amadeus, Lawrence of Arabia, or All the King’s Men have hewed closer to historical accuracy?
You keep assuming that it’s obvious why it’s reasonable to expect this, but you haven’t explained why. What harm or damage is caused by doing this?Wait, you don’t see the “harm or damage” caused by portraying ostensibly real events and real people, but making major changes to what actually happened? Is that serious?For what good reason should Patton, Braveheart, Schindler’s List, Ben-Hur, Amadeus, Lawrence of Arabia, or All the King’s Men have hewed closer to historical accuracy?
Soo….these are not all the same thing. Some of these are more legend than others, and we can probably quibble about the extent to which telling a story 500 years old or a thousand years old needs to be historically accurate in even the broad strokes. But for things like Patton, or All the King’s Men, you’re going to have to tell me what big broad strokes were clearly inaccurate. Like, if Patton didn’t really smack the shit out of that guy, that sure seems like valid criticism to make that up, right?
Wait, you don’t see the “harm or damage” caused by portraying ostensibly
real events and real people, but making major changes to what actually
happened? Is that serious?Humor me.
You can damage the reputation of real people, you cement a widespread view of historical events that ends up making a particular narrative that might be questionable at best, because people will watch a movie or tv show long before they pick up a scholarly historical account. Are you being serious right now? Why do you think they put that disclaimer on basically all works of fiction?
You can damage the reputation of real people, you cement a widespread view of historical events that ends up making
a particular narrative that might be questionable at best, because
people will watch a movie or tv show long before they pick up a
scholarly historical account.Okay. That’s a fair argument (actually, it’s two arguments). As for the reputations of real people: Yeah, you can damage the reputation of real people by making major changes, but you can also damage the reputation of real people by showing the absolute truth in the case where their reputation is generally good and the truth shows they were monsters, or whatever. You can also improve the reputation of real people by making major changes, like propaganda or merely leaving out certain things. Harm and help can both be caused by either depicting the truth or making changes, depending on the circumstances, so shouldn’t we simply ban all changes?
And how do you even quantify at what point a change is harmful enough to prohibit? You can say “major changes” all you want but we both know that’s a totally subjective line. Not to mention that your argument can apply to anything
ahistorical, even if it’s not about a specific real person or event:
consider how inaccurately movies portray basically every profession.
Yeah, if you ask someone whether a movie’s depiction of police work is accurate, they’d say, “probably
not,” but if you’d ask them to describe how that profession works,
they’d still describe it in accordance with what they’ve absorbed by
osmosis from fiction, rather than how it really works (unless they have
firsthand knowledge of that profession, which, for most people and most
professions, is basically none). Is there no harm caused by the public having grave misunderstandings of how law, medicine, war, and technology really work? Should we not prohibit authors from depicting anything inaccurately, since as you say, people will not educate themselves?
The notion that only authors of fiction bear responsibility for keeping the public properly informed about history is absurd. The proper counteragent is education, not censorship. If your argument is that people will not educate themselves, censoring fiction is solving the wrong problem.
Why do you think they put that disclaimer on basically all works of fiction?As armor against lawsuits and as a CYA against complaints. You ever notice where that disclaimer is? At the very end of the closing credits, which people are just as likely to see (and absorb) as they are to “pick up a scholarly historical account.” Why do you think they have that disclaimer?
Yeah, you can damage the reputation of real people by making major changes, but you can also damage the reputation of real people by showing the absolute truth in the case where their reputation is generally good and the truth shows they were monsters, or whatever.What is the point of this? If an accurate portrayal of an event would damage someone’s reputation, I’m not sure why that would be of any particular concern to me.Harm and help can both be caused by either depicting the truth or making changes, depending on the circumstances, so shouldn’t we simply ban all changes?I mean, if you want to make that argument, feel free. But that’s not my argument, and it’s not one I would defend, because it’s stupid.And how do you even quantify at what point a change is harmful enough to prohibit? You can say “major changes” all you want but we both know that’s a totally subjective line.
Again, I’m defending a particular critique of a particular type of content, not proposing a law. You can’t quantify any of this. It’s subjective. I’m not proposing to outlaw anything (although defamation is a real tort that still exists in this country), so I don’t have to quantify it. Everyone can decide for themselves what changes to the historical events portrayed in a drama that presented as “based on real events” or whatever are fair for the sake of entertainment/narrative, and what are not. But that’s more than a fair avenue of criticism.
I doubt we’re going to move each other at this point, and I’m not really interested in continuing talking to someone who’s going to be insulting, so, have a nice day.
Did I insult you? My bad! Whatever it was, it wasn’t intentional, sorry.
I dunno, man, you seem like you’re on the level, I’d just appreciate it if you could avoid calling my arguments “stupid.” I looked around and saw your argument on Jezebel about Elon Musk’s social responsibility about how he spends his money, and I completely agreed with you.
But whatever: in the original part of the conversation, you made a specific assertion which I think was the root of a lot of the confusion here:The OP didn’t say Kareem’s criticism was “any more useful” than “any
professional critic’s.” They said Kareem’s essay was worth reading.For context, here’s the original paragraph I was replying to:
Kareem’s essay is worth reading, in fact, because it’s not at all
focused on the idea that film/television/art can’t change reality for
dramatic or comedic purposes. He readily admits that’s necessary. He posits, though, that the entire show is actually much worse for having made the choices its made. (emphasis added)
This is a direct assertion that the essay is worth reading because of Kareem’s assertion that the changes negatively affected the show’s dramatic value. In that light, my response is reasonable: I don’t have any reason to trust Kareem’s opinion that the changes made the show worse. I can accept on faith that Kareem knows what changes were made, and has a better sense of the true history than most people (although even then, it’s been 40+ years since the events of the show and we all know how faulty memory can be), but that does not translate into him having a correct assessment of whether the show would have been better if those changes hadn’t been made. Since I don’t have any other reason to trust Kareem’s skills as a drama critic, that particular opinion holds little value to me.This isn’t to say the essay isn’t worth reading (I think it is, and I never said it wasn’t), just that Kareem’s opinion about what the show should have done differently isn’t persuasive. As Nail Gaiman said, when someone tells you that something is wrong with your work, they’re almost always right; when they tell you how to fix it, they’re almost always wrong.
I dunno, man, you seem like you’re on the level, I’d just appreciate it if you could avoid calling my arguments “stupid.”I don’t think I did? Unless you really believe that we should “ban all changes” for stories based on real events, which is not how I have understand your argument at all, in fact I understand your argument to be saying we shouldn’t be all that concerned when a story based on real events isn’t accurate to those events.I don’t have any reason to trust Kareem’s opinion that the changes made the show worse. I can accept on faith that Kareem knows what changes were made, and has a better sense of the true history than most people (although even then, it’s been 40+ years since the events of the show and we all know how faulty memory can be), but that does not translate into him having a correct assessment of whether the show would have been better if those changes hadn’t been made.
Well, I guess I agree that it doesn’t, but again the point OP made that you’re arguing with was never “Kareem has a superior point of view on the dramatic quality of the series” but “Kareem’s essay on this series is worth reading, here is what he argues.”
And it seems clear to me that his point was “Kareem’s essay is worth reading because of what he argues.” And I’m also not sure why you think I should be limited to responding to that explicit point and have committed some kind of fault by expanding into the immediately adjacent avenue of “it’s worth hearing out his argument, but I think his argument is faulty.”
I agree that was his point, but that’s still a different point than “Kareem has a superior opinion.” Also, you can take any argument in any direction you want, but when you respond directly to an argument in a certain way, I think it’s also fine to point out that your response seems to be responding to an argument the OP actually didn’t make. I don’t think I’m saying you committed some kind of “fault,” and if you respond “Well, yeah, but I have a broader point,” fine, okay. I also responded quite extensively to another argument of yours.
Dirtside bringing some real “Avocado Incel Who Worships McKay” energy, right here.
Dude, fuck you? I’m lukewarm on McKay at best and I haven’t seen the show. I’m just annoyed by the idea that nobody should ever change history for a fictionalized account if it’ll make an old rich white man mad.
Literally no one has ever argued that, man.Like, you’re getting upset at a Black Muslim who was born in Harlem and grew up in the projects for saying that he finds a show that you’ve never seen, by a creator you don’t particularly enjoy, one-dimensional and boring…because one the portrayals he describes as a flat, lazy caricature of an interesting, complex human being is a portrayal of a rich, white dude.
Who was upset? I’m just saying that I don’t have any reason to value Kareem’s critical analysis over anyone else’s. Not sure what his cultural background has to do with anything.
How much of Kareem’s writing have you read? The guy’s genuinely brilliant, and a thoughtful critic of pop culture.He just also happens to be a Top 5-10 basketball player of all time, haha!
I never would have known any of that, especially since I went to school with his kid and met Kareem a bunch of times. 😛
We’ve been internet acquaintances for the better part of a decade. You know I’ve got no bad blood towards you.I’m just saying that this line of Devil’s Advocacy gives off the same vibes of applauding the bravery of a man who voted for Jill Stein because Biden reminds him of a middle school basketball coach who deliberately decided to humiliate him…by asking his team to do layup lines.
Okay, well, as close personal acquaintances, let it be known while that I’m perfectly fine with some kinds of friendly ribbing, that didn’t qualify. 🙂
Sorry for crossing the line, man!
There is a huge difference between small changes that keep the core story intact, plausible and relatively consistent with the truth. Winning Time doesn’t come close to that standard. They are just making things up to create artificial drama.
I mean…according to everyone who was there, this is a “purely fictionalized version.” McKay just name his characters after real people.
Maybe he thinks a show actually based on the book the show claims to be based on would be more entertaining?Like, he probably thinks McKay is filling the show with sensationalist trash that misrepresents everyone named because he isn’t actually interested in the people named.
Maybe he thinks a show actually based on the book the show claims to be based on would be more entertaining?Yes, he obviously thinks that. That doesn’t make it true. It might be more entertaining for him, and people are perfectly entitled to wish that a work was about something different or handled in a different way. I just don’t have any reason to think that I would enjoy that show more than the one that was actually made.
It’s a shame that we’ll never know because McKay either didn’t trust his audience to enjoy the show without making up a bunch of soap opera bullshit, or he didn’t trust himself to tell an entertaining story without making up a bunch of soap opera bullshit, or he thought that audiences wouldn’t find the soap opera bullshit he made up entertaining if he didn’t imply that real people actually engaged in it.
West is not portrayed as a raging alcoholic. I don’t recall the character drinking at all. He’s portrayed as a conflicted, passionate, lover of the sport who acknowledges his weaknesses and hang-ups. Every character in the show openly acknowledges how skilled and ethical West was in his long tenure as a Laker exec, coach, and player. I mean, jesus, Magic and his wife haven’t sued, and the show openly posits their relationship as emotionally abusive. You wanna talk about someone who is portrayed as a raging alcoholic, how about they way they’ve depicted Larry Bird? They show him drinking in the locker room during a game! How about all the other players depicted unsympathetically? Including Clare Rothman and or Jeannie Buss. They are both very accomplished women who are not favorably portrayed in this piece. Either you haven’t actually watched the show, or you’ve had the great fortune to not encounter actual raging alcoholics. Jerry West has lived to be 83 yrs old and clearly has enough time, energy, money and/or connections to pay lawyers to openly and publicly threaten a media conglomerate like HBO/Time-Warner. He’s fucking fine.
These are all false equivalencies. None of these people are portrayed nearly as badly as Jerry West, except perhaps Paul Westhead. If I were Jerry I’d be pissed too. All that aside, I don’t understand how anyone can actually like this show, and I’m saying that as someone who really wanted to like it when it premiered.
Doesn’t seem like you actually watched the show either as there was a scene where West was all by himself alone in his trashed house, really, really, drunk. Or that other scene where he smashed up the MVP trophy in a drunken rage. Or when he snapped that golf club in two in a another fit of rage. There’s a reason why he’s not happy at how he’s been portrayed in this show. It’s not a fully positive portrayal, that of a rageoholic that cheated on his wife. And the reason why Magic hasn’t sued (yet) is because he has his own documentary out on Apple TV that he’s using as a way to distract away from this. Clare Rothman and Jeannie Buss are also not happy with the way they’re depicted either. In general, Norm Nixon is the only real life person from that era that agreed to work with the showrunners, and even he admitted to a lot of it being exaggerated or fabricated. Literally, everyone else declined. But that’s how biopics and docudramas are in general: a lot of are made up or exaggerated for dramatic effect.
Norm Nixon apparently told his son (who is playing him) that he objected to a line in the script where he is showing off a manicure, “I’ve never had a manicure! I’m from Macon, Georgia!”
That’s funny.
I’m surprised Nixon of all people agreed to work on this, as Macon is about the same size as Lansing and is in the more rural Georgia, and Norm isn’t portrayed in the best light.
I admittedly forgot about those scenes you recounted. Which, IMO shows that those were portrayed as instances in a long career and not as defining characteristics. Look at how ridiculously and histrionically Jack McKinney is portrayed. Or Paul Westfield? Showing a person drinking at home and smashing a trophy when they’re feeling discarded is not a depiction of a raging alcoholic. Showing an all star player openly pounding beers during halftime in a locker room is, though. As a recovering alcoholic, I know the difference. And, yes, Clare and Jeannie have also aired their grievances about this show. However, they didn’t have the pretention or the selfishness to threaten legal action. And that was my point. After West’s ridiculous action, I would venture to say that he might be more sympathetically portrayed in the series than he actually is IRL.
You’re still missing my point that: a. Drunk or not, it’s not a positive portrayal depicting him as a raging hothead that can smash golf clubs in two, so I can understand him being pissed off enough to sue. b. The rest of them haven’t sued yet; that might change especially now that there will be more seasons and if the show gets more popular and media attention c. Jack McKinney is dead so he can’t really sue or be upset, while Paul Westhead (correct spelling) is retired obscurity away from the media spotlight.
You’re clearly taking this as seriously as West himself. I dunno, if I was portrayed as someone who could or did smash a golf club in half, I might be flattered. And I would assume that an 83yr old person might be thinking about something else rather than how they are portrayed as a supporting character in an HBO series. His real life actions are more disparaging than being shown as a hothead who broke a golf club. But he’s a wealthy white male who’s apparently still hung up about his sports career, so I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Pointing out all of the flaws and inaccuracies of your really bad opinion is not “taking it seriously.” Maybe you ought to go to Reddit if you’re looking for an echo chamber of your fellow fanboys instead.
Much like Jerry, you’re not doing yourself any favors by insulting someone you’ve never met and making assumptions about their intent. I’m pretty sure that many people share my ‘flawed and bad’ opinion. The material of this series is not illegal or unethical. I’m not even here to debate the show, but to comment on how useless and pathetic this man’s current actions are. And don’t fucking call me a ‘fanboy’. I’m not a big fan of this series, nor am I a ‘boy’. In fact, don’t call anyone a ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ unless you are sure of the pronouns they use.
Your angry and condescending tone, not to mention your bizarre insistence of trying to drag identity politics into this tells me that you’ve got the anger issues here. I’m very sure that many people share your ‘flawed and bad’ opinion; its on a website called Reddit. Go over there if you want an echo-chamber of everyone being as wrong and inaccurate as you’ve been. I don’t care either way and it doesn’t make you correct.
First you assume that I’m a man. And then you assume that I’m angry. Those are condescending statements. . Don’t make assumptions. I haven’t made assumptions about you, even though you keep insisting that ‘I don’t get it’. And, yeah, BTW it’s not cool to assume people’s gender identity. Especially when you have no idea who I am or what I present as. Also, why do you assume AV Club is currently any better than a subreddit? We’re all here expressing our personal opinions. You’re no better than anyone else.
I don’t care if you’re a man, woman, or space alien, the fact of the matter is, your opinion is wrong and inaccurate. The inaccuracy you even admitted to. Plain and simple. Don’t like it, stop replying. You can also stop moving the goalposts into identity politics too. Your gender is irrelevant to a discussion about a TV show on the internet.
When you call someone a ‘boy’, you’re the one bringing gender into this. Also, there is nothing ‘precious’ about this or any other show. It seems that you are MUCH more invested in the show’s content than anyone else, including the person who wrote the article. If you don’t like that then the onus is on you to ‘stop replying’. And, also, don’t watch this fucking show if it upsets you so much. This website is all about voicing opinions which cannot inherently be wrong or right.
Except that you wrote: “But he’s a wealthy white male” so sounds like you made it about gender from the get go.Between that and the caps lock being used and comments like “don’t watch this fucking show if it upsets you so much.” tells me that you’re the one here with the “Jerry West” anger issues.But go on, keep replying and moving those goal posts and demonstrating your hypocrisy. Its all you got since you don’t have an argument and are just mad and hysterical that not everyone is gushing over your precious TV show. lolololol
Seriously.Adam McKay’s burner confirmed.
You’re greyed now? What happened?
Honestly not sure, haha – nuAVC gon’ nuAVC?
Boy this place has really gone down the toilet hasn’t it? Long timers like you get pushed aside in favor of these fanboys over from Reddit.
Your opinion is wrong. That’s beautiful. Way to out yourself in one thread as an ageist dullard who doesn’t even understand what opinion means.
Hi, Adam!I can’t imagine why Will Ferrell doesn’t want you in his life.
There’s nothing to sue over. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Embellishment of actual events for storytelling purposes is acceptable. Moreso with public figures. They can write sternly worded letters, but his attorneys would be idiots to actually file anything. West doesn’t have a case, but Magic REALLY doesn’t have a case.
Except that i’m not arguing whether or not he has a right to sue or if he’ll win, i’m saying in general, its not a positive depiction of him period, so its understandable he’s upset. Just because you all are big fans of the show, doesn’t mean that its okay to offend the people that are being depicted in the show.
You wrote:“And the reason why Magic hasn’t sued (yet) is because he has his own documentary out on Apple TV”The reason Magic hasn’t sued is because he has no case, not because he has his own documentary series out.
I also wrote: Except that i’m not arguing whether or not he has a right to sue or if he’ll win, i’m saying in general, its not a positive depiction of him period, so its understandable he’s upset.While the reason why Magic has not even publicly commented about this show, let alone sue, is exactly because he has own show that he’s concerned about instead.
Why do you think Magic Johnson will sue the show when that publicity from his own show dies down? Have you read the case law on this?
What are you even arguing about? If I and the OP even admit that whether or not anyone has the right to sue or win about this is moot to the fact that the depictions are not accurate or positive, and he has a right to publicly complain about it, then what are you even trying to say other than like IMHO, you’re just mad that someone dared criticized your precious TV show?
You said Magic hasn’t sued “yet”. What have you seen from the show that makes you think Magic Johnson will sue?
Its funny how you can’t seem to address and answer my question as far as what are you arguing about now since I said to you twice now that whether or not they have a case to sue, is irrelevant.
Oh wells. Back to the grays you go.
And you can’t answer why you are so certain Magic Johnson will sue. Weird how you keep dodging a very simple question. I guess you realized you were talking out of your ass.
Yeah, I get it. So, I should have felt sorry for Elizabeth Holmes while watching The Dropout? I don’t have to ‘like’ any character, real or fiction, to enjoy a series or movie. That would be inherently uninteresting.
No, you don’t get it. Because the point you seem to be missing repeatedly here is that the people being depicted in question don’t have to like it either and have the right to vocally and openly express their disapproval of it. “Rich white man” or not. And not in this case since Kareem is not happy with his depiction either.
Did Kareem threaten to sue? Did he disparage the show by stating that all creatives involved are depicting people in a certain way due to a ratings grab? Because that is the very specific action that this article is discussing.
In fact, as the OP of this thread pointed out, Kareem did write an essay pointing out exactly that. He specifically said the show is “deliberately dishonest” and “exploitative.” The AV Club wrote an article about that too.As I noticed, you’re good at intentionally overlooking things just to push your own narrative and fawning fanboyism.
When did the Supreme Court rule on portrayal of a real person in a false light in a piece of fiction? Asking sincerely, since I have not heard of such a case.
Time, Inc. v. Hill. And they aren’t being portrayed in a false light. They’re being exaggerated for dramatic effect.
I would not conclude he was an alcoholic based on those scenes.
My conclusion is that you AV Club commenters are such huge fans of this show, that you’ll willingly overlook details like that just to stan for it.
I expected this sort of thing from Reddit. Not here.
I am not saying it is an accurate portrayal of Jerry West. I know jack shit about Jerry West. I just mean, those scenes do not imply he is an alcoholic as I said. The original poster included alcoholic in his description and your post seemed to be supporting that claim.
I just mean, those scenes do not imply he is an alcoholic as I said.
What are you even basing this on? Your opinions and feelings? Some kind of personal standard of what you think an alcoholic is? Have you actually watched the show to see how he’s very clearly depicted as an alcoholic? So much that another former Lakers player Jamaal Wilkes said, “In all the time I knew Jerry as a coach and as a Laker executive, I never saw him drink alcohol on the job nor did I ever see him intoxicated or impaired.”
He is not clearly depicted as an alcoholic. I did not infer that from the character’s behavior.
Asking you again, what are you basing this off of? Your own personal, subjective feelings and biases here of what you want an alcoholic to be in order to justify your opinion that Jerry West is wrong because it interferes with you liking this show? Just stop replying to me if you’re not going to answer and talk about this in good faith.
No, I am talking in good faith. Did Jerry West claim they made him look like an alcoholic? If so, I do disagree. I thought he just claimed they made him look like a raging asshole. The behavior shown does not suggest the character is an alcoholic. If he never drinks, he may perceive any amount of drinking that way.
Especially since he hasn’t been shown as an angry drunk since, and has actually been shown to be a pretty decent, if a bit intense, guy.
Dude have you watched past the first 2 episodes? The character has had an awesome story arc and is portrayed as a pretty good person all in all. His scene with Magic in the latest episode might be the best in the show, other than the excellent scene with Kareem and Magics dad at Christmas dinner. All these complaints seem to be from people who have not watched more than the first few episodes or have only watched specific clips.
Dude, i’ve seen every single episode of this show. Seems to me, like IMHO, you rather just intentionally pretend and forget all of those scenes of him smashing up things in a drunken rage because you’re such a biased fanboy of this series, you can’t stand and handle even the tiniest criticism invading your simplistic black and white world.
I think you’re lying. You also might want to go outside, get some air.
From his own goddamn autobiography: “Playing an individual sport might have been less tormenting for me, but I don’t know that for sure. I have broken a lot of clubs in my life. On purpose. There was a place not far from Bel-Air Country Club that repaired them, and I would often put a broken club (or two) in front of their door early in the morning, well before they opened, with no note. No note was necessary, because they knew the clubs were mine. I have even thrown some over the fence of Bel-Air. If you don’t believe me, ask Pat Riley. He witnessed it.”From LA Times sports writer Bill Plaschke: “He couldn’t stand watching the games. The pressure got to him. Some of the greatest Laker games ever, he’s out — he tells stories that he’s driving up and down the 101 going to Santa Barbara and back, going to see a movie, during the game. The pressure got to him when he couldn’t control it. When he couldn’t be on the court and control it, it drove him crazy. He’d build a team and then he’d run away from it and cover his ears and hope, hope he did great.”I’m sorry your image of Saint Jerry has been tarnished. Its gonna be alright. If you actually watched the show and not just said you did to argue with people on the fucking AV club you’d see he is coming across as a pretty likable character.
You mean the same Claire Rothman who spoke up in support of Jerry West?
““HBO’s not wrong in the slightest” is, well, one way to put it?”It’s also OBVIOUSLY facetious, if you own and utilize at least one half of a brain.
I thought “HBO’s not wrong in the slightest” referred to the fact that you typically don’t get to demand a retraction of fiction—not to the idea that the portrayal was accurate. It wouldn’t be unheard of, but it would be extraordinarily hard for West to sue for defamation based on Clarke’s portrayal in Winning Time. Normally, if someone says something inaccurate about you in a newspaper article or documentary, and it’s something you would , you demand a retraction, and if the other party refuses, you sue. That last step doesn’t seem like much of a threat, here, because it’s fiction. Jerry West may be unhappy with his portrayal, and he’s welcome to correct the record in open letters and interviews, but he doesn’t have much recourse to make them stop or apologize, and neither does Kareem.
Not to mention that as a public figure, there’s a higher bar for him to clear to claim damages in a defamation or reputation-based action. It would have to be false with malicious intent to denigrate his character. The fact that it’s not true and is not flattering would probably not meet that threshold. It would have to be demonstrated that there was actual intent to harm his reputation, rather than just that being the result (in West’s mind at least).
wasn’t there a story a few weeks back about HBO never getting the NBA or Laker’s permission to use their logos and images? since Jerry West is the logo i wonder if maybe the NBA steps in now.
I mean, it is a little unfair to criticize a comedy show for asking us to laugh at its characters?Also the Jerry West character on the show is quite sympathetic if obviously fictionalized/ heightened. His talk with Magic in the last episode about how much getting 10 more points (in key playoff games) and 5 more rings would have meant to him & seeing that same competitive drive/ compulsion in Magic was a nice way to connect those characters I thought.
Agreed. I feel the show portrays him as a decent guy, and even when he does stuff like talking to Elgin Baylor when the Westhead/Riley duo isn’t doing well, he does it for the sake of the team, and not for the sake of being an asshole.
Yea, it’s unfair to portray currently-living people as something they aren’t.This should not be something that needs to be said.
If it was a half-hour show sold as a comedy it would probably be less of an issue. I don’t know if it reads as comedy especially to someone not used to the modern comedy-drama prestige cable format.
Hard not to watch John C Reilly in those clothes as Dr Buss and not understand that they are going for some degree of comedy though
Late 70s fashion was messed up.(My mom still has a picture some where of 8 year old me in a loud polyester shirt complete with butterfly collar)
What I want to know is how the hell did you guy not fly away when walking into a stiff breeze with those collars?Wait, was it because the flared trousers acted as spoilers?Well, you can tell by the he use his walk, tmage is a woman’s man, no time to talk…
I dunno, anyone who looks as much like Rip Taylor as Jerry Bus did… it’s hard to tell if they’re turning it up to 11 or turning it *down*
I know very little about basketball and I’ve really enjoyed this show so far. I don’t think West comes off bad: I think if anything he really comes off as nuanced and driven. In regards to the drinking and anger, it’s amplified a bit but at the same point he’s not some insane, violent maniac. I legit could see him being this competitive: a lot of truly great players are.Also, I love Adrian Brody as Pat Riley. No idea why, but he just feels RIGHT in that part. Like I said I’m not a big basketball guy but as someone who had a lot of Knicks fans as friends, I absolutely knew who he was.
I am not a huge fan of Adrien Brody but I also have really enjoyed him as Pat Riley, his blend of desperation and drive & toughness
I am also not a basketball fan. I know little about the public figures and can’t speak to accuracy. The period depicted and the intertwining plot lines are very well done, fun and interesting to watch; I find most of the depictions to be multilayered in nature. Human beings can have wonderful qualities and/or horrible habits and behaviors without being terrible people or Saints. Also, knowing McKay, a lot of artistic license is exercised while trying to entertain.
I think their West started off as a caricature, all big personality and only highs and lows, but he’s had an actual character arc, and that made his short talk with Magic all the more impactful. I can get why the real Jerry West might not be thrilled, but at least he’s not Magic…
I’m kind of with West on this one. While it seems similar to “The Crown” upsetting a bunch of British royals, their gripe seems to be more that some show would have the temerity to reveal a bunch of negative stuff about British royalty, and reveal that they’re actually *gasp* bad people. Whereas HBO did a patently false characterization of West just to make some tension in the show, and then hid behind the shield of “dramatization”.
I think Abdul-Jabar said it best, as he is wont to do, that HBO did a “facile exploitation of the man rather than exploration of character” in order to fill the quota of what I think is the tired trope of “egomaniacal authority figure throws tantrums” that seems to be in vogue. Basically, unlike the British royals, West has a ton of people who were around at the time saying he was nothing but calm and patient and never engaged in these rage-a-holic stunts or got drunk in his office. Instead of painting a decent guy like a buffoon to pigeon-hole him in some bad guy role, just make the next documentary, I mean, dramatization, about Donald Sterling or Dan Snyder or some actual villain.
I’m sorry, but Jerry West isn’t doing himself ANY favors by trying to sue HBO over this fictional series. I would argue that some of the most despicable people portrayed in HBO ‘documentaries’ have a (somewhat) better legal argument for suing the network than any of the people who are portrayed in this series. What about all the women in this show and other shows that are portrayed unfairly? They maybe get chances to defend themselves, but female subjects don’t send legally threatening documents to a huge content creator like HBO/Warner – in a VERY public way. If what these players and coaches say is true, that the people who were there don’t agree with these depictions, than STFU and keep doing your own shit. You know, like the numerous docs about Kareem, Magic, Michael, Larry, etc. Go watch 30 for 30.
“What about all the women in this show and other shows that are portrayed unfairly?”So, West can’t have a problem with hisbportratal if he also doesn’t have a problem with how a bunch of people he doesn’t know are portrayed?Man, the lengths people will go to defend people who are purposely mischaracterizing real, live people…
Your HO is about as trash as this series.
This show stinks. Adam McKay, excepting Succession, has really lost his instinct. But the minute you decide to be famous you sign away the ability to control your legacy in the popular imagination. I think critiques are perfectly reasonable (and Abdul-Jabbar is right about the show) but I also think that if the people depicted in a bio pic are happy, the creator has probably fucked up. You want the final word? Write a memoir.
As if he has much of an influence on Succession. Anybody who knows Jesse Armstrong’s work knows it’s Armstrong all the way.
Site quality was already dropping and now even your idea of what a good take is starting to sink
If I were Jerry West I would simply be happy no one ever brings up that I was the GM of the Grizzlies, and on my way out the door I gave Pau Gasol to the Lakers (my former employer) for peanuts.
Perceived correctly at the time as peanuts. In the long term Marc Gasol would turn out to be a multi year all star and Defensive Player of the Year.
I’m confused. When do we get to be sympathetic to mental health issues?
Oh, yeah, when it’s not a white guy.
Former Lakers played Kareem Abdul-Jabbar —> Former Lakers player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Be interested to know how much of the show Jerry West has actually watched.
He doesn’t come over very well at the start, to point that he is introduced with a caption along the lines of calling him an asshole.
But he’s evolved into a far more sympathetic character. A man like the real West who clearly loves the team and has given his to helping them behind the scenes.
His scene with Magic this week is great and shows him helping Magic become the legend he is going to be.
Folks, it really is okay to like a thing AND be critical of it. It’s also okay to fall on the side of treating real human beings with respect.
Are his mental health issues actually being played for laughs?
Not in the way you’re hoping they are, no.
What did you pull from my brief post that made you assume I was hoping for…well, anything?
What is this world we live in if there is no hope?
Hope. The last; cruelest of them all. The one with bitter, stinging wings.
Not at all. He’s actually shown as being a decent guy. I seriously think people complaining have not watched more than the first 2 episodes.
Jerry West is now saying he’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, which totally sounds like something the fictionalized Jerry West would say and do. Maybe this HBO show is more true to life afterall
“You took a happy and super successful Lakers era and turned it into a pulpy soap opera”Yep, that’s the idea.
So wait a second, did Valery Legasov actually speak with a British accent or not?
Gabrielle, go do some research on Jerry West. His dad beat the shit out of him so badly that he’d sleep with a shotgun. As a child. Nice flippant headline and article, however. He definitely deserves to have his life bookended by horrible people abusing him because you guys like a tv show.Fuck you.
He is portrayed as cranky and he sure seems cranky. It’s a fun show regardless and I could care less if it strays from the truth a bit.
“…depictions are based on extensive factual research and reliable sourcing”Except, they aren’t, as evidenced by all the people saying these things never happened. Either call it fiction, or stay true to the text that is supposedly the basis of the stories. It’s like saying Abe Lincoln: Vampire Slayer is based on a US History textbook because there really was a guy named Abraham Lincoln mentioned in one of the chapters.
It’s not a documentary., But if you use real names of real people, you have a responsibility to be as accurate as possibnle and not change things for “dramatic purposes.”
Gabrielle, HBO’s response and your shilling for them doesn’t make either of you correct. We all know its a dramatization based on a real story, and not a documentary, but they are still using real names and characters who are cast because they look like the players, coaches or management. You think they weren’t thrilled to find a 6’11” actor to play Kareem? The characterization of Jerry West is not consistent with how he was in real life, or even how he was portrayed on the Showtime book this farce was based off of. One writer called West a nut, but virtually everyone else said he was a wonderful person, but wound too tight and cared to an unhealthy degree about his job and the team.So no. Just saying HBO is correct because this isn’t a doc is incredibly lame and shame on you for adding to this with your awful take. West is a legend, but also suffered from depression. Mocking him, and having those in the media further make it worse by referencing his age are just awful.