After 2 years have passed, we finally have a theatrical movie about the most famous #MeToo sexual harasser

[Dan Druff]

Yes, folks, Hollywood finally did it. There was one powerful, influential, old and overweight man who wreaked havoc upon the lives upon many famous and wannabe-famous women in show business.

It's great to finally see a movie about the monster whose exposure got the whole #MeToo started.

You know the man I'm talking about....

 

Roger Ailes?!?!?!?!!

Yes, folks, somehow when deciding to make a movie regarding a powerful man in show business demanding sexual favors in order to advance women's careers, the first choice for villain was Roger Ailes, and not Harvey Weinstein.

The movie "Bombshell" just released this week, and chronicles the supposed story of Ailes' antics at Fox News.




But okay, Roger Ailes indeed acted reprehensibly, and it's not unreasonable that they would want to make a movie about him.

They casted Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson, and Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly. They did a good job with the makeup, and both look like the women they're playing. Okay, so far, so good. John Lithgow plays Roger Ailes and doesn't really look like him, but whatever.

Then things go off the rails.

The third female lead character in the movie is Kayla Pospisil, played by Margot Robbie.

Ever heard of Fox News star Kayla Pospisil? Wait, you haven't??

That's because Kayla Pospisil isn't real. She's a fictional character made up by the writers of the movie, supposedly a "composite" of a lot of different women at Fox. This already starts to hurt the film's credibility. It's one thing to make a lookalike character when the original doesn't want their name or likeness used. It's another thing to invent a completely fictitious woman whose sexual harassment story we're supposed to care about, in a film which is supposed to be depicting close-to-actual events.

But the Kayla character actually isn't a composite. Kayla calls herself an "evangelical millennial", is young, blonde, and ambitious, and has a big social media presence. Sound like anyone you might know? Yup, she's clearly a fictional version of Tomi Lahren, who oddly enough wasn't even at Fox until August 2017, was only a "contributor" at that point, and never made any sexual harassment allegations against Ailes. Most of the film takes place in 2016, when Lahren was with The Blaze.

So why the fake Tomi Lahren as the third main character? No fucking clue.

But it gets worse.

Kayla eventually joins Bill O'Reilly's staff, and meets a show producer named Jess Carr (played by Kate McKinnon). Jess Carr is a closeted lesbian, you see, and is also a clandestine left-winger who secretly despises Fox and its politics, but hides all of this so she can keep her job.

Do you remember the story of O'Reilly producer Jess Carr? You don't? Well, guess what? She's fictitious, too.

Unlike the claim about the Kayla character, the producers of "Bombshell" admit that Jess Carr is completely fictitious, and isn't even a supposed "composite" of other women at Fox. In fact, McKinnon herself told Jimmy Fallon during an interview that the role was "invented for her".

Anyway, sorry if I'm spoiling this, but it turns out that evangelical Christian millennial Kayla Pospisil is also a hypocritical closeted lesbian, and she begins a secret sexual relationship with the Jess Carr character. Oh, how scandalous! You see, every evangelical Christian is actually a hypocritical closeted homosexual, and most of the women at Fox aren't really on board with the message, but are just faking it. The place is clearly infested with left wing lesbians pretending to be on the right so they can keep their jobs.

Why include this storyline at all, if this is supposed to be a movie of the bad, evil, goings-on at Fox News? Looks like the writers simply couldn't resist the temptation to bash Christians. Dumb.

Look, if Hollywood wants to do a dramatized version of some bad stuff that happened at Fox News, I have no issue. Go for it. Expose the truth. Exaggerate a bit for dramatic effect. Whatever.

If Hollywood wants to release a movie about a fictional story of unlikely lesbian love spawning among staffers at a fictional right wing talk show, I have no issue. It's not a very interesting storyline, but if they want to make it, I have no problem.

But here they're selling the movie as giving you the inside scoop of what happened to real people at Fox (Calson & Kelly), and then they have to contaminate it with fictional characters created to further the producers' social agenda. When you mix very real characters with very fictional ones, the viewer is left incredibly confused as to what really happened at Fox -- and I don't believe it's made very clear in the movie which characters are fictitious.

What a bunch of Hollywood crap.

Now, will we ever see a movie about Weinstein -- whose transgressions were worse and more numerous than those committed by Ailes? Or are they too afraid to make such a thing about one of their own?

[ErickAA]

A little disappointed, but not really surprised, that Robbie would get involved in a partisan hit piece. I have thought she was really good in pretty much every movie I have seen her in, so was hoping she was a little more normal and balanced in real life. Obviously I am well aware of Theron's politics, so no surprises there.

I don't have any issue with a biographical hit piece against Ailes. He definitely earned it. But you are right, it is real sketchy to be making up characters to make political statements within a biography.

Eastwood actually did something similar in his Richard Jewel biopic, by having the female reporter slut around to get the scoop, and he was throroughly roasted for it by reviewers. I am guessing the reviewers won't be so critical with this instance.

[Sloppy Joe]

Which of Druff's conservative sources was so triggered by a fictional character? My guess is his boy Crowder.

That LPR is going to be out of control as soon as a comprehensive piece comes out about your raping stable genius.

Anyway, movies are fiction and characters can be written. Check out The Loudest Voice if you want more insight into state TV, no lesbian composites to object to.

Roger Ailes was an awful person, Bill O'Reilly has paid off over $45 million in rape and harassment settlements, Eric Bolling couldn't stop flashing his dick, even Kimberly Guilfoyle (hilariously now dating one of Trump's retarded boys) got popped.

Turns out Gretchen Carlson WAS hot enough to face rampant harassment.

The 'traditional Christian values' network.is anything but.

[Gordman]

Artists depiction of JimmyG_415 learning about this Fox News movie coming out.

[Hockey Guy]

After Druff's hot takes in the original thread he should be the last guy to criticize something over making shit up.

[Gordman]

On another note, isn't this the movie which the producers etc allegedly obtained a ton of photograph material from foot fetish websites in an (allegedly highly successfull) effort to recreate the Fox News office setting right down to the smallest detail?


Edit: Yes, I think it is:

https://www.vulture.com/2019/12/bomb...s-offices.html


Of course we cant 100% verify this yet, but personally I'm going to just wait to confirm this until we get JimmyG_415's opinion on this matter.

[Dan Druff]

Which of Druff's conservative sources was so triggered by a fictional character? My guess is his boy Crowder.

That LPR is going to be out of control as soon as a comprehensive piece comes out about your raping stable genius.

Anyway, movies are fiction and characters can be written. Check out The Loudest Voice if you want more insight into state TV, no lesbian composites to object to.

Roger Ailes was an awful person, Bill O'Reilly has paid off over $45 million in rape and harassment settlements, Eric Bolling couldn't stop flashing his dick, even Kimberly Guilfoyle (hilariously now dating one of Trump's retarded boys) got popped.

Turns out Gretchen Carlson WAS hot enough to face rampant harassment.

The 'traditional Christian values' network.is anything but.

Ummm... did you not understand any of the points I raised in my post?

This movie isn't supposed to be fiction. It's supposed to be a telling of the story of the brave women at Fox News who stood up to sexual harasser Roger Ailes.

Why are they inventing fake victims and fake lesbian relationships which have nothing to do with the actual story, as major characters and plot points?

My post wasn't a defense of Ailes, O'Reilly, or Fox News, and you know it. But you can only respond this way because you know I'm right. Your Hollywood left wing idols lack the ability to make movies without inserting bullshit propaganda, even if the truth itself is already harmful enough to the subjects they're depicting.

[Dan Druff]

A little disappointed, but not really surprised, that Robbie would get involved in a partisan hit piece. I have thought she was really good in pretty much every movie I have seen her in, so was hoping she was a little more normal and balanced in real life. Obviously I am well aware of Theron's politics, so no surprises there.

I don't have any issue with a biographical hit piece against Ailes. He definitely earned it. But you are right, it is real sketchy to be making up characters to make political statements within a biography.

Eastwood actually did something similar in his Richard Jewel biopic, by having the female reporter slut around to get the scoop, and he was throroughly roasted for it by reviewers. I am guessing the reviewers won't be so critical with this instance.

I actually don't hold this against Margot Robbie or any other actor/actress appearing in the film. Their job is to act, and that's it.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote. Ailes definitely deserves the criticism, but it's really shitty to insert fictional characters and fictional situations into a supposedly accurate depiction of the Fox News story, just to push a particular political narrative.

The truth of the Fox News story was interesting enough without the need for any fiction. You had the sexual harassment committed by both Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, some of which was against well known news anchors. You had the Megyn Kelly battle against Trump. You had the #MeToo movement and subsequent exposure of the bad behavior. This is more than enough material for a movie, and it's shameful that some writer or producer felt that they had to insert fiction in order to jab at evangelical Christians (who had nothing to do with all of this).

Sad!

[Hockey Guy]

Wow, movies based on real life events or even biographies have some fictionalized events or characters added.

Whodathunkit.

Give us more of your well thought out opinions & present them to us as factual statements.

[Crowe Diddly]

This movie isn't supposed to be fiction. It's supposed to be a telling of the story of the brave women at Fox News who stood up to sexual harasser Roger Ailes.

You know it's not a documentary, right? Just like all hollywood movies, pretty much. Because its a movie based on a real story, not a real story. Characters get combined, things get added to move the story along in the correct amount of time, and to make better movies. Even noted non-liberals like Clint Eastwood do this, because EVERYBODY does it. If you need a dozen or so quick examples, just ask, because they are easily found. Harder to find movies based on true stories that don't add significant details for story purposes, than to find movies that do.

Also, there are like half a dozen movies and docs on Weinstein in the works, including a horror movie by Brian De Palma, since you asked if we'd ever see one. We won't see one, we'll see multiples. But if you did a 5 second google search you'd know that, too.

[Dan Druff]

This movie isn't supposed to be fiction. It's supposed to be a telling of the story of the brave women at Fox News who stood up to sexual harasser Roger Ailes.

You know it's not a documentary, right? Just like all hollywood movies, pretty much. Because its a movie based on a real story, not a real story. Characters get combined, things get added to move the story along in the correct amount of time, and to make better movies. Even noted non-liberals like Clint Eastwood do this, because EVERYBODY does it. If you need a dozen or so quick examples, just ask, because they are easily found. Harder to find movies based on true stories that don't add significant details for story purposes, than to find movies that do.

Also, there are like half a dozen movies and docs on Weinstein in the works, including a horror movie by Brian De Palma, since you asked if we'd ever see one. We won't see one, we'll see multiples. But if you did a 5 second google search you'd know that, too.

So do you really think this was just dramatic license to make the movie more interesting?

Or do you possibly think it might have been to further a political agenda?

I'm sure it's a total coincidence that a fictional evangelical character turned out to be gay, even though that had zero point zero to do with the actual Fox News story.

[JimmyG_415]

If this "based on true life" movie was about a Dem, this would be glowing review.

Ailes, like O'Rielly, was a sexual harasser, there is way more proof of that, (like lawsuits, witness' and court documents going back decades before Fox), than you required to say, w/100% certainty, that Hillary and Chelsea hate each other. What was that a book so badly sourced, only Brietbart would publish it? Has about as much truth to it as a John Soloman/Hannity segment.

If it is anything like the "Loudest Voice", they will expose Ailes as the propagandist that he was, & that the entire premise of Fox "news" was just that, a biased channel for republicans. And looking at this post, it worked.

And FTR, if you watched anything but Fox, you'd have known about this movie months ago.

[TheXFactor]

Megyn Kelly was the most over-priced whore on Fox News. Definitely not worth $20 million a year. Did the movie show that she was fired by NBC for making racist comments about blackface?

How are the sex scenes in this movie?

Does it show dozens of women coming into Roger Ailes office to give him a blow job?

[Sloppy Joe]

Which of Druff's conservative sources was so triggered by a fictional character? My guess is his boy Crowder.

That LPR is going to be out of control as soon as a comprehensive piece comes out about your raping stable genius.

Anyway, movies are fiction and characters can be written. Check out The Loudest Voice if you want more insight into state TV, no lesbian composites to object to.

Roger Ailes was an awful person, Bill O'Reilly has paid off over $45 million in rape and harassment settlements, Eric Bolling couldn't stop flashing his dick, even Kimberly Guilfoyle (hilariously now dating one of Trump's retarded boys) got popped.

Turns out Gretchen Carlson WAS hot enough to face rampant harassment.

The 'traditional Christian values' network.is anything but.

Ummm... did you not understand any of the points I raised in my post?

This movie isn't supposed to be fiction. It's supposed to be a telling of the story of the brave women at Fox News who stood up to sexual harasser Roger Ailes.

Why are they inventing fake victims and fake lesbian relationships which have nothing to do with the actual story, as major characters and plot points?

My post wasn't a defense of Ailes, O'Reilly, or Fox News, and you know it. But you can only respond this way because you know I'm right. Your Hollywood left wing idols lack the ability to make movies without inserting bullshit propaganda, even if the truth itself is already harmful enough to the subjects they're depicting.

Because it's a movie, dummy.

Unlike the propaganda that Fox News feeds its viewership nightly, most people are able to consume films and accept this.

Creative choices are made, just like how Clint Eastwood chose to present psychopath Chris Kyle in American Sniper by leaving out all of the weirdness and lies, and how he invented a deceased female reporter sleeping around to get information in Richard Jewell.

At least the inclusion of this character gave you something to whine about.

The things that trigger MAGAtards are so, so weird.

[Crowe Diddly]

So do you really think this was just dramatic license to make the movie more interesting?

Or do you possibly think it might have been to further a political agenda?

I'm sure it's a total coincidence that a fictional evangelical character turned out to be gay, even though that had zero point zero to do with the actual Fox News story.

OF COURSE IT HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA. This is a fictional story about Roger Fucking Ailes, probably the single largest peddler of right wing propaganda and misinformation of our lifetime, told from the victims' side. It's a tale impossible to tell without having one. The fact that it pads the story with a right wing evangelical (a symbol of the group that supported Ailes the most, I'm gonna guess) who turns out to be gay, not exactly a mind-blowingly original trope of hypocrisy, is pretty much par for the course of a dramatic story like this. To act like you are shocked and outraged by such a thing, to be like "but the story itself was bad enough!", that's just nonsense, because fictional stories based on real shit ALWAYS throw in extra dramatic stuff.

Imagine being pissed off that the dramatic telling of the Roger Ailes story paints one side of the political spectrum unduly harshly.

If there's thicker irony to be found on this board today, I shall be interested in seeing it.


Also, imagine if the story was told BY Roger Ailes, and how he might have treated his political opponents on film.

[DJ_Chaps]

DRUFFS POINTS STAND. FUCKING FAGGOTS DEBATING A FAGGOT MOVIE ON WEEK 16 NFL SUNDAY. SAD.

[Dan Druff]

So do you really think this was just dramatic license to make the movie more interesting?

Or do you possibly think it might have been to further a political agenda?

I'm sure it's a total coincidence that a fictional evangelical character turned out to be gay, even though that had zero point zero to do with the actual Fox News story.

OF COURSE IT HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA. This is a fictional story about Roger Fucking Ailes, probably the single largest peddler of right wing propaganda and misinformation of our lifetime, told from the victims' side. It's a tale impossible to tell without having one. The fact that it pads the story with a right wing evangelical (a symbol of the group that supported Ailes the most, I'm gonna guess) who turns out to be gay, not exactly a mind-blowingly original trope of hypocrisy, is pretty much par for the course of a dramatic story like this. To act like you are shocked and outraged by such a thing, to be like "but the story itself was bad enough!", that's just nonsense, because fictional stories based on real shit ALWAYS throw in extra dramatic stuff.

Imagine being pissed off that the dramatic telling of the Roger Ailes story paints one side of the political spectrum unduly harshly.

If there's thicker irony to be found on this board today, I shall be interested in seeing it.


Also, imagine if the story was told BY Roger Ailes, and how he might have treated his political opponents on film.

Come on, this isn't just a case of exaggeration for dramatic effect, and you know it.

They added a hypocritical evangelical closeted lesbian character to the story when no such person is said to ever have held a prominent position at Fox News, then laughably called her a "composite of 25 women we interviewed". Right.

Then they added another totally phony character they ADMIT was fake, just so they could have that character bash the Fox News audience as nothing but a bunch of racist simpletons. A class of Screenwriting 101 would flunk a film school student for adding a gratuitous character simply to give a voice to their own political views.

This isn't just "padding". It's adding totally fictious major characters and events to what is supposed to be an expose of a true story. These events and characters have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that is even rumored to have gone on at Fox News, so why add them?

You know why. Christian-bashing, Republican-bashing, and Fox News bashing.

Making an unflattering depiction of Roger Ailes and Fox News wasn't enough. They are so tilted over Trump and Fox News' very existence that they had to slam both Christians and Fox's audience just for spite.

Let's say they added a fictitious character who was actually raped by Ailes, rather than pressured or sexually harassed. At least you could say that the only "victim" in this is the very unsympathetic Ailes, and that adding such a scene makes a more dramatic and powerful movie. That I would understand.

Here they just added gratuitous characters to bash both Christians and the Fox News audience as a whole. That's the entire purpose for them existing.

Why stop there? Why not add another character to the story who is a male Fox News host that molests 8-year-old boys? How about throwing in another fictitious host who's a secret killer in his spare time? Dramatic license, amirite?

Look, they can do what they want with their silly movie, but I just find it incredibly lame that they have to insert completely unrelated situations just to prove that Christians are bad and Fox viewers are evil/ignorant.

You guys wonder why Trump gets some credibility when he rants about "hit pieces", "propaganda", and "fake news". All you have to do is open cnn.com or watch a movie like this, and suddenly you see that the left pretty much can't be honest about anything these days, even when the truth would hurt enough.

[Crowe Diddly]

Come on, this isn't just a case of exaggeration for dramatic effect, and you know it.

The first line of my response was, in capital letters, "OF COURSE IT HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA." But you just write the response you want to anyway, regardless of what I wrote.

A class of Screenwriting 101 would flunk a film school student for adding a gratuitous character simply to give a voice to their own political views.

Considering this isn't a documentary, you may be surprised to learn that screenwriters and directors and producers quite often insert characters simply to give voice to their own views. It's borderline retarded to think that would be shunned in film-making. Again, I feel the need to remind you this is not a documentary, but you will still take it personally as if it was.


Roger Ailes spent the last half of his life running a "news" organization that promoted false stories and misinformation about his political opponents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for years and years and years.

If it outright ridiculous to complain the way you have that the THEATRICAL DRAMATIZATION of his story includes things that never happened just to make Republicans look bad, when Roger did that ON A NEWS NETWORK for years and years and years.

Literally less than no sympathy.

[gimmick]

Yea generally question marking what you can do to this story. Step one, not a documentary. The imaginary middle that barely exist, that Druff hasn't been a part since forever isn't the target demographic. Step two just add shit that you assume that works with the target demography. This is all very basic and ties in to the part that investors kinda prefer to get some money back. Work from those two steps back and see if everything makes sense.

[nightmarefish]

I don’t think there’s much to see here Druff (pun intended). Movies do this all the time. Most recently Tarantino did it in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood.