Talk:The People vs. Larry Flynt/Archive 1

POV attack on underlying Court decision

I've reverted the addition of a reference to an essay attacking the Supreme Court decision at issue in the movie because 1) it is only tangentially related to the movie, because it addresses the decision instead (and is already mentioned in the article on the case); 2) it is being included by 142.103.168.15 to push his POV that, as he put it, the "vicious and malicious libel" by Flynt had an "extremely dubious" claim to free speech. This is irrelevant to the article on the film and inappropriate POV. Postdlf 14:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the article on the film?!!! Excuse me, comments on the *central semantic content* of the film are irrelevant in an article on the film itself? (What is the title of the movie?) I am mildly flabbergasted. 142.103.168.15 03:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's POW regardless. If your going to discuss the real court case as apposed how the movie depicts it then it would be better to discuss it in the Larry Flynt article or even the Jerry Falwell article (or both). --Cab88 00:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the actual article on the real court case. Postdlf 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censored movie poster?

Shouldn't this be added? The original movie poster was censored (the one on this page is the alternative one). Ironic, because this film is about free speach. I was looking for an image of the original movie poster on wiki, and was surprised to see this wasn't even mentioned. (an image can be found on imdb) 213.219.142.15 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add that information, though be careful about calling it "censorship" if it was pulled by the studio in response to complaints, and make sure you find a reliable source explaining why the poster was switched. If I remember correctly, the original poster had Harrelson in Jesus-on-crucifix pose in an American flag loincloth, right? Postdlf 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the French movieposter (featuring the original image) can be found here: http://perso.orange.fr/universdejjs/Films/larry_flynt.jpg . I won't be adding this information though because I haven't got a source, it's just something I remember vaguely from when this movie came out. Just trying to find out if there are people that do have objective information about this. 213.219.152.113 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dudley

Is Richard Dudley really in the movie? He's not listed on IMDB and his link on wikipedia goes to a professor of mathematics. In fact, his name doesn't even exist on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.212.94 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance or Advertisement?

I've got a double problem, with the film and the page either. How the life -story of the hustler man is been told, it#s real advertisement for selfmademan and pornography. The so called free speach contents different borders. If somebody is insultet personally, there has the freedom of the press been cuted. And the winner way of bad taste journalism hasn't got an antipode in fiction or real life. A visible hypocrit isn't the right folie to struggle with this form of claiming. Fat strategies forever!

And somehow the whole movie is a glorification of addictivness. The page problem means, I think the story is built in another way than told. The couple, the partners which is/are playing these games evoke(s] the action [movens]._ and if this fact is left out, the story doesn't seem reasonable, but flat.Do it again! Little.--Danaide (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Adaptation changes

The screenwriters simplify history by condensing Flynt's many lawyers into one, played by Edward Norton. Norton's character is named Alan Isaacman, after the actual lawyer who argued the Supreme Court case for Flynt, but Isaacman was not the lawyer who was wounded in the 1978 shooting of Flynt. The real lawyer was Gene Reeves Jr., who was based in Lawrenceville, Ga., where the shooting took place.

The film also shows Flynt and his attorney being pursued by a large, aggressive media contingent just before the shooting, but in fact the two men were alone when walking back from having lunch near the courthouse. Trials of Flynt were so frequent at that time that they got only moderate media attention.

Flynt is portrayed as being shot from the window of the second story of a building when he was shot from the door of the first floor of the building.
Almost no mention is given of Flynt's three wives before he marries Althea. Flynt briefly alludes to having been married when Althea suggests marriage.
In the film, Flynt meets Althea at his club in Cincinnati, but in reality, Flynt had several Ohio clubs, and the two met when she worked in Columbus.
In the film, Flynt experiences total pain loss after one nerve-deadening surgery. In reality, Flynt underwent three surgeries. Only after the final one in 1994 did he experience complete pain loss.
No mention is given of Flynt's five children that he had before being paralyzed.
In the film, Larry Flynt decides to start a magazine after reading a copy of Playboy. In real life, he decided to start a magazine to raise cash because bad investments he made brought him close to bankruptcy.
Criticism of his work in the film is limited to the "Moral Majority" group, and Christians, whereas in real life, he has been frequently criticized by feminists.
No mention of his political career - in 1984, he briefly ran for U.S. President as a Republican against Ronald Reagan. In fact a scene where we see Larry announcing that he was running for president was shot but not included in the final cut of the movie, however it is available as an extra in the Special Edition DVD.
At the beginning of the movie we see a 10-year-old Larry Flynt selling alcohol he made himself. In real life, it happened in his twenties and he sold liquor he bought, not liquor he made.

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced reception info, moved from article to talk page

Rolling Stone, USA Today and Newsday all hailed it as the best film of 1996. [1]Metacritic gave 79 based on 24 reviews. USA Today says that "Forman finesess the story's grimmer aspects as he did in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his ability to swich moves on a dime remains unsurpassed". The New York Times called it a "triumph" and said that "A blazing, unlikely triumph about a man who's nobody's idea of a movie hero. Smart, funny, shameless entertainment and perfectly serious". Newsweek praised Courtney Love's performance. Time Magazine said that the film "Jogs from one incident to the next, amazing information and disspensing attitude, but rarely creating real characters. That's supposed to be director Milos Forman's forté; here, though, nearly everyone is an enemy or a stooge".

Unsourced reception info, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article

This article lists Richard Dudley as one of the stars, and links to that name. The link redirects to an article about a mathematician at MIT. Is that actually who's in the movie? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Richard Dudley was added by an anonymous editor on 19-Apr-2008. IMDB lists no one by that name in any role, much less a staring one. I have deleted the reference. Rwessel (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

picture

why not use the more controversial picture? instead of this dry one? 71.99.86.158 (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

such ass this picture

71.99.86.158 (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current theatrical poster seems to be more often used, and it also emphasizes the Freedom of Speech issues involved in the film. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

curent censored poster used in usa.. does not describe a shit.

71.99.86.158 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comport your language in a more polite and professional manner, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fu . fyi this is far from profesional forum.do not patronise me, or anyone else in that matter, you are not my fracking father. stop bothering me. go do something useful instead of posting "WELCOME" BS on people dynamic IP adress pages.

71.99.86.158 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial poster could be included as an additional image. Google News Search shows controversy over the poster, as reported by The New York Times. Google Books Search shows additional results. I would prefer to see the image added if someone makes an effort to flesh out this article as a whole to provide full context. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of 16:37, 27 July 2013‎ edit by (talk)

I don't believe this is correct, unless it is an artistic liberty taken by the movie merging two events. Flynt's Cincinnati conviction was simply overturned, although he did spend six days in jail. His behavior at a subsequent trial got him a 5.5 month psychiatric sentence, which was later also overturned. Rwessel (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film itself makes it appear that he spends five months of a 25 year sentence. In any event the case wasn't thrown out, he was in fact convicted for 25 years in the film's storyline. Then it shows him having a conversation with his wife saying that his lawyer doesn't think it'll stand up. It then cuts to five months later and the announcer at his rally says he's "fresh out of jail." I'll remove the line about him serving five months but you were wrong to remove the part saying he'd been convicted for 25 years because this is clearly stated within the trial.2.28.170.86 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these details are necessary. The plot should be kept concise. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's necessary when the synopsis is otherwise erroneous. You can't say he "escapes jail time" when he's clearly shown sent to jail AND in jail. That's not escaping jail time at all. Rephrase it if you want to make it more concise but the way you're trying to phrase it is factually inaccurate towards the events of the film.2.28.170.86 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Liscence

I'm curious why this entry doesn't have, as most similar entries would, a section on areas in which it veers from history.

For example, Alan Isaacman was not shot with Flynt. In fact, he wasn't even the lawyer in that case. Flynt had local counsel, Gene Reeves, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.162.238 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there *was* such a section, but it was deleted in this edit a year ago, since it cited no sources. Rwessel (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "With his success comes enemies" a correct phrasing?

Apokrif (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]