"I never said "Fk off" to the child actor (Ross Harris) in Airplane!, nor have I ever said that to any child. I realize this was a shorthand way of showing my perceived aloofness during that time, even though I have often spoken about my intense, almost debilitating shyness."

Winning Time" Isn't Just Deliberately Dishonest, It's Drearily Dull


https://kareem.substack.com/p/winning-time-isnt-just-deliberately

I was also surprised at the scene showing Kareem smoking pot. I didn't see him as that. Though, wouldn't be surprising considering the time and place.

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

Satire and parody have some protection. But also, a public figure has a higher standard of proof, where you need to prove both malice and intent. The real legal people here can probably say it better than I can.

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

I can't say it better. I never handled a defamation case and have not researched the latest law. It sure seems personal against West. They have not piled on such heinous personality flaws onto any other of the real life people depicted. If those things are not true, I hope he at least gets a public apology out of it.

On a side note, I was relieved to hear from Kareem that he never swore at that child actor in Airplane. I have a lot of respect for him and he is a lovely writer.*

*If the worst Kareem can say about Solomon Hughes' portrayal is that he (Kareem) comes off as a Pompous Pr@ick, then I suppose Solomon didn't offend him too deeply.

mbBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

Satire and parody have some protection. But also, a public figure has a higher standard of proof, where you need to prove both malice and intent. The real legal people here can probably say it better than I can.

---

I don't think an entertainment company should be allowed to profit when the distort a person's character, simply for entertainment profit making motives.

Did Jerry West actually go sleep with some woman after he won the championship? I imagine that's true, else they should lose a big $$$ lawsuit.

Did Kareem actually smoke pot? That also better be correct, else they should lose a big lawsuit (In my mind). I mean, you could say that by posting, I'm a public character, and people here might like to use my character for purposes of humor. Should that extend from my onscreen name to me in real life? I would think that is criminal. It's like online harrassment. The Laker basketball players should not become characters to be twisted from the reality of who they are simply so we can laugh at them.

Sarcasm: maybe we should use Deep Fake technology to make porno films showing Magic and Buss screwing women at the Hefner mansion. I bet a lot of people who like to see that characterization. We could create situations for Magic beyond just the sex that would be hilariously entertaining.
Should that be allowed? I don't think so.
And yet, if you watch the show, they have essentially done exactly that.

Magic was a basketball player. He was paid to entertain on the basketball court. He should have a right to privacy, and not be depicted in such a way as they have done. He is not seeking to be that type of public persona, is he? No, he always was behind a closed door, not on camera.

Privacy rights lawyers needed here.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

Kareem Abdul Jabar: How to Become a Man - Advice from Kareem


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a24745/kareem-how-to-become-a-man/

Life Lessons with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Kareem on What He Wished He'd Known


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a22394/kareem-things-i-wish-i-knew/

bearister said:

---

Kareem Abdul Jabar: How to Become a Man - Advice from Kareem


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a24745/kareem-how-to-become-a-man/

Life Lessons with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Kareem on What He Wished He'd Known


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a22394/kareem-things-i-wish-i-knew/

---

Thanks, Bearister. I have two sons in their early 30s - fortunately both are doing fine however I'm going to pass this along to them.

bearister said:

---

I can't say it better. I never handled a defamation case and have not researched the latest law. It sure seems personal against West. They have not piled on such heinous personality flaws onto any other of the real life people depicted. If those things are not true, I hope he at least gets a public apology out of it.

On a side note, I was relieved to hear from Kareem that he never swore at that child actor in Airplane. I have a lot of respect for him and he is a lovely writer.*

*If the worst Kareem can say about Solomon Hughes' portrayal is that he (Kareem) comes off as a Pompous Pr@ick, then I suppose Solomon didn't offend him too deeply.

---

Karem has bashed the TV program especially about West, and called it fiction and boring. If I'm HBO, I'm not offended by the former, but I am about the latter. I'm reading the book the show is based on, and the picture painted of West so far certainly isn't one of a guy with anger management/crazy issues.

No, boring is Tokyo Vice. Relatively plotless and one character with any charisma, Sato (Sho Kasamatsu). Giri/Haji has already beaten this show at its own game.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

Well, people apparently pay to watch strangers having sex.
So, absolutely, I can very much imagine such a scenario where people make LOTS of money off of dramas where college athletes have sex - for entertainment purposes.





New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, legal case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90) that, for a libel suit to be successful, the complainant must prove that the offending statement was made with " 'actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Specifically, the case involved an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times in March 1960 that outlined how African Americans had been oppressed and that asked readers to contribute money to the struggle to end racial segregation in the South.


https://www.britannica.com/event/New-York-Times-Co-v-Sullivan

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

Ah, the Supreme Court's endorsement of the great constitutional divide between "public figures" and "private figures." Good question. You are not getting certainty. The seminal Getz case said any plaintiff may be designated a public figure either "for all purposes" because of "pervasive fame or notoriety," or for a "limited purpose" because of "voluntarily inject[ing] himself [or herself] or [being] drawn into a particular public controversy" concerning "a limited range of issues." So a Cal basketball player probably is a public figure for purpose of say discussing Cal basketball or maybe even Pac 12 basketball. So if you say "x" is the worst shooter on the Cal team, and he or she is not, X doesn't get to sue you unless you acted with malice. That said if you said X slept with Y and he or she didn't, X is not a public figure for that purpose unless sleeping with Y had something to do with Cal basketball (like X slept with a coach). West and Jabbar clearly are public figures because of their pervasive fame.

Can you be sued for parody? No, courts have consistently held this. Entertainment? Maybe, but understanding and explaining that is way beyond my expertise.

concordtom said:

---

They just calculated the missed opportunity of magic choosing Converse for $100k per year over Nike:

$5.2B

---

This article calls BS.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/did-magic-johnson-really-turn-down-nike-deal-that-could-have-made-him-a-billionaire

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

They just calculated the missed opportunity of magic choosing Converse for $100k per year over Nike:

$5.2B

---

This article calls BS.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/did-magic-johnson-really-turn-down-nike-deal-that-could-have-made-him-a-billionaire

---

If it is any consolation, the TV show is taking major liberties from the book, but also just got renewed.

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

Well, people apparently pay to watch strangers having sex.
So, absolutely, I can very much imagine such a scenario where people make LOTS of money off of dramas where college athletes have sex - for entertainment purposes.





New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, legal case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90) that, for a libel suit to be successful, the complainant must prove that the offending statement was made with " 'actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Specifically, the case involved an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times in March 1960 that outlined how African Americans had been oppressed and that asked readers to contribute money to the struggle to end racial segregation in the South.


https://www.britannica.com/event/New-York-Times-Co-v-Sullivan

---

I don't see that this show is breaking new ground, especially related to college athletes, but hey, what do I know. Would Ball Four if written today be made into a movie? Sure, you are talking about the Yankees, and some real icons. Does anyone care about Allison Stokke, except to the extent her pictures were an example of "viral" beyond her control; her notoriety beyond a Cal fanbase is expanded only to the extent of being Ricky Fowler's significant other.
But would a "sexy" movie/mini-series about college athletes, male or female sell, especially as it's spiced up to create more of a buzz? I have no reason to doubt that you are right, but again, we haven't seen it yet-does that mean there hasn't been a sexy enough story?
But I'm also the person who thinks the Joe Roth story is waaaaay better than the "Rudy" tale, and Hollywood never went for that so, no I make no claim of expertise in this area at all.....

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

Well, people apparently pay to watch strangers having sex.
So, absolutely, I can very much imagine such a scenario where people make LOTS of money off of dramas where college athletes have sex - for entertainment purposes.





New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, legal case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90) that, for a libel suit to be successful, the complainant must prove that the offending statement was made with " 'actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Specifically, the case involved an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times in March 1960 that outlined how African Americans had been oppressed and that asked readers to contribute money to the struggle to end racial segregation in the South.


https://www.britannica.com/event/New-York-Times-Co-v-Sullivan

---

I don't see that this show is breaking new ground, especially related to college athletes, but hey, what do I know. Would Ball Four if written today be made into a movie? Sure, you are talking about the Yankees, and some real icons. Does anyone care about Allison Stokke, except to the extent her pictures were an example of "viral" beyond her control; her notoriety beyond a Cal fanbase is expanded only to the extent of being Ricky Fowler's significant other.
But would a "sexy" movie/mini-series about college athletes, male or female sell, especially as it's spiced up to create more of a buzz? I have no reason to doubt that you are right, but again, we haven't seen it yet-does that mean there hasn't been a sexy enough story?
But I'm also the person who thinks the Joe Roth story is waaaaay better than the "Rudy" tale, and Hollywood never went for that so, no I make no claim of expertise in this area at all.....

---

Already happened a decade ago - Blue Mountain State.

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

Well, people apparently pay to watch strangers having sex.
So, absolutely, I can very much imagine such a scenario where people make LOTS of money off of dramas where college athletes have sex - for entertainment purposes.





New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, legal case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90) that, for a libel suit to be successful, the complainant must prove that the offending statement was made with " 'actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Specifically, the case involved an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times in March 1960 that outlined how African Americans had been oppressed and that asked readers to contribute money to the struggle to end racial segregation in the South.


https://www.britannica.com/event/New-York-Times-Co-v-Sullivan

---

I don't see that this show is breaking new ground, especially related to college athletes, but hey, what do I know. Would Ball Four if written today be made into a movie? Sure, you are talking about the Yankees, and some real icons. Does anyone care about Allison Stokke, except to the extent her pictures were an example of "viral" beyond her control; her notoriety beyond a Cal fanbase is expanded only to the extent of being Ricky Fowler's significant other.
But would a "sexy" movie/mini-series about college athletes, male or female sell, especially as it's spiced up to create more of a buzz? I have no reason to doubt that you are right, but again, we haven't seen it yet-does that mean there hasn't been a sexy enough story?
But I'm also the person who thinks the Joe Roth story is waaaaay better than the "Rudy" tale, and Hollywood never went for that so, no I make no claim of expertise in this area at all.....

---

Already happened a decade ago - Blue Mountain State.

---

Yeah, I wasn't implying that thematically Hollywood hasn't gone down that path. But that was pure fiction right, not even the implication of a specific school? I was only reacting to the earlier posts implying that the door was open to talk about, and exaggerate the stories behind various college players (Jabari Bird and his story was mentioned.)
How the Jerry West battle turns out will be interesting....

wifeisafurd said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

I find the show is extremely watchable. That said, as my reading of the underlying book goes on (it is a page turner), the TV series moves away from the book significantly.

---

With all the hoopla attached, I thought this show was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I haven't yet watched this week's episode. Why? Because I'm kinda of bored by the whole thing. My feelings are more with Kareem on the whole thing. (I'll still watch this week's episode, eventually.)

I assumed it would be a limited series. I had no idea that it would be so slow and that it was intended to be stretched out into multiple seasons.

What particularly bothered me was in an earlier episode, Pat Riley says he's going to get the video to "KCAL."

Yes, Winning Time gets a lot of facts wrong.

But the Lakers TV station was famously KHJ.

In 1989, KHJ's call letters were changed to KCAL.

That's a minor error, but it really bothers me. Like how could you get something like that wrong?

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

West is a public figure so he would have to prove is scienter, which is sort like the intent to do harm, and these guys are just trying to play fast and loose to be entertaining, so I'm guessing West would have an uphill fight. Beaoiste could say this better, and would have a more credible perspective.

---

By extension, Jabari Bird was a public figure.
Should Hollywood get to create a docu-series about his private life?
Okay, he committed a crime, bad example.

Let's say this then - EVERY CAL BASKETBALL PLAYER is like West, an athlete engaged in entertainment. Does it matter the level (NBA vs College)? Maybe the show's producers should go around and find salacious sex stories of college athletes and expose their sex lives on TV.
What's the difference?
How many points you scored?
How many interviews you gave to TV crews?

Probably nearly every college basketball player has had sex, and I imagine some of it was "hot". So, why shouldn't those private lives details be subject to the same rationale you provided?

Let's play fast and loose with it to be entertaining - we could probably make a lot of money. And since these athletes, on scholarship at public universities, are known entitities to us, they are deemed "public figures".

What constitutes a "public figure"?
What are the limits of parody/entertainment/etc toward a "public figure"?

---

New York Times V. Sullivan is fundamental to the concept of "public figure."
Again, not a lawyer, but proving damages is fundamental, as is proving intentional malice, and "truth" is always going to be key.
College basketball players having sex? That's going to sell? Making money is still the key here. The Showtime Lakers brand is the initial attraction, to the extent they take liberties, it's driving (some) from episode to episode....

---

Well, people apparently pay to watch strangers having sex.
So, absolutely, I can very much imagine such a scenario where people make LOTS of money off of dramas where college athletes have sex - for entertainment purposes.





New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, legal case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90) that, for a libel suit to be successful, the complainant must prove that the offending statement was made with " 'actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Specifically, the case involved an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times in March 1960 that outlined how African Americans had been oppressed and that asked readers to contribute money to the struggle to end racial segregation in the South.


https://www.britannica.com/event/New-York-Times-Co-v-Sullivan

---

I don't see that this show is breaking new ground, especially related to college athletes, but hey, what do I know. Would Ball Four if written today be made into a movie? Sure, you are talking about the Yankees, and some real icons. Does anyone care about Allison Stokke, except to the extent her pictures were an example of "viral" beyond her control; her notoriety beyond a Cal fanbase is expanded only to the extent of being Ricky Fowler's significant other.
But would a "sexy" movie/mini-series about college athletes, male or female sell, especially as it's spiced up to create more of a buzz? I have no reason to doubt that you are right, but again, we haven't seen it yet-does that mean there hasn't been a sexy enough story?
But I'm also the person who thinks the Joe Roth story is waaaaay better than the "Rudy" tale, and Hollywood never went for that so, no I make no claim of expertise in this area at all.....

---

Already happened a decade ago - Blue Mountain State.

---

The movie "Love and Basketball" starring Cal alum Sanaaa Lathan is a classic. Often cited by WBB players as their favorite.

For anyone just picking up this thread, I recommend waiting until this season is over and binge watching. Don't watch 1 per week.

HBO also has a 90 minute show on Kareem's life. Made me cry. I'll really miss him when he's gone.

Wow, this scene from Sunday's episode is awesome. The actor who plays David Letterman looks just like him.

BeachedBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

mbBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Winning Time's portrayal of West is ridiculous. It is the worst part of the show. I don't blame West for being PO'd. Same with Westhead--they have him portrayed as a complete deer-in-the-headlights head case, which seems unlikely since he had prior college experience at LaSalle, and then later with Loyola Marymount, Denver, etc.

---

Yes, your post is exactly how I feel! If you were going to take liberties with West, why not make him "bigger than life" because of his history with the Lakers, his frustration with losing to the Celtics etc...okay, not as fun as the other stuff? I guess, but if it's so far off the mark, then it just doesn't make sense...
And I agree about Westhead too! If you were going to take liberties there, why not make him too "college," "too rah rah" etc, or okay, some intimidation factor...but he had already done too much with basketball for the deer in the headlights thing to make sense.
I get the entertainment factor...but I would think credibility would matter.

---

Totally.
And I TOTALLY want to ask the script writers those questions.
Where were they getting their info from?
How on earth can you go out and portray them that way?

I'd love to see them address those things on camera!!!

---

Yeah, I don't think this is a fine line...as others have said, it's entertainment, not Journalism. I don't think they would claim to have gotten that info from anywhere, they just did what was good for the entertainment value...

---

Agreed - I mean look at the casting - this is SUPPOSED to be funny, nostalgic and entertaining.

---

But if you take too many liberties, can people sue?

---

Sure - people can sue, but that doesn't mean they will win. I mean look at SNL or the Daily Show or Last Night Next Week or Fox or CNN or any other comedy programming. They do much worse personal attacks. I'll defer to our legal bears, but I think to win a suit, the liberties need to result in some sort of damage or reflect inaccuracy. no? Just because West doesn't like it, might not be enough.

---

SNL and other comedy shows that do skits are clearly comedies, telling jokes or skits that are clearly parody. The problem in this case is it is a quasi-documentary, it not obvious parody. I do think the damage to West's reputation is real. However, if he sues his chances of winning are probably close to nil.

okaydo said:

---

Wow, this scene from Sunday's episode is awesome. The actor who plays David Letterman looks just like him.

---

I was thinking, "who the hell posted this!", until the end.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cdb8TFML3Bn/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=

As I am often a little bit behind (and sometimes a lot), I finally finished watching "Winning Time". I was maybe going to bypass it completely, but "Gen X"ers in my family told me how great it was.

While it was sometimes compelling viewing, it had to be a disappointment to people old enough to remember 1980, because why play fast and loose with the facts when the real story should be plenty good?

Up until I watched the season's final episode tonight, I thought it was kind of fun, though. But episode 10? Ugh! They managed to take a great moment in sports and make it almost uninteresting, at least in comparison with the real thing. The game, as dramatized, was horrible, poorly paced, looked fake... just terrible. The whole episode was meh. Nothing that I could become invested in. Whoever directed it really blew it.

Solomon Hughes was fantastic as Kareem, though. I mean, he was Kareem, or at least as Kareem is in my mind.

The rest of the characters? Who cares...

Just as an example, throughout the series, the Mark Landsberger character, played by former Cal football player Austin Aaron, kept showing up, but was completely undeveloped. Same dopey reaction shots, time after time.

The Magic character? Can't compete with the real thing.

The Paul Westhead character seemed trite and contrived.

Anybody in the Buss family? Hey look, owners are usually the least interesting people in sports. Why feature them? Zzzzzz...

This season ended with a real dud and, unfortunately, last impressions stick. The best stories in sports can be told as a documentary. The last thing they need is a dramatization by Hollywood people who probably weren't there for the real thing.

Big C said:

---

As I am often a little bit behind (and sometimes a lot), I finally finished watching "Winning Time". I was maybe going to bypass it completely, but "Gen X"ers in my family told me how great it was.

While it was sometimes compelling viewing, it had to be a disappointment to people old enough to remember 1980, because why play fast and loose with the facts when the real story should be plenty good?

Up until I watched the season's final episode tonight, I thought it was kind of fun, though. But episode 10? Ugh! They managed to take a great moment in sports and make it almost uninteresting, at least in comparison with the real thing. The game, as dramatized, was horrible, poorly paced, looked fake... just terrible. The whole episode was meh. Nothing that I could become invested in. Whoever directed it really blew it.

Solomon Hughes was fantastic as Kareem, though. I mean, he was Kareem, or at least as Kareem is in my mind.

The rest of the characters? Who cares...

Just as an example, throughout the series, the Mark Landsberger character, played by former Cal football player Austin Aaron, kept showing up, but was completely undeveloped. Same dopey reaction shots, time after time.

The Magic character? Can't compete with the real thing.

The Paul Westhead character seemed trite and contrived.

Anybody in the Buss family? Hey look, owners are usually the least interesting people in sports. Why feature them? Zzzzzz...

This season ended with a real dud and, unfortunately, last impressions stick. The best stories in sports can be told as a documentary. The last thing they need is a dramatization by Hollywood people who probably weren't there for the real thing.

---

Your reaction echoes mine. Fun, but lots of misses. I kept coming back to the sense that the showrunner was just too young. At least one poster expressed concern about some derogatory portrayals - but this was so obviously comedy.

BeachedBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

As I am often a little bit behind (and sometimes a lot), I finally finished watching "Winning Time". I was maybe going to bypass it completely, but "Gen X"ers in my family told me how great it was.

While it was sometimes compelling viewing, it had to be a disappointment to people old enough to remember 1980, because why play fast and loose with the facts when the real story should be plenty good?

Up until I watched the season's final episode tonight, I thought it was kind of fun, though. But episode 10? Ugh! They managed to take a great moment in sports and make it almost uninteresting, at least in comparison with the real thing. The game, as dramatized, was horrible, poorly paced, looked fake... just terrible. The whole episode was meh. Nothing that I could become invested in. Whoever directed it really blew it.

Solomon Hughes was fantastic as Kareem, though. I mean, he was Kareem, or at least as Kareem is in my mind.

The rest of the characters? Who cares...

Just as an example, throughout the series, the Mark Landsberger character, played by former Cal football player Austin Aaron, kept showing up, but was completely undeveloped. Same dopey reaction shots, time after time.

The Magic character? Can't compete with the real thing.

The Paul Westhead character seemed trite and contrived.

Anybody in the Buss family? Hey look, owners are usually the least interesting people in sports. Why feature them? Zzzzzz...

This season ended with a real dud and, unfortunately, last impressions stick. The best stories in sports can be told as a documentary. The last thing they need is a dramatization by Hollywood people who probably weren't there for the real thing.

---

Your reaction echoes mine. Fun, but lots of misses. I kept coming back to the sense that the showrunner was just too young. At least one poster expressed concern about some derogatory portrayals - but this was so obviously comedy.

---

I found it entertaining and weird. But I also found it off putting because of the unfair portrayals, the failure to capture the excitement and grandeur of some iconic moments, and not great acting for some of the characters. I thought Solomon did a great job, and the guys who played Magic and Jerry Buss were fine. But, come on, Sally Field was great.

MSaviolives said:

---

I found it entertaining and weird. But I also found it off putting because of the unfair portrayals, the failure to capture the excitement and grandeur of some iconic moments, and not great acting for some of the characters. I thought Solomon did a great job, and the guys who played Magic and Jerry Buss were fine. But, come on, Sally Field was great.

---

I thought the Buss character was great!!!
All 5 coaching characters were poor portrayals! West, sharman, riley, the injured guy and westhead. I don't think you rise to that level being the weak clown they were portrayed as. Magic, Kareem and bird were all picked as lookalikes and were truly just "stage characters" designed to mimic what we know about them. All other players had basically nothing to do with their real life person, except Nixon, played by his son!! What I mean to say is, I didn't get the sense that I was truly in that locker room.

The part that is funny, is how everyone seems to be like a child in this movie.
Like, if you took 10 year olds to portray the complex adults these people were, that's how they would have done is: boil people down to simple people who fit a narrative.

Nobody, save maybe Buss, has a complex (developed) character inside them. Buss seems to have demons and angels inside, which he's balancing. He's the character I feel I want to know better in this series.

concordtom said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

I found it entertaining and weird. But I also found it off putting because of the unfair portrayals, the failure to capture the excitement and grandeur of some iconic moments, and not great acting for some of the characters. I thought Solomon did a great job, and the guys who played Magic and Jerry Buss were fine. But, come on, Sally Field was great.

---

I thought the Buss character was great!!!
All 5 coaching characters were poor portrayals! West, sharman, riley, the injured guy and westhead. I don't think you rise to that level being the weak clown they were portrayed as. Magic, Kareem and bird were all picked as lookalikes and were truly just "stage characters" designed to mimic what we know about them. All other players had basically nothing to do with their real life person, except Nixon, played by his son!! What I mean to say is, I didn't get the sense that I was truly in that locker room.

The part that is funny, is how everyone seems to be like a child in this movie.
Like, if you took 10 year olds to portray the complex adults these people were, that's how they would have done is: boil people down to simple people who fit a narrative.

Nobody, save maybe Buss, has a complex (developed) character inside them. Buss seems to have demons and angels inside, which he's balancing. He's the character I feel I want to know better in this series.

---

I have no idea what Dr. Jerry Buss was like in real life, but usually, the owners, I want to know them less, not more. Just have them open up their checkbooks and stand back. If an Eddie D or a Joe Lacob need to step into the spotlight now and then to massage their massive egos, fine, they're paying. But the less, the better.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

I found it entertaining and weird. But I also found it off putting because of the unfair portrayals, the failure to capture the excitement and grandeur of some iconic moments, and not great acting for some of the characters. I thought Solomon did a great job, and the guys who played Magic and Jerry Buss were fine. But, come on, Sally Field was great.

---

I thought the Buss character was great!!!
All 5 coaching characters were poor portrayals! West, sharman, riley, the injured guy and westhead. I don't think you rise to that level being the weak clown they were portrayed as. Magic, Kareem and bird were all picked as lookalikes and were truly just "stage characters" designed to mimic what we know about them. All other players had basically nothing to do with their real life person, except Nixon, played by his son!! What I mean to say is, I didn't get the sense that I was truly in that locker room.

The part that is funny, is how everyone seems to be like a child in this movie.
Like, if you took 10 year olds to portray the complex adults these people were, that's how they would have done is: boil people down to simple people who fit a narrative.

Nobody, save maybe Buss, has a complex (developed) character inside them. Buss seems to have demons and angels inside, which he's balancing. He's the character I feel I want to know better in this series.

---

I have no idea what Dr. Jerry Buss was like in real life, but usually, the owners, I want to know them less, not more. Just have them open up their checkbooks and stand back. If an Eddie D or a Joe Lacob need to step into the spotlight now and then to massage their massive egos, fine, they're paying. But the less, the better.

---

1. Well, Buss used to party crazy. So that makes him interesting and unique among owners, I think. It's portrayed in the show.
Hefner. Magic sexcapades. And then he did turn them into winners while on a budget. Pretty good story telling.

2. The Buss actor has done a great job!!