Two South Florida police officers claim Ben Affleck and Matt Damon’s recent action thriller “The Rip” used too many real-life details in its fictionalized narrative, causing harm to the officers’ personal and professional reputations.
The movie is based off a real event in which those two officers are identifiable. That event was a drug bust and a large amount of drugs were confiscated.
The film then diverges from reality (by its own admission) and has those two identified officers murder a supervisor under direction from the drug cartels.
The real officers are saying that they were clearly doxxed in the beginning of the film (using too many real life details), and then the film represents them doing horrible things they didn’t do.
So no, the “real life details” did not in fact make them look bad.
Aflack and Damon self admit that the entire narrative is fiction past the opening setup. The events in the film don’t purport to be true.
However, before having them burn down a building and murder a supervisor and a fed, the film sets up an establishing sequence based on real life events that clearly tie the two fictional characters to two real people.
I get ACAB, but like, it’s kinda wild to make a film where you’re clearly representing real-life normal people, and then have them do a bunch of heinous stuff that they’re not even remotely accused of doing.
I do not see any of those details mentioned in the entire 5 paragraphs of the article. Is there more hidden behind a paywall or is there another article with that info?
I see no paywall, and I’ve loaded it a few time (though you do have to scroll past a huge ad to keep reading, which is annoying.) It’s way more than 5 paragraphs though.
From the article:
Although Smith and Santana aren’t named in the film and weren’t involved in its production, the lawsuit claims that Santana was serving as the lead detective assigned to the real case, and Smith was the sergeant who supervised the investigative team. The film’s inclusion of real details about the case gives the impression that the characters are based on the plaintiffs, the suit said.
This, the lawsuit claims, has given friends, family members and colleagues the impression that the plaintiffs committed the criminal acts that appear in the film, which include (SPOILER ALERT) conspiring to steal seized drug money, murdering a supervising officer, communicating with cartel members, committing arson in a residential neighborhood, endangering the lives of civilians, repeatedly violating core law-enforcement protocols and executing a federal agent rather than making an arrest.
It’s in the very first fucking paragraph.
And it’s clear you stopped reading right there.
The movie is based off a real event in which those two officers are identifiable. That event was a drug bust and a large amount of drugs were confiscated.
The film then diverges from reality (by its own admission) and has those two identified officers murder a supervisor under direction from the drug cartels.
The real officers are saying that they were clearly doxxed in the beginning of the film (using too many real life details), and then the film represents them doing horrible things they didn’t do.
So no, the “real life details” did not in fact make them look bad.
You want me to believe a cop doesn’t work for a cartel lol you’re insane
Are they saying that’s not their cartel or something I don’t understand
Aflack and Damon self admit that the entire narrative is fiction past the opening setup. The events in the film don’t purport to be true.
However, before having them burn down a building and murder a supervisor and a fed, the film sets up an establishing sequence based on real life events that clearly tie the two fictional characters to two real people.
I get ACAB, but like, it’s kinda wild to make a film where you’re clearly representing real-life normal people, and then have them do a bunch of heinous stuff that they’re not even remotely accused of doing.
Pigs aren’t people who cares its not like they can look worse than they are
I do not see any of those details mentioned in the entire 5 paragraphs of the article. Is there more hidden behind a paywall or is there another article with that info?
I see no paywall, and I’ve loaded it a few time (though you do have to scroll past a huge ad to keep reading, which is annoying.) It’s way more than 5 paragraphs though.
From the article:
Well shit, now I gotta assume some extension in my browser is breaking the page. Gonna have to figure out what.
Do you see the read more button at the end? Ideally even ad blockers should not hide that.
I see it now when loading with none of extensions enabled or just uBlock loaded, so it’s not the adblocker at least.
Edit: After going through each one, it ironically turned out to be my paywall bypasser. Wtf
Lmao, ig it assumed the read more overlay as a paywall overlay.