|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Mar 9, 2004 23:11:14 GMT -5
And then people would complain that the movie glossed over his death, like they complain about its portrayal of Eddie's death. Yeah, and if I could ask ONE question of Suzanne de Passe that is what it would be. Especially since there was no (that I have seen) documentation of that being done. And *I* believe Mama Rose got into the hands of a shyster.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Mar 20, 2004 16:27:25 GMT -5
Yeah, and if I could ask ONE question of Suzanne de Passe that is what it would be. Especially since there was no (that I have seen) documentation of that being done. Get the final examination records ,then you will see. ![]() temptsinfo.com/smilies/wtg.gif![]() |
|
|
|
Post by Beej on Mar 24, 2004 6:37:18 GMT -5
New member here... I noticed several people alluded to "lawsuits" earlier. Forgive me if this has been posted before, but here is the text of the appellate motion filed on behalf of the Ruffin family, Rose Franklin and Josephine Miles after their initial claims were dismissed: www.michbar.org/opinions/us_appeals/2001/092801/12431.htmlHere is an article from The Michigan Daily after those same plaintiffs failed in their earlier efforts to have production halted on the mini-series: www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/sep/09-10-98/news/news12.htmlPertinent quotes... "[Plaintiffs' attorney] Gregory Reed argued the series, labeled as a docudrama, should be stopped because it would confuse its viewers.
"'Any docudrama is not covered by the First Amendment,' Reed said. 'It creates a state of confusion. The viewer doesn't know what is fact and what is fiction.'"No kidding!!! "Attorney Melanie LaFave, representing the series producer Suzanne de Passe, argued that claim had no grounds.
"'Fiction, fact, a blend - it's protected,' she said."
"Reed also argued that the four-hour series would damage the Ruffin family. Excerpts from the script show that Ruffin's mother, Earlene Ruffin, is depicted as an unchaste woman and that she gave the young David to a pimp. Reed said these images are false."
"Ruffin's ex-wife, Sandra Ruffin, said she was upset that the series could not be stopped.
"'Everybody will suffer because it's not true,' she said. 'They didn't come to anybody in the family for the truth.'"Oh, and here are a couple more I didn't see mentioned... - Otis learned about Lamont's death from the Tempts' road manager while rehearsing "Treat Her Like A Lady" on tour...not from Melvin in a hotel room. - Daryl Hall & John Oates inducted the Temptations into the RRHoF...not Tim Stevens (President of NAACP, Pittsburgh Branch). Regardless, it's a great movie. Yes, I'd prefer a documentary -- warts and all -- over a docudrama, but the truth is that without the movie I would've never developed this intense interest to learn as much as possible about the real men behind those sweet harmonies and gut-wrenching leads. By the time I was born, David, Paul and Eddie were already out of the group. My father, however, is the same age as Otis and had the privilege of growing up with their music as their careers unfolded. After watching the movie a couple times on VH1, he told me I HAD to catch it the next time it aired...and, like any good son, I did. I've been hooked ever since. What started out as a curiosity about the movie's portrayal of David Ruffin's childhood has developed into a passion of sorts. Thanks to Amazon, I've had the chance to recapture the magic of the 1964-68 Temptations by purchasing all the remastered Ruffin-era albums on CD, as well as the Lost & Found collection...money VERY well spent! That, friends, is what's brought me to this point. It's a privilege to be here and to have a chance to talk to others who have fallen in love with this great music, as well. I only wish I could've been born 30 years earlier to witness their greatness firsthand. ~B |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Mar 24, 2004 8:47:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Mar 24, 2004 10:48:50 GMT -5
Welcome Beej!  Where is the movie labeled as a docudrama? (this is a legit. question) Is it in the movie credits?  |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Mar 24, 2004 11:29:42 GMT -5
All I can say, that Otis' book is cataloged as A "biography" not a novel as stated in the opinion. One might almost infer that Otis hasn't objected to that because he has his reasons. A novel is a work of fiction, while a biography is the true story of a life ... Boy, things are getting complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Mar 24, 2004 14:56:39 GMT -5
All I can say, that Otis' book is cataloged as A "biography" not a novel as stated in the opinion. One might almost infer that Otis hasn't objected to that because he has his reasons. A novel is a work of fiction, while a biography is the true story of a life ... Boy, things are getting complicated. Lies always do |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Mar 24, 2004 15:10:31 GMT -5
This isso funny. I was convinced that the DVD was sold at amazon as a docudrama -- I remember that for sure. Well, it no longer is called that name. Buy.com now offers an editor's note to the reviews of a new double pack (The Temptations/Standing in the Shadow of Motown) that calls it a "dramatic re-telling" :laughing
The terrible things some people do to language ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Mar 24, 2004 15:19:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Mar 24, 2004 18:31:37 GMT -5
Yes but what did the PRODUCERS label the movie as? I'll have to check the tape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beej on Mar 24, 2004 22:05:09 GMT -5
Wow, thanks for the warm welcome... This just further supports my theory that Temptations' fans are the finest people on earth!  Hi, Ivory... Sorry, but I don't have a definitive answer for you. I mean, that was obviously the defense's position at the time, but as far as exactly how the story was promoted and marketed prior to its original 1998 airing...I have no clue. It's an interesting question, though. Hi, Anna... With respect to the validity of biographies, people embellish stories about themselves in text all the time. It's just one person's version of his or her life story. Un-authorized biographies can offer very different perspectives. It's just human nature for each of us to have a more favorable view of ourselves than others may offer. I haven't read Otis' book, so I'm really in no position to pass judgment on the man. I wasn't there, didn't share his experiences and I didn't know the guys. It is bothersome, though, to see how the other members are characterized after they're no longer around to defend themselves or offer an alternative perspective. Whether the mini-series was an accurate portrayal of how Otis truly viewed his relationship with the other members or whether his story was perverted by a staff of writers attempting to produce a more compelling story, there are some very questionable moments in the movie that makes one wonder: "Why include that? What's the purpose of fabricating something that you know is going to hurt others?" Question for those in the know... To what extent did Otis have creative control over the project? Did he actually sign off on the inclusion of these falsehoods or was his involvment limited to the purchase and use of his biography as source material for this production? Thanks. ~B |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Mar 24, 2004 22:35:28 GMT -5
Yes beej I understand where you are coming from. But there is a clear line between telling one's life story and writing a novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Mar 24, 2004 22:44:29 GMT -5
Thanks for those links, Beej...its been a long time since I read thru them. I STILL for the life of me can't figure out how Josephine saw herself as being portrayed as unfaithful to Otis while they were married. Must be on the cutting-room floor...
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Mar 24, 2004 22:51:48 GMT -5
I find it amazing that so many who don't know Otis, anything about producing movies, getting books published have so much to say about the motivation of Otis Willams' writing of his book. Give it a rest! it ain';t gonna change. No matter how many falsehoods you think you find in the book and movie. It has all ready been established a lot of it is false. But somehow we can't seem to have a thread about how much good it did for bringing all of us here together and starting this wonderful community of Temptations fans from all walks of life. The man is a Temptation, has been a Temptation and nothing he writes or produces can ever change that. You don't have to like him but you owe him a bit thanks for bringing you here. If learning about the Temptations is what you're interested in...then ask some questions that would get you there and quit saying the same old tired thing on every thread every week. Do some research like Mike did and find some articles to support your theories. Present some evidence that otis is a bad person The book and movie do not represent who he is. First of all Someone else wrote the book for him and someone else wrote the script for him..,..they just used his book as a model and we all know the model had it faults so move on to something that you can sink your teeth into besides the fact that Otis didn't write the truth............
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Mar 26, 2004 21:20:07 GMT -5
Quote from Otis' book
"Between the mini-series and "Phoenix Rising," we got more publ.icity in six months than we'd gotten in the past few years all rooled up together."
Does that mean that the movie was advertisement for the Temptations new album? The judge seemed to have based his opinion on the surmise that it was not. The entire decision, in my opinion, has been an insult to the families.
|
|
. 