Just watched "runaway jury"
- Thread starter LTrain
- Start date
- Status
Gillster
Member
Really liked the book, really thought the movie sucked.
DevilDog
Member
It wasn't the anti-RKBA twist that bugged me, it was the lies they had to come up with to make the movie work. First, they tried to paint gun companies as huge money makers like the tabacco companies - hardly true.
They also tried to paint the gun companies selling and marketing guns in the same manner that tabacco companies do with cigarettes. I don't recall seeing a carton Joe Camel with an AK-47 on a buildboard anywhere.
More lies from the left... nothing new.
They also tried to paint the gun companies selling and marketing guns in the same manner that tabacco companies do with cigarettes. I don't recall seeing a carton Joe Camel with an AK-47 on a buildboard anywhere.
More lies from the left... nothing new.
priv8ter
Member
Me too!
My wife rented this movie a few weeks ago, she is a big John Grisham fan. I knew from this website what to expect, but I still wasn't mentally prepared enough.
What kind of gun company advertises their OWN product as an 'Assault Pistol'? :banghead: :banghead:
It just came across as ignorant. Like some Anti's sat around trying to think: How can we make the gun industry look dumber and meaner?(although, upon reflection, that probably IS what happened).
Heck...could you imagine the trial with someone like Bill Ruger on the stand? 'Actually sir...I don't think normal citizens need 10 round magazines or concealable guns...'
That would have busted up the case!
The are only two words to describe why I actually watched the whole movie:
Rachel Weisz
Wow. Just couldn't let that on to my wife.
greg
My wife rented this movie a few weeks ago, she is a big John Grisham fan. I knew from this website what to expect, but I still wasn't mentally prepared enough.
What kind of gun company advertises their OWN product as an 'Assault Pistol'? :banghead: :banghead:
It just came across as ignorant. Like some Anti's sat around trying to think: How can we make the gun industry look dumber and meaner?(although, upon reflection, that probably IS what happened).
Heck...could you imagine the trial with someone like Bill Ruger on the stand? 'Actually sir...I don't think normal citizens need 10 round magazines or concealable guns...'
That would have busted up the case!
The are only two words to describe why I actually watched the whole movie:
Rachel Weisz
Wow. Just couldn't let that on to my wife.
greg
cracked butt
Member
I thought it was a pretty decent movie if you ignored all of the blissninny poop.
Locus
Member
The thing that bugged me the most wasn't the stupid portrayal of the gun industry, it was the ending where they walked past the schoolyard and were all happy because obviously nothing like that could ever happen again because the evil gun companies were shut down...
My favorite part was when the chick beat the hell out of the thug who tracked her down. It was the most ridiculous Hollywoodized portrayal of a physical struggle in that the result was so predictable...I don't mean predictable in the sense of "good vs. evil" or any of the other Hollywood cliches. What I mean is that if she lost and or got killed, it would have been a screaming argument for her to have had a gun for self-defense. As it was of course, the message was that she didn't need one, nor will she. Gee... Lucky for her. But the last time I checked, just about EVERY female and most males I ever met would most likely get killed in a similar situation where some hired thug came to get them. I would rather my girlfriend, mother, sister, grandmother, aunts, cousins, friends (etc) had a gun in such a situation. But that's just me. Silly of me to think that they can't throw some Ninjitsu moves or whatever on an intruder, like the chick in the movie.
seed.
. Gee... Lucky for her. But the last time I checked, just about EVERY female and most males I ever met would most likely get killed in a similar situation where some hired thug came to get them. I would rather my girlfriend, mother, sister, grandmother, aunts, cousins, friends (etc) had a gun in such a situation. But that's just me. Silly of me to think that they can't throw some Ninjitsu moves or whatever on an intruder, like the chick in the movie.seed.
MaterDei
Member
Good book.
Haven't and won't see the movie.
Haven't and won't see the movie.
BowStreetRunner
Member
agreed MaterdDei
i have enough stress as it is
i dont need to add to it watching some silly movie filled with contrived falsehoods
BSR
i have enough stress as it is
i dont need to add to it watching some silly movie filled with contrived falsehoods
BSR
sturmruger
Member
I will never watch that movie. It makes me soo upset that they completely changed the premise of the movie.
El Rojo
Member
I am sorry to hear that. My condolences on the loss of 127 minutes of your life.
priv8ter
Member
Originally
Seed, the book revolved around a class action law suit against a big tobacco company. But, The Insider with Russel Crow came out about 2 months before they started filming the Runaway Jury, so they decided to change it.
greg
Seed, the book revolved around a class action law suit against a big tobacco company. But, The Insider with Russel Crow came out about 2 months before they started filming the Runaway Jury, so they decided to change it.
greg
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Why is it OK for a trial lawyar to shake down a big tobacco company, but not OK to shake down a gun manufacturer? Is there something I'm missing here?
Maybe that is because those who smoke affect others around them that don't smoke.
I am not the least bit happy about sharing the same air with others that pollute it with their cancer sticks. If they want to poison themselves, let them do it at home, not out in public where it can affect other people
priv8ter
Member
Not me!
Headless Thompsun Gunner,
In my opinion, it is not okay to shake down a tobacco company, versus a gun company, or a a fast food company, or...
My only opinion on the subject was that if they stayed closer to the book, maybe I would have enjoyed the movie. With it's anti-gun slant, it struck to close to home for me to enjoy it.
It is not like anyone ever said Smoking Cigarettes is good for you, although some of the older adds for Chesterfields kind of gave that impression. The only people I feel should have any complaints about cigarettes being forced on them are the WWII vets who were fed cigaretts by the carton during the war.
greg
Headless Thompsun Gunner,
In my opinion, it is not okay to shake down a tobacco company, versus a gun company, or a a fast food company, or...
My only opinion on the subject was that if they stayed closer to the book, maybe I would have enjoyed the movie. With it's anti-gun slant, it struck to close to home for me to enjoy it.
It is not like anyone ever said Smoking Cigarettes is good for you, although some of the older adds for Chesterfields kind of gave that impression. The only people I feel should have any complaints about cigarettes being forced on them are the WWII vets who were fed cigaretts by the carton during the war.
greg
DevilDog
Member
The one thing the tabacco companies have done, is push their product with much more subliminal advertising than many other products. Plus, the big four (CEO's of the four major tabacco companies) lied their butts off in front of a congressional comittee. That makes them easy to be a target.
However, even with that, nobody ever put a gun to someone's head and made them smoke. The tabacco companies did not learn of tabacco's ill effects over time any sooner than the rest of us. People have been smoking tabacco since the beginning of time, so imho, it is not reasonable to blame someone's 20th century death on a company selling a product that has been in common use for at least a thousand years.
Why the book (with a tabacco vs. gun subject) was more acceptable to me, was there was that the facts in the book were mostly true, whereas in the movie, they were mostly false. Even then, I did not agree with the "heroes" in the book in their quest to bring down the tabacco companies.
However, even with that, nobody ever put a gun to someone's head and made them smoke. The tabacco companies did not learn of tabacco's ill effects over time any sooner than the rest of us. People have been smoking tabacco since the beginning of time, so imho, it is not reasonable to blame someone's 20th century death on a company selling a product that has been in common use for at least a thousand years.
Why the book (with a tabacco vs. gun subject) was more acceptable to me, was there was that the facts in the book were mostly true, whereas in the movie, they were mostly false. Even then, I did not agree with the "heroes" in the book in their quest to bring down the tabacco companies.
idaho_brian
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19
I have not seen it, don't want the aggrevation, either from the anti-gun slant or Hollywierd screwing up a good book with the adaptation to a movie. The adaptation of Sum of All Fears was one of the worst abortions I've seen, this sounds comparable, completely changing the storyline to make the policically correct point the left wants, while capitalizing on the success of the book/author to sell a poor movie.
StopTheGrays
Member
I broke down and watched this movie over the weekend. I cannot express how it made me feel...all the inaccurate information and the over top preachy-ness made me want to 
The one thing that stuck out in my mind though is that the idealist anti-gun lawyer still had to have help in order to win the case. Sort of "ends justify the means", so long as guns companies lose it does not matter how we win type of BS.
(Bah...I am sticking to John Wayne movies from now on. )
The one thing that stuck out in my mind though is that the idealist anti-gun lawyer still had to have help in order to win the case. Sort of "ends justify the means", so long as guns companies lose it does not matter how we win type of BS.
(Bah...I am sticking to John Wayne movies from now on.
)- Status
