Harry, Meghan and Netflix are go

[CathyorClaire]

The long awaited documentray is hitting the screen on December 8th:

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/breaking-prince-harry-meghan-markles-28607547

What with the award in a few days and the book in January they're ramping up the game.

Constant rowing back by Netflix. British Commonwealth anyone?

Again, just imagine if anyone else had called it that; the howls of "colonialism" and even "racism" would have been deafening

But it seems that not only H&M must be beyond criticism - so must anyone who they grace with their favour

Wait, what?

I have never seen Harry say that HE was a victim of racism. Can you please point me in the direction of where I can find that tidbit?

Yes, Netflix aren’t exactly covering themselves with glory here. Either they didn’t realise or they underestimated the public’s powers of perception. Neither of these alternatives is a good look. And this is all before the actual series has started

Absolutely agree. Rob Rinder (Judge) has said much the same, he is utterly appalled and rightly so.

Oh yes, it was written in a way such that I misread it as Netflix themselves! Yet more subterfuge! Lol. It would probably have been better if neither Netflix or the Sussex camp had said anything and just styled it out. As it is they seem to have dug themselves in deeper

As for the misinformation about the RF pulling security.

I have shown, in past posts based on real data released from the RF that all funding and security was cut off in 1st quarter of 2020. So no, not years.

They stepped down January of 2020 and funding stopped at the end of first quarter 2020.

No one knows how much funding H&M got, only that W&C and H&M got 4.5 million from the Duchy and that, in the year H&M left that bill was 1.2 million cheaper.

My favorite part of this mis-information piece is that Harry says that he was cut off during the 1st quarter of 2020, but the royal household says they paid through summer of 2020.

First quarter is April 1 - June 30th. But hey press, lets report there is a difference of opinions to create more division.

For the record, I believe things happened exactly how they needed to and they should have been cut off financially and forced to make their own money.

Looks like Netflix isnt the only studio to use stock images in trailers:

wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sonys-getting-roasted-for-using-stock-photo-in-spider-man-no-way-home-poster/

It really is standard practice in US film making.

This is a great article on how studios make and use teasers and trailers. It would explain why there are stock photos in this, and others.

www.cnbc.com/2019/09/14/movie-trailers-are-a-cult-phenomenon-just-ask-star-wars-fans.html

It really is standard practice in US film making

Firstly, if it were standard practice, Sony wouldn’t be ‘called out’ over it

Secondly, there’s a big difference between a fantasy super-hero film and a supposed documentary about intrusive press behaviour

But don’t you think it would have been a good idea in this case to have been aware of the irony of a trailer about a couple claiming to have been the subject of press harassment contain stock images of press that had been expressly invited to take photos at a premier/following a reality star and in the US not UK? The Spider-Man poster inconsistency doesn’t really undermine the content of the film

British Commonwealth anyone?

In Australia politicians refer to the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ or ‘Australian Commonwealth’. It’s the right term here, referencing the federation of the states and territories of Australia.

So, I can see why netflix might not have got that 100% right.

The Commonwealth of Australia is a different thing than the ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ which was originally called the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ . Yep, not correct on Netflix part, but not something that I’m going to get my knickers in a knot over either. They’ve corrected it.

www.today.com/popculture/vince-vaughns-goofy-stock-photos-promote-unfinished-business-t6721

www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-the-cover-song-conquered-movie-trailers

Quora isnt the most reliable, but I am including so you can see how often it is, in fact, done.

www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-movie-is-stock-footage

The key phrase here bring "film making".

Using stock images to promote a movie is a very different kettle of fish compared to using them to promote a documentary that's billed as chronicling the truth of the subject matter.

Especially so in the context that previous claims made by the subjects in question have been proven to be at best misleading.

Regardless of who "made" the trailer, this documentary is jointly produced by Archewell and Netflix, thus fundamentally decisions on such inclusions directly reflect upon the judgement (or lack thereof) of H&M.

There is no wiggle room here to say they have been misrepresented or the story not told as they would have preferred. Once they put their names on the production credits the end product and how it's received reflects directly on them - even down to the use of "stock" photography.

Upshot is, if you want to be perceived as truthful and credible, you have to be careful to act in a truthful and credible fashion.

Again you miss the point by referencing stock footage used for movies, not for documentaries.

The parallel here is Frozen Plant showing a trailer with stock footage of penguins in Chester zoo with Attenborough's voice over description of their behaviour in the wild. Not a true reflection of reality and utterly misleading.

The first big documentary series on WW2, (the first big one that I know of anyway, & which is still watched today), called ‘The World at War’ uses a great many stock images to emphasise/underscore the voice over.

There was so much film shot during WW2 that they were able to actually create the documentary. A viewer may think that they are watching footage from a particular battle, but a lot of the shots were planes flying, or planes shooting, planes taking flack and falling from the sky. By editing together certain shots they created what looked like a particular battle. There was some criticism of the practice of using stock footage as being deceiving, but it is very much standard practice.

Documentary film making is still film making. For entertainment.

You may not like that it happens, but it is standard practice here in the US. As much as the citizens of the UK think that Meghan has the power to literally ruin the Rf and rule the world, they arent that powerful.

"The use of stock footage is not unusual in documentaries, or news stories as a resource to provide context or background.
The uses of stock footage highlighted in the social media posts aren't isolated instances relating to the Harry & Meghan docuseries."

www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-criticized-unrelated-stock-footage-1764717

www.filmtvlaw.com/blog/2016/3/4/licensing-google-images-for-documentary

Heck, even Georgetown University tells their film students where to find stock images for documentary making.

guides.library.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=75854&p=491495

@BreadInCaptivity I have shown you several trustworthy and reliable sources that proves exactly what I am saying. I am not missing any point. In fact, you are. It happens. It is standard in the US industry.

Why use stock images though , if there are genuine images ? Unless , of course, there aren't any.

Don’t you agree, though, that juxtaposing images of paps with voice overs about press harassment is meant to imply that the photos are illustrating what happened to the Sussexes, when in fact nothing of the sort may have happened to them? It is accidentally if not intentionally misleading when referring to specific people and events rather than, say, the showing of footage of gender battles during the war.

General, not gender 🤪

Maybe you MN "experts" in US film making can lobby the US film industry to change their practice just for them. I cant wait to see it all go down.

I don’t think that is the point here. It may well be general practice, but it definitely implies in this case that the pictures relate to the subject. The choices of stock image are also poor, given that one is of invited paps and another involve Katie Price

Ask the studios and documentary makers why. Ask the companies whose entire job is it to make trailers and teasers.

My ASSumption is $$. The less that gets paid out, the more profit there is. These companies making trailers are, as the article above states, have to have quick turn arounds. Which, to me, may mean lazy internet searching.

This is not a Meghan and Harry decision. Netflix and Netflix alone is responsible for vetting and hiring the company who makes the trailers. It was done after the producers and directors release the final version of the film.

But it is the point. As much as you don't want to see it.

Meghan and Harry did nothing wrong in this case. Because they did not do it. Netflix did. And so does every other film maker, including documentary film makers, in the US.

And, to be honest, since you have not seen the actual series, you, nor anyone else, knows why those photos are in the gall darn trailer to being with.

I think that is what bothers me the most. No one knows what is in the series, but boy oh boy, they sure do have opinions.

If you want to make a documentary (ish) wailing about how your privacy was aggressively breached by the intrusive hounding press, don’t use a trailer that contains an awful lot of stock photos of totally invited, please-be-there press.

it’s weird.