Gucci family slams House of Gucci

[elijahfan 23,564]

1 minute ago, BlueRose said:

that's the reason why I don't like most films based on actual scandals and crimes. if your film is based on real life people the least decent thing to do is to consult them and hear what theey have to say. a great aexample is I, Tonya.

I don't believe Ridley had any intention of doing anything historically accurate tho.

[Red 87,384]

If someone made a movie talking **** about my family, my family would be upset too, it's a given

[ChicaSkas 21,080]

I can see them not talking to Patrizia. But not talking to Aldo's kids sounds limiting and silly. 

[Chromatislaps 34,560]

so did they not consent to this movie being made?

[LilyLark 9,694]

20 minutes ago, majkl said:

I mean, it’s free press. It might be negative, but it’s still press. But honestly, it was to be expected and like some others said, it painted them in a slightly better way. I’ve read some of the content from the book online and it appears that Maurizio and Patrizia were much, much worse in real life than in the actual movie.

Yup. Not excusing Patrizia at all (she was a psychopath), but Maurizio (seemed) like he was a heinous man who basically stole from his own company, was arguably emotionally abusive to Patrizia, and much more. He did (allegedly) not start seeing Paolo until years after he separated from Patrizia, but I get why the film went with the cheating angle as I think that would be easier to depict than the other stuff (tho he probably did cheat on her, just not with Paola). He was way worse IRL than he was depicted in the movie.

Aldo committed bigamy and had a child with another woman while he was still married to his wife—and went to jail for tax evasion—and was probably the "best" of the family....which shows how sh*tty they were lol.

[StarstruckIllusion 41,968]

Okay I kinda sympathize but like someone else here said today, it’s not a documentary… a disclaimer before the film should def fix something like this tho. 

[Phantomhive 1,870]

Weren't they already opposed to the movie before/while it was in production? We didn't care then and we don't care now so what exactly are they trying to prove here

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

The statement was first published by Italian news agency ANSA, and also slammed the portrayal of Patrizia “not just in the film, but also in statements from cast members, as a victim trying to survive in a male chauvinist corporate culture.” The Gucci family asserts that it was always an “inclusive company,” adding that in the 1980s, “there were several women who held top positions.”

I agree with this. I dont understand why u'd defend this, just bcs she's a woman. It's again some woke ****

[moonsago 5,373]

I mean hello, we been knew this was gonna happen..

[Kitsch 499]

9 minutes ago, LilyLark said:

Yup. Not excusing Patrizia at all (she was a psychopath), but Maurizio (seemed) like he was a heinous man who basically stole from his own company, was arguably emotionally abusive to Patrizia, and much more. He did (allegedly) not start seeing Paolo until years after he separated from Patrizia, but I get why the film went with the cheating angle as I think that would be easier to depict than the other stuff (tho he probably did cheat on her, just not with Paola). He was way worse IRL than he was depicted in the movie.

Aldo committed bigamy and had a child with another woman while he was still married to his wife—and went to jail for tax evasion—and was probably the "best" of the family....which shows how sh*tty they were lol.

I’ve also saw some interview somewhere where an Gucci family member (I don’t know who) allegedly got SA’d by one of the family members and apparently a lot of Guccis knew, but no one did something about it, which is actually horrific. They should be happy that the movie painted them the way it did, while I understand some of the opinions (especially from Tom Ford) I simply think that people are reading too much into the movie. It’s camp, it had in my opinion no intention whatsoever to accurately depict the actual issues in the time period. And while I understand LG’s point of not wanting to collude with someone who got their husband whacked, I do think that it would’ve been important that someone (not LG) would’ve actually interviewed her to kind of got some more information than the information what we got from books. Also, we are talking about an person which is to the day, obviously, alive and making money from the Gucci estate.

[BlueRose 397]

1 hour ago, elijahfan said:

I don't believe Ridley had any intention of doing anything historically accurate tho.

it doesn'tmatter. his work affects humans who are still alive and the movie can affect them directly by creating misconceptions and make people negatively predisposed towards them

[elijahfan 23,564]

1 minute ago, BlueRose said:

it doesn'tmatter. his work affects humans who are still alive and the movie can affect them directly by creating misconceptions and make people negatively predisposed towards them

I agree. But once again, I'm not sure Ridley cares that much about that 

[smitherz 1,670]

love a little controversy to stir up interest 😈

[BlueRose 397]

Just now, elijahfan said:

I agree. But once again, I'm not sure Ridley cares that much about that 

are you telling that as a good thing? I dont get what you re trying to say. it s obvious he doesnt care that why he made the movie the way he made it . that 's why I supported that people who make such movies should consult the people who are going to portray in their movies and they should be binded by the law

[Chris Evans 8,901]

the movie actually made them likeable in comparison to the real people