The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?

[AusDLK]

It was picked up by Netflix internationally. They made money on it.

you don't know that. i am filmmaker. i know the landscape. being picked up by any streamer does not guarantee anything of the sort. i know for a fact that a great many independent films are "sold" for much less that what they cost to make and this was not an inexpensive film to make.

 

[AusDLK]

I can’t speak to the personal motives. I don’t know the people involved. I do feel confident in saying they have not proven anything to me, and I do feel it is likely that the money they made was probably not nothing. You have to put it in perspective - in the world of photojournalism what qualifies as “money” is often far less than it would for most people. It may also be that they made the film for the right reasons and simply are just wrong. For my own part, I just find it to be unconvincing and Yunghi’s argument worth noting.

Speaking generally, context matters as well. This film was made at a time when debunking all sorts of historical claims became a trend, and yes, a business of sorts. Some of those claims were right, some, I think, probably overstepped, or revised in ways that were too aggressive - or overcorrected to a degree that matched the bias of the original story. I consider this film certainly part of a zealous political moment - one that yielded no shortage of poor takes. Just my thoughts.

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

 

[Out to Lunch]

They made money on it.

How do you know that?
The details of the Netflix distribution deal are not publicly known.

 

[pgh]

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

It’s really orthogonal to the discussion whether or not they made money. The claim Yunghi is making is that the premise of the film was set before it was made and it was used to secure funding to make the film. In the end, who knows. I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence. It looks like one big cherry picked argument, essentially. Until it looks like a better argument, I see no reason to strip Ut of his credit and neither do the AP, who generally, I respect as trying as hard as anyone to hold themselves to the most scrupulous standards.

It might also be good to read David Burnett’s editorial that the Washington Post published. He is making an eyewitness claim. He is also noting how the filmmakers used his work without permission. I hate to see two legends go at each other like this but even using images without permission is solid evidence of neglect of considerate process, and does more to diminish the film’s credibility IMO. Knight knows better than that.

 

[Freakscene]

How do you know that?
The details of the Netflix distribution deal are not publicly known.

I know some of the Australian team involved in distribution.

There is also the sheer fuss. This is all over every photo site. It has been covered extensively in mainstream media. It’s a big deal for securing funding for your next project if you have been covered in the NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Times and many major non-english language newspapers.

 

[Freakscene]

It’s really orthogonal to the discussion whether or not they made money. The claim Yunghi is making is that the premise of the film was set before it was made and it was used to secure funding to make the film. In the end, who knows. I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence. It looks like one big cherry picked argument, essentially. Until it looks like a better argument, I see no reason to strip Ut of his credit and neither do the AP, who generally, I respect as trying as hard as anyone to hold themselves to the most scrupulous standards.

It might also be good to read David Burnett’s editorial that the Washington Post published. He is making an eyewitness claim. He is also noting how the filmmakers used his work without permission. I hate to see two legends go at each other like this but even using images without permission is solid evidence of neglect of considerate process, and does more to diminish the film’s credibility IMO. Knight knows better than that.

It is never orthogonal to consider money when examining motivations for someone doing some thing.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I just find her claim that the conclusion of the film was set before the making to be credible enough to doubt a real consideration of available evidence.

We're now entering into 'the fog of social media' especially considering that she also claimed that the documentary was an ''attempted slander of a beloved trailblazing Asian photographer by a group of white producers''. Perhaps she did not know that the director, Bao Nguyen was born to Vietnamese parents.

 

[BillBingham2]

see my comment to Mr. Freakscene -- there is almost zero change that this film made anyone money, that almost never happens for independent films, particularly documentaries. in ~90 out of 100 cases, indie films are labors of love, not protit. i know, i'm making one.

Looking forward to seeing your magic. Hope you break the mold and make some big monkey bucks.

B2 (;->