The movie is based off a real event in which those two officers are identifiable. That event was a drug bust and a large amount of drugs were confiscated.

The film then diverges from reality (by its own admission) and has those two identified officers murder a supervisor under direction from the drug cartels.

The real officers are saying that they were clearly doxxed in the beginning of the film (using too many real life details), and then the film represents them doing horrible things they didn't do.

So no, the "real life details" did not in fact make them look bad.

Kolanaki@pawb.social · 11 pts · 87d (5 replies)

I do not see any of those details mentioned in the entire 5 paragraphs of the article. Is there more hidden behind a paywall or is there another article with that info?

testfactor@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 87d (4 replies)

I see no paywall, and I've loaded it a few time (though you do have to scroll past a huge ad to keep reading, which is annoying.) It's way more than 5 paragraphs though.

From the article:

Although Smith and Santana aren’t named in the film and weren’t involved in its production, the lawsuit claims that Santana was serving as the lead detective assigned to the real case, and Smith was the sergeant who supervised the investigative team. The film’s inclusion of real details about the case gives the impression that the characters are based on the plaintiffs, the suit said.

This, the lawsuit claims, has given friends, family members and colleagues the impression that the plaintiffs committed the criminal acts that appear in the film, which include (SPOILER ALERT) conspiring to steal seized drug money, murdering a supervising officer, communicating with cartel members, committing arson in a residential neighborhood, endangering the lives of civilians, repeatedly violating core law-enforcement protocols and executing a federal agent rather than making an arrest.

Kolanaki@pawb.social · 9 pts · 87d (3 replies)

Well shit, now I gotta assume some extension in my browser is breaking the page. Gonna have to figure out what.

RogueBanana@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 87d

Do you see the read more button at the end? Ideally even ad blockers should not hide that.

youcantreadthis@quokk.au · 7 pts · 87d (2 replies)

You want me to believe a cop doesn't work for a cartel lol you're insane

Are they saying that's not their cartel or something I don't understand

testfactor@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 87d (1 reply)

Aflack and Damon self admit that the entire narrative is fiction past the opening setup. The events in the film don't purport to be true.

However, before having them burn down a building and murder a supervisor and a fed, the film sets up an establishing sequence based on real life events that clearly tie the two fictional characters to two real people.

I get ACAB, but like, it's kinda wild to make a film where you're clearly representing real-life normal people, and then have them do a bunch of heinous stuff that they're not even remotely accused of doing.

youcantreadthis@quokk.au · 1 pts · 87d

Pigs aren't people who cares its not like they can look worse than they are

quick_snail@feddit.nl · -9 pts · 87d (4 replies)

I think they just want a cut of the profits, because it's based on them. That's how copyright law works

HikingVet@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 87d (2 replies)

Could you please link to the part of copyright law where is says that. Because that sounds like some premium grade cope.

CluckN@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 87d (1 reply)

You can’t link it because it’s copyrighted.

thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 87d

🤣🤣

thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 87d

Not in the slightest the way that works

Kyle@lemmy.ca · 21 pts · 87d

I had no interest in this movie before. Now I do. Thanks officers!

adespoton@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 87d (6 replies)

Why would officers be suing the actors instead of the showrunner and script writers?

That’s like suing Adobe because someone’s hand-drawn artwork looks too much like one of yours.

testfactor@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 87d (3 replies)

It's in the article. Aflack and Damon are not just the actors. They co-own and run the studio producing the film. They hired a person from the police department in question to consult on the film.

And, to be clear, this isn't the police department being mad because this paints them in a bad light. The film starts with events based off a real case, but moves into a fictionalized narrative where two cops murder a supervisor while working for the cartels. The cops the characters are based on are suing because people know that the characters are based on them and don't realize the rest of the narrative is fictionalized.

youcantreadthis@quokk.au · 2 pts · 87d (2 replies)

How do you make a cop from Florida look worse than cop from Florida I don't get it its like a Nazi who jacked off while inhaling crematorium fumes also fucking corpses before they're burned how does that make him look any worse than he did

testfactor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 87d (1 reply)

Look, I get ACAB, but these guys don't seem to have been accused of doing anything in particular.

It's wild to make a movie clearly identifying real life people who haven't been tied to any wrongdoing, and then present them as committing a ton of felonies to include arson and multiple homicides (of fellow cops no less).

Like, these are real people trying to quietly live their lives, and now they have people thinking they're extremely crooked based on a self-admittedly fictional narrative. It's irresponsible at best.

youcantreadthis@quokk.au · 2 pts · 87d

Cops not people. Different things. Morality does not apply exce0t preventing harm to people.

Davel23@fedia.io · 8 pts · 87d

Your answer is in the article.

wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 87d

Tbf I would take any opportunity to sue Adobe, logic be damned.

Chais@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 87d

What a weird way to admit your guilt.