MovieChat Forums > Runaway Jury (2003) Discussion > Why change the story from tobacco to gun...

Why change the story from tobacco to guns?

posted 6 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8710)
18 replies | jump to latest

In the book, the villain is a big bad tobacco company. In the movie, this is changed to a gun manufacturer.

Why? The filmmakers obviously had an agenda. This wasn't merely an entertainment decision.

Much like the recent film Miss Sloane, this came off to me as little more than anti-gun propaganda that had little respect for the 2nd amendment. Just like in Miss Sloane, it's the anti-gun people who are cast as the dutiful heroes, and anyone who supports gun ownership is a nefarious asshole who has no regard for human life.

If I had known this is what the movie was going to be about, I wouldn't have even bothered with it. But once started, I felt like I should go ahead and finish it.

Pushing all that aside though, just as a movie, I'd say it was . . . okay. It was more of a Hollywood thriller compared to most other films based on Grisham's books. The plot is far-fetched and I almost had to laugh at Hackman's team's ability to just magically pull up any information they want to on any person at any time, like they operate the eye of God. Also, the film is a little hard to follow at times. I believe one review I read called the film "overplotted." I suppose that's as good of a way to put it as any.

This is definitely a lower-tier Grisham film for me. It's certainly no Rainmaker.

[–] NewCliches (3) 5 years ago

I gather another anti-tobacco legal film came out around the same time, so they wanted to avoid comparisons. Hence the change.

Foolish to pick villains that half the audience in America might see as an attack on them.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 5 years ago

The only explanation is that the filmmakers wanted to push their politics and send a message. It doesn't hurt that the message in question is one that is very popular in Hollywood.

As you say, making this change instantly makes the film a lot less attractive to a huge swathe of Americans, whereas the vast majority of people will hop on the anti-tobacco bandwagon.

As I said in the OP, another film that went in this direction is Miss Sloane. It's a shame too, because dreadful politics aside, it's actually a well-made film. If they had villainized an industry who actually deserved it then I would've really enjoyed the film.

[–] NewCliches (3) 5 years ago

You mean they should have attacked an industry that you disliked, instead of one that they disliked?

Or that they should have attacked an industry that everyone hated? But there are not that many industries that everyone hates. Someone has to buy their products, after all. And those people will probably not hate them.

Personally, I feel that a film about jury manipulation should be about manipulating juries. The merits of the case should be beside the point. The only real villain should be Gene Hackman.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 5 years ago

Well as I said, the original Grisham story is about the tobacco industry. This film is an adaptation of that story, but the filmmakers chose to interject their own politics into it and change the story.

The thing about tobacco is that it's a historical fact that tobacco caused cancer and the leaders in the industry knew it and they chose to cover this fact up in the name of profits. I actually think that tobacco should be legal to buy and smoke, but that doesn't change the reality that the people in power in that industry intentionally tried to manipulate and mislead consumers.

The gun industry is not really equivalent to this. It's not like the gun lobby is trying to conceal the deadly capabilities of firearms. Pro-gun people just have practical and philosophical reasons why gun ownership should be legal even in light of this fact.

[–] Yourwrongopinion (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 4 years ago

Username checks out. Your opinion here is in fact wrong. Actually, you're not even expressing an opinion. Your facts are wrong.

There are safe ways to use guns. There are also deadly, but justifiable, ways to use guns, such as defense of self, neighbor or nation.

There is no safe way to smoke a cigarette.

[–] Yourwrongopinion (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 4 years ago

I am totally fine with them weakening gun legislation. Not sure what country you are in, but in the United States we have a right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed." Gun owners, especially in certain states with their draconian laws (New York and Illinois, for instance), are already putting up with unconstitutional infringements as it is.

As for gun manufacturers "negligently marketing their products unsafely," I'm not even sure what that means. What is "unsafe" marketing for a firearm and how does that contrast with "safe" marketing?

[–] Yourwrongopinion (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 4 years ago

There's nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment that in any way encourages legislation. Not sure where you got that from or if you've even read the Constitution, but it is entirely focused on protecting citizens' right to own guns, not protecting the government's right to restrict them.

In regard to your second point, can you show me an example of a gun manufacturer marketing a product to children? I can't think of one, nor would it make any sense to do so. A child can't purchase a gun, and unlike tobacco, gun sales are highly regulated and require the passing of a background check which requires the purchaser to be at least 18 years of age.

Lastly, you say that there are plenty of examples of "retailers selling a gun negligently." I'd be curious to hear what you mean by that. A purchaser's right to buy the gun is contingent upon their ability to pass a federal background check, provided they don't explicitly express their intention to use the gun illegally and also provided they don't state that they're buying it for someone else (a straw purchase).

[–] Yourwrongopinion (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 4 years ago

I still can't think of any gun advertisement I remember seeing that I thought was specifically directed at kids, but in any case, if a gun is purchased by an adult for their own children, I am all for that. I think we need to reduce the stigma around firearms rather than make it greater, and a good way to do that is to familiarize kids with guns and teach them gun safety while they're young.

I never had an actual firearm, but I did own air rifles growing up. If my dad had bought me a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday I'd have loved it. Sadly, my dad was too scared of guns at the time, which is kind of funny thinking about it now because he just recently bought his first 9mm and now gun talk probably makes up 1/3 of our conversation.

I really think that a lot of the fear people have around guns is a lack of familiarity. There are a lot of stories of people going from anti-gun to pro-gun just through getting a little hands-on experience and realizing they're just a tool that can be handled safely.

In regard to people who use guns for evil purposes, there will always be people who unlawfully use force against others. If they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife. If they don't have a knife, they'll uses their fists. I don't blame gun manufacturers anymore than I'd blame the manufacturer of a hammer if it's used to bash someone's skull in. The responsibility lies in the hands of the perpetrator.

In any case, there is a reason why one of the first orders of business for all tyrants is to disarm the citizenry. When the people have a means of fighting back, they are deprived of total control. While target shooting and hunting are all great uses for guns, the real reason we need an armed citizenry is to act as a counter-balance to government power.

[–] yourworseopinion (4) 4 years ago

Educating children is one thing, but negligently marketing firearms towards them is another. THere's a reason that 20 children are sent to the hopsital a day in the US due to firearms related injuries. An adult purchasing a firearm and leaving it around the house for a toddler to find and shoot their sibling with is not something to champion. Neither is a 10 year old girl shooting and killing her instructor.

The problem is that human beings are naturally incompetent. They cannot be entrusted to teach their children to use a gun responsibly. Only LEGISLATION and strong gun control can accomplish that. It's funny you should mention fear, as the firearms industry specifically targets people's fears and uncertainty to sell their weaponry. Fear of crime, terrorism, or societal collapse all play into their bottom line, which I think is a disgusting business practice, but that is what American has become. Profit over human safety.

As for the guns vs knives argument, I simply don't buy into it. Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if Adam Lanza only had access to knives. Neither would the Las Vegas shooter have, nor any other myriad of mass shootings. Would these perpetrators have just tried to run people over in cars? Perhaps, but we shouldn't be giving more avenues and opportunities for mass murderers to carry out their evil plans. Besides, mass shootings are just one small aspect of gun violence. The majority of cases are crimes of passion, gang violence, crime, accidents, and suicides', which could all be easily prevented if gun manufacturers were more responsible and weren't flooding the country with guns.

Also, you really think a farmers armed with hunting rifles are going to be able to fight back against a tyrannical power? You think an AR-15 is any match against a drone? There is literally no advantage for Americans to be armed to the teeth and killing each other other than corporations' bottom line. Tell me, when has the 2nd amendment ever prevented a tyranny?

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but the opening scene was a hook. People sitting around with smoker's cough would not be.

It's ironic, if not hypocritical, that an industry that glamorizes violence would have an issue with gun ownership.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8710) 5 years ago

You can certainly make a compelling movie about the wrongdoings of the tobacco companies. In fact, it's been done before! If you haven't seen it, go watch The Insider. It's one of Michael Mann's best.

And I agree that Hollywood is full of hypocrites. It's a weird experience to be a big film fan but to have to rely on an entity like Hollywood to deliver most of the films. So much ambivalence!

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

A movie based on a John Grisham novel isn't quite as weighty as a Michael Mann film. That is not to discredit Grisham's writing. He has particular talents as a writer and they always don't easily translate to the screen. It takes someone. like Frances Ford Coppola (The Rainmaker)

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 5 years ago

Better opening scene. A rampage shooting is more exciting than dying of lung cancer.

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) 3 years ago

The first big tobacco settlement happened just about the time they were making the movie and others were already on their way through the courts. The producers figured there was no sense trying to use the tobacco angle as an unobtainable verdict since it had already happened in real life.

It should also be noted that in the book Easter and Marley used the verdict to make a lot of money for themselves, not for altruistic purposes.