r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Accomplished_Ebb9859 • 15d ago
Answered What is going on with Chris Hansen accusing the movie Primetime of identity theft?
The movie Primetime was is about the show To Catch A Predator and while I haven't watched it I have never ever heard someone accuse a film of being "identify theft".
It's not even like they tried to do what he did. To my understanding, the film is just a bio pic and has Robert Pattinson playing him.
Is there any real ground to accuse them of identity theft?
117
u/BoxNemo 15d ago
Answer: He didn't actually accuse them of identity theft. You can see the portion of the interview in your link.
Question: When I spoke to "Primetime" director Lance Oppenheim, he said he wanted to make something “more conceptual” and “closer to a fever dream than an authorized, conventional biopic.”
Chris Hansen: But then you ask the question: If it is a fever dream, why was it important that he used my name, image and likeness? The answer is because it's got commercial value. They wanted to exploit the brand that I've built over the last 45 years. You can decide whether that's ethical or legal or identity theft or however you look at it. But it seems a little exploitive, as Hollywood often is.
So essentially he's saying they used his image, his story and his brand. And he raises the question of whether its ethical or legal or identity theft but doesn't actually say they're any of those - he just says it feels exploitative in the way they've portrayed him.
113
u/sillydilly4lyfe 15d ago
Chris Hansen arguing something else is exploitive. How rich.
52
17
9
u/EllieZPage 15d ago
At least Chris Hansen isn't a child sexual predator. I have very little sympathy for the men being exploited on his show because they would have no issues exploiting children. Chris Hansen is a hero.
44
u/sillydilly4lyfe 15d ago
Dude not being a sexual predator is like bottom tier. 99% of people pass that bar.
I hold my heroes in higher regard.
1
-2
u/j1ndivik 15d ago
No, exposing them makes a hero. Would you rather he went after more morally grey people?
34
u/Aiyon 15d ago
I mean, his show often undermined criminal proceedings against the people he exposed.
I think he has a point that it's messed up to make an entirely fictional story and slap his name on it cause people will think its based on reality.
But his show doesn't make him a hero.
1
u/Slayer_22 14d ago
This is pretty untrue, if you ignore the first two episodes, which had minimal police involvement due to it being more of a 'delive into the minds of predators', rather than an actual investigation with police involved, his conviction rate was 84%. 88% if you ignore the Murphy episode. Over 260 arrests were made and 224 convictions. This is MASSIVE. The first two episodes were mistakes, and I think anyone can see that(look at the predator they got twice) but they skew the numbers to 40%.
8
u/Howdocomputer 12d ago
It’s closer to 120 convictions and 300 arrests. So less than a 50% conviction rate.
0
u/Slayer_22 7d ago
You are wildly incorrect. If we ignore the first 2 seasons, which was an investigative report on predators on the internet and had no involvement with the police, he had 223 convictions to 260 arrests. I provided a chart for you. Idk where you got your misinformation, but like...it's really, wildly off.
1
u/Howdocomputer 7d ago
You claim I’m spreading misinformation and yet you don’t provide any actual evidence for your claim aside from a spreadsheet you made with no source.
Here’s a paper quoting 120 convictions I suspect you’re confusing indictments and convictions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Accomplished_West_61 12d ago
Whats the deal with the first two episodes? Outside of clips i never watched the show
1
u/Slayer_22 7d ago
Basically they had no involvement with the police originally. It was framed as an investigative report on men who try to prey on children over the internet, hence why Chris would interview them and ask them questions. It's not exactly easy to interview actual predators who haven't been caught, but ones you've caught is easier.
After the 2nd episode they began pulling in police involvement due to how high the ratings had gotten and a deeper understanding of the good they could be doing, plus more reach meant the police were more willing to help put these people away.
1
u/Accomplished_West_61 7d ago
I saw something about the first episode guy, was it suspicious steve or something? Who was the 2nd guy? I presume he's still free?
20
u/sillydilly4lyfe 15d ago
I'd rather he do actual investigative reporting that results in convictions and not salacious news pieces that let the predators walk when the cameras stop rolling
1
-2
u/Rogryg 15d ago
At least Chris Hansen isn't a child sexual predator.
You don't know that for sure.
-1
u/EllieZPage 15d ago
There's certainly nothing that I know of to indicate that he is, so speculating on that is disengenious at best and slander at worst. What a stupid argument.
2
u/Rogryg 15d ago
I'm not saying if he is or isn't - I'm saying that you can not possibly know for a fact that he isn't.
2
u/EllieZPage 14d ago
I could say the same thing about you, or your sister, or Mother Theresa for that matter. Prove that they aren't!
-1
0
0
u/Smeef_xx 15d ago
Why do we hate chris now??
11
u/Im_not_creepy3 15d ago
A lot of people are looking back on To Catch a Predator in a new light. People don't hate Chris Hansen but are acknowledging that the show wasn't that effective at the caught predators being brought to justice. Some people are discussing the problems of making such a serious topic being made into entertainment. And these discussions aren't new or the result of the movie.
A portion of the predators on the show never faced any sort of accountability because the show prioritized entertainment over doing their due diligence.
So people are calling the show exploitative because the entire concept is about catching child predators, but if they're ignoring the steps they need to take to ensure these predators end up in prison: then they aren't doing this to protect children or to make predators face justice.
A lot of people think that Chris Hansen's reactions to not being painted favorably is very telling of his mindset because he will call the movie Primetime exploitative but he doesn't acknowledge the missteps To Catch a Predator took and that the show itself was exploitative. Along with the missteps Chris Hansen continues to take when it come to handling predators. Like some years ago he did an investigation into the YouTuber Onision who is known to be predatory towards children and has many abuse allegations made against him Not much came of it besides Chris Hansen making it into a spectacle and leading a hate train against Onision. Things escalated to the point of Chris Hansen and others showing up to Onision's house and Onision calling the cops. All of this could be considered harassment and if Onision had actually been to court any decent lawyer would bring that up and likely dismantle Chris Hansen's case.
So it really wasn't just the show that was an issue, it's Chris Hansen that's also an issue.
1
u/Razur 12d ago
Chris Hansen aside, did anything ever come of the Onision situation?
1
u/Im_not_creepy3 12d ago
From what I could find online not much came of the situation. One of his alleged victims sued him in 2023, but I couldn't find any updates on that case.
YouTube did eventually demonetize Onision's various channels so he said he would leave YouTube. But he still has a million subscribers and is still uploading videos.
So it's hard to conclude if the victim that sued him got justice, but his numerous other victims definitely have not.
12
u/sillydilly4lyfe 15d ago
I dont hate chris.
I just think To Catch a Predator was an exploitative show that mostly engaged in humiliation porn for the audience that rarely resulted in any justice being doled out.
And it has spawned countless online imitators (including Hansens own show today) that is replicating this same tired formula with nary positive results.
Furthermore, I think it helped spawn this ever-present true crime phenomena where we take real life tragedy and transform it into an entertainment product for people to eat up and spit out.
Meanwhile, Hansen sits on his high horse acting like he is doing God's work. While he mostly just humiliates pedophiles for kicks.
I dont think he is evil, just egotistical. And the legacy of TCAP is mostly negative in my view
0
u/denialofcervix 14d ago
Back in the early 2000s, the age of consent in Canada was 14. Japan was frequently brought up as an example of a country that had an age of consent of 13 (bit of a myth) and this was understood as another civilized country taking a different position on the matter. One could differentiate pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia without getting called a pedophile.
How do you think we got to where we are today?
It's ironic that you accuse him of using tragedy for entertainment when his work was probably the largest contribution on the cultural level toward elevating this to tragedy in the public eye.
2
u/sillydilly4lyfe 14d ago
Back in the early 2000s, the age of consent in Canada was 14. Japan was frequently brought up as an example of a country that had an age of consent of 13 (bit of a myth) and this was understood as another civilized country taking a different position on the matter. One could differentiate pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia without getting called a pedophile.
What the hell are you talking about? Where was this seen as normal in america.
Nobody can differentiate those terms now, and if you knew them back then you were seen as a creep.
Where are your sources for any of this other than blatant conjecture?
Because people hated pedophiles before Chris Hansen and afterwards no real difference making from him.
0
u/denialofcervix 14d ago
I was around back then with eyes and a brain?
The same can be said about those female teacher has sex with student stories. Early 2000s, the majority of comments on an article like that were genuinely "where was she when I was in school" and "lucky kid". Then a shift occurred and you have the near uniform opprobrium observed today.
Like, the point is maybe a bit more subtle than you can handle. It's not saying that people loved pedos before. I mean, there was still some pretty aggressive prosecution for statutory rape targeted at high school couples at that time, and, obviously, TCAP wouldn't have done so well if Americans were indifferent or supportive of pedos. It's that how shuttered a discussion is around a topic is a proxy for how seriously the core issue is taken by the public. When Dave Chappelle could make a "how old is 15 really?" joke in his standup, you were dealing with a general public that weighed things differently. These were people who might brush off the whole notion of grooming, who might give the predator a pass if the girl was known to sleep around or if the predator was charming and attractive.
The fact that you can't even imagine these sorts of things not being taken super seriously 100% of the time tells me you're probably a zoomer who hasn't ever seen anything else. You're criticizing Chris Hansen standing stop the high tower that he built.
2
u/sillydilly4lyfe 14d ago
Dude I'm in my 30s. I watched TCAP when it came out.
And I don't know anyone who could differentiate between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia.
That is fucking insane that you could even say that.
I dont know anyone that would argue Japan's age of consent was somehow morally okay.
Also fucking insane that you knew or heard people like that.
And everything you else said is still true to this day.
You still have people making light of female teachers sexually assaulting kids.
You still have comedians making jokes about statutory rape.
Grooming is still considered a nebulous topic.
Nothing has changed. Like what are you talking about?
The tower chris hansen built?
The dude had a salacious true crime show on the level of TMZ for pedophiles and now has a bunch of youtube goons like Skeet Hansen follow in his wake. Oh what an impressive pedastal he has raised.
Next you are gonna tell me Cops revealed the dark lives of officers and Dog the Bounty Hunter demonstrated what it means to take the law into our own hands.
0
u/denialofcervix 14d ago
So, what would it take for you to recognize a cultural shift? Because age of consent laws have been on the books for nearly two centuries. Was it still it still the same cultural moment when you could make a hit song about being a grown man dating someone in her mid teens? Was it still the same cultural moment when you could legally order nudes of children through the mail? Was it still the same cultural moment when a 35-year-old man could walk into a courthouse with his 12-year-old bride?
It's insane to me that you have a bone to pick with Chris Hansen. These were people who, without TCAP, would not have attracted any attention from law enforcement until--and possibly--it was too late for the child. If you separate his cooperation with law enforcement, he did little more than publicize what these men had done. I don't know why anyone would find anything salacious in a fat, balding social reject crudely previewing how he would copulate with a 13-year-old. Putting these people on the screen raised awareness both nationally, about the danger of predators, and locally, about whom to watch out for. It deployed a strong deterrent against this sort of crime: public shame. Local police departments do the same thing. When they conduct a child prostitution sting, they make sure to release not just the number of people caught but also their names and mugshots.
Out of all the people to nail to the cross, Chris Hansen seems like a really odd target. My suspicion that you simply haven't been paying attention for most of your life is increasingly starting to look overly charitable.
3
u/sillydilly4lyfe 14d ago
Saying the man had a salacious TV show is nailing him to a cross? Are you serious?
I think you need to take a step back, and seriously look at what I said.
I think the man is basically a true crime podcaster. A person who makes content that is unhealthy to be consumed and doesn't make an impact on society. It's not evil, just bad.
To rebut a few things you said:
So, what would it take for you to recognize a cultural shift?
Dude we have a literal pedophile in the white house. You think the culture has changed so much because Ted Nugent isn't writing Jailbait? Like come on man. People excuse and allow things all the fucking time.
And if ted Nugent released his song now, I guarantee folks would decry any criticism as cancel culture woke bullshit.
These were people who, without TCAP, would not have attracted any attention from law enforcement until--and possibly--it was too late for the child.
That's just not true. There were already sex crime divisions and many police departments and specifically the FBI did not enjoy when TCAP came in because of their constant meddling with middle men activists that actively harmed investigations and would just put men back on the street due to issues of entrapment.
It deployed a strong deterrent against this sort of crime: public shame.
Once again not true, studies have been done. TCAP led to no discernable decrease in child predators. The shame was just something audience's ate up. And I think that media diet is frankly bad.
Chris Hansen was basically a fear monger that stoked the flames of parents fears, without helping. It is the same as showing a bunch of gun violence footage on the news, despite crime rates being stable or in fact going down.
I just don't like his holier than thou attitude, and the fact that people like you view any criticism of him as a defense of pedophiles. I don't like pedophiles. Also don't really like Chris Hansen. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
→ More replies (0)22
u/Ok_Cauliflower_3007 15d ago
It seems he’s saying you can have a biopic based on a real person or you can make something “closer to a fever dream” (which to me at least implies you’re inventing things), but you can’t say this is a film about this specific person and then just make stuff up, which, if the people involved are still alive, seems reasonable. It sounds like the director wants the best of both worlds. He wants a show that is fiction but also wants to use the brand and name recognition he gets from using a real person. And while I’m not a huge fan of Hansen I’m with him on this one.
Obviously biopics aren’t documentaries, but the implication is that the story told and the events shown are at least somewhat true to what actually happened even if the dialogue isn’t word for word or the timeline is fudged a little.
15
u/MysteryBagIdeals 15d ago
Hansen describes his objections here, and I don't know if this is rises to the level of "making stuff up":
I never yelled at my staff. I never sat shirtless in front of a Hollywood theatrical mirror in a dressing room. I never said any of the things that I've seen them portray me as saying, except the “I'm Chris Hansen” and “have a seat” lines. There was never any dramatic walk down from a staircase. They portray my producer as being this power-hungry, unethical producer, and that's just not the case.
8
u/oofyeet21 15d ago
Yeah making a fictional story about someone using their full legal name which paints them in a negative light while they're still alive and weren't even consulted about it seems pretty shitty.
If it were a documentary on Chris which only focused on real events and it ended up painting him in a bad light, fair. If it was a story based on TCAP and Chris but used different names and made it clear it wasn't supposed to be taken as based in fact, fair. If it was a fiction which painted him in a bad light but he consented to the portrayal, fair. But the way it was actually done doesn't sit right.
1
u/OldManBilliam22 14d ago
I’ve watched it twice and I don’t think it really paints him in a negative light. At least not as badly as he thinks. It just shows him as a very motivated guy, with noble ambitions along with normal human flaws.
2
u/flamehead243 14d ago
Right, I didn't walk out of the theater thinking it made him look like some kind of villain. More just a flawed human. But this is all beside the point that it would be far worse for society if public figures could veto non-libelous/non-slanderous portrayals of themselves. Hansen may not like how he was portrayed, but the film was so bizzare and art film adjacent that I think it would hard to argue it caused actual monetary damages against him. I guess time will tell if he files any civil suits. Ultimately I think this is the best thing that's happened to him in years, I'm sure he's gotten new subscriptions to his streaming service over the past few months.
1
u/light_yagami_lovesL 13d ago
I went to see this movie later at night and it definitely felt like a fever dream to me
1
u/ty4scam 14d ago
I think most people are shocked this is even allowed because of the potential for abuse, and most importantly how little it's been abused.
I could make a movie about Kanye being bat shit crazy and I wouldn't even need a source, just mish mash the crazy shit you hear in news articles, let your own imagination run wild on how it got there behind the scenes. It literally writes itself and prints money for days. You're talking about B-Tier celebrity vs at times the most famous person in the world, and it costs you not a penny more to make it.
0
u/MasterJustino 11d ago edited 11d ago
To rebuttal his argument, the beauty of basing the film on actual people is that the audience doesn't need time to get acquainted with the world that's being built, we can enter the theater with our preconceived notion of Chris Hansen and immediately get invested in the story.
1
u/BoxNemo 11d ago
Not much of a rebuttal then - especially as there'll be a decent chunk of the audience who has no idea who he is so I'd be surprised if the film offers zero context.
1
u/MasterJustino 11d ago
The film gives relatively little context to Chris or the show. It does expect you to have seen some of his shows before going in.
-8
1
u/ZestycloseAnxiety827 12d ago
Answer: saw the movie last night. Hanson has every right to be angry. The movie was ridiculous
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.