Queens Gambit and Netflix

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:55 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:45 pm
BBC now has it
That has exactly the same inaccuracies as the Mail report. Presumably both are copied from the same source.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:32 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:40 pm
I imagine the games against British players had been at Hastings. Did she always play in the Premier, or was there an appearance in the Challengers?
The court papers say she won the Challengers in 1963 and played in the Premier in 1964-65, beating the English players mentioned.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:04 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:59 pm
Perhaps he was of a comparable standard to Mardle, N. Littlewood, Lee and Hindle, all of whom the court papers say were also highly ranked players.
I would very much welcome a court hearing in which the precise description of various second-tier British players of the 1960s was argued with the help of expert witnesses.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:23 pm

If she only played 59 men by 1968, (including 28 in a simul), the suggestion that she never played men is fairly (but not totally) accurate. 31 serious games, at least 18 of which were at the two Hastings appearances suggests that she mainly played women's tournaments. Netflix got it wrong, but maybe not $5M wrong...

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:48 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:23 pm
If she only played 59 men by 1968, (including 28 in a simul), the suggestion that she never played men is fairly (but not totally) accurate.
Hastings followed by a tournament in Iceland seem on the face of it her first recorded games against male players. That's not to say she didn't play simuls against men in the Soviet Union, but chess there seemed segregated at the higher levels of competition.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:30 pm

Was the dialogue in the book?

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:19 pm

I've still not seen it! but have now watched a 15 second clip showing the relevant bit that Nona is complaining about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUB6P59CUko

At the end of the programme do they show one of them disclaimers:

"All characters and corporations or establishments appearing in this work are fictitious.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. "

A smart lawyer could argue that calling her a Russian (wrong) and saying she never played men (wrong again)
they were referring to a factious character.

Though never having seen it (apart from a 15 second clip) I have been asked dozens of times is it any good?
I've always replied in the positive based mainly on the reaction from here. I hope you lot are spot on.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:30 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:19 pm
"All characters and corporations or establishments appearing in this work are fictitious.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. "

A smart lawyer could argue that calling her a Russian (wrong) and saying she never played men (wrong again)
they were referring to a factious character.
... and another smart lawyer would argue that claiming that a fictional character with the same name as a real person, both of whom were women's world chess champion, was coincidental is ludicrous.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:37 pm

Hi Ian,

It was a clumsy and needless error. The only winners financially will be our smart lawyers.
Netflix had a chance back in December to rectify it with an apology, now they could (and perhaps should) settle out of court.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:45 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:37 pm
Hi Ian,

It was a clumsy and needless error. The only winners financially will be our smart lawyers.
Netflix had a chance back in December to rectify it with an apology, now they could (and perhaps should) settle out of court.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Netflix lawyer argues that it hasn't done Gaprindashvili any financial damage at all. On the contrary, it's raised her public profile and increased her earning potential, not cost her the minimum of $75,000 her lawyers claim.

Gordon Morse
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Gordon Morse » Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:06 pm

The "Queen's Gambit" director delivered 'the worst acceptance speech in history':

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 23241.html

On a non-chess topic Gillian Anderson, who played Margaret Thatcher in "The Crown", was asked a question by a reporter which ranks up there with the one put by an (American?) reporter who asked The Proclaimers where they met.
I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:21 pm

"one put by an (American?) reporter who asked The Proclaimers where they met."

The Corrs suffered a similar fate in England...

Reg Clucas
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Reg Clucas » Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:55 pm

It's a bit surprising that the chess adviser for the series, Kasparov, did not pick up on that error.

Is there precedent for lawsuits based on statements made by a fictitious character?

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:06 pm

A charitable view is that the statement was originally intended to be, correctly, that NG never played against men *for the world title* - and that this somehow got "simplified". But if so, you would think Netflix would admit they "misspoke" rather than digging in as they have done.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Geoff Chandler » Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:41 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:55 pm
...Is there precedent for lawsuits based on statements made by a fictitious character?
Hi Reg,

There are some examples in the link below and how the ' "all persons fictitious" disclaimer came into being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_perso ... disclaimer

It also has some funny examples:

South Park
"All characters and events in this show – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated – poorly."

You Narzy(sic) Spy with the Three Stooges.
""Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle,"

Thunderbirds set in 2068
"None of the characters appearing in this photoplay intentionally resemble any persons living or dead… SINCE THEY DO NOT YET EXIST"

Also read the 'Effectiveness' section.

Fabian (Fabiano Anthony Forte) was awarded a small stake in a film even though he not mentioned but bore a close enough resemblance.

I recall how the friends and family were upset how one of the astronauts (now deceased) was portrayed in Apollo 13.
Do not know if a claim was made or settled.

Post Reply