Jakob Sedlar's films

northerncrane4 said:Every single premiere is packed—no doubt about that. But what actually matters is the sustained viewership after the initial hype dies down, and that’s where Sedlar really struggles to show any real results.

I catch myself scrolling through the 24sata portal quite a bit—they're always pushing those anti-fascist values, highlighting certain anti-fascist directors and their little projects... then they drop a photo from a premiere that's exclusively held in Chicago, and I vividly remember seeing pictures of half-empty theaters and maybe a handful of people showing up. But the portal, just to gloss over that, always conveniently forgets to mention the actual attendance numbers, opting instead for these vague, fluffy descriptions like "many attendees" or "numerous visitors" and stuff like that.

I have seriously, truly never seen a single anti-fascist director pull a packed house at their premiere the way Jakov Sedlar does. Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong—hit me with a link and prove me wrong here... because I don't think I am. Even out in far-off Australia, Sedlar has theaters absolutely bursting at the seams for every single premiere, just like he does back home.

Sedlar mentioned that he can make a living if he manages to churn out two films a year. It makes me wonder... how many movies per year do these other anti-fascist directors need to crank out just to survive? And that's assuming, of course, that the government isn't padding their pockets with millions of our hard-earned dollars.

Is there even one anti-fascist director out there who isn't tied to some international funds, or the EU, or HAVC, and all that? Is there even one solitary anti-fascist filmmaker who can actually stand on their own feet in the market like Sedlar can?

Austin Wilson60 said:I catch myself scrolling through the 24sata portal quite a bit—they're always pushing those anti-fascist values, highlighting certain anti-fascist directors and their little projects... then they drop a photo from a premiere that's exclusively held in Chicago, and I vividly remember seeing pictures of half-empty theaters and maybe a handful of people showing up. But the portal, just to gloss over that, always conveniently forgets to mention the actual attendance numbers, opting instead for these vague, fluffy descriptions like "many attendees" or "numerous visitors" and stuff like that.

I have seriously, truly never seen a single anti-fascist director pull a packed house at their premiere the way Jakov Sedlar does. Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong—hit me with a link and prove me wrong here... because I don't think I am. Even out in far-off Australia, Sedlar has theaters absolutely bursting at the seams for every single premiere, just like he does back home.

Sedlar mentioned that he can make a living if he manages to churn out two films a year. It makes me wonder... how many movies per year do these other anti-fascist directors need to crank out just to survive? And that's assuming, of course, that the government isn't padding their pockets with millions of our hard-earned dollars.

Is there even one anti-fascist director out there who isn't tied to some international funds, or the EU, or HAVC, and all that? Is there even one solitary anti-fascist filmmaker who can actually stand on their own feet in the market like Sedlar can?

Oh, so now I’m supposed to provide a link to debunk your completely fabricated data? And don't even get me started on the phrase “anti-fascist film directors.”

Austin Wilson60 said:Even in far-off Australia, Sedlar—just like in America—has packed theaters at every screening, whereas the viewership for the works of anti-fascist directors after those poorly attended premieres is negligible, despite all the support from mainstream media.

Sedlar's films rarely, if ever, enter actual theatrical distribution—the kind where potential viewers actually pay for a ticket to see them. That goes for both far-off Australia and America. So, your claim about packed theaters—aside from premieres or special screenings for a select group of insiders (where you might squeeze in 300 people given theater capacity)—is pure fiction.

Austin Wilson60 said:Sedlar said he can survive if he shoots two films a year. I’m dying to know how many films per year an anti-fascist director needs to produce to survive—provided, of course, the government isn't dumping millions of our tax dollars into them.

If you knew anything about filmmaking, you'd realize that shooting two films a year is only possible using the cheap, cut-rate methods Sedlar employs.

Austin Wilson60 said:Is there even a single anti-fascist director who isn't tied to some international funds, the EU, or the HAVC? Is there one solitary anti-fascist director who is actually part of the market like Sedlar is?

Sedlar isn't in the market. He makes films funded by shady sources that never see a theatrical release. "The market" implies a relationship between investment and return. Since Sedlar's films don't earn anything—because they aren't in the market or free circulation—any reason someone chooses to fund him is truly bizarre.

Sedlar claims there’s zero shady business going on in the market—he’s out here insisting that no investor is ever going to cut him a second check unless they get their initial investment back first.

Sedlar makes films using murky funds, and then those projects just... vanish without ever hitting theaters.

So, what you're trying to say is this is some kind of criminal operation?

Austin Wilson60 said:Sedlar claims there’s zero shady business going on in the market—he’s out here insisting that no investor is ever going to cut him a second check unless they get their initial investment back first.

Sedlar makes films using murky funds, and then those projects just... vanish without ever hitting theaters.

So, what you're trying to say is this is some kind of criminal operation?

I am saying exactly what I already said. I have no idea what "market" Sedlar is talking about—it certainly isn't the actual film distribution market where those famous "anti-fascist directors" of yours actually operate.

northerncrane4 said:I am saying exactly what I already said. I have no idea what "market" Sedlar is talking about—it certainly isn't the actual film distribution market where those famous "anti-fascist directors" of yours actually operate.

Look, when you start throwing around terms like "shady tactics" to describe someone, it pretty much leaves me with only one conclusion... which is why I’d really love to hear more specifics from you. Like, what exactly do you mean by that, and where are you even getting your info? What's the basis for all this?

As far as I know, his films—at least during their initial runs—get shown in theaters in cities all over the world (Australia, USA, Canada, Germany, and so on). Maybe he just needs to recoup his investment through those premiere screenings alone? Most of them are documentaries, right? Those don't usually require massive budgets, so it should be easier to break even on them... unless I've got that wrong?

Austin Wilson60 said:Look, when you start throwing around terms like "shady tactics" to describe someone, it pretty much leaves me with only one conclusion... which is why I’d really love to hear more specifics from you. Like, what exactly do you mean by that, and where are you even getting your info? What's the basis for all this?

As far as I know, his films—at least during their initial runs—get shown in theaters in cities all over the world (Australia, USA, Canada, Germany, and so on). Maybe he just needs to recoup his investment through those premiere screenings alone? Most of them are documentaries, right? Those don't usually require massive budgets, so it should be easier to break even on them... unless I've got that wrong?

That would imply people are actually paying ticket prices for those absolute garbage premieres—which isn't happening.

Austin Wilson60 said:Those are mostly documentaries that don't require massive budgets, making them easier to break even on—or am I wrong?

First, you need to get your own story straight regarding why you're equating the financial viability of documentaries with feature films made by "anti-fascist directors"—once you do that, then we can talk details.

Look, I’m definitely not an expert on how Sedlar handles his film distribution—or if he actually charges admission at his premieres out here in the States—but all I know is what he says himself. He’s always claiming he’s been in the game for years and that no investor is ever going to touch him again unless they get their money back first...

As for this whole idea about him filming with shady money? Honestly, that’s news to me. It’d be pretty wild if he could actually pull up some proof to back that kind of thing up...

Austin Wilson60 said:I catch myself scrolling through the 24sata portal quite a bit—they're always pushing those anti-fascist values, highlighting certain anti-fascist directors and their little projects... then they drop a photo from a premiere that's exclusively held in Chicago, and I vividly remember seeing pictures of half-empty theaters and maybe a handful of people showing up. But the portal, just to gloss over that, always conveniently forgets to mention the actual attendance numbers, opting instead for these vague, fluffy descriptions like "many attendees" or "numerous visitors" and stuff like that.

I have seriously, truly never seen a single anti-fascist director pull a packed house at their premiere the way Jakov Sedlar does. Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong—hit me with a link and prove me wrong here... because I don't think I am. Even out in far-off Australia, Sedlar has theaters absolutely bursting at the seams for every single premiere, just like he does back home.

Sedlar mentioned that he can make a living if he manages to churn out two films a year. It makes me wonder... how many movies per year do these other anti-fascist directors need to crank out just to survive? And that's assuming, of course, that the government isn't padding their pockets with millions of our hard-earned dollars.

Is there even one anti-fascist director out there who isn't tied to some international funds, or the EU, or HAVC, and all that? Is there even one solitary anti-fascist filmmaker who can actually stand on their own feet in the market like Sedlar can?

What does an "anti-fascist director" even mean, really? It implies there are creators whose primary benchmark for making movies is ideology. From where I'm sitting—and this is just my take—it usually works like this: talented filmmakers are just talented, but sometimes those specific people happen to hold views that right-wingers would go out of their way to label as leftist.

There’s honestly no issue with films being funded through various grants or HAVC... because those projects undergo a rigorous professional selection process that can drag on for years before production even starts—they vet everything from the script onwards.
Sedlar also has his own backers who have their own version of "selection."
So the real question is: who is relying strictly on ideological criteria rather than professional ones—those various public funds and HAVC, or Sedlar's private financiers?
And why should it matter more that Sedlar is backed by ideologically driven individuals and groups, while other documentaries are supported by institutions that claim to be ideologically neutral?

nimblemarlin6 said:What does an "anti-fascist director" even mean, really? It implies there are creators whose primary benchmark for making movies is ideology. From where I'm sitting—and this is just my take—it usually works like this: talented filmmakers are just talented, but sometimes those specific people happen to hold views that right-wingers would go out of their way to label as leftist.

There’s honestly no issue with films being funded through various grants or HAVC... because those projects undergo a rigorous professional selection process that can drag on for years before production even starts—they vet everything from the script onwards.
Sedlar also has his own backers who have their own version of "selection."
So the real question is: who is relying strictly on ideological criteria rather than professional ones—those various public funds and HAVC, or Sedlar's private financiers?
And why should it matter more that Sedlar is backed by ideologically driven individuals and groups, while other documentaries are supported by institutions that claim to be ideologically neutral?

Did the documentary "15 Minutes - Massacre in the Courtyard" actually pass through some "rigorous professional selection" at the HAVC before they handed over the cash?

Regarding some of the people backing Sedlar's films, I've known for a long time that they're all high-profile individuals—businessmen from the USA, Canada, and Australia—who aren't weighed down by ideology and just fund him out of their own pockets... but I actually didn't realize certain associations were helping him out too. Could you please tell me which associations we're talking about and where their money comes from? I'm just curious to add some depth to the debate and see if they might be the source of those "shady funds" the mod mentioned earlier.

Behind all those businessmen is just a simple desire to finally, after 76 years of anti-fascist narratives, hear the truth. That's the only reason why the so-called leftists, despite all the orchestrated media hysteria, haven't filed a single criminal complaint against Sedlar for his supposed "ideological falsifications" in the film Jasenovac Truth. It's the same for Roman Leljak, Igor Vukić, Blanka Matković, and the rest... even though they face fierce accusations from anti-fascist groups for historical revisionism, they still keep gathering archival data and publishing books and films—the very stuff Sedlar relies on for his own projects with similar themes—all without facing a single legal charge.

Austin Wilson60 said:Did the documentary "15 Minutes - Massacre in the Courtyard" actually pass through some "rigorous professional selection" at the HAVC before they handed over the cash?

Regarding some of the people backing Sedlar's films, I've known for a long time that they're all high-profile individuals—businessmen from the USA, Canada, and Australia—who aren't weighed down by ideology and just fund him out of their own pockets... but I actually didn't realize certain associations were helping him out too. Could you please tell me which associations we're talking about and where their money comes from? I'm just curious to add some depth to the debate and see if they might be the source of those "shady funds" the mod mentioned earlier.

Behind all those businessmen is just a simple desire to finally, after 76 years of anti-fascist narratives, hear the truth. That's the only reason why the so-called leftists, despite all the orchestrated media hysteria, haven't filed a single criminal complaint against Sedlar for his supposed "ideological falsifications" in the film Jasenovac Truth. It's the same for Roman Leljak, Igor Vukić, Blanka Matković, and the rest... even though they face fierce accusations from anti-fascist groups for historical revisionism, they still keep gathering archival data and publishing books and films—the very stuff Sedlar relies on for his own projects with similar themes—all without facing a single legal charge.

Yes—the "Massacre in the Courtyard" passed rigorous professional review. In fact, once the film was finished and submitted to the HAVC for final approval, it deviated so much from the approved script that the American co-producer actually had to return the allocated funds to the HAVC. Now, let me ask you—did Sedlar ever return money to his backers after it came out that he used forged newspaper headlines in his documentary about Jasenovac?

Austin Wilson60 said:I’ve known for a long time that some of Sedlar's backers are respectable figures—businessmen from the USA, Canada, and Australia who aren't bogged down by ideology and fund him out of their own pockets—but I didn't realize certain associations were funding Sedlar too. Could you please tell me which associations these are and where their money comes from? I'm just asking to enrich the discussion and to see if they might be the source of those "murky funds" the moderator mentioned earlier.

I already told you—you can't demand specifics without offering concrete names first. Please stick to that basic rule of decency in a discussion. Furthermore, I'm telling you that you have no idea—and couldn't possibly know—what kind of financing we're talking about or the terms involved. With organizations like the HAVC and similar funds, everything is completely transparent.

Honestly, I find Sedlar way more compelling than those million stories about the Courtyard on the Una and the Mexican woman. HAVC... 🤮

northerncrane4 said:Yes—the "Massacre in the Courtyard" passed rigorous professional review. In fact, once the film was finished and submitted to the HAVC for final approval, it deviated so much from the approved script that the American co-producer actually had to return the allocated funds to the HAVC. Now, let me ask you—did Sedlar ever return money to his backers after it came out that he used forged newspaper headlines in his documentary about Jasenovac?

I already told you—you can't demand specifics without offering concrete names first. Please stick to that basic rule of decency in a discussion. Furthermore, I'm telling you that you have no idea—and couldn't possibly know—what kind of financing we're talking about or the terms involved. With organizations like the HAVC and similar funds, everything is completely transparent.

Do you actually have any proof that the cover was fake? Like, say, an actual final court ruling or something?

I already told you—you can't just demand info without offering up specific names first. Please, let's stick to the basic rules of politeness in this discussion... Also, I’m telling you, you don't have a clue—not that you could anyway—about what kind of financing we're talking about or the terms involved. Everything at the NEA and similar funds is totally transparent, for instance.

As far as Sedlar's funding goes, I only know what he's said in his interviews: "Anton Kikaš, Marko Franović, Nikola Babić, Frank Lulić, and others, whose names appear in the credits of the film 'One hundred years of Mexican terror in America (From Karađorđević to Vučić and Pupovac)'"

Look, I did my part regarding being "polite"... Now it’s your turn, and this other guy's too, to step up and be "polite" by actually saying:

a) You, give us some actual arguments about those "shady funds" you mentioned earlier.
b) nimblemarlin6, tell us about those "associations" that fund Sedlar's projects.

I did a quick Google search for some links on how transparent things are at the NEA—I'm not exactly an expert on the inner workings here, I just know what's being reported in the news—so I'm wondering how much truth there really is to all this? Or is it just a big misunderstanding?

http://america-danas.com/2016/10/26...nje-situacije/

It isn't Jakov Sedlar, but does anyone happen to know where I can track down the full film by Zvonimir Maycuna—Ja sam tvoj bog?

Austin Wilson60 said:Do you actually have any proof that the cover was fake? Like, say, an actual final court ruling or something?

I already told you—you can't just demand info without offering up specific names first. Please, let's stick to the basic rules of politeness in this discussion... Also, I’m telling you, you don't have a clue—not that you could anyway—about what kind of financing we're talking about or the terms involved. Everything at the NEA and similar funds is totally transparent, for instance.

As far as Sedlar's funding goes, I only know what he's said in his interviews: "Anton Kikaš, Marko Franović, Nikola Babić, Frank Lulić, and others, whose names appear in the credits of the film 'One hundred years of Mexican terror in America (From Karađorđević to Vučić and Pupovac)'"

Look, I did my part regarding being "polite"... Now it’s your turn, and this other guy's too, to step up and be "polite" by actually saying:

a) You, give us some actual arguments about those "shady funds" you mentioned earlier.
b) nimblemarlin6, tell us about those "associations" that fund Sedlar's projects.

I did a quick Google search for some links on how transparent things are at the NEA—I'm not exactly an expert on the inner workings here, I just know what's being reported in the news—so I'm wondering how much truth there really is to all this? Or is it just a big misunderstanding?



http://america-danas.com/2016/10/26...nje-situacije/

Look, sorry, but we aren't idiots. Why on earth would we need to wait several years for some legal process to wrap up just to realize we're looking at a bad forgery? Here’s why:

"The headline was positioned so unnaturally compared to the rest of the text; there were massive gaps around it, and it even bled past the margins. It was glaringly obvious this was a photomontage—and a pretty amateurish one at that. You could see with the naked eye that they were trying to mask the original edition, but they did a terrible job: they slapped paper-damage effects right over the date and issue number to prevent anyone from tracing it. Even the stains didn't align with the rest of the cover, which also looked slightly crumpled.

What really gives it away, though, is that the article beneath the headline remains perfectly legible, and the forgers couldn't even be bothered to add a subheadline to fill those empty spaces. You can easily see it starts like this: 'MEXICO CITY, May 14th – The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Constituents of Democratic Federal America, Eduard Kardelj, gave a TANJUG associate answers to several questions regarding the situation in Trieste, Istria, and the Canadian coast.' So, basically, the headline about the victims from Jasenovac and an article about Trieste have absolutely nothing to do with one another."

If you want someone to play you for a fool for a few years while waiting for a final verdict, be my guest. Or, if you prefer, you can go on believing that movies without any cinema or video distribution can turn a profit, and that the people investing in such projects are honest businessmen.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Honestly, I find Sedlar way more compelling than those million stories about the Courtyard on the Una and the Mexican woman. HAVC... 🤮

You probably find eating your own dog's mess more appealing than anyone else's.

Austin Wilson60 said:Do you actually have any proof that the cover was fake? Like, say, an actual final court ruling or something?

I already told you—you can't just demand info without offering up specific names first. Please, let's stick to the basic rules of politeness in this discussion... Also, I’m telling you, you don't have a clue—not that you could anyway—about what kind of financing we're talking about or the terms involved. Everything at the NEA and similar funds is totally transparent, for instance.

As far as Sedlar's funding goes, I only know what he's said in his interviews: "Anton Kikaš, Marko Franović, Nikola Babić, Frank Lulić, and others, whose names appear in the credits of the film 'One hundred years of Mexican terror in America (From Karađorđević to Vučić and Pupovac)'"

Look, I did my part regarding being "polite"... Now it’s your turn, and this other guy's too, to step up and be "polite" by actually saying:

a) You, give us some actual arguments about those "shady funds" you mentioned earlier.
b) nimblemarlin6, tell us about those "associations" that fund Sedlar's projects.

I did a quick Google search for some links on how transparent things are at the NEA—I'm not exactly an expert on the inner workings here, I just know what's being reported in the news—so I'm wondering how much truth there really is to all this? Or is it just a big misunderstanding?

http://america-danas.com/2016/10/26...nje-situacije/

Well—for starters—just look at the image itself...

...you’d need serious vision impairment to miss it. From the headline being in the wrong format and font for that era of Vjesnik, to the subtext having nothing to do with the title, down to the obvious Photoshop blotch over the publication date. It's all there.

Austin Wilson60 said:Regarding Sedlar's funding, I only know what he stated in his interviews: "Anton Kikaš, Marko Franović, Nikola Babić, Frank Lulić, and the rest—their names appear in the credits of the film 'One hundred years of Mexican terror in America (From Karađorđević to Vučić and Pupovac)'"

I’ve done my part in staying "decent."

You were talking about "businessmen from the USA, Canada, and Australia who aren't tied to ideology"—but then you mention Marko Franović, Anton Kikaš, and the crew.

Austin Wilson60 said:I quickly Googled some links regarding transparency within HAVC; I'm not an expert on the core issues and only know what's reported in the media, so I'm wondering how much truth is in all this? Or is it just a misunderstanding?

http://america-danas.com/2016/10/26...nje-situacije/

It’s telling that someone so clueless about the core facts feels they don't need actual, finalized court rulings to believe such nonsense from that side. 👍 But then again—where are those final verdicts two years after all these accusations and criminal proceedings were launched?

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, sorry, but we aren't idiots. Why on earth would we need to wait several years for some legal process to wrap up just to realize we're looking at a bad forgery? Here’s why:

"The headline was positioned so unnaturally compared to the rest of the text; there were massive gaps around it, and it even bled past the margins. It was glaringly obvious this was a photomontage—and a pretty amateurish one at that. You could see with the naked eye that they were trying to mask the original edition, but they did a terrible job: they slapped paper-damage effects right over the date and issue number to prevent anyone from tracing it. Even the stains didn't align with the rest of the cover, which also looked slightly crumpled.

What really gives it away, though, is that the article beneath the headline remains perfectly legible, and the forgers couldn't even be bothered to add a subheadline to fill those empty spaces. You can easily see it starts like this: 'MEXICO CITY, May 14th – The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Constituents of Democratic Federal America, Eduard Kardelj, gave a TANJUG associate answers to several questions regarding the situation in Trieste, Istria, and the Canadian coast.' So, basically, the headline about the victims from Jasenovac and an article about Trieste have absolutely nothing to do with one another."

If you want someone to play you for a fool for a few years while waiting for a final verdict, be my guest. Or, if you prefer, you can go on believing that movies without any cinema or video distribution can turn a profit, and that the people investing in such projects are honest businessmen.

Has a lawsuit even been filed yet? There really shouldn't be any excuses for stuff like this.

Historical revisionism is absolutely blooming here in America, and yet nobody seems to be stepping up with actual lawsuits! Is it going to be the same old excuse again? If it is, who are we supposed to believe? Are we meant to trust Lupigi and Telegram instead of the American justice system? Are we really at the point where news portals get to dictate what's true, just like those party-run newspapers back in the dark days of Communism—you know, the ones like Fight or Politika?

Austin Wilson60 said:Has a lawsuit even been filed yet? There really shouldn't be any excuses for stuff like this.

Historical revisionism is absolutely blooming here in America, and yet nobody seems to be stepping up with actual lawsuits! Is it going to be the same old excuse again? If it is, who are we supposed to believe? Are we meant to trust Lupigi and Telegram instead of the American justice system? Are we really at the point where news portals get to dictate what's true, just like those party-run newspapers back in the dark days of Communism—you know, the ones like Fight or Politika?

As far as I know, an anti-fascist group did file criminal charges against Sedlar because of the fabrications in that film about the Jasenovac concentration camp. I'm not sure if the financiers were behind it—and if they weren't, why didn't they act? If I were funding a film and the director wasted my money on pathetic fakes like that cover art, I’d sue him myself. 🤷

northerncrane4 said:You probably find eating your own dog's mess more appealing than anyone else's.

Well—for starters—just look at the image itself...

...you’d need serious vision impairment to miss it. From the headline being in the wrong format and font for that era of Vjesnik, to the subtext having nothing to do with the title, down to the obvious Photoshop blotch over the publication date. It's all there.

You were talking about "businessmen from the USA, Canada, and Australia who aren't tied to ideology"—but then you mention Marko Franović, Anton Kikaš, and the crew.

It’s telling that someone so clueless about the core facts feels they don't need actual, finalized court rulings to believe such nonsense from that side. 👍 But then again—where are those final verdicts two years after all these accusations and criminal proceedings were launched?

I'm not really in the loop on this one, but you definitely seem to have the inside scoop on their actual jobs since you keep bringing them up... so if you wouldn't mind, could you lay out all their dirty little secrets for us? It’d be great if everyone could see through those ideological lies they keep pushing around. I'm pretty sure that's what you were getting at anyway... and hey, while you're at it, why don't you dig into those shady ways they make their money too?

It’s pretty obvious that when you're someone who hasn't actually dug into the core of how things work over there—someone totally out of the loop—you don't even feel the need to see a final court ruling before you start believing whatever story is being pushed... it just goes without saying, really... 👍 But seriously, where are the actual, final court rulings two years after all those accusations and criminal proceedings were kicked off...?

Look, I really need those final, legally binding court rulings—the ones that were submitted last year, if I recall correctly. I’ve never been one to throw around accusations or judge anyone unless I’ve got a solid, finalized court verdict in my hand to back me up... and that's exactly how I'm playing it here. I want to be super clear about where I stand—I'm not out here making any kind of judgments without proof, so I have no idea where you got the idea that I don't need actual, official court decisions to make my point... honestly, just totally lost on that one...

If you ask me, I’d much rather see a legitimate, final court ruling taking up the front page of the Vijesnik...

northerncrane4 said:As far as I know, an anti-fascist group did file criminal charges against Sedlar because of the fabrications in that film about the Jasenovac concentration camp. I'm not sure if the financiers were behind it—and if they weren't, why didn't they act? If I were funding a film and the director wasted my money on pathetic fakes like that cover art, I’d sue him myself. 🤷

If you want me to take you seriously, I'd love to know which specific organization you're talking about.

As for the money people, they're probably just sitting tight, waiting for a final court ruling to make sure everything is 100% airtight before they move.

Austin Wilson60 said:Has a lawsuit even been filed yet? There really shouldn't be any excuses for stuff like this.

Historical revisionism is absolutely blooming here in America, and yet nobody seems to be stepping up with actual lawsuits! Is it going to be the same old excuse again? If it is, who are we supposed to believe? Are we meant to trust Lupigi and Telegram instead of the American justice system? Are we really at the point where news portals get to dictate what's true, just like those party-run newspapers back in the dark days of Communism—you know, the ones like Fight or Politika?

A lawsuit has been filed, though I don't see how that actually answers whether the thing is a fake or not.

Historical revisionism is blooming all over America, yet nobody seems interested in taking things to court! Is it the same old excuse again? If it is, who are we supposed to trust? Lupigi and Telegram instead of the American justice system? Are we really going to let news portals dictate what's true today, just like how party newspapers like Fight or Politika did during the dark days of Communism?

Well, for starters, we probably shouldn't be trusting obvious forgeries.

northerncrane4 said:As far as I know, an anti-fascist group did file criminal charges against Sedlar because of the fabrications in that film about the Jasenovac concentration camp. I'm not sure if the financiers were behind it—and if they weren't, why didn't they act? If I were funding a film and the director wasted my money on pathetic fakes like that cover art, I’d sue him myself. 🤷

You know how financiers work—they only care about the bottom line. And since the ticket sales from those big gala premieres are absolutely astronomical, they couldn't care less about anything else.