When they classified House of Hancock as a ‘drama,’ they had no idea…
The second (and final) episode of House of Hancock aired last night, with a Gina-Rinehart-approved disclaimer: “This program is a drama, not a documentary”.
That sentence is the result of an intense legal battle between Rinehart and Channel 9, where basically she took issue with how her horrendous loving family was depicted. She also forced them to edit out a number of scenes…
The big question is what Gina wanted deleted.
One of the scenes she wanted cut sounds a little bit amazing: It’s of her (played by Mandy McElhinney) walking slowly across the red dirt of the Pilbara as the landscape behind her explodes. This was the original ending to the series, but, like them mines, it’s gone.
The image arguably made Gina out to be a and ruthless business-woman/environment-destroyer, and she fought hard to have it axed by Channel Nine.
However the battle didn’t stop there.
Read more about it here: Look who’s set to play Gina Rinehart in the telemovie about her life…
On Friday afternoon, Rinehart made an urgent application to the Supreme Court of NSW seeking access to the entire episode. She claimed the second episode contained “injurious falsehoods, was defamatory, and breach consumer law,” News.com.au reports.
Details of the settlement weren’t made public, but it is understood that there were several changes to Sunday night’s episode including the addition of the disclaimer alongside the warning that some details had been “fictionalised”.
Viewers were quick to give their take on the whole scenario, in a series of mini-reviews – or “tweets” as they are commonly known. Here are just a few…
Rinehart is said to be considering further legal action. Are we the only ones picturing her leaving her solicitor’s office with explosions in the background?
One Tree Hill's Bethany Joy Lenz Lived In A Cult For 10 Years
The Spill
Top Comments
I've said it before and I'll say it again...if Gina were a male mining magnate with a healthy dose of media hunger (and media charisma) we would be applauding her as a fabulous success. The fact she does not readily demonstrate a softer, more feminine side doesn't mean she hasn't one, yet it has made her a target for all kinds of mud slinging.
Next time she says something that makes you roll your eyes, imagine the words coming out of someone who presents like, say, Andrew Forrest. It suddenly become more palatable, rightly or wrongly.
As a strong, opinionated and unrepentant feminist I have to say that her lazy, entitled bullsh**, her belief she actually got somewhere under her own steam, her desire to steal a living wage from those who did not have her good fortune, her total inability to realise how lucky she is, her vile haggling over every single cent of her unearned money - those are the things I personally find vomit inducing.
I daresay you're right and many don't like her because of her personal "unfeminine" traits. I just think she's a greedy, lying, ignorant douche and I would dislike her equally regardless of her sex.
I understand your opinion and you raise some valid points. I had to do quite a bit of research on Gina and her upbringing and involvement in Lang's businesses, which altered my opinion. She now has more of my understanding and, perhaps, pity. Yes, you read that right, pity. I wouldn't trade my paltry life with hers for quids.
But it's worth noting that she inherited $75m and is now worth around $20bn. I reckon she's done something under her own steam.
Im a feminist & always alert to egs of women receiving different treatment due to their gender (julia gillard anyone?) but I dont agree this applies to gina. 3 of her 4 children csnt stand her & have taken her to court. If she were a bloke, I would still think this is clearly an awful person who has done a dreadful job of parenting. I have found her nauseous speeches about how lazy australians are & how she created her wealth through hard work alone ironic to say the least from Someone who inherited a mining company! Yes, she has clearly done well with what she was given but what a gift. She would be a total nobody if she grew up poor in western sydney Ive no doubt.
There is nothing so vicious as to attack a woman on her looks. By all accounts ( including her own) Her father and her and a very good relationship and he was very kind and loving. I had an excellent relationship with my father. If I was public figure watching my biopic where the relationship characterized my dad a cold and uncaring man, telling me I had no sexual market value, that I was unlovable ( both to my husband and people in general mentioned twice) I would be incensed, it goes way beyond what is acceptable for creative license.
I find it a bit ironic that comments on this thread are that Gina should know that we all understand this is fiction. The reality is this woman gets beat up a lot in the media. They never mention the thousands of jobs she creates or the risks she takes with her Companies to pull the Ore from the ground.
There does not seem to be any support for her, and this is a website dedicated to women and she gets beat up on here also. Hey if it was so easy why don't the whiners get off their backsides and do it themselves? So I completely understand why she would think we are all morons that believe everything that is fed to us.
"Hey if it was so easy why don't the whiners get off their backsides and do it themselves?"
I blame my father - for not being a billionaire & leaving me a mining company.
You could look at it that way. The other way is to see that she didn't have to work a day in her life but has chosen to be driven and successful.
Sheena - exactly, and not to mention the training and staff that her father left her with. A bit of a head start. I don't doubt that she works hard, but she she had a lot of help.
Gina, is that you?