Why no Jackie Fox again?
Just wondering.........
shareJackie Fox refused permission for him to be portrayed
No Day But Today. Today 4 U. One Song Glory.
How we gonna pay last year's RENT?!
MovieChat Forums > The Runaways (2010) Discussion > Why no Jackie Fox again?
Jackie Fox refused the use of her name in the movie, so they created a "fictional" bassist named Robin.
shareI imagine she wanted nothing to do with this lovechild movie of Joan and Cherie's massive egos.
I love Jesus AND Jesus-hating atheists and am 100% proud!
[deleted]
She refused to have anything to do with the film, esp. after her experience with the band.
Just the same, there is a brief nod to Jackie during the scene where the Fowley character is describing each member to someone on the phone. The character of 'Robin' is described as being book smart, etc.
According to Cherie's autobio, Jackie was infamous in the band for being a bookworm, constantly reading when she wasn't playing. This kind of irritated her bandmates who were looking to live the party atmosphere of a rock band.
That written, I do believe she grew up to become an attorney! So all that bookreading wasn't for naught!
[deleted]
I'm a fan of Joan and Cherie, but certain things that have happened (mainly regarding this joke of a film) annoy me.
This movie's called "The Runaways", yet it focuses on little else other than Cherie and Joan. It might as well have been called "Cherie and Joan," if you ask me. Even then, this film was very inaccurate and rushed. Anyway, people make it out to be that it's Jackie's own fault that this movie did her no kind of justice. I don't think that's the case. I've read that in regards to the lawsuit, Jackie (who became an attorney after leaving the band) won the case over Joan. Even though some of Cherie's claims about Jackie seem "out there", (such as the fact that she repeatedly took stabs at Jackie's bass playing in her 2010 autobiography, acting like Jackie had no idea what she was doing. Despite the fact that I've read on websites in dedication to the band that Jackie pretty much unanimously got in the band.) she has said that Jackie's very book-smart and clever. Just from reading those old stories she wrote on a blog in the early 2000s, you can tell that Jackie's very intelligent. I'm guessing that that's mainly why she won that case. Jackie actually wrote on that blog that Cherie was making untrue claims about stuff that she said happened within the band, and if Cherie's intentionally making false claims, that bothers me.
This movie shouldn't have been made the way it was. Does little justice to Sandy, Lita, or Jackie, casted people who appeal to 13 year olds, and was very rushed and inaccurate.
After reading this article, I find it very sad she was left out
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/
She refused to have her name in the film, and I think the article explains her reasoning. Whoa. Still reeling from the story.
je suis prest
I've been reading some things since yesterday. Poor Jackie. No wonder she didnt' want to be involved in this film. And I see the band in a whole new light now especially Joan Jett. Very disappointing and disgusting. Im surprised there aren't more comments about this on this board or Joan Jett's board. I think a lot of fans are in denial just like Joan. Don't want to believe their rock idol could behave this way. It's still she said/she said but I believe Jackie.
shareI'm shocked there aren't more comments either. People always end up in denial or blaming the "victim". But heck she's a survivor, and a darn strong one. Shame on the other ladies, esp for backing a stinker like Fowley. Ugh!
These are aristocrats, boy. They’re good at not seeing things. -Death
Just read the article too, and it's a shame her band mates did nothing. They just lost all respect. I hope women do not treat other women like this ever again.
:-(
These are aristocrats, boy. They’re good at not seeing things. -Death