Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Based on a true story"

Options
  • 28-02-2011 1:33pm
    #1
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭


    What is your opinions on films based on a true story that deviate from what actually happened to keep the film interesting?

    Personally, I hate them, its why I dont generally watch historical or fact based films or read biographies. It just seems to me to entirely defeat the point of making a film to tell the story of what actually happened in a real event if you are just going to change the boring/non audience friendly bits to try and sell it better.

    IMO, if the actual real story isn't interesting enough to make a film out of it, then make an original fiction film, dont make what you think the real event should have been like, and use "based on a true story" as a shield from critics.

    Should films based on true stories be as accurate as humanly possible? 47 votes

    Yes, that is the point of films based on true stories
    0% 0 votes
    A few small details dont matter, if it makes the film flow a little better
    29% 14 votes
    If I wanted accurate history, I'd read a history book, I'm watching film to be entertained.
    70% 33 votes


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Then there are films like Fargo and Hostel which are 'based on actual events' even though they aren't at all. Or The Human Centipede which claims on it's poster to be, "100% medically accurate" when anyone with a brain can tell you that it clearly isn't.


  • Options
    #3
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Or The Human Centipede which claims on it's poster to be, "100% medically accurate" when anyone with a brain can tell you that it clearly isn't.

    Well duh, centipedes have, like, a hundred limbs, so you'd need, like, 20 or 30 people to make a human centipede :pac:


  • Options
    #4
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,524 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I like to be entertained.
    I dont care if it isnt 100% accurate, most real world events are way too boring to put on screen without some embellishment.

    That being said there are certain films that really really annoy me for their use of "based on a true story".
    Open Water (a really ****e film anyway imho) said at the end it was based on a try story. The only part of the story that was known was that divers had gone missing. Everything that was depicted after they had gone missing in the film was speculation or fiction. Defo not "based on facts".


  • Options
    #5
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I'd be happy if there was officially two labels:

    "Based on a true story"
    and
    "Loosely based on a true story"

    So you know where you stand.


  • Options
    #6
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Everything is 'loosely based on a true story'. Even Star Wars :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    The Texas Chainsaw Masacare really happened :pac:


  • Options
    #8
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kippy wrote: »
    I like to be entertained.
    I dont care if it isnt 100% accurate, most real world events are way too boring to put on screen without some embellishment.

    But then why bother make the film based on the true story at all. Just make up something original and then you aren't stuck with what really happened being too boring. Of course, by saying "based on a true story" you give it a credibility that is hard to challenge, simply because that is (kinda) how things really happened.
    I'm thinking of films like Cinderella man (
    the "villain" of the film wasn't the dickhead he was portrayed to be in real life, he felt very guilty about the men who died after boxing against him and sent money to their families, but by making him a dick, it made the audience more in favour of Braddock winning
    ) and The Kings Speech (
    Churchill is totally inaccurate, but he is a historic figure most people know, so had to be there; the timeline is horribly wrong, but its is changed purely to have it look like the main characters fight with his impediment is a fight against Hitler; the relationship between the king and the therapist was nowhere as familiar as it was made to be (no "Berties" or the like) and the cursing almost definitely didn't happen
    ).
    kippy wrote: »
    That being said there are certain films that really really annoy me for their use of "based on a true story".
    Open Water (a really ****e film anyway imho) said at the end it was based on a try story. The only part of the story that was known was that divers had gone missing. Everything that was depicted after they had gone missing in the film was speculation or fiction. Defo not "based on facts".

    The Perfect Storm is another film like that.


  • Options
    #9
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    300 is based on a tue story. At least tehy admit it is a fantastical account.
    Should have been a trilogy IMO
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae


  • Options
    #10
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    And there are other movies that say they are based on a True Story but COMPLETELY embelish the truth.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTzvLMUfwB8


  • Options
    #11
    ziedth
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 9,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ziedth


    I think I mentioned it on the main thread but when watching the fighter I rememebr saying to myself that I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much had it not been a true story. Things like
    Dickie turning his life around and how quick the title shot came around
    .

    I remember sittig through that awful film open water (it got 4 stars in Empire IIRC) and actually being annyoed at how they used the true story side to sell the story.

    In answer to the OP it's a tough one as I enjoyed the Social Network which seemingly made a good bit up and I was annoyed when I heard that they did. I guess I could live with a certain amount of fiction once the main story isn't changed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Ridley
    Registered Users Posts: 3,174 ✭✭✭Ridley


    Galvasean wrote: »
    300 is based on a tue story. At least tehy admit it is a fantastical account.
    Should have been a trilogy IMO
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

    Xerxes (the prequel) is supposed to be getting a comic then a film.

    Can't tell if you're being sarcastic about a trilogy though. ;)


  • Options
    #13
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    AFAIK prior to In The Name Of The Father most of these movies carried the label "A True Story" until a complaint was made to an advertising authority regarding a poster for this movie, and upheld.
    The poster for In The Name Of The Father reads "A True Story" but in reality the whole thing is far from true. For example, Gerry and his father never shared a cell, and the reasons for his release in court were changed for the movie.

    So the key word in all this is "based". Based on a true story means they can deviate as much as they want from the truth.


  • Options
    #14
    edolan
    Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭edolan


    Can anyone name a film that is praised for it historically right portrayal?


  • Options
    #15
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    edolan wrote: »
    Can anyone name a film that is praised for it historically right portrayal?

    Rocky!


  • Options
    #16
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I couldn't care less how accurate they are. If i want a biography I'll buy a book. Filmmakers should never let historical accuracy get in the way of a good film.

    But I do find the "based on a true story" tag annoying, especially when a film ends with footage of the real people. E.g. The Fighter, Schindler's List, etc.


  • Options
    #17
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    The last king of scotland is the worst example I've seen of this kind of thing.

    The General could have been good but ruined cause they changed one very important event:
    Cahill's death, actually very sinister the way they did it.

    Also left out other relevent events, possibly because the film was glorifying Cahill.

    Veroinica Guerin seemed quite accurate but I only know the Paul Williams version of the story


  • Options
    #18
    Andre80Johnson
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭Andre80Johnson


    Zodiac and Monster I think would be the best one's closer to the facts than fiction which qualify for a true story tag.


  • Options
    #19
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Ridley wrote: »
    Xerxes (the prequel) is supposed to be getting a comic then a film.

    Can't tell if you're being sarcastic about a trilogy though. ;)

    Oh yes. I want to see the battle where the Persians get well and truly routed. Not to mention that gigantic naval battle!


  • Options
    #20
    ziedth
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 9,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ziedth


    The film the treaty gives a very accurate account of the lead up to the Irish Civil war. Although it wasn't a big budget movie by any means so I'm not sure does it count.


  • Options
    #21
    bluto63
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭bluto63


    It adds zilch to my enjoyment of a film knowing it's based on a true story. Films are entertaining. Now if a documentary started embellishing the truth...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    bluto63 wrote: »
    It adds zilch to my enjoyment of a film knowing it's based on a true story. Films are entertaining. Now if a documentary started embellishing the truth...

    Thats what we have Michael Moore for :pac:


  • Options
    #23
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    edolan wrote: »
    Can anyone name a film that is praised for it historically right portrayal?

    Having read this book, I'd struggle to think of one!

    Although my dad loves military history and he says that Tora, Tora, Tora and The Battle of Algiers are very accurate.

    I don't particularly care if a film is or isn't based on a true story but it does irritate me that directors feel the need to claim their films are based on a true story and then blatantly re-write history.


  • Options
    #24
    Sleazus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sleazus


    We live in a world where Nightmare on Elm Street is "based on true story", so I'm skeptical of any movie claiming to be true. I accept that life doesn't conform to the three-act 120-minute structure with leads and supporting players, so you need to change stuff.

    It doesn't affect my opinion one way or another, although historical biographies are arguably more interesting for the way they approach the subject than in any fidelity to actual events. Nixon, for example, is crap as an account of Nixon's term, but it tells us a lot more about how America sees him.


  • Options
    #25
    Big Pussy Bonpensiero
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    As long as they get the main deatils correct it doesn't really matter, sure isn't that what Wikipedia is for??;) As long they don't change completely what happened I don't really mind. For example, if something as historically inaccurate as Inglorious Basterds had a "Based on a true story" tag that would be taking the piss IMO, but largely the changed details only enhance the storyline.


  • Options
    #26
    edolan
    Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭edolan


    Is Gandhi considered to be historically accurate?


  • Options
    #27
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Veroinica Guerin seemed quite accurate but I only know the Paul Williams version of the story

    The garda detective in it played by Don Wycherly is a composition of different gardaí

    If I want history, I read a book or watch a documentary . I watch a film to be entertained.
    That messing with Fargo annoyed me though


  • Options
    #28
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Sleazus wrote: »
    We live in a world where Nightmare on Elm Street is "based on true story"

    No we don't!


  • Options
    #29
    ztoical
    Registered Users Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭ztoical


    edolan wrote: »
    Can anyone name a film that is praised for it historically right portrayal?

    Downfall got alot of praise for elements of it's historical portrayal but like all those types of films elements are combined or removed for various reasons and there is the on going argument over how historically right something can be as it will always be from one persons view point. Hotel Rawanda is a good example of that.

    Personally I'm not overly bothered. If it's a topic that really interests me, like Invictus, I will go get the book. I love historical documentaries and get annoyed when they don't get their dates and figures right but I understand a film is showing a dramatic version of the events. A documentary doesn't tend to imply a persons emtional state, just states facts, while it is usually the focus of a dramatic films telling of the tale. Also with alot of stories there can be hundreds of people who you can't give the right focus to in a dramatic film so you combine them into one person.


  • Options
    #30
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    feelingstressed wrote: »
    If I want history, I read a book or watch a documentary . I watch a film to be entertained.

    I'm surprised at how many people have came out with this and chose this option in the poll (I'm not singling you out, feelingstressed). Why do so many people see a difference between a historically accurate book or documentary and entertainment? Aren't documentaries entertaining?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    I don't see why it's necessary for a film (or book, or play) to be historically accurate, as long as it's good. I don't think, for instance, that Macbeth was as much a simpering coward as he was portrayed in the play, or that Richard III was quite as nasty and cunning, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the plays are both masterpieces. Likewise, even though films like The King's Speech give a glossy sheen to their lead characters' stories doesn't mean that the films are any lower in quality.


Advertisement