"Based on a true story"

Mark Hamill

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.

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.

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:

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".

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.

Galvasean

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

Duggy747

The Texas Chainsaw Masacare really happened :pac:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

edolan

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

MrStuffins

edolan wrote: »

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

Rocky!

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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...

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:

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.

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.

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.

edolan

Is Gandhi considered to be historically accurate?

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

marty1985

Sleazus wrote: »

We live in a world where Nightmare on Elm Street is "based on true story"

No we don't!

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.

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?

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.

Sad Professor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do so many people see a difference between a historically accurate book or documentary and entertainment? Aren't documentaries entertaining?

Yeah, but the primary purpose of a documentary is to inform. It can be entertaining as well, but if it doesn't do the first part then it's just not a very good documentary. Where as the primary purpose of a film is to entertain and if it doesn't work as a piece of entertainment or art then it's just not a good film.

Also, since a film will involve events being recreated with actors pretending to be the real individuals for dramatic purposes, it can never be truly accurate anyway and it's foolish to believe otherwise.

But for that matter, filmmakers aren't the only ones who take liberties with the facts. Historians do it all the time. They twist their presentation of the facts to suit their own arguments. If you really want a sense of what happened you can't just read one book or watch one documentary. Everyone is biased, whether they realise it or not.

kraggy

humanji wrote: »

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.

MrStuffins wrote: »

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

A film whose makers say that it is "based on a true story" are entitled to make fairly drastic changes to the real story. The film is only based on a basic concept, the rest is artistic license.

However, for a film to be described specfically as "a true story", the film must accurately portray the events as they occured.

The two descriptions are wildly different but many people assume they mean the same thing.

ztoical

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do so many people see a difference between a historically accurate book or documentary and entertainment? Aren't documentaries entertaining?

They are entertaining but it's a different forum of entertainment. Films will often include myths that have grown from true stories just because thats what people are expecting. For example in any film based on the Titanic they will have the band playing right till the end and they always finish by playing "Nearer, My God, to Thee" - it's not true but people have it as so part of the whole Titanic story that any dramatic film is going to put it in. Documentaries are able to add back story in that a film can't like with Invictus the books starts much earlier then the film and gives alot of the backstory both in South Africa and outside it. It also goes into alot of detail about the symbol of the rugby team in South Africa and how South Africa had been cut off from the sporting world for so many years. This is only barely touched on in the film. The film does show some of the attitudes but in a less direct manner [showing a kid from one of the townships rejecting a rugby top because he will be beaten up for wearing it]

Films will also alter events and actions to make them more accessable to an audience as they just don't have the time to explain why something is the way it is. For example in the tv show Deadwood they have the characters using modern swear words because the swear used at the time would sound silly to modern ears.

MrStuffins

kraggy wrote: »

A film whose makers say that it is "based on a true story" are entitled to make fairly drastic changes to the real story. The film is only based on a basic concept, the rest is artistic license.

However, for a film to be described specfically as "a true story", the film must accurately portray the events as they occured.

The two descriptions are wildly different but many people assume they mean the same thing.

For me, if you are making a movie BASED on a true story, then you are entitled to make drastic changes if you are not trying to convince people that the story on the screen is really what happened.

See Ordinary Decent Criminal. A massively embelished story, but the main character was NOT Martin Cahill, it was BASED on his story. So the film makers weren't saying "This is the story of Martin Cahill".

The same with The Hurricane. If you are basing this on a true story, then don't be telling me that Denzel Washington is playng the part of Rubin Carter and this is his story, because it's not. It's incredibly embellished!!

Mark Hamill

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, but the primary purpose of a documentary is to inform. It can be entertaining as well, but if it doesn't do the first part then it's just not a very good documentary. Where as the primary purpose of a film is to entertain and if it doesn't work as a piece of entertainment or art then it's just not a good film.

To me, films are meant to convey stories, and a film purporting to be a true story, but which changes things is not fulfilling its purpose. If the purpose of a film is entertainment over all else, then being based on a true story is moot, as any time reality gets in the way of anything the unwashed masses need to better side with the protagonist or pay attention it will just be ignored or changed.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Also, since a film will involve events being recreated with actors pretending to be the real individuals for dramatic purposes, it can never be truly accurate anyway and it's foolish to believe otherwise.

Which is why I titled the poll "Should films based on true stories be as accurate as humanly possible?"

Sad Professor wrote: »

But for that matter, filmmakers aren't the only ones who take liberties with the facts. Historians do it all the time. They twist their presentation of the facts to suit their own arguments. If you really want a sense of what happened you can't just read one book or watch one documentary. Everyone is biased, whether they realise it or not.

While that is true, its hardly justification for everyone to do what they like with historical accuracy and still present it as truth. Its hard enough trying to get an objective view of an historic events without film makers bastardising stories so that their film can have a bland but clear villain or be a mirror to some larger concurrent social issue.

Mark Hamill

MrStuffins wrote: »

For me, if you are making a movie BASED on a true story, then you are entitled to make drastic changes if you are not trying to convince people that the story on the screen is really what happened.

But then why point it out, that its based on a true story? Technically nearly everything is based on a true story, inspiration generally comes from peoples environments, so pointing it out is moot. That is, unless the filmmakers see a way for their film to make more money.

DeepBlue

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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.

I vaguely remember

Cahill's death

. How was it sinister?

faceman

This is a pet peeve of mine. I watch a film to be entertained and enjoy the story. Id rather filmmakers be honest and say "inspired by true events" which sounds alot better.

tricky D

The Dam Busters is one of those films where the historical truth is altered for dramatic effect.

• The tensions between the brass and Wallis never happened but are portrayed to serve as tension builders.
• Gibson's character is embellished/developed by the attitude of his crews volunteering which never happened and by his invention of the spotlight altimeter again which never happened.
• Then there's a problem with material being still classified at the time of filming.

There all plot and character devices which are mixed with simple dramatic licence. Without that, films lose their cohesion and entertainment value. Besides that, the truth is rarely an absolute black and white matter.

Even in documentaries, truth can be compromised due to interpretation or simulated using models.

Sad Professor

Mark, the purpose of such films is provide a dramatisation of a true story. And sometimes what strictly happened is difficult to portray dramatically. Real life is complicated and doesn't easily translate into a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.

For example, in Born of the Fourth of July, Stone depicts Ron Kovic going to visit the family of the solider he killed. This didn't happen in real life, but Kovic did write a book in which admitted what happened. Stone needed to show Kovic's emotional catharsis and a scene of him crying over a typewriter wouldn't have worked, so he wrote the scene in which he visits the family. Is it historically accurate? No, and many people would take major issue with it, but it's good drama.

I mean, filmmakers aren't the only ones who do this. Novelists and playwrights and storytellers of all kind have been doing it for centuries. Real life events and figures sometimes take on mythic proportions. There's a reason Shakespeare wrote about Julius Caesar and Henry VIII. People want to see dramatisations of historical events. Some are technically closer to what happened than others, but I don't think the more embellished ones are any less valid.

I agree that filmmakers shouldn't pass their mostly fictional films off as truth, but I can't think of many instances in which they do so. The tagline is "based on a true story" after all. They are usually up front about the fact that their film is a dramatic interpretation and not a documentary. Marketing is a factor alright, but when was it not? When Homer was telling his great stories he probably told everyone that it was fact as well.

I honestly don't think these dramatisations would be made if audiences (either today or 100 years ago) didn't want them.

faceman

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree that filmmakers shouldn't pass their mostly fictional films off as truth, but I can't think of many instances in which they do so. The tagline is "based on a true story" after all. They are usually up front about the fact that their film is a dramatic interpretation and not a documentary. Marketing is a factor alright, but when was it not? When Homer was telling his great stories he probably told everyone that it was fact as well.

"The Forth Kind" with Milla Jokaviookkaicavavaiej was "based on a true story" but turned out to have been completely fabricated by the film makers.

Sad Professor

faceman wrote: »

"The Forth Kind" with Milla Jokaviookkaicavavaiej was "based on a true story" but turned out to have been completely fabricated by the film makers.

Which just goes to show how meaningless the disclaimer is. Although it's obviously quite effective for making the audience suspend disbelief.

marty1985

kraggy wrote: »

A film whose makers say that it is "based on a true story" are entitled to make fairly drastic changes to the real story. The film is only based on a basic concept, the rest is artistic license.

However, for a film to be described specfically as "a true story", the film must accurately portray the events as they occured.

Yes, but is any film ever allowed to use "A True Story" as a tagline in advertising? I'm sure it's not actually permitted since the mid 90s - in the UK at least. Which is why they are required to use the words "based on".

tricky D

Nope. 'A True Story' is basic advertising hyperbole which certainly is permitted. Couldn't have adverts telling the real truth now, could we.

Mark Hamill

Sad Professor wrote: »

Mark, the purpose of such films is provide a dramatisation of a true story. And sometimes what strictly happened is difficult to portray dramatically. Real life is complicated and doesn't easily translate into a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.

For example, in Born of the Fourth of July, Stone depicts Ron Kovic going to visit the family of the solider he killed. This didn't happen in real life, but Kovic did write a book in which admitted what happened. Stone needed to show Kovic's emotional catharsis and a scene of him crying over a typewriter wouldn't have worked, so he wrote the scene in which he visits the family. Is it historically accurate? No, and many people would take major issue with it, but it's good drama.

I mean, filmmakers aren't the only ones who do this. Novelists and playwrights and storytellers of all kind have been doing it for centuries. Real life events and figures sometimes take on mythic proportions. There's a reason Shakespeare wrote about Julius Caesar and Henry VIII. People want to see dramatisations of historical events. Some are technically closer to what happened than others, but I don't think the more embellished ones are any less valid.

I agree that filmmakers shouldn't pass their mostly fictional films off as truth, but I can't think of many instances in which they do so. The tagline is "based on a true story" after all. They are usually up front about the fact that their film is a dramatic interpretation and not a documentary. Marketing is a factor alright, but when was it not? When Homer was telling his great stories he probably told everyone that it was fact as well.

Is all that not a bad thing though? Well maybe bad is the wrong word, but I cant think of another way to describe a situation were a film maker has real characters, with real actions and dialogue, but dumbs it down to make it a better sell. Its lowest common denominator stuff, backed up by an industry which has no problem with pandering to its the audience it created by cutting corners in the first place.
How many films have you seen that were let down by two dimensional characters or everything being too nicely tied up right at the end? These things ruin films because they destroy the realism, but "based on a true story" films get away with it by trying to claim them as factual.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I honestly don't think these dramatisations would be made if audiences (either today or 100 years ago) didn't want them.

I dont think Jersey Shore would be made if there wasn't an audience for it, that doesn't make it anything else than a show of f*ckwits watched by people who dont seem to grasp how depressing it is that people like that exist.