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
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    kraggy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    ztoical
    Registered Users Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,154 ✭✭✭✭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!!


  • Options
    #36
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    DeepBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,587 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,587 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #45
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement