OMG Hollywood portrays a movie as "A True Story" yet again and people are confused that they took some liberties with it? I get more pissed when they take an already well done story story (*cough Starship Troopers cough*) and fuck that up.
So you've seen the movie? Because otherwise you're as guilty as ye olde Catholic Legion of Decency. "We shall not condescend to see these films, but we know that they are teh Evul." :shakepope:
This movie is the true story of my young life. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. I'm sure you mugs knew this was a true story.
So an admitted fiction is a lie now? That's kind of a silly statement. This is an interesting point, because I don't recall anybody claiming that the Titanic was revisionist history. People will see this movie as they saw that one and Forest Gump (thanks UA). It's an interesting story that takes place against a backdrop of historic activities, nothing more.
I don't remember the words "true story" being used to market Casino and Goodfellas. They might have been inspired by real life events, but they weren't marketed like true stories. BIG difference.
Recapping, then: Some people in this thread were (still are?) dumb enough to believe this movie - which none of them have seen yet - is a true story, despite all of the available information to the contrary. If it's Tuesday, it must be the Red Room...
In HS, I didn't live far from that house. We would get drunk and ride by the house at night and throw beer cans on the lawn. The true drunken test was to get out of the car and run through their yard making spooky sounds. Good fun!
No shit. See post 6.And it's INSPIRED. No it's not and once again you missed the point. Rocky was not marketed as a true story!!!!!!!. Why is this point so hard for you to comprehend? I get that using the words "Inspired by" is language used to allow the use of "true story." But it's misleading and people are going to come out of the theater thinking this was all true events. It's borderline false advertising.
Any time you see the words "inspired by," or "based on," you can guarantee that the "facts" will be fast and loose. If it doesn't say, "A true story," then it's going to be a "re-imagining," "re-interpretation," or a "dramatized event." Surely, after decades of such movies, you guys aren't surprised at this? That aside, I don't give a flying fuck if it's a true story, I just want to know if it's a good story. The only way to find out is to watch it.
Actually, what it really means is, "We saw something about this, but didn't want to have to pay royalties to anybody, so we're going to make a lot of shit up to keep us from being sued." Happens all the time in Follywood, they see something in the news that they think would make a good story, but its not so widely known that they have to buy the movie rights from anyone, so they can just make shit up. Take the big screen version of "Miami Vice." There's a scene in that movie (or maybe its "Traffic," I can't keep shitty cops vs. drug dealer movies straight any more, and some of the folks involved in one film knew folks involved in the other film), where DEA agents and undercover cops think that the other guy is a drug dealer, and there's a shoot out between DEA and the undercover cops. That actually happened IRL, but the producers involved didn't want to have to pay the real folks for the rights, so they just stuck into the fictionalized story that they made up. You know, to add "realism" to the story. Truth is, they heard the story, and thought that it'd make a great movie, but they weren't willing to push the studio to buy the rights.
Hell, I saw part of an interview with Oprah on CNN, and came away with the impression it was a biography.
I hear what you are saying but its just not always the case. It doesn't have to have anything to do with getting away from rights issues. Characters and stories built up from true life is common. In the case of The Butler, the true story is BORING. They used the real guy as a launch point. The French Connection comes to mind. Pretty much a true story but of course they hyped it up. You wanna see a movie with a cop spending time writing reports and walking guys through booking??
What rights are you talking about that they would have to pay for?? Who would own those rights?? Stephen King's Misery is partially based on a real life Angel of Death. It was news for public consumption. I doubt he needed any permission to use her as a template for the Kathy Bates character. Again, another example of fiction derived from a real life character.
It all depends upon how public a figure we're talking about. For example, the story of the captain who was captured by Somali pirates and then rescued by Navy SEALS. The story's well-known enough that they could get away with a highly fictionalized version, but moviegoers would feel ripped off if they paid to see a movie that wasn't based on the captain's personal account. Nobody gives a shit about the help at the White House, so they can just make a movie that triggers slight memories in the minds of folks, without bothering to make it accurate. Oh, and "Misery" was clearly a "fuck you" to Stephen King's fans who were absolutely obsessed with him and thought they knew what he should write more than he did.
Yeah, you..me, we get that. Now tell it to all those worn out hags who were so desperate they looked for the grave of J. Dawson, thinking that was the grave of the fictional character portrayed by DeCaprio.
E.L. Doctorow has written a few great historical fiction novels. I actually love those type of stories very much. Caleb Carr has a great one set in 1895 NYC titled The Alienist. Norman Mailer is another writer who has written historical fictions. (Harlot's Ghost)
Love Doctorow, loved the Alienist. I'm surprised that some people think historic fiction doesn't involve fiction.
