It's a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of creating fiction, no matter how many times it's explained to them. "Oh, so like you just make shit up?" Usually said/posted by people who refer to "fiction novels."
Here's an actual review of the movie by someone who has seen it: http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2655 For those who don't click links, I'll post the review here:
This is one of the dumbest "controversies" I have ever heard of. Dudes, just accept that "Inspired by a True Story" means (and has ALWAYS meant) "I heard about this one thing one time and I decided to write a story with some similar stuff", and that EVERYONE with half a brain knows this. Quit talking about this! It makes you look stupid.
Thank you for the eloquent reply, however I must disagree with your reasoned objection to my assertion.
If I thought you were interested in further discussion, I'd be happy to elaborate. But we both know better, don't we?
If that were true, you would have simply elaborated in the post in which you said merely "no", so forgive me if I don't believe you. This is nothing new from you. So... do what you want. Elaborate or don't. At this point in time I don't actually care about your opinion on the matter. You are a fully poisoned well.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't keep responding to my posts. You just get your jollies "telling me off." Like Volpone, you have a need to "win the Internetz." So the following is not addressed to you. The use of an absolute such as "ALWAYS" (in upper case, yet) automatically renders any assertion outside of pure mathematics (and not always there, either) baseless. In this case, it assumes the poster has reviewed a big enough sample of media "based on a true story" upon which to make the claim that every single instance fits the model. It's a toddler's reasoning, a.k.a. And particularly amusing coming from a biblical literalist.
Well, I suspected that any further posts you wrote would be a waste of my time to read. Fortunately I didn't bother reading your post to see if I was right.
I still haven't got over the unnecessary fadgification of Robert the Bruce in Braveheart. Mel Gibson: It's karma.
Yeah. But because it wasn't marketed as "based on a true story" (and for other reasons), Rightforge has no problem with it.
Hey, Edward III could have been gestating in Queen Isabella for SEVEN YEARS AFTER WALLACE DIED!!!! It could happen.
But was it "inspired by a true story", "based on a true story" (two distinct categories, BTW), a documentary, docu-drama, pure bullshit, Other, and how much weight does your visceral response to the "Freedom!" scene weigh in your assessment?
Either "inspired by a true story" (in accordance with the definition I gave above) or "Historical Fiction" (maybe even "Fictional History") hence, "Other". It made for semi-decent Hollywood drama. Doesn't factor at all into its "category" as delineated above.
Just off the top of my head, my hypothesis is that it is because Wordforge did not exist in 1995 when "Braveheart" came out.
So as long as it wasn't marketed as "inspired by a true story," it's okay. Yet one might argue that's that's actually more misleading, because without the disclaimer, some viewers might think it's completely factual. Note I said "hasn't" (meaning present time) not "didn't" (meaning in 1995). So why hasn't T.R started a thread about Braveheart?
If you say so. I don't hold to that opinion. I think this entire controversy is stupid. Watch what you want. If it's good, great. If not, well too bad. If it lines up with history, well spiffy. If not, hopefully at least it's a good story. Either way, read up on the real story anyway and be educated. Well. Sadly that's probably true. I would wager that it's roughly similar to the same reason why you haven't.
My attitude exactly. Very often a movie or novel will inspire a search for the factual stuff. Quite the opposite. T.R's looking for a reason to be offended. My attitude's more like yours...the controversy is silly. Anyone looking for a documentary should just watch documentaries, IMO.
The Butler: Not Really "Revisionist History" Resurrecting this to say I've actually seen the film (was going to wait for Netflix, but T.R's animus inspired me to see it in the theater), and I think I see what the is - at least to those who haven't seen it but are all upsetted about it anyway. May post a review in MC if I have time.
