Biggest factual errors/lies in movies based on true stories.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

There are many movies that are based on true stories, but not all of them tell the truth. In several instances, they speculate or make things up. One of the most egregious examples of this is the movie entitled "The Man Who Invented Christmas". It's about Charles Dickens and his process behind writing "A Christmas Carol."

But Charles Dickens did not invent the Christmas holiday! People have been celebrating Christmas in 336 AD, centuries before Charles Dickens was even born (1812 AD)! Was it too much to ask to come up with a more honest title?

What about you? What are the biggest factual errors/lies that you have noticed in movies based on true stories? I would love to hear from you. Have a nice day.

[Rzzzz]

Midnight Express (1978).

I saw it in the theater when it came out and thought it was decent. It motivated me to get the book by Billy Hayes. I read it and I was shocked. The book ruined the film for me. The book was amazing and now I hate the film. Pure crap. Nothing in the film matches the book. The movie ends at the half way point of the book! And the second half of the book is incredible, detailing how he made it to safety and freedom after his escape.

From wikipedia: "Hayes and others criticized the film for portraying the Turkish prison men as violent and villainous and for deviating too much from the source material."

That last part is an understatement, to say the least...

[Mr Walker]

Bohemian Rhapsody could only generously described as "loosely based on true events". And the word "loosely" does a lot of heavy lifting there.

[Gacivory]

The movie, The Man Who Invented Christmas isn’t saying Charles Dickens actually invented the holiday.

[Martoto]

Krakatoa is actually west of Java

[OABJYU]

The whole of U571?

[grahams76]

The daddy has to be U-571 in which American sailors capture the Enigma cipher machine when in reality it was the British.

From Wiki: Anger over the film's inaccuracies reached the House of Commons. Labour MP Brian Jenkins used Prime Minister's Questions in June 2000 to state that the film was an "affront to the memories of the British sailors who lost their lives on this action." Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "I agree entirely with what you say... we hope that people realise these are people that, in many cases, sacrificed their lives in order that this country remained free." Paul Truswell, for the constituency of Pudsey, a town closely associated with HMS Aubrietia, wrote to the US president Bill Clinton, who acknowledged that the film's plot was only a work of fiction.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

There are many movies that are based on true stories, but not all of them tell the truth. In several instances, they speculate or make things up. One of the most egregious examples of this is the movie entitled "The Man Who Invented Christmas". It's about Charles Dickens and his process behind writing "A Christmas Carol."

But Charles Dickens did not invent the Christmas holiday! People have been celebrating Christmas in 336 AD, centuries before Charles Dickens was even born (1812 AD)! Was it too much to ask to come up with a more honest title?

What about you? What are the biggest factual errors/lies that you have noticed in movies based on true stories? I would love to hear from you. Have a nice day.

If you're going to recycle unfunny jokes, pick better sources than eight year old IMDb threads written by twerps trying to perpetuate the so-called war on Christmas by calling the title to this film blasphemous.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by Mr Walker

Bohemian Rhapsody could only generously described as "loosely based on true events". And the word "loosely" does a lot of heavy lifting there.

That specific film is the posterchild for why I just generally dislike and avoid biopics on famous musicians/bands. The filmmakers need the rights to put the artists music in their film, which almost always gives the artist or rights holder leverage and some creative control over the finished product.

Films like Amadeus and Immortal Beloved (Beethoven biopic) avoid this, as the music is in public domain.

Originally Posted by OABJYU

The whole of U571?

Yep. And pretty much the entirety of Braveheart, even though I really like it.

The main characters are only shadows of their historical counterparts. William Wallace did not have an affair with the Princess of Wales. King Edward 1. was no different than most English monarchs in the Medieval era. Robert the Bruce did not betray Wallace. 'Braveheart' is a historical reference to Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace, though the film sure makes it seem like it's Wallace.

[Martoto]

Wallace was a land owning noble. Not a feral bandit. He was descended from the elites who dominated Strathclyde as it was known before being absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland. The name Wallace comes from what is now known as Wales/Welsh. Since prior to and until a few hundred years after the Roman occupation, most of the people in Great Britain (not dominated by the Roman occupation) spoke a broadly similar Celtic language which modern day Welsh is directly descended from. And the name Wales was actually imposed by the immigrant Germanic and Romance language settlers. It means speaker of a "foreign" tongue. The name of Gaul has the same derivation and root (Wales is called "Pays de Galles" , land of Gauls in French, to this day).

Some "Scottish" place names still have this "Welsh" flavour. Glasgow - Glasgau meaning Green hollow. Lanark - Llanerc - A clearing.

The domination of the land north of Perth by the Gaels of North Ireland and the Hebrides brought the nation of Scotland (as Scot is what the tribes of these lands were known as ) into existence after the north eastern portion had been know as Pictland until the ninth century. So called because these last bastions of the Celtic people who dominated all of Britain before the Roman invasion of the southern half, were referred to by their body paint worn in battle. Yes, body paint. Wallace is wearing body paint, hundreds of years after the northern Picts. And probably even longer after anyone in Strathclyde wore it. And it looked nothing like the hollywood indian war paint depicted.

So this area went from speaking "Welsh" to adopting the language of the Gaels, perhaps, for a period of time. Until the influence of the Anglo Saxon settlement of the lands south of the Solway and the Tweed ushered in the Anglish tongue (called the language of the Saxons by some, confused yet?). Fortunately though, all of these languages had already been influenced by Old Norse thanks to Viking invasion and settlement. And then the Normans came along, also heavily Norse influenced as the name suggest.

So William Wallace would have likely been fluent in Scots (of course) and Gaelic and been familiar with Welsh and old Norman French, plus Latin. I have trouble believing Mel Gibson's character could recite the alphabet backwards without cheating.

[DKLou]

With how much embellishing there is with "based on a true story" films, the thread would easier to deal with if we listed movies that were pretty much spot-on for facts. There aren’t many at all. But, I’ll play.

Kingdom of Heaven: one of my favorite films of all time but it is very loosely based on the Baron of Ibelin, king Baldwin and various characters. Not super accurate. It goes a little overboard with how awful the Christian’s were compared to the Muslims as both were essentially doing many of the same things. Many other add-ons and omissions. I don’t care though. Great film.

Troy: another excellent movie with all sorts of non factual stuff in it.

Ya know, pretty much just insert the name of your favorite historical epic here and it qualifies. . Again, doesn’t bother me a bit. Most of the films are good at worst and some are awesome.

Side note: I have read that Goodfellas was actually fairly accurate to what really happened.

[Telemachus]

I pretty much have never believed anything I've seen in a film was true to a real life story

[DKLou]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

I pretty much have never believed anything I've seen in a film was true to a real life story

Probably wise. Just watch as if the events did occur at some level but the details are extremely fuzzy.

[stigdu]

The Imitation Game posits that Alan Turing and his British cohorts cracked the Enigma code used by the Germans in WWII.

It wasn't him. The Poles did it first in the early 1930s, under Marian Rejewski.

[Eidolon]

The Iron Lady doesn't treat Margaret Thatcher as the absolute monster she really was, and almost makes it all trivial.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by DKLou

With how much embellishing there is with "based on a true story" films, the thread would easier to deal with if we listed movies that were pretty much spot-on for facts.

The threads that are easy to deal with are the threads that have the fewest replies and the shortest life spans. Don't ever forget that.

[ImBlu_DaBaDee]

Originally Posted by slimdude

But Charles Dickens did not invent the Christmas holiday! People have been celebrating Christmas in 336 AD, centuries before Charles Dickens was even born (1812 AD)! Was it too much to ask to come up with a more honest title?

Originally Posted by slimdude

The threads that are easy to deal with are the threads that have the fewest replies and the shortest life spans. Don't ever forget that.

We’ve all missed you! Wow, looks like Mikey, Cyberpunk, Hardback, and now maybe even slimdude have all returned to us in 2025! The forum is healing. All we need left is for DarthVaderRocks to drop in and remind us all who is truly an hater

[knyc1]

A Beautiful Mind. Loved the movie and the romance aspect, then read the book and found almost nothing in the film had happened. Nash didn't have that type of schizophrenia so he didn't see imaginary people. Although he did think things were going to happen and wanted to inform the government, he didn't leave them in a drop box, didn't have a work room of conspiracy stuff, didn't shove a desk out a window, didn't get grabbed in front of students to the loony bin, didn't endanger his child, didn't meet his wife as depicted, there is questions as to whether they were even in love. And many more. Still love the film but it has to be taken on its own.

[CompleteCount]

Argo.

I'm sure that anyone either British or Kiwi will yell "F*** you, Affleck", at the way their roles in the affair were ignored (New Zealand) or scorned as not helping (UK), when they were utterly vital to the operation.

Affleck's hollow, mealy-mouthed post-criticism justification was possibly even more insulting.

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by grahams76

The daddy has to be U-571 in which American sailors capture the Enigma cipher machine when in reality it was the British.

From Wiki: Anger over the film's inaccuracies reached the House of Commons. Labour MP Brian Jenkins used Prime Minister's Questions in June 2000 to state that the film was an "affront to the memories of the British sailors who lost their lives on this action." Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "I agree entirely with what you say... we hope that people realise these are people that, in many cases, sacrificed their lives in order that this country remained free." Paul Truswell, for the constituency of Pudsey, a town closely associated with HMS Aubrietia, wrote to the US president Bill Clinton, who acknowledged that the film's plot was only a work of fiction.

IIRC, that fuss is the reason all subsequent releases of the film had the Dedication at the end telling you the actual people or ships that captured the Enigma. It wasn't in the original cut.

I don't think there's anything in the film or advertising that says 'based on true events' anymore either, if it ever did.

I still think it's a cracking film though.